Tag Archives: George Soros

Johanna Laakso: Friends and foes of “freedom”

Johanna Laakso is a professor in the Finno-Ugric Department of the Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft at the University of Vienna. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Helsinki, where she also taught until 2000, when she moved to the University of Vienna. Besides her native Finnish, she speaks English, German, Hungarian, Estonian, Swedish, Russian, and French. Professor Laakso is known to the readers of  Hungarian Spectrum as Sentrooppa-Santra and is one of our frequent contributors on linguistic topics as well as on politics.  In 2014, at my request, she wrote a post when the Orbán government established one of its newfangled institutes, the Magyar Nyelvstratégiai Intézet (Hungarian Language Strategy Institute). Her article, “Brave New Linguistics,” not only informed us about this institute but also summarized some of the most important developments in the study of linguistics in Hungary over the last couple of centuries.

The Finnish original of this article was published on Professor Laakso’s blog at http://sentrooppasantra.wordpress.com/2017/12/26/vapauden-ystavat-ja-viholliset/

♦ ♦ ♦

Mária Schmidt should already be known to the readers of this blog. She is a kind of a court historian of Viktor Orbán, and the general public will probably know her as the director of the “House of Terror” in Budapest, the museum which in a somewhat debated manner shows the Nazi and the Communist dictatorship as two parallel cases. She also played a very visible role in the official programme of the recent memorial year of the revolution of 1956. In her research career, she has worked with the history of the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy and the fates of minorities in Hungary in the turmoils of 20th-century dictatorships. She also teaches at the Catholic Pázmány university in Piliscsaba. According to the Hungarian Wikipedia, she was ranked by the Napi.hu portal as the 30th most influential person in Hungary in 2017, which is probably due to her political connections rather than to her academic merits. In the years 1998–2002, Schmidt was officially the counsellor of the Prime Minister, and now she leads one of the new research institutes founded by the government: on its homepage, the XXI. Század Intézet (21st Century Institute) states that its tasks comprise “supporting research on politics and numerous other activities connected to the research of politics”.

These numerous other activities, in turn, obviously include a fresh publication which appeared in early December: the book by Mária Schmidt, entitled Nyelv és szabadság (‘Language and Freedom’). Curious to know what Schmidt, a historian, has to say about language, I ordered the book for my holiday reading, despite certain forebodings. Sadly enough, the reality was even more terrible. In what follows, I’ll try to analyze my bewilderment at Schmidt’s book.

The Enemies: Muslim immigrants, left-wing liberal elite, Soros

The book is a compilation of Schmidt’s political columns and opinion pieces from the last couple of years. These texts do not form a logically ordered whole but mostly repeat the same things with slightly different words. Moreover, they do not attempt to argue or to give reasons. It seems that the goal is simply to hammer the basic ideas into the readers’ heads: who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, what is the real problem in today’s political situation. For the problems, three culprits are identified. First, the “migrants”, especially Muslim ones. Second, the left-wing liberal elites and decision-makers who invite and bring them to Europe, especially the German Chancellor Merkel and her associates. And third, behind all these, pulling the strings – ta-dah, George Soros!

Why “The Man in a Bowler Hat” by René Magritte was chosen as the cover illustration remains a mystery. True, Schmidt’s book does emanate a surreal atmosphere.

The immigrants who flooded Europe in 2015 are, of course, no real “refugees” (menekült), as the “left-wing liberal media” want to call them. In Schmidt’s opinion, they all, as a caste (no exceptions are mentioned), constitute a “mobile intifada”. The “migrants” are violent, they are murderers and rapists, they are men “of fighting age” (katonakorú), they come from “areas controlled by jihadists” (p. 139), they are “militant, combat-trained troops” (p. 132), and their “luggage most certainly is full of weapons, drugs and who knows what” (p. 134). They behave rudely and insolently, even towards the “patient and humane” Hungarian authorities, do not show gratitude for the help they are given, they expect a Western European standard of living without any duties. Their goal, and the goal of Islam in general, always and everywhere, is of course to conquer and repopulate Europe. For Schmidt, Islam is not a world religion with zillions of different interpretations and practices in different environments and traditions (as is the case with Christianity as well) but a monolithic system for terror and world domination. Accordingly, the Muslim invaders do not represent different nations, cultures, or political systems: a herdsboy from a tribal village in Afghanistan and a middle-class urban entrepreneur from Syria are both part of a homogeneous mass of “Muslims”, and behind all of them looms a mysterious power with oil and money.

The flood of immigrants is made possible by the fact that Europe, after losing its national values, has turned powerless, spineless, and unable to defend itself. The words in its languages have lost their meaning, due to the tyranny of political correctness, and the political organs of the EU are held captive by the Marxist elite. What is even worse, this elite has the nerve to criticize Hungary, for instance for harassing NGOs, for closing the archive museum of György Lukács (Schmidt: only because Lukács was a Communist!) or for terminating the newspaper Népszabadság.

As for Népszabadság, the paper of the state-holding party in the party state, it is a shame that even in 2017, there can be members of the European Parliament who dare to position themselves in support of a former Communist paper! As if some thirty years ago people had worried about the fate of the Völkischer Beobachter! (p. 197)

A particularly ferocious attack is directed at Angela Merkel (who, according to Smith, hates Europeans and especially Germans, because of their Nazi past…) and at Germany as a whole: Germany is not only burdened by its Nazi past, but Socialism as well was invented in Germany, Schmidt reminds. The EU, in turn, is in practice ruled by Germany, because Germany more than any other country profits from the EU. Schmidt also plays the Nazi card (“the dream of a unified Europe was already cherished by Hitler”, p. 130), as at the end of the following example, invoking an association to the concentration camp transports:

A normal man or boy will know his duties and defend his wife, daughter, mother, or sister. Only these Germans of today have turned so brain-washed and unmanly that they are not even capable of that. The Merkelian language has by now depoliticized and thus debilitated the whole public discourse in Germany. Not only because it is endlessly tedious and monotonous, but because it lacks any content, because it never says anything, it means just letting out hot air. Merkel let the flood of Muslim migrants invade Europe without showing any need to argue for her strategy or to make her strategy public. The German citizens are content with Wir schaffen das. As if they were merely facing a logistic challenge. These people will arrive here, be collected and selected here, divided into quotas there, and then transported to their goals. If only this logistically oriented mode of action were not so familiar already! (p. 29)

The reason for the weakness of German or, more generally, Western elites is that they have failed in their Vergangenheitsbewältigung, dealing with the past. Schmidt thinks that the Western upper class and intellectuals are clinging to their victim status and guilt. Because “only the victim deserves attention, recognition, and privilege” (p. 48), elites and privileged, well-to-do groups also want to be victims. This gives rise to #metoo campaigns, the collective self-castigation in the spirit of “collective guilt” which is continuously practised especially by Germans, or more generally, the mania of former colonial overlords to blame themselves for all possible wrongdoings the colonized peoples have experienced. (As Schmidt reminds, Hungary, in contrast, has never colonized any country. Of course, one might ask how the Magyarization policies of the Hungarian half of the dual monarchy towards its ethnic minorities in the late 19th century prepared ground for the ethnic conflicts which took place throughout the 20th century. But this is probably not the proper place to discuss these issues.)

This situation, then, creates new opportunities for those interested in “migrant business”. The immigrants are not invading Europe merely out of their own free will or driven by their Islamic ideology, but they are being invited, directed, and transported. This is done by fake NGOs “intertwined with human trafficking gangs”, by diverse human rights organizations and the European Court of Human Rights and other organs of justice, whose actions are causing disaster “like a loose cannon” (p. 133) – because “invoking the state of law means questioning the people’s representation”, it amounts to “juristocracy” (p. 202). For these organizations, human rights are a “rubber concept” which they can “extend and apply at will, depending on each current need” (p. 175). (What “extending human rights” in this respect might mean is not explained in more detail, nor are examples given.) The fake NGOs, in turn, are funded especially by George Soros, the super-villain as shown to the people of Hungary in recent hate propaganda campaigns; Schmidt quite seriously compares Soros with the mighty villains who aspire to world domination in James Bond films.

Both the left-wing liberal elites and the decision-making machinery of the EU are controlled by Soros, Schmidt claims. As evidence for this, she mentions the “gas pipe Socialists” who after or alongside their political career have turned into lobbyists of big enterprises, and – believe or not – the fact that Saturday Night Live once called Soros “the owner of the Democrat Party”. If even the authors of a political satire show “treat this like a fact”, it must be a fact…

Whatever motivates Soros and his buddies to do this (beyond the simple fact of being evil) is hardly taken into scrutiny, no explanations are sought. Is “migrant business” really that profitable? Schmidt does claim that the “migrant business” is based on Western enterprises’ need for cheap labour, but elsewhere (p. 139, for example) she states that the “migrants” are unwilling to work (and unable as well, being largely uneducated analphabets), especially for small wages: they merely expect a comfortable life on welfare.

In any case, alongside the Soros network or the Soros plan there exists even a “Sorosism” or a “Sorosist world view”, probably roughly the same thing as the ideology of the “left-wing liberal elite”. The Central European University was also founded to spread this Sorosist ideology, and there – as in Anglophone universities in general – nobody will be accepted or given the floor who does not agree with “militant Sorosists”… But of course, the 87-year-old Soros is not operating alone, but probably he is being used as a gallion figure by “groups behind him who represent a certain part [egy meghatározott rész] of international speculative capital” (p. 250). Who or what are the people who constitute this “certain part”? No answer is given, but I’m afraid that many readers will find one in no time.

The Heroes: “Populists”, “Patriots” – and especially Viktor Orbán

The opposite to the opportunism and indifference of the “elite” and also the target of the elite’s implacable hate are those whom the elite dubs “populists”.

Populist is what they call a politician who is doing what the voters are expecting from him/her. In other words, a democrat. (p. 14; Schmidt presents this as a quotation from The Spectator, no more precise source is given)

Among those who are called “populists”, especially Eastern Europeans, those to whom Schmidt often refers with the pronouns (“we”, “us”) or inflection forms of the first person plural (“we know”), are particularly dangerous to the Western villains and importers of immigrants. The reason is that these “we” have already during Soviet times learnt to recognize the “Communist, Trotskyist, later Post-Communist or left-wing” (p. 93) method by which the innocent are made guilty and the hostile invaders glorified as heroes. These people, therefore, are immune to the propaganda of Soros and the arrogant Western cultural Marxists, because they still retain their national basic values and a self-respect based on them, which gives them courage.

Courage or audacity (bátorság), in turn, is the central characteristic which Schmidt in one of the last chapters of the book attributes to Viktor Orbán. Audacity is shown, for example, in the campaign to lower utility costs (rezsi), even called “the rezsi fight” (a trick by which especially elderly voters are made happy by seemingly smaller gas and electricity bills). To Schmidt, organizing “national consultations” also counts as an example of audacity, as they are based on the audacious idea that “outside of the elite, even other people can have an opinion which counts” (p. 217). (And this opinion can be expressed by checking a “yes” or “no” box following a suggestive and weighted question.) In general, audacity constitutes the core of Orbán’s political credo:

We should not wonder if these groups, lacking and not understanding any quality, are irritated by Orbán, the freedom fighter. The same Viktor Orbán who on the 16th of June in 1989, at the reburial of Imre Nagy and his fellow martyrs, on the Heroes’ Square in Budapest burst into the world of politics, being the first one in the whole region to publicly demand free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet occupation forces from the country. This required real audacity, as only twelve days earlier, on the Tiananmen square in Beijing students demanding democracy had been murdered in heaps.

This myth of young Orbán as the first one who dared to challenge the occupation forces of the collapsing empire has, in fact, already been debunked. Already in March 1989, an agreement with the Soviet Union about the withdrawal of the occupation forces had been made, that is, three months before Orbán’s speech, and in April the first Soviet soldiers had already left the country. The agreement was not yet public knowledge, but the committee in charge of the reburial ceremonies was informed, and they had also discussed the issue with Orbán. The reference to China is also somewhat baffling: basically the same regime which had freedom-loving students shot to death is still holding the power, and recently, Orbán has made demonstrative approaches to the decision-makers in China. But obviously Schmidt trusts her fearless and clear-sighted readers not to draw any further conclusions.

Time for confrontation

A major part of the bewilderment which Schmidt’s book can cause in a reader outside her target group is due to style. Although the text is written for a broad and general readership, an academic author, a university teacher, might be expected to base the credibility of her text on rational and logical argumentation. One would thus naïvely expect neutral formulations which strive to objectivity and avoid a heated, emotional tone. However, Schmidt writes in the style of an agitator in early 20th century. She is not afraid of vulgar and colloquial expressions such as komcsi ‘Commie’, migránssimogató (could be freely translated as ‘migrant hugger’), or mocskos bolsi ‘filthy Bolshie’.

Schmidt’s most essential rhetoric tool is confrontation and one-dimensional highlighting and exaggeration of opposites. Whoever fails to support us and our basic values, whoever dares to criticize something we have done or said is not just positioning herself/himself as the infallible supreme judge of all deeds, s/he is our adversary in all respects and the enemy of anything good and noble. There are no options and no nuances, there are only good guys and bad guys. In politics, the choice is only between unconditional loyalty, “adoration” and “implacable hatred”.

There is a remarkable connection in how, when the USA is led by a God-fearing, conservative and value-based government, the anti-Americanism of the left-wing elite in Europe knows no limits, but when a government representing the opposite values takes over, the same Europeans suddenly start adoring America. (p. 21)

If Western European left-wing politicians criticize the policies of Hungary, this means also implying that they alone are entitled to judge others’ actions. Voicing criticism of the actions of Hungarian authorities means denying the sovereignty of the Hungarian nation. Diversity of values and cultures, cultural tolerance, the usual blah-blah of Western liberals, means hating one’s own traditional culture or a “war on traditional values”: Schmidt seems to think that appreciating a foreign culture necessarily means despising one’s own. Acknowledging the value of third-world cultures or the wrongs which third-world nations have experienced means, in Schmidt’s interpretation, that these cultures are considered “more valuable”. Similarly, speaking of the universal human rights of refugees means demanding “privileges” for “invaders”, speaking of the crimes of colonial rulers means denying “that mass murders ever happened in other parts of the world”, and fostering religious freedom and diversity of religion is, of course, “an attack against Christianity”.

This continuous simplification of a diversity of issues into one-dimensional oppositions gives rise to an endless parade of straw men. The liberals of Europe, Schmidt claims, want to “delete the borders” and make “unlimited immigration” possible. They prohibit and censor: Schmidt has also found a reference to a statement given by the German journalist Claudia Zimmermann in a Dutch radio broadcast. Allegedly, Zimmermann claimed that the WDR channel had instructed its employees to report about the refugee crisis in a positive tone, in line with the German government (WDR has demented this claim, while Zimmermann has retracted her statement and apologized for the misunderstanding). Schmidt’s army of straw men also includes the popular allegation that Western liberals do not condemn violations of human rights or equality if committed by Muslims. No examples, of course, and no evidence.

Moreover: it is claimed that liberal elites want to delete gender roles and genders or sexes in general. A good old strawman is brought forward again: “men should no more be called men, women should not be called women”. Concerning political correctness, one of the last chapters presents a rich collection of urban legends and fake news. Schmidt, as we are informed, is well acquainted with Anglophone universities which now are devoted to the “self-realization” of narcissist individuals in the spirit of the post-truth era. Wishing somebody “merry Christmas” is now automatically considered a hate crime, says Schmidt. A Canadian professor of psychology is threatened by jail after he refused to use neologistic gender-neutral pronouns in referring to persons of trans- or non-binary gender. (Refusing to conform to the university code of conduct also as concerns the use of gendered vocabulary might in principle be a problem even in the light of the new Canadian criminal code, but nevertheless the claims of prison punishment are grossly exaggerated, jurists say). Schmidt also claims that at the SOAS [School of Oriental and African Studies] in London, philosophers from Plato to Immanuel Kant have been included into the index of forbidden books because they were white and male; in fact, a demand of “decolonising the syllabus” was presented by students at some point but never taken seriously. And, as you may have heard, at university campuses in the English-speaking world normal relationships between men and women have become impossible, says Schmidt, because male students are so often terrorized by made-up charges of rape or sexual harassment…

Owls and sparrows

Already somewhere in the first part of the book, I found myself scribbling not only question and exclamation marks to its margins but also the letter combination BV as a note to myself. In my head, I kept hearing the Hungarian saying Bagoly mondja verébnek, hogy nagyfejű (‘The owl says to the sparrow that it has a big head’), the equivalent of “the pot calling the kettle black”. Take, for instance, the above-mentioned claim about how German journalists are instructed to report on the refugee crisis. How can Schmidt claim something like this while her own government has turned the state-controlled media channels into a propaganda tube of the Fidesz party and redistributed most of the existing traditional media outlets to certain circles close to the government? Or how does the alleged double standard of Merkel’s Germany, friendliness to the West and coldness towards Eastern Europe, differ from the political “peacock dance”, as Orbán himself has called his European policy?

“Owls and sparrows” together with diverse logical somersaults of similar character can be found on almost each and every page of the book. For example, Schmidt sneers at the Western elites who whine about their sufferings, without seeing the central role of ritualized self-pity (“boo hoo, our nation has suffered more than any other people in the world”) in Hungarian patriotism ever since the 16th century. The Western Marxist elite (?!) is accused of still concealing and downplaying the crimes of Socialist systems – but this is also done by the Orbán government, which still refuses to publish all the names of collaborator agents in the Kádár era. (According to the historian Krisztián Ungváry, this is already a tradition in post-transition Hungary; different governments have chosen to keep the names secret in order to be able to use the data for political blackmailing.)

The Western Marxist elite, says Schmidt, “will not tolerate debate, open discussion, arguments” (p. 182). Instead of critical thinking, they will repeat mantras and readymade formulations sent in from Berlin (as from Moscow in olden times), because “it is much easier to incite hatred and excommunicate all those who ask and argue than to invest effort into tinkering with the answers” (p. 74). Does it ever occur to Schmidt that this excellently applies to the campaigns against immigration and George Soros as orchestrated by the Hungarian government in the last few years, or to the way in which Orbán and his government avoid all questions and criticism from the opposition? In analysing the programme speech of the rector of the CEU (or “Soros University”), Schmidt points out that Rector Ignatieff will not bother to investigate the flaws of Communism separately but bundles it together with Stalinism – the same accusation, although in the other direction, has also been presented to Schmidt’s own “House of Terror”. And if Merkel’s Wir schaffen das! is an empty and void slogan, not saying anything about what and why (p. 248), in what respect is Orbán’s Magyarország jobban teljesít (‘Hungary performs better’) any better?

Moreover: in criticizing the “immigration business” Schmidt wonders what will happen to the migrants’ countries of origin, as they lose their educated young people to Europe. (Elsewhere in the book, she states that contrary to the expectations of Western liberals, most refugees are illiterate barbarians unable to get integrated.) Now this is a question we could ask of Hungary as well, considering the current exodus of educated and young people which has already led to shortage of trained labour in many areas, not only in the health care system. Schmidt can, of course, make sarcastic allegations to the behaviour of Jean-Claude Juncker, “the leader of Europe who is in a very good mood already before noon”, and the notorious unclarities around his taxation. But take Viktor Orbán, who is also known for seldom refusing a good drink, with his rumoured mental health issues and with the dense cloud of suspicions of corruption surrounding him, his family and friends – is he any better?

In Austria, the decades of “red-black” (Social-Democrats and Conservatives) coalitions did lead to stagnation and “pillarization” of society on the basis of opportunistic party membership, but how can Schmidt criticize the role of party membership in recruitment or allocation of state funding in Austria, considering how critical media in Hungary has been almost completely silenced and the holders of numerous positions and offices owe maximal loyalty (and silence) to the ruling party? And when Schmidt writes about the Western elites who have ended up “lightyears away from those who do not belong to their circles, so that they will not understand each other any more” (p. 103), I must think of the strange charity action by Zoltán Balog, the minister for human resources, four years ago: Balog took 40 poor children to a posh restaurant to eat a fancy meal including, among other things, goose breast in calvados sauce.

And in general – Schmidt, as populist politicians and speakers in general, can rage against “elites” or the “upper class” without noticing that she herself, as holder of high academic and political positions, as a protegée of decision-makers, a businesswoman who a year ago bought the weekly paper Figyelő for 240 million forints, is irrefutably a member of the elite as well. Schmidt also confidently condemns the style and behaviour of today’s “left-wing elites” (“they lack good manners and refined style, they do not offer a model”, p. 154), obviously without asking herself how this relates to her own writing style.

The worse for the facts

Schmidt not only exaggerates and sets up strawmen, she also brazenly presents some completely untrue statements. In general, her pamphlet texts seldom argue, present facts or source references, but where there are references to facts or figures, these are sometimes modified or do not correspond to truth at all. For example, in Sweden, she claims, the Muslim immigration has led to a dramatic increase of rape and violence (in fact, the high rape rates in Sweden are due to the high readiness of victims to report these crimes – in contrast to many other countries – and very wide criteria of “rape”) and more than 15% (p. 59) – or “close to ten per cent” (p. 140) – of the population are Muslims. I don’t know where her figures come from, but this looks like a decimal error. According to the statistics of the central organ of religious communities in Sweden, the membership of all Islamic communities in sum amounts to some 140,000 people (less than 1.5% of the population). The Swedish Wikipedia gives inofficial estimates up to 400,000 but notes that these are based on the country of origin or on personal names and will not help to exclude secularized ex-Muslims or people of other affiliations (for instance, Christian immigrants from the Near East).

Some statements arouse the suspicion that Schmidt is relying on extreme right-wing alternative media with their alternative facts. (As for the so-called mainstream media in Germany at least, Schmidt claims that it has by now deserved the Nazi term Lügenpresse, ‘press of lies’.) At least one such source is mentioned by name: the German Udo Ulfkotte (1960–2017), a political journalist who after the turn of the millennium increasingly published on the alternative fora of extreme right-wing and racist circles. Similar sources are probably behind Schmidt’s statement (which I find difficult not to call a brazen lie) that Alexander Van der Bellen’s victory in the Austrian presidential elections of 2016 was “rigged” (p. 152). In fact, there is a vast body of research and reporting on this issue.

The second round of the Austrian presidential elections in 2016, which Van der Bellen narrowly won against the right-wing populist (FPÖ) candidate Norbert Hofer, had to be repeated due to “irregularities” or what some would call typical Austrian sloppiness. In some electoral districts, postal vote envelopes had been opened too early, unauthorized people had been present at the counting of votes or observers had signed protocols without reading them. However, these were mostly electoral districts in the countryside where Hofer had won the vote, so that election fraud in the sense of really manipulating the votes would have required an incredibly cunning precision work. In fact, no evidence of manipulation of votes was ever presented, nor did the mathematical analysis conducted at the University of Michigan find any indications of fraud. Hofer and other FPÖ functionaries never presented any official and explicit accusations, but with continuous insinuations, they maintained suspicions of fraud among their supporters. Although Hofer admitted his defeat after the repeated election, the belief in electoral fraud continues to live on some right-wing populist fora, and Schmidt presents it as follows (this is also a nice example of her style):

Also in the Austrian election of 2016, they [= the left-wing elite] made fools of themselves. With organized fraud, although by a very narrow margin, they managed to get a typical Western politician elected, a representative of everything that we find impossible to accept or digest. A man with a Commie past [Van der Bellen has publicly admitted having voted for a Communist candidate back in his youth, at a local election – J.L.], a freemason, who later tried his luck among the Greens, now an “independent” candidate gathered to his supporters, perfectly naturally, all public figures from the past of Austria, to testify to the hopeless stagnation of the country’s political life. The left-wing liberal elite of Austria, which used to seize and still seizes every opportunity to lecture us, is still trying to hide the fact that the election had to be repeated due to organized and massive frauds and irregularities and international observers were invited for the new election round. This was an unprecedented election scandal in Europe. I hereby declare myself available as an observer, and if needs be, I can also give a short informative lecture on the importance of the integrity of free elections.

Language, freedom, and democracy?

The closing chapter is authored by Márton Békés, research director of the 21st Century Institute, a young historian already well known on certain right-wing fora. The chapter starts with these words (italics as in the original):

This book creates a home in the language. It deals with political freedom as an extension of freedom of language, and it restores the original meaning of words. While reinstantiating the meanings of concepts which already seemed to be disappearing, it will realize a conservative revolution and restore their origins. (…) The author joins Orwell in declaring: one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.

Nevertheless, I don’t really understand what Schmidt’s book has to do with language. To me, it doesn’t seem very probable that Schmidt or his afterword author Békés have even read George Orwell’s famous “Politics and the English language” (1946), from which they quote. In his essay, Orwell chastises the stupidities of political language use of his times: pretentious diction, vague and meaningless formulations, stale or crippled metaphors… He also gives insightfully chosen examples of different types of stupid texts – and the fourth of them, an excerpt from a contemporary Communist pamphlet, shows a haunting resemblance to Mária Schmidt’s writing. Similar pathetically serious attempts at sarcasm with scare quotes (“the best people”), similar exaggeratedly emotional, yet worn-out attributes, similar political or quasi-religious lingo which, in effect, serves to alienate anybody not devoted to the author’s cause. Just read the following example and compare it with the excerpts from Schmidt’s book given above.

All the ‘best people’ from the gentlemen’s clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

Schmidt and Békés are not attempting to bring about “some improvement”; they are merely seeking the “right” language. Like many non-linguists they naïvely believe that each word has its “true” meaning, that is, the meaning that “we” use (and that who belongs to “us” and who doesn’t is a similarly self-evident issue). “Freedom” means freedom in our sense of the word, “corruption” is something that “they” have but “we” haven’t. And the political credo of our leader is based on “courage”, because we have decided to see things that way. This has nothing to do with the facts that this “courageous” leader has already long ago stopped giving interviews to other than his own trusted journalists (not to speak of risking a public debate with a political adversary), that he will answer an opposition politician’s unpleasant question by simply wishing her merry Christmas, or that he can have the protocols of debated political decisions declared secret (as in the case of the Paks nuclear power plant deal).

Freedom is an often-used decoy for freeing a people of its freedom, as the Finnish humorist Olli (Väinö Nuorteva) wrote already decades ago. There is nothing new in questionable uses of the word “freedom”. More interesting questions arise in connection with the concept of democracy or – this term surfaces a few times in this book – “majority democracy” (többségi demokrácia), which Márton Békés in his afterword connects with the concept of majority-rule democracy in the sense of the American right-wing politologist and philosopher Willmoore Kendall (1909–1967). But I will rather leave this to politologists. As a linguist, I’ll return to my own business, silently wondering how a university teacher and a professional scholar can produce – even in a book written for a general readership – such shallow text which seems to shun all rational argumentation.

December 28, 2017

Hungarian anti-Soros campaign hatched in Jerusalem?

Hungarian political life is winding down for the holidays. Normally, in the morning it takes me a couple of hours to read the news of the day in Hungary and elsewhere. But today there was not much to read about, save for a news item that arrived on my computer around noon.

The article came from The Jerusalem Post with the intriguing title “Likud Official Provided Intel for Hungarian Anti-Soros Campaign.” According to the article, about six months ago Eli Hazan, Likud’s international relations director, informed Viktor Orbán that Soros was “a dangerous man” who supported V15, an organization that had sought to topple Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the 2015 election. A few weeks later, the Hungarian government launched a campaign against George Soros which, Hazan indicated, was a direct consequence of the information he had passed on to Orbán.

The Israeli NGO V15 did indeed want to see Benjamin Netanyahu defeated in 2015 and in partnership with a New York-based group called OneVoice tried to convince Israelis to vote the Likud government out of office. OneVoice is a global initiative that supports grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine who are working “to build the human infrastructure needed to create the necessary conditions for a just and negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” I read in Haaretz that V15 was also funded by the Jewish-American businessman S. Daniel Abraham. George Soros’s name was not mentioned, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Open Society Foundation supported the organization as well. In any case, Netanyahu’s Likud Party accused V15 of serving the interests of the Labor Party. The State Comptroller, however, ruled in October 2016 that “calling on people to vote for various political blocs does not constitute election propaganda.” So, whatever information Eli Hazan passed on to Viktor Orbán, it was most likely tainted and biased.

Hazan seems to be well acquainted with the situation in Budapest, and he is aware of the Hungarian Jews’ distaste for the anti-Soros campaign, which they consider to be anti-Semitic. In fact, after Hazan had written an op-ed for Israel Hayom, Israel’s largest daily paper which is considered to be biased in favor of Netanyahu, Hungarian Jewish officials asked him “not to talk about Soros.” Hazan is convinced, however, that “it’s in the Jewish interest to support Orbán.” He admits that there are anti-Semites in Orbán’s party, but “I can talk to him. We have a lot in common, like the fight against infiltrators.” I don’t know whom he is calling “infiltrators,” perhaps Muslims, perhaps foreign liberals.

If Hazan is telling the truth, the incredible hate campaign against George Soros in Hungary was hatched in Jerusalem for Israeli political reasons. Of course, Netanyahu needed a willing partner, whom he found in Viktor Orbán.

From everything that I’ve read about the Israeli prime minister’s views on Soros, I’m almost certain that he considers Soros to be behind all of his political opponents. At least that is what a meme that his son Yair Netanyahu posted on Facebook indicates. The meme is called “The Food Chain.” Soros is depicted holding a fishing rod with planet Earth on the hook as his bait. That captures the attention of a reptilian-like figure (apparently a common reference in anti-Semitic literature) that, in turn, holds up a fishing rod with a symbol of the Freemasons. The hooded figure is a scheming Illuminati Jew. The three characters are Israeli politicians, political opponents of Netanyahu–Ehud Barak, former prime minister; Eldad Yaniv, organizer of anti-Netanyahu protests; and Meni Naftali, former chief caretaker of the Netanyahus’ official residence, who won an abuse case against Sara Netanyahu.

Source: Facebook

Israeli commentators couldn’t decide whether this post by the prime minister’s son was supposed to be a joke or whether he actually believes in conspiracy theories. Opposition politicians, however, didn’t spare words in condemning his posting of an anti-Semitic cartoon.

Yair Netanyahu might have been in a joking mood, but one must assume that his father believes that NGOs are agents of his domestic opponents and that they are financed by foreign millionaires and billionaires of a liberal bent who want to topple his right-wing government.

I’m almost certain that Netanyahu shared that thought with Orbán when he visited Budapest. Orbán’s latest accusation against Soros-funded NGOs bears a suspicious resemblance to Netanyahu’s claim that V15 was a participant on the side of the Labor Party, working against his reelection in 2015. As a result, the two charitable organizations in Pécs and Debrecen have been transformed into election centers. Everything seems to fit nicely. Viktor Orbán discovered that the Israeli recipe is a politically useful tool.

As for the concerns of the Hungarian Jewish community, Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t seem to care very much. If there is any trouble, Likud’s international community director will take care of it because he and Orbán understand each other so well.

December 18, 2017

Open Society Foundation moved to the “provinces”

Let’s step outside of Budapest for at least a day to take a look at local politics as it has been playing out in the “provinces.” In Hungary everything outside of Budapest is in the realm of the “provinces” (vidék), including fair-sized cities like Debrecen, Szeged, and Pécs. In these cities we can see first-hand how “national politics” is being translated into action on the local level. What we witness in these places is a raw, unedited version of political reality in all its brutishness.

The Open Society Foundation’s decision “to get closer” to trouble spots triggered vigorous government counter-propaganda. There are two especially poverty-stricken regions in Hungary: the southernmost areas of Transdanubia and the northeastern region of the Great Plains. Thus, OSF, after looking for civic groups with a lengthy, solid track record, picked two, one in Pécs and the other in Debrecen, to be in charge of allocating money from the block grant they receive to smaller local groups. All grants will be handled locally and independently from OSF. Each of these two centers will receive $130,000, which will be used for projects dealing with poverty, education, and public health. In Pécs, the NGO that will be responsible for the allocation is the Emberség Erejével Alapítvány/EEA (With Force of Humanity Foundation) while in Debrecen the Alternatív Közösségek Egyesülete (Association of Alternative Communities) was chosen for the job.

The local reaction in both places was immediate, with one big difference. Debrecen is a Fidesz city through and through, and therefore the opposition to having a “pseudo-civic” group in town was actually a grass roots movement, or at least it seems to be. Somebody began a Facebook page called “We don’t want a Soros office in Debrecen,” which since December 7 has gained 2,867 followers. Pécs is a different cup of tea. There the local Fidesz leadership has been totally discredited in the last few years, and there is growing opposition to Zsolt Páva, the mayor since 2009, whose leadership practically bankrupted the city. Although Fidesz won the two parliamentary seats from Pécs in 2014, it was only with a slim majority. In fact, if LMP hadn’t entered its own candidate, both seats might have been gone to the joint opposition. As far as I know, there was no enthusiastic popular opposition to the grant given to the Pécs NGO, which has been in existence since 2006 and is well known in town. Fidesz city leaders had to do the dirty work alone.

I’m in luck in my quest for information about local Pécs politics because recently a news site critical of the government was created by two journalists who had lost their jobs after Lőrinc Mészáros took over the local paper. These two inform the world what’s going on in the city. They have paid special attention to the uproar that Fidesz propaganda created around the grant to EEA.

As soon as OSF announced its plans for the two regional centers, Fidesz countered that George Soros’s latest charitable gift is simply money provided to organizations that will be taking an active part in the election campaign against the governing party. The two Fidesz MPs from Pécs instructed Mayor Zsolt Páva to do his best to thwart the Foundation’s plans to hand out money to the poverty-stricken regions around Pécs. Páva gave interviews to local papers and the radio station in which he accused Soros and the “pseudo civilians” of supporting the opposition in the coming election campaign.

I should note in passing that Péter Hoppál, one of the two Fidesz MPs from Pécs who delivered the word from Budapest, has made a fabulous career in national politics since 2010. Prior to that time he was active in local politics. He was trained as a musician, with a concentration in sacred music and conducting, and his field of study is the Hungarian Reformed musical tradition. He was employed as a chorister and teacher at the Hungarian Reformed Gymnasium in Pécs. Eventually, he became the principal of the institution. His choir, by the way, became quite well known, performing in 16 different countries. He could also boast of 14 recordings. Currently, he serves as undersecretary in charge of culture in the ministry of human resources.

On December 7 Hoppál gave a press conference in Pécs in which he announced that the city’s Fidesz organization is planning to submit a draft resolution on December 14 to the city council that will reject in the name of the city’s inhabitants the establishment of a “Soros campaign center” in Pécs. But Hoppál, the good Christian, didn’t stop here; he added that, “if possible, the people of Pécs shouldn’t even rent space” to this charitable organization.

Just as promised, the Pécs city council dutifully voted in favor of the resolution. The council has 27 members, 19 of whom are Fidesz affiliates. The rest is a varied lot: two represent MSZP-Együtt-PM; one, Demokratikus Koalíció; two, Jobbik; one, LMP; and two, a local civic group called “Cooperation for Pécs.” I would have thought that these eight would all have voted against the resolution. But no, they decided not to vote at all. Only the two Jobbik members demanded the removal of the item from the agenda. The LMP city father even suggested modifications to the resolution.

On the very same day, the owners of Nappali Bár on Pécs’s Váci utca, who had verbally agreed with the Emberség Erejével Alapítvány to rent them a gallery above their bar, announced their reluctant decision to rescind the offer at the insistence of the owner of the property, who was afraid of the possible consequences of having EEA’s office in his building. Soon thereafter, OSF published a statement regarding the developments in Pécs, in which they contended that the resolution the Pécs city council passed was an open violation of the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression and assembly. “These intimidating tactics evoke the darkest period of Hungarian history,” the statement concluded. EEA people are convinced that eventually they will have a roof over their heads because they have received offers of office space from several people.

With Force of Humanity Foundation is looking for a roof / Source: szabadpecs.hu

The story didn’t end here. On Saturday there was, by Pécs standards, a fairly large demonstration, a small part of which can be seen on video. In addition, at least two open letters were addressed to the two Fidesz MPs from Pécs and Zsolt Páva. One of the authors was Zoltán Bretter, a political science professor at the University of Pécs, who knows Páva well from his earlier life in politics. Bretter (SZDSZ) was a member of parliament between 1990 and 1998. From Bretter’s letter one gets the impression that Páva was at one point a decent man, who by now has sunk to “cheap Soros-bashing” and who “became one of the glorifiers of Orbán under Conductor Hoppál.” Yes, he wrote, there are people who are toxic, and Viktor Orbán is one of them. Another open letter was signed by 13 well-known public figures who used to or still live in the city. It was addressed to MPs Péter Hoppál and Péter Csizi, whom they call “inglorious executors of the government party’s most disgusting campaign.”

Fidesz’s merciless attack on civil society here and there still finds brave souls who oppose it, but, unfortunately, fear is spreading everywhere. In the “provinces” civic life seems even more threatened than in the nation’s capital.

December 17, 2017

On George Soros and from George Soros

George Soros took up the gauntlet on November 20 when he published a rebuttal to the national consultation on the so-called Soros Plan, an act which, I believe, was long overdue. Soros’s character assassination in Hungary shouldn’t have remained unanswered for that long. Yet some talking heads questioned the wisdom of getting engaged in any kind of debate with Viktor Orbán’s propaganda machine. They argued that Soros’s rebuttal and his video appearances only extend the government’s campaign against him. I think they are profoundly wrong. Knowing the Orbán regime’s modus operandi, the Soros-bashing will go on as long as the powers-that-be find it useful. And since the whole election campaign has been built on the migrant danger brought about practically single-handedly by George Soros, the anti-Soros campaign will last at least until the election. Perhaps even longer, because migration into Europe will not stop any time soon.

In any case, I’m no fan of cowardly behavior, and I must say that practically all of the opposition parties fall into the cowardly category when it comes to defending George Soros. True, they criticize the government’s policies, but I haven’t yet seen a really brave defense of the man. There is always a qualifying phrase about Soros’s business activities. I assume that in the back of their minds is the notion that one can become rich only by dishonest means.

Instead of a joint condemnation by all Hungarian opposition parties distributed to all major newspapers of the world, only four brave lecturers at a small Methodist college, training future ministers, stepped forward. In fact, they recommended that George Soros receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Here is their letter.

To the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
Oslo, Parliament

 Dear Mr. President,

We propose George Soros as the next Nobel Peace Prize winner. It is well-known that by his relentless and systematic support offered to the Hungarian, Czech and Polish opposition in the 1980’s, Soros had had a major contribution to the creation of democracy and to the break-up of the Warsaw Pact. Founded and chaired by him the Open Society Institute supports the cause of democratic transition everywhere in the world. Founded and supported by Soros, the Central European University has trained at high international standards thousands of students committed to democracy. By their openly anti-Soros propaganda campaigns governments in Belorussia, Hungary after 2014 etc., infamous for their anti-democratic activities, also reinforce the conviction of such forces about the symbolic significance of his person. In the issue of Foreign Policy published on July 19, 2016 he elaborated his position regarding the European migration crisis, which has been the most complex conception of the topic to date.

Iványi Gábor, priest
Lukács Péter, researcher of education
Majsai Tamás, theologian
Nagy Péter Tibor, sociologist
Szilágyi Gál Mihály, philosopher

That Soros would actually receive the Peace Prize is a very long shot, but the letter is an important gesture and a brave move. Admittedly, Gábor Iványi and his church have nothing left to lose thanks to Viktor Orbán who, according to Iványi, is destined for eternal damnation.

In addition to the rebuttal, the Open Society Foundation (OSF) just announced the expansion of its activities in Hungary. OSF will spend large sums of money in two of the poorest regions in Hungary: Southern Transdanubia and the northern regions of the Great Plains, with headquarters in Pécs and Debrecen. The plan is to distribute grants to civic groups that will work on community building and helping the downtrodden. The idea is to bring the foundation “closer to the people.” In plain language, they are planning to counteract the antagonistic propaganda campaign against George Soros and the foundation.

The first government reaction to these plans came from Péter Hoppál, one of the two Fidesz members of parliament from Pécs. He reported that the local Fidesz organization is working on a statement in which it will reject “in the name of the inhabitants of the city” the establishment of a “Soros campaign center” in Pécs. The local Fidesz leaders asked the inhabitants not to rent space for the foundation’s headquarters. I have the feeling that the local Fidesz bigwigs are barking up the wrong tree because Fidesz has already lost all its appeal in the city, which the Fidesz leadership managed to bankrupt over the last eight years. Moreover, the Fidesz majority in these districts was very small in the first place. They were two of the twelve districts that would have gone to the opposition if LMP had joined forces with the other opposition parties.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee is one of those partially Soros-funded organizations that have guts. Statement #5 of the national consultation of the Soros Plan reads that “another goal of George Soros is to make sure that migrants receive milder sentences for crimes they commit,” and in the Infobox the government claimed that the Helsinki Committee was one of those organizations that argued that “the use of serious sanctions in the case of illegal border crossing is troubling.” The Helsinki Committee sued, accusing the government of libel by claiming that they defend people who commit illegal acts. The appellate court of Budapest ruled in the Helsinki Committee’s favor. The government can no longer distribute any material that contains this statement.

As for the anti-Soros campaign, here is a good example of Fidesz’s lost moral compass. One of the Fidesz MPs republished on Facebook a photo he received from Transylvania. The good Szeklers were having great fun at a pig killing festivity with a dead pig lying on the ground. The message on its back reads “Ő VOLT A SOROS!!!” The sentence could be translated either as “It was his turn” or as “This was Soros.” The great Fidesz mind added: “One fewer pig over there. Bon appetit!” He was, however, greatly offended when a journalist from 444.hu confronted him with this tasteless photo. It had nothing to do with George Soros, he claimed. The Open Society Foundation said that the post was a “shocking attack” and that the photo fits into “a long and dark tradition of anti-Semitic imagery dating back to the Middle Ages.” No comment is necessary. Only total disgust.

Finally, let me reprint here George Soros’s latest article, which appeared today in Project Syndicate under the title: “The Hungarian Government’s Failed Campaign of Lies.”

♦ ♦ ♦

The Hungarian government has released the results of its “national consultation” on what it calls the “Soros Plan” to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

In October, Hungary’s government mailed questionnaires to all four million of the country’s households asking for peoples’ views on seven statements describing my alleged plan to flood Europe, and Hungary in particular, with Muslim migrants and refugees. The government made seven assertions about what it calls the “Soros Plan.” I rebutted each and every one based on my published statements or the lack of any published statements that could substantiate them.

Now, the government has released the supposed results of its “national consultation” on my phantom plan, claiming that the exercise was an unprecedented success. I leave it to the Hungarian public to decide whether and to what extent the figure of 2,301,463 participants (out of a population of 9.8 million) was inflated. It should be possible to inspect the list of those who took part and check if they did indeed participate. Instead, I want to focus on the campaign’s substance.

The national consultation and the release of the results are the latest elements of a massive ongoing propaganda campaign funded by Hungarian taxpayers to benefit a deeply corrupt government seeking to deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ legitimate aspirations, particularly in education and health care. The campaign started in the summer by flooding public spaces with posters featuring a close-up of my grinning visage with the words “Don’t let Soros have the last laugh.”

Other posters portrayed me as the puppet-master of opposition politicians. As many have pointed out, the entire campaign carries the unmistakable odor of anti-Semitism.

The government would have you believe that I am an enemy of the Hungarian people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I first opened my philanthropic foundation in Hungary in 1984, when the country was still under the domination of the Soviet Union. Since then, it has provided more than $400 million to strengthen and support the country of my birth.

In the 1990s, as ordinary Hungarians struggled with the transition from communism to a market economy, the foundation funded free milk for elementary school children in Budapest and supplied the first sonogram machines for Hungarian hospitals. More than 3,200 Hungarians have received academic scholarships from the foundation. Many of them have completed their graduate studies at the Central European University (CEU), which I established in Budapest in the early 1990s. CEU now ranks among the top 100 universities in the world in the social sciences – a remarkable achievement for an academic newcomer.

Another element of the propaganda campaign has been to twist the meaning of “open society.” So allow me to clarify what I mean when I use the term. I do not mean open borders and mass migration aimed at destroying the supposedly Christian identity of Hungary, as the government contends.

The open society is based on the idea that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth, and that to live together in peace we must respect minorities and minority opinions. Above all, it is a society based on critical thinking and vigorous public debate about public policies. That is why today my foundation – among many others including the European Union – supports groups such as the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, which protect and promote the values and principles on which the EU was founded.

The government also claims that I control the European institutions in Brussels, and that I am using that control to impose the nefarious “Soros Plan” on EU member states. This is nonsense. Decisions about how to address the migration crisis are made by the EU’s member states, including the Hungarian government. It insults the intelligence of the Hungarian people to suggest otherwise.

I do have deeply held beliefs about how Europe and the rest of the developed world should respond to the refugee crisis, and I have been a vocal advocate of those views. My beliefs are born out of personal experience. I arrived in Britain from Hungary in 1947 as a refugee. I have never encouraged others to become refugees. My parents, together with 200,000 Hungarians, left the country after the defeat of the 1956 revolution, and they received asylum in the United States.

I first published my ideas on the refugee crisis in September 2015, and I have revised them over time, as the facts on the ground have changed. In 2015, I asserted that the developed world should be able to accept at least a million refugees annually; later I reduced that global figure to 500,000, of which I suggested Europe could take 300,000.

My guiding principle is that the allocation of refugees within the EU should be entirely voluntary. Member states should not be forced to accept refugees whom they don’t want, and refugees should not be forced to settle in countries where they are not wanted.

Member states that refuse to accept refugees can make an appropriate contribution in many other ways, but the refugee crisis is a European problem, so it needs a European solution, not 28 separate solutions. It is this set of policy recommendations that the Hungarian government has deliberately distorted and labeled the “Soros Plan.”

Unfortunately, the EU has not adopted my ideas, and the toxic political atmosphere created by Hungary (and Poland) has reduced Europe’s capacity to receive and integrate refugees. I do not blame the Hungarian and Polish governments for refusing to accept refugees they do not want; but I do hold them largely responsible for impeding a European solution.

I remember what happened during World War II, when another group was scapegoated for Europe’s problems. The wounds of the past have left deep scars that have not yet healed, and which today are being reopened. The true purpose of the government’s propaganda campaign is to stoke fear and hatred in the Hungarian people and render them indifferent to the suffering of others.

I am pleased to report that the government’s propaganda campaign has been a dismal failure. Despite the Hungarian government’s concerted efforts, the public was not taken in. My short speech on Hungarian television attracted more than a million viewers, and social media platforms were flooded with outpourings of sympathy and support.

I am greatly heartened by this response. I pledge to devote the remaining years of my life to supporting free thought and expression, academic freedom, and the protection of minorities and minority opinions – not only in my native Hungary, but all over the world.

December 8, 2017

The plot thickens: George Soros enters Hungary’s forthcoming election

In mid-October I reported on a Jobbik stunt directed at the government’s campaign against George Soros. Earlier, Bernadett Szél, chairman of opposition party LMP, had asked for a copy of the Soros Plan, which naturally the government was unable to provide. Jobbik did her one better. It filed charges against George Soros with Károly Papp, the chief of Hungary’s police force. The charges were: (1) preparation for a violent change of the constitutional order, (2) conspiracy against the constitutional order, (3) destruction, (4) treason, and (5) rebellion. In support of the charges, they cited claims by Bence Tuzson, undersecretary responsible for communication, György Bakondi, chief adviser on domestic security, János Halász, Fidesz spokesman, Szilárd Németh, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee on security, András Aradszki, who called Soros Satan, Gyula Budai, Fidesz member of parliament, Zoltán Kovács, government spokesman, and Csaba Fodor, managing director of Nézőpont, a Fidesz political think tank. Ádám Mirkóczki, Jobbik’s spokesman, said that if Soros is guilty of all the things Fidesz and the government spokesmen accuse him of, he should be arrested and charged. At that time I added that I was sure that Károly Papp didn’t find Jobbik’s antic funny.

A month went by, and even skeptics were pleasantly surprised. After a thorough investigation, the Nemzeti Nyomozó Iroda (National Investigative Office/NNI) came to the conclusion that, after all, George Soros poses no danger to Hungary’s national security. In their view, Soros’s suggestions about how to handle the refugee crisis were addressed to the European Union without any reference to Hungary. After perusing his writings on the subject, the investigators decided that Soros hadn’t urged anyone to commit aggressive or menacing acts. The government statements concerning “the political goals against Hungary of George Soros reflect only the opinions and subjective conclusions of the declarers.” No investigation was deemed necessary.

Some naïve people triumphantly announced that critics of the Orbán government are too harsh on the regime. Here is  proof that the police are not under the thumb of the government; they are capable of acting independently and are not afraid to say no to all the nonsense Viktor Orbán has cooked up for public consumption. The highest authority of the police department says that the whole thing is either a hoax or a political product. And so, after all, Hungary is not a dictatorship, and all those who say otherwise are falsely accusing the Orbán government of all sorts of misdeeds and of the willful destruction of Hungarian democracy.

Well, these people were far too hasty when they assumed the independence of the country’s investigative authorities. Yesterday we heard from Viktor Orbán himself, in his so-called interview on Kossuth Rádió, that he had ordered “an investigation of the composition, the operational provisions, and influence of the Soros machinery on Europe and Hungary.” It was his “duty to act and use all possible instruments of state—and that includes the intelligence apparatus and the secret police—against Soros’s Plan,” which not only exists but has a serious impact on the policies of the European Union. “That’s why I decided–that’s why the government decided–to deploy the secret service, and on the basis of their findings we would prepare a report. This report was compiled, and the government already discussed it on Wednesday.”

So, the investigation is finished, and I have no doubt that the secret service and the intelligence apparatus found that Soros’s machinery indeed poses a danger to Hungary’s security because, at the moment, this is the raison d’état Viktor Orbán needs. Mind you, as it stands, the Hungarian public will not be able to learn anything about the findings of the investigators because “one must be very careful in such cases.” Moreover, one doesn’t like to reveal one’s “hard-learned pieces of information.” But, according to Orbán, there is plenty of publicly available information that proves his point. He offered a quotation from the Open Society Foundation document made public by DC Leaks from August 2016. It claims that “we have supported leaders in the field, including think tanks and policy centers, civil society networks, and individual members of those networks, to shape migration policymaking and influence regional and global processes affecting the way migration is governed and enforced. This section considers [International Migration Institute’s] role in supporting these actors, our efforts to link our global and corridor-level work, and our engagement with peer donors.” There is no question in Orbán’s mind that because of the existence and likely implementation of the Soros Plan, Hungary is in real danger. “From this moment on, the question is the very existence of Hungary,” he claimed.

Although Orbán didn’t say outright that whatever information the investigators gleaned will remain classified for years,  that is in fact the case, as János Lázár in his more direct style announced at his regular Thursday afternoon briefing. Zsolt Molnár (MSZP), chairman of the parliamentary committee on national security, called on the government “to stop manufacturing conspiracy theories and come forward with proof.” Politicians can come up with all sorts of nebulous talk about national security, but before his committee they must show evidence. The secret services will have a chance to do so next Thursday when the committee will have a hearing.

Viktor Orbán on Friday morning came up with a new accusation against George Soros. Not only does he have a plan that would destroy the country of his birth, on which he has spent so much of his own money, but he is also involving himself in the forthcoming national election as an active participant. Soros will mobilize his organizations, which will conduct anti-government propaganda. The Open Society Foundation “will strengthen its civic organizations, which in turn will pay hundreds and thousands of people. They will establish so-called civic centers, which will function exactly like parties in an election campaign. So, the Soros network and machinery have entered the race. Nobody is happy about this, but it is better to face the unpleasant reality than to bury our heads in the sand and be surprised.” At this point the new interviewer, who is even more subservient than the previous one, outlined the possibility of the Soros network coming up with “independent” candidates whom all the parties who are against the government will support. Orbán’s reaction to the suggestion was that he wouldn’t give advice to the adversaries of Hungary.

The following cartoon reflects the bizarre situation that is being created by Viktor Orbán and his advisers, on the one hand, and the ineffectual opposition parties, on the other.

“Soros entered the race”
“Wow, that’s wonderful. At last there is someone one can vote for” / Gábor Pápai / Népszava

So, this is where we stand at the moment.

December 2, 2017

George Soros’s messages and the Hungarian government’s reactions

George Soros, simultaneously with releasing his rebuttal of the Hungarian national consultation on the alleged Soros Plan, gave an interview to Andrew Byrne of The Financial Times, in which he explained his decision to break his silence. He cannot remain quiet any longer because the Hungarian government about a month ago announced its intention to investigate the so-called Soros network. Under these circumstances, he felt he had to “set the record straight in order to defend these groups and individuals who are going to great lengths to defend European values against persecution.” At the same time he urged EU countries to raise their voices against “Orbán’s treatment of civil society and address fears over the rule of law in Hungary.”

“It is a tragedy for Hungary”

It is hard to know for sure whether this interview and rebuttal by George Soros came as a surprise to the Orbán government or not, but I suspect that it did. After all, the campaign against Soros has been going on for almost two years, yet Hungary’s benefactor hasn’t publicly criticized the Orbán government’s treatment of him and hasn’t come out in defense of the NGOs he has been supporting. During these two years he spoke out only once, thanking the 20,000-30,000 people who demonstrated on behalf of the beleaguered Central European University he founded. The devilish idea of a national consultation on the Soros Plan was born months ago, the questionnaires were sent to eight million voters more than a month ago, yet Soros said nothing. So, I assume Orbán believed that Soros would not engage verbally but would simply take all of the abuse showered on him and the employees of the civic organizations that have been the beneficiaries of his largesse.

A relatively new internet news site called Független Hírügynökség collected all the early responses to the rebuttal and the interview from pro-government sources and came to the conclusion that most of these slavish organs of government propaganda needed a few hours to recover from the shock. As is normally the case, these so-called journalists wait for the word from above. Once the government mantra is handed down, the “parrot commando” takes over. This time the magic phrase is “frontal attack.” It was Gergely Gulyás, the new Fidesz parliamentary whip, who got the assignment of sounding the trumpet. We can be assured that from this time on we will encounter the same phrase in all pro-government publications. According to Gulyás, George Soros until now has attacked Hungary and its government only “through organizations he finances, the European Parliament, and his Brussels allies,” but now he has personally joined the fight. He is attacking the government’s nationwide public survey, “making accusations, threats, and slanders.”

Gulyás, who has shed his gentlemanly demeanor since he became the Fidesz whip, wasn’t satisfied with criticizing Soros’s interview. Obviously he was told that he must announce that the investigation of the NGOs George Soros is worried about might be extended to Soros himself. Here is exactly what he said: “Civic organizations function freely in Hungary within a constitutional framework, but if there is an organized attempt at discrediting Hungary from abroad, this activity must be investigated.”

Let’s step back briefly to the Hungarian government’s “investigation” of the partially Soros-funded civic organizations. It was about a month ago that Viktor Orbán called these NGOs a threat to national security. Last week János Lázár announced that the government had asked Sándor Pintér, minister of the interior, to report on the possible dangers these civic groups pose to Hungary. This afternoon Pintér was to report to the parliamentary committee on national security about these alleged dangers. Before the hearing took place, Magyar Idők published an editorial which hypothesized that George Soros had timed his attack on Hungary in order “to divert attention from Pintér’s report” and “ahead of time to discredit it.” That sounded like a plausible theory, but to the obvious chagrin of the Orbán government, Pintér was unable to come up with any national security threats these human rights organizations present to Hungary. According to information that reached Index.hu, Pintér sidestepped the question. Obviously, he cannot go against the government’s position, but at the same time professionally he couldn’t find any national security risks stemming from these organizations’ activities. He apparently simply repeated what he had told the media a few days ago: “I don’t know whether George Soros poses any danger, but ideas he promulgates do not conform to the Hungarian conceptions and to Hungarian law. An open society, a society without borders are not accepted at the moment. They are futuristic.”

Yes, Soros stood up and fought, not so much for himself as for the people who as human rights activists are being threatened by the regime. Once he broke his silence he decided to go all the way. When RTL Klub asked for an interview, he sent a video message in Hungarian which the network immediately put up on its own website. It is a very moving video that lasts maybe two minutes. “It is a tragedy for Hungary that its present government is trying to keep itself in power by distorting reality and by misleading the population…. I’m terribly worried about Hungary; I think a lot about Hungary, and I want the Hungarian people to know that I will continue to do everything to support them.” It’s good to know that there are still people like George Soros around. The RTL Klub’s segment on Soros on its news program can be viewed here.

November 21, 2017

George Soros: “Rebuttal of the October 9 National Consultation in Hungary”

November 20, 2017

On October 9, 2017, the Hungarian government mailed a national consultation to all eight million eligible Hungarian voters purporting to solicit their opinions about a so-called “Soros Plan.” The statements in the national consultation contain distortions and outright lies that deliberately mislead Hungarians about George Soros’s views on migrants and refugees. Hungarian government officials also falsely claim that George Soros is somehow controlling the European Union decision-making process. In fact, decisions on how to address the migration crisis are made by EU member states and institutions, including the Hungarian government.

With Hungary’s health care and education systems in distress and corruption rife, the current government has sought to create an outside enemy to distract citizens. The government selected George Soros for this purpose, launching a massive anti-Soros media campaign costing tens of millions of euros in taxpayer money, stoking anti-Muslim sentiment, and employing anti-Semitic tropes reminiscent of the 1930s. The national consultation is part of an ongoing propaganda effort that has been underway since May 2015 that included the “Stop Brussels” consultation in the spring of 2017 and the referendum that vilified migrants and refugees in 2016.

George Soros started his giving in Hungary in the 1980s, establishing a foundation there in 1984. Since then, his support for Hungarians has totaled roughly €350 million and has included scholarships, health care services, and humanitarian efforts, including €1 million for reconstruction after the red sludge disaster in 2010. He also funds current efforts to help educate children with learning disabilities, tackle homelessness, and bring public transportation to the Hungarian countryside.

As a concerned citizen, George Soros regularly publishes commentary in newspapers around the world expressing his views and proposing policy approaches on a variety of topics, including the migration crisis. These are all publicly available on his website: www.GeorgeSoros.com.

National Consultation Statement 1:

George Soros wants Brussels to resettle at least one million immigrants per year onto European Union territory, including in Hungary.

FALSE

In a 2015 opinion piece, George Soros said that because of the war in Syria, the European Union would have to “accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). A year later, when circumstances had changed, he suggested that the EU should make a “commitment to admit even a mere 300,000 refugees annually” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 2:

Together with officials in Brussels, George Soros is planning to dismantle border fences in EU member states, including in Hungary, to open the borders for immigrants.

FALSE

George Soros has clearly stated his belief that “the EU must regain control of its borders.” He believes that “the EU must build common mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 3:

One part of the Soros Plan is to use Brussels to force the EU-wide distribution of immigrants that have accumulated in Western Europe, with special focus on Eastern European countries. Hungary must also take part in this.

FALSE

In his most recent commentary on the refugee crisis, George Soros endorsed “a voluntary matching mechanism for relocating refugees.” He made clear that “the EU cannot coerce member states to accept refugees they do not want, or refugees to go where they are not wanted.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 4:

Based on the Soros Plan, Brussels should force all EU member states, including Hungary, to pay immigrants HUF 9 million (€28,000) in welfare.

FALSE

George Soros did not say that Hungary should be forced to pay HUF 9 million in welfare to immigrants. He did say, “Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs—and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). This would clearly be a subsidy from the EU to the Hungarian government. Last year George Soros announced that he would contribute to the financial effort by earmarking €430 million of his personal fortune “for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities.” (“Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 5:

Another goal of George Soros is to make sure that migrants receive milder criminal sentences for the crimes they commit.

FALSE

Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

National Consultation Statement 6:

The goal of the Soros Plan is to push the languages and cultures of Europe into the background so that integration of illegal immigrants happens much more quickly.

FALSE

Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

National Consultation Statement 7:

It is also part of the Soros Plan to initiate political attacks against those countries which oppose immigration, and to severely punish them.

FALSE

Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

November 21,2017