Tag Archives: Zsolt Bayer

Viktor Orbán on solidarity and financial assistance

In happier times Hungary wasn’t a prolific source of sensational news items for the international press. With the appearance of Viktor Orbán on the political scene in 2010, however, hardly a day goes by without some juicy story about what the Hungarian prime minister is up to. The avalanche of news items on Hungary at the moment is more impressive than usual. There are two reasons for this sudden interest in the country, and both are related to the “migrant issue.”

First, Viktor Orbán surprised Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, with a letter in which he demanded a hefty contribution to the fence he unilaterally decided to build along the Serbian-Hungarian border in order to prevent refugees and migrants from using Hungary as a transit route toward Western Europe. Second, the European Court of Justice just dismissed complaints by Slovakia and Hungary about EU migration policy. This is considered to be an important victory for the European Union and a blow to Viktor Orbán and his allies in Eastern Europe.

Today let’s tackle the controversy that has developed since August 31 over the issue of the cost of the fence and Orbán’s monetary demands. I will stick closely to the texts of the letters exchanged between Juncker and Orbán. All three letters are available in their entirety.

“I am contacting you regarding the protection of the external borders of the European Union and European solidarity,” begins Viktor Orbán’s initial letter to Juncker. As far as he is concerned, “Hungary followed the Schengen rules requiring the protection of the external borders” all along, and by that act Hungary “is protecting not only itself, but the whole of Europe against the flood of illegal migrants.” Orbán claims that the cost and maintenance of the fence is 270 billion forints or €883,000,000, half of which should be paid by the European Union. He closed his letter by saying that “we agree that solidarity is an important principle of the European community. When Hungary had to protect the common external borders, we started with immediate action and not a request for help. I hope that, in the spirit of European solidarity, we can rightly expect that the European Commission, acting on behalf of Member States, will reimburse half of our extraordinary border protection expenses in the foreseeable future.”

It was unlikely that Orbán seriously expected a positive answer from the European Commission. In a sense, he gave himself away in that last paragraph when he admitted that Hungary “started with immediate action and not [with] a request for help.” It was the sovereign decision of the Hungarian government to go ahead and build a fence along the country’s southern border. As for the cost, both opposition politicians and journalists in Hungary are in total darkness when it comes to the real cost of the fence. Most suspect that the figures are greatly inflated.

Hungarian media commentators were certain from the very first moments after the announcement of the demand that the European Commission would not be impressed by Orbán’s arguments. It took only a few hours after the Hungarian government made the content of the letter public for the Commission’s spokesman to announce that the European Union is not “financing the construction of fences or barriers at the external borders.” As for Orbán’s appeal to European solidarity, the spokesman noted that “solidarity is a two-way street, and all member states should be ready to contribute. This is not some sort of à la carte menu where you pick one dish.” The spokesman then summarized all the benefits Hungary received, for example “over €93 million in funding for Hungary, both from the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund. It also awarded Hungary an additional €6 million in emergency funds.” He reminded his audience that in 2015 Hungary refused to be labeled a front-line state and rejected becoming a beneficiary country, like Greece and Italy. Instead, it opted to build a fence.

After this announcement on September 1, there could be little doubt that Jean-Claude Juncker’s reply to Viktor Orbán would be a firm rejection of the Hungarian prime minister’s specious reasoning. The tone of the letter, however, was polite and expressed an openness for cooperation if there is a willingness on the other side. First, he reminded Orbán of the events of 2015 when Hungary was greatly affected by the refugee crisis and the European Union proposed that an emergency relocation scheme would apply to Hungary, similarly to Italy and Greece. Hungary rejected this offer of “concrete solidarity, declining the possibility to benefit from relocation of up to 54,000 persons and decided to return nearly 4 million euros of EU funds pre-paid by the Commission.” Shortly after that, Hungary “challenged the validity of the Council decisions on relocation before the Court of Justice.”

Then came a list of all sorts of benefits Hungary received from the European Union in connection with the refugee crisis. The last item on the list was “another form of European solidarity [which is] represented by the EU’s regional funds. Hungary is the 8th largest beneficiary of the European Structural and Investment Funds in the period 2014-2020 with an allocation of 25 billion euros. This represents more than 3% of Hungary’s GDP annually, the highest of any Member State.”

Finally, Juncker “welcome[d] the call in [Orbán’s] letter for more Europe in the area of migration and border management.” He also assured him that he is “committed to working together with Hungary towards a more efficient and fairer European migration and asylum policy based on responsibility and solidarity.”

Yes, it was a polite letter, although it contained a fair description of the European Union’s objections to Viktor Orbán’s interpretation of solidarity. And there was one sentence in this fairly lengthy letter that must have sent Orbán into a rage, as we will see from his answer. That was Juncker’s reference to Hungary’s being the eighth largest beneficiary of the European Structural and Investment Funds. So, let’s turn to that crucial part of Viktor Orbán’s answer to Jean-Claude Juncker.

I would like to inform you that we are confounded by the part of your letter that creates a link between the question of immigration and cohesion funds. Such a relationship does not exist and is not permitted by the current EU acquis. According to the view of the Hungarian government, a significant part of the resources provided by Cohesion Funds landed at the companies of net contributor countries. The economies of major EU member states have thus greatly benefited from the use of cohesion funds, as they have benefited from opening the markets of new member states.

Viktor Orbán delivered a speech this morning in which he rejected the widely-held view that Hungary’s economic growth derives largely from the funds received from the European Union. I don’t have the complete text and therefore have to rely on MTI’s summary, but his argument was that Hungary’s yearly budget is 18,000 billion forints while the EU subsidies amount to only 1,000-1,500 forints. What Hungary has achieved in the last few years is “our success.” However, according to Péter Mihályi, a professor of economics, Orbán’s figures are wrong. Between 2006 and 2015, Hungary received 2,400 billion euros. During the same period the Hungarian economy grew by only 4.6%. Without the EU funds that figure would have been -1.8%.

Another topic that irritates Orbán is the European Union’s interpretation of solidarity. He didn’t elaborate on it, but he claims that Juncker’s “interpretation of solidarity is not in accordance with European Union legislation.” More critically, “it is not in accordance with Hungarian historic traditions either.” This difference in interpretation is explained by the fact that “in contrast some of the major member states of the EU, Hungary has no colonial past.” These countries, because of their colonial past, have become immigrant countries, but Hungary is not an immigrant country and does not want to become one. “The interpretation of the principle of solidarity described in your letter is in essence the transformation of Hungary into an immigrant country, against the will of the Hungarian citizens. In my view, this is not solidarity, this is violence.” Finally, Orbán said that he is “stunned and puzzled” that the European Commission refuses to provide funds for the fence. At the end he repeated his demand for half of the €883 million euros which, according to him, is the cost of the building and maintaining the 175 km fence.

Just a footnote to Viktor Orbán’s interpretation of solidarity. Last night, Zsolt Bayer, the anti-Semitic journalist of extreme political views, wrote an opinion piece for Magyar Idők that appeared in the early morning edition of the paper. He also argues that Hungary cannot be compared to countries that are situated in the West. Half of Western Europe countries, for certain periods of time, were colonial powers. These countries occupied large parts of the world where “they destroyed the culture and civilization they found. They killed the inhabitants; they carried away their treasures and raw materials. Those who survived were made slaves. This is the glorious history of the West. That’s how it became rich. That is how it became strong. It is from these treasures that they built their democracy. It is from this position that they began to look down on the people of Eastern and Central Europe who have never had any colonies. The people of those colonial empires are now going to their former slave owners and submitting a bill.”

So, the West is responsible in a way for the migration of the former slaves. They deserve what they get. And as for the financial assistance coming from the West, it is no sign of generosity because in the end all that money ends up in the pockets of western multinational companies. So, politicians of Western European countries have nothing to complain about. At least this is what Viktor Orbán thinks.

September 7, 2017

Two “Unite The Right” organizers and Hungary

A couple of months ago I wrote a post on far right western politicians in Hungary who found Budapest a place very much to their liking. At that time I talked about two Britishers: Jim Dowson and Nick Griffin. Viktor Orbán in his “address to the nation” told his audience that instead of admitting migrants from the Middle East and Africa, “we will let in true refugees: Germans, Dutch, French, and Italians, terrified politicians and journalists who here in Hungary want to find the Europe they have lost in their homelands.” The fact is that a number of people—nationalists, opponents of liberal values, members of extreme far-right parties or movements—have been gathering in Hungary for some time.

Today I will concentrate on two men who have had relationships with Hungary and who are closely connected to the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville: Richard Spencer and Daniel Friberg. Both were involved with the organization of the rally and were scheduled speakers, but their speeches were scrapped due to the tragic end of the white supremacists’ demonstration.

Maybe I should start with Daniel Friberg, a Swede, who has been living in Hungary for some time. He is the co-founder and editor of AltRight.com, in addition to being a businessman connected to the Swedish mining industry. He is the co-founder and CEO of Arktos Media Ltd., which altright.com describes as “one of the world’s leading publishers of traditionalist and right-wing literature.” As for “traditionalist literature,” Arktos titles, according to Carol Schaeffer, “largely promote a viewpoint it characterizes as ‘alternatives to modernity’ that are critical of liberalism, human rights, and modern democracy.” It was Arktos that published full-text English translations of Russian theorist Alexander Dugin, “the intellectual guru of Putinism.” Friberg and his American editor-in-chief John B. Morgan moved the operation from the United Kingdom to Hungary in January 2016. (I should add that since then Morgan left Arktos and joined Counter-Currents, a white-nationalist publishing house and website also partially based in Budapest.)

With Friberg and Arktos moving to Budapest in early 2014, it made sense for Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, to organize The National Policy Institute Conference in the Hungarian capital in October of the same year. Although by that time several American, French, and Swedish right-wing extremists lived in Hungary, Viktor Orbán decided not to allow the gathering on Hungarian soil, allegedly because propagating white supremacist messages is unconstitutional. Therefore, he instructed Sándor Pintér, minister of the interior, to prevent the speakers and organizers from entering the country. But there was a problem: there was no legal way of stopping these men from entering Hungary. And indeed, no one interfered with Richard Spencer, who after landing in Vienna took the train to Budapest.

Once it became clear that the Hungarian police had no authority to deny him entry, the decision was made to forbid the conference. But as TASZ, the Hungarian equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out, such an action was also illegal. Even white supremacists have the right to express their opinions. But the Hungarian authorities’ bag is full of tricks. Spencer and about 40 of the would-be participants decided to spend the evening prior to the opening of the conference in a pub. Suddenly at least a dozen policemen arrived on the scene and asked Spencer for identification, which in this case would have been his passport. Hungarians are required to have their IDs on them at all times. Spencer, however, wasn’t carrying his passport. He was therefore arrested and held in jail for 72 hours, after which he was deported from Hungary. Because of the Schengen Agreement he was banned from all EU countries for three years.

Source: Népszabadság / Photo: Miklós Teknős

Before he was arrested and deported, Népszabadság had an interview with Spencer, from which we learn that one of the reasons the Institute chose Budapest as the venue for the conference was the presence of Arktos. He never contemplated holding the conference in Germany because of that country’s anti-hate laws. He thought that in Hungary they would be safe. And now, he said, he is confronted with “this political persecution.” He also expressed an aversion toward Jobbik because of the party’s “Asian fantasies,” which emphasize Hungarians’ relations with the Turks and other Central Asian people. From the interview we also learn that Spencer had friendly contacts with some Hungarian journalists. I assume these journalists came from Magyar Hírlap and perhaps Magyar Nemzet. Certainly, in later years Friberg was a welcome visitor at Magyar Hírlap. In the middle of 2016 the editors ran a whole series of articles about him as well as interviews with him.

Despite this unpleasant encounter, Spencer keeps his eyes on Hungarian events. For example, he reads The Hungarian Free Press, which he labelled as “neither Hungarian nor free nor a press,” in which he found an article about Zsolt Bayer. Bayer had just published an article in which he portrayed the current refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe as a racial war intended to annihilate white people. Based on this article, Christopher Adam, the author of The Hungarian Free Press’s opinion piece, concluded that “Fidesz is now more extreme than the ominous opposition party” Jobbik. Spencer agreed with Adam because “from an identitarian perspective Orban and his party are far sounder ideologically than Jobbik, whose leaders believe, perhaps accurately, that Turks are their brothers and sisters. Orban, on the other hand, has spoken of ‘Europe for Europeans.’” He found the Orbán quotation in an article about the prime minister’s 2015 speech at Tusnádfürdő/Băile Tușnad, which appeared in Hungary Today, a government propaganda publication. At the end of the article Spencer comes to the conclusion that Bayer, and perhaps Orbán also, have been reading the literature of the alt-right because “Bayer does not speak the language of your standard European ‘ethno-nationalist.’ And it is Hungarians—and not us … at least not yet—who are in the position to realize the ideals of identitarianism.” So, Hungary’s prospect for achieving Spencer’s ideal society is far greater than that of Western Europe and the United States. Obviously kindred souls.

August 15, 2017

Preparations for an assault on the media: Index and the cyber attack on the BKK site

Back when Magyar Nemzet was the Orbán government’s leading propaganda vehicle, it was practically an everyday occurrence that the prosecutor’s office, the police, and the national security offices leaked information to the paper that the government wanted to use against its political opponents. Now that Magyar Nemzet is a respectable newspaper, it is Magyar Idők’s job to indicate the government’s intentions and perhaps even give guidance to all the other government propaganda outlets as to what the official line is.

After two weeks of embarrassment over the irresponsible management of the Budapest Transit Authorities (BKK) and T-Systems’ shoddy e-ticket software, the decision was made to divert attention from this incompetence to an alleged conspiracy that would conveniently involve Index, one of the few quality news sites left in Hungary. This government ruse has the added benefit of being a frontal attack on an independent media outlet that was recently purchased by Viktor Orbán’s domestic archenemy, Lajos Simicska.

To summarize the sequence of events, here are a few facts that are necessary to understand the story. On July 13 BKK made the announcement that at last e-tickets can be purchased on its website. The procedure will be fast and reliable. The purchaser will have a bright green e-ticket on his smart phone that will allow him to use BKK’s transportation system.

Index has a number of journalists who specialize in internet technology. They test new software and report on its reliability and usefulness. As soon as BKK announced the availability of the e-ticket, one of Index’s “tech experts,” Balázs Tóth, purchased a one-day ticket and traveled all over the city, hoping to encounter a ticket controller to see how well the system was prepared for the change. Without going into the details, it turned out that they are not and the whole experiment was a nightmare. The story was told in an article that appeared on July 14 at 12:01.

A few hours later (16:31) Balázs Tóth wrote another article in which he reported that after the appearance of the first article Index received an incredible number of e-mails from people with similar experiences. Among the many such letters was the one from the 18-year-old high school student who became known later as the “ethical hacker.” All the details of his story can be found in my article titled “Another grain of sand on the pile: The e-ticket fiasco,” but here I will focus on this second Index article, which has turned out to be a critical piece of “evidence” according to Magyar Idők, showing Index’s guilt in the massive cyber attack against BKK, intended to create chaos during the World Aquatic Championships.

From this second article we learn that after receiving the ethical hacker’s e-mail, the Index folks got in touch with BKK, telling the company about glitches in the program that allows users to change the price of the tickets. We also learned here that by that time BKK had a chance to read the ethical hacker’s e-mail, his e-ticket had already been deleted. This piece of information will become important later when we try to cast doubt on Magyar Idők’s accusation.

So, let’s move on to the article Magyar Idők published today, which is supposed to expose “an organized cyber attack planned and executed by the ‘ethical hacker’ and Index.” The proof? The timeline prepared most likely by some national security agency attached to the ministry of the interior.

This timeline is as follows. BKK ascertained that the ethical hacker entered its website at 12:49 on July 14–that is, 48 minutes after Index’s first article appeared about the deficiencies of the system. After looking around and discovering the glitch, he bought a ticket at 13:38, which means that it took him one hour and 17 minutes to find the coding error. A little more than an hour later, at 14:49, he sent an e-mail to the wrong address, but soon enough he realized his mistake and sent another e-mail to the proper address at 15:11. I should add something here that the Magyar Idők article omits. Sometime after his first e-mail to BKK, the young man also fired off a letter to Index. At 15:33 Index sent an e-mail to BKK in which Balázs Tóth told the company about the glitch that allows people to buy tickets for practically pennies and asked them a number of questions.

These questions were passed on to Magyar Idők by, I assume, BKK and published verbatim by Zsolt Bayer in an editorial titled “The BKK affair: A bunch of lies,” which appeared in the same issue. Index wanted to know whether the problem was already solved or not, when will the system be secure, will they change the method of password use, and other technical questions. They waited an hour. When the paper still hadn’t received an answer, Balázs Tóth published his article in which he revealed the glitch. He added that Index had contacted BKK but no answer came, but they will “refresh” the article as soon as they hear. And indeed, when the BKK’s meaningless answer arrived, Index updated the article. BKK didn’t answer any of the questions but assured Index that despite extensive internet attacks, the system was working fine and was accessible and usable. BKK claimed from the very beginning that there was an automatic system that precluded any possibility of abuse. BKK also claimed that after the incident further security measures were introduced into the system.

But that was not the end of the story. Once the hackers out there in cyberspace suspected that BKK’s site was vulnerable, they bombarded it with thousands of attacks, the result of which was that the whole site had to be shut down. Magyar Idők considers this to be a criminal act, part of a huge conspiracy between the boy, Index, and who knows who else. The proof is the 22 minutes that elapsed between the ethical hacker’s e-mail to BKK and Index’s e-mail to BKK. First of all, since we know that the e-mail Index passed on to BKK was the one ethical hacker wrote to the wrong address at 14:49, the time between the boy’s purchase of an e-ticket and Index’s letter to BKK was not 22 minutes as Zsolt Bayer claims but more like an hour. But even 22 minutes is a very long time in our cyber world. Our sophisticated high school student, after discovering the error, immediately fired off an e-mail (sometime after 14:49) to Index. Once the internet savvy journalists who specialize in information technology checked out the system and found that the information they received was correct, Index immediately wrote to BKK. They waited an hour. No answer came.

Bayer finds Index’s handling of this particular case unethical because in his opinion it was unfair to give BKK “less than an hour to check the information provided by Index to compile the required information.” But Bayer is mistaken. As I pointed out earlier, BKK, by the time it had received Index’s questions, knew about the illegal purchase of an e-ticket and had already deleted the boy’s transaction. BKK didn’t have to spend hours discovering something it already knew. BKK’s eventual answer clearly indicates that the company had no intention of admitting any security problems and wanted to maintain that all was just fine. In brief, they didn’t want any help from anyone because, as far as they were concerned, there was no problem in the first place.

Magyar Nemzet pointed out that today’s world of rapid fire publication of news items online doesn’t allow the luxury of waiting for hours on end or even days with an article that one considers important and newsworthy. Index did what it was supposed to do and what all other internet news sites do. Bayer’s whole conspiracy theory rests on very shaky grounds.

But what is really worrisome is that the Magyar Idők article, based most likely on leaked information from the authority that is working on the case, maintains that the ethical hacker’s individual action was the “introductory act” of the coordinated denial-of-service cyber attack that came a few hours later. Normally there are 300-400 hits per second on that particular site, but that afternoon they numbered 13,000. Within an hour almost 47 million hits were received. As a result the whole system collapsed.

All this indicates to me that both the ethical hacker and Index should look for good lawyers because the cyber security cops will do their best to make them responsible for the subsequent collapse of the system.

July 29, 2017

Are George Soros and Pope Francis part of a global conspiracy? Ask Zsolt Bayer

A few months ago Zsolt Bayer, the foul-mouthed journalist who was one of the founding members of Fidesz, publicly announced his intention to watch his language and to remain within the bounds of acceptable journalism. Well, it didn’t take long before he was back in his usual form. His latest is an incredible attack on Pope Francis, which went so far that even the editor of Magyar Kurír, the official newspaper of the Conference of Hungarian Bishops, wrote an editorial about it, which is a sharp turn from the Church’s past practice of ignoring Bayer.

The independent Hungarian media has the bad habit of forcefully reacting to every objectionable word Bayer writes or utters. Critical journalists and politicians on such occasions announce that “we thought that one cannot sink lower,” after which they sadly note that “one obviously can.” It seems that even journalists’ memories are short because there is absolutely nothing new in Bayer’s preoccupation with and denigration of Pope Francis. He has been preoccupied with the pope for at least two years.

Before we condemn, as we should, Bayer for his intemperate attack on the pope, we must keep in mind that the leaders of the Hungarian Catholic Church share some of Bayer’s views. Of course, they don’t call the pope “an ass” because he calls on European Christians to support the refugees, but they share Bayer’s belief that Francis, by virtue of coming from Argentina, is unfit to handle the European crisis and that he is naïve in the extreme. Some of the more outspoken right-wing bishops like Gyula Márfi, archbishop of Veszprém, and László Kiss-Rigó, bishop of Szeged-Csanád, spoke quite openly about the pope’s ignorance of European reality.

The first example of Bayer’s writings on Pope Francis is from June 2015, in which we already find the kernels of his fully developed opinion on the pope–that his ideas were shaped by the fact that he was the son of “migrants,” his family was poor, and he is from “far-away Argentina.” Europeans wait in vain for Pope Francis to come to their rescue in these hard times; he ignores them and moves on to “the army of ferocious, screaming, murderous strangers.”

A couple of months later he went further and called Francis “either a senile old fool who is totally unsuitable to be the pope or a scoundrel.” When the leader of the Christian Democratic Party’s parliamentary delegation was asked to comment on Bayer’s description of Pope Francis as “a senile old fool,” he pretty much stood by Bayer, pointing out that the pope’s solidarity with the downtrodden is stronger than his feeling of responsibility for the safety of Europeans. Zoltán Balog in an interview brushed aside Bayer’s choice of words by saying that after all Zsolt Bayer is a Lutheran, and “one should read what Martin Luther had to say about the pope. In comparison [Bayer’s] words are outright tame.”

A few months later, at the end of 2015, he wrote his most comprehensive assessment of Francis and his unfitness for his job. It is not enough that he favors the migrants because his own family were immigrants and that he doesn’t understand Europe because he came from another continent. He is also an enemy of nations and thus must be a foe of Orbán’s Hungary. How do we know that? Francis abolished the papal “tradition” of incanting Easter and Christmas greetings in 60-odd languages after delivering the Urbi et Orbi Message. Bayer describes the moving scenes of people raising their national flags on St. Peter’s Square after they heard the greeting in their own language. This pope is like the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, who turned his countries upside-down because of his mad, zealous reforms. As a result, he almost ruined his empire. “Today’s pope is not a believer in the ancient traditions of the Catholic Church.” He is moving away from what he considers to be antiquated and old-fashioned and is establishing new traditions alien to the Catholic Church. But he should have noticed that the reformation of the church is normally demanded by non-Catholics. By removing the multilingual greetings, the pope “removed the nation, the homeland, and the national language from the stage of the world.” In fact, “Francis is working on the creation of a United States of Europe instead of a Europe of nations.” Indeed, George Soros, Pope Francis, and Ferenc Gyurcsány, the only Hungarian politician who dares to suggest such a heresy, are comrades-in-arms.

This is an imaginative theory that has little to do with reality. There are at least two problems with Bayer’s argument. The first is that this “ancient” tradition is only 50 years old. Pope Paul VI introduced it in 1965 when the decision was made to conduct mass in the local tongue instead of Latin. The second problem is that if Pope Francis is such a universalist, why did he decide only recently to abandon Latin as the official language of the synod of bishops? Yes, from here on the language of the synod will be Italian, the lingua franca of the Vatican. That doesn’t mesh with Bayer’s ideas on Francis’s alleged hatred of nation states and national cultures.

And now comes the latest upheaval over Bayer and Pope Francis. This time it was an interview with Bayer at a local television station in the town of Miskolc that caused the Hungarian non-governmental media outlets to raise their voices against the extremist Fidesz journalist. During the interview he repeated his earlier objections. The pope has a non-European past, when it would be of the utmost importance to have a European pope who represents “European interests.” In his opinion, the pope is no different from the politicians of the European Union because he goes against the will and goals of European citizens. “Do not imagine that what [the pope] says is divine revelation. It is only stupid, moronic political opinion,” Bayer said.

It looks as if Bayer’s notions about the pope have evolved over time because by now he is convinced that “it is no accident that a non-European man became the pope.” I guess it was part of an international conspiracy. Knowing something about how these guys’ minds work, I can easily conjure up a scenario by which George Soros and other Jewish financiers with business designs on a Europe with a mixed population conspire with the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church to pick a man who would serve their interests. One could call this, as does Christopher Adam of Hungarian Free Press, typical double talk, but since Bayer a couple of days after the interview insisted that he had listened again to the interview and would not take a word back from it, I think he actually believes this foolish idea which, let’s face it, is not very far from the thinking of the top Fidesz leadership, including that of Viktor Orbán. I would like to remind everyone that Orbán, especially during 2015, kept repeating that the move of so many refugees at once “cannot be a coincidence.” And if it is not a coincidence, then it is the result of design. But design on the part of whom?

I guess by now it is clear to readers that I see no serious differences between the thinking of the mainstream Fidesz and Catholic leaderships and the ideas of Zsolt Bayer, expressed in crude prose. The message is more or less the same. I suspect that the reason for Viktor Orbán’s lenient attitude toward Bayer’s “artistic endeavors” is his satisfaction with his old friend’s way of expressing his and his government’s position in down-to-earth, direct language that can reach audiences on the far right. Two years ago I reported on a far-right journalist who claimed that Pope Francis is not a bad man, just not a European and not a Catholic. He is not only manipulated by Jews but is a Jew himself, a son of Jewish refugees from Italy. It is these people Bayer is supposed to reach, most likely with Orbán’s blessing.

Admittedly, this kind of talk comes only from what I call the lunatic fringe, but even Magyar Idők and subsequently Válasz in August 2016 reported the discovery that in countries with a sizable Catholic population George Soros targets the Catholic church with the goal of influencing public opinion on issues he cares about.  He spent a great deal of money, for instance, to convince Catholic priests in the United States to emphasize issues that would help the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. When the right-wing internet site Flag Polgári Magazin republished the article, its title was changed to “Shocking! A leaked e-mail reveals why Pope Francis supports migration at any cost.”

Linking George Soros and Pope Francis is perhaps the quintessential conspiracy theory. Zsolt Bayer is helping the far right develop its conspiratorial imagination.

July 24, 2017

Justice in Orbán’s Hungary: The Ahmed H. case

As I was looking through my old posts to see my coverage of Ahmed H.’s trial for terrorism, which took place in 2016, I found to my astonishment that I hadn’t even mentioned the name of this Syrian man who received ten years for allegedly committing terrorism at the Serbian-Hungarian border. I have often been told that over the years the posts of Hungarian Spectrum can more or less serve as a timeline of Hungarian politics. I’m trying to cover all the important events, but, as is clear from this example, I don’t always succeed.

The omission is especially egregious because Ahmed’s alleged terrorism case was one of the pretexts for the government’s attempt to introduce a new category of emergencies that could be declared in the event of a “situation created by a terrorist threat.” Ahmed’s arrest and the subsequent charge of terrorism against him were followed by an unprecedented hate campaign against migrants. This Syrian man from Cyprus, where he has been living legally for the last ten years, became a symbol for all those vicious terrorists who want to overrun Hungary. The only problem with the Hungarian government’s plan was that the terrorism case against Ahmed H. was mighty weak.

Even if I missed covering the original trial, I can now make up for it, at least in part, by reporting on the ruling of the appellate court on June 15 and by recalling some of the events that led to the news that Ahmed has a second chance to receive a fair trial. The appellate court found the work of the court of first instance so flawed that the whole case must be retried–and not, as the judge made clear, by the same panel of judges.

Representatives of such civic organizations as Amnesty International and Migszol, a group formed at the time of the refugee crisis in Hungary in the summer of 2015, have been calling Ahmed H.’s trial a “conceptual show trial.” Looking through the available documents, one thing is sure. The Orbán government very much wanted to find someone guilty of terrorism. It needed such a verdict for its anti-migrant drive. Ahmed seemed to fit the bill. He had a bullhorn and was talking to the crowd in several languages, including English. He allegedly incited the crowd to violence, repeatedly threatened the security forces, and then joined the disturbances that took place on September 16, 2015. He was also charged with illegally crossing the border. On November 30 Ahmed H. was sentenced to a 10-year prison term.

The trial was a mockery of judicial fairness. The judge refused to hear the testimony of more than 20 defense witnesses and ignored the fact that the prosecution’s main witness, a police officer, was not certain of the accused’s identity. It was true that Ahmed threw a couple of items during the melee, but there was no proof that he hit anyone. He claimed that he tried to calm the people. But even if he was guilty of all the crimes he was accused of, did Ahmed H. deserve 10 years? Gauri van Gulik, deputy director of Amnesty International for Europe, said that “to sentence Ahmed to 10 years in prison for a terrorist act is absurd.”

The spokesman for Fidesz expressed the party’s delight after the initial verdict was announced. He repeated the slogan on the billboards: “every migrant must learn that, once in the country, he must honor the laws of Hungary.” But those outside the circle of Fidesz and its followers were stunned. The United States asked the Hungarian government to conduct a transparent investigation of the incidents at the border that would include an independent civic organization. The government should review Ahmed’s case. As far as the United States is concerned, it will follow the case’s future handling, the statement promised. It didn’t take long for the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to respond, telling the United States that criticizing the work of the court may be allowed in the United States but not in Hungary. Moreover, in Hungary it is not the civic organizations that decide on the guilt or innocence of people but the courts. The ministry spokesman ended his harangue by saying that “we can promise one thing: Hungary will never demand an explanation of U.S. court decisions on terrorists attacking American policemen.”

A week before Ahmed H.’s case was to be continued at the Szeged Appellate Court, the Hungarian media reported that Péter Bárándy, one of the best lawyers in Hungary who was minister of justice between 2002 and 2004 in the Medgyessy government, was going to be Ahmed’s defense lawyer. (There is some indirect evidence that Bárándy had been working on the case since at least March.)

Ahmed H. has had four lawyers, including Bárándy. First, he had a court-appointed lawyer. Then a local Szeged lawyer took over who, according to a member of Migszol, “during the trial sat quietly and wasted not one word in defense of his client.” Two weeks before the end of the trial he quit. The accused got another court-appointed lawyer who apparently did at least try to defend his client, unfortunately without much success.

The news of Péter Bárándy’s appearance as the lawyer for the defense was not exactly welcome news in government circles, but it did give Fidesz leaders an opportunity to connect “terrorism” with its alleged supporters, the Hungarian liberals and socialists. In fact, Gyula Budai, the man who in 2010 was entrusted by Viktor Orbán to bring all socialist and liberal “criminals” to justice, gave a press conference in which he charged that the Soros organizations, Brussels, and the socialists are working hand in hand to free Ahmed H. and therefore “they support terrorism.” He used strong words like “while Europe is terrified of terrorism, Brussels is openly supporting it.” He wanted to know “who is paying the lawyer” and called on MSZP to give an account.

Péter Bárándy in the courtroom

At the trial the prosecutor mostly praised the excellent decision that had been reached in the lower court. But he found the sentence of 10 years, the minimum for those accused of terrorism, insufficient and asked the court for 17.5 years instead. It was then Bárándy’s turn, who pointed out that he found 205 serious mistakes in the proceedings of the lower court. Here, of course, I cannot recount all of them. But I think a couple of examples will give a good idea of the kind of justice that was meted out to Ahmed H. A key charge against him was that he was the leader of the crowd that was throwing rocks against the police. A video, however, showed that the rock throwing had been going on for at least 45 minutes before Ahmed got hold of the bullhorn. In addition, the judge ignored the existence of a video taken by a policewoman which, as opposed to other videos, also contained sound and it doesn’t support Ahmed’s alleged incitement of the crowd. On the contrary, he can be heard saying to the fellow refugees “please, wait, stay here,” “please advise,” “we speak English, we don’t want an Arabic interpreter, we are asking for someone who speaks English.” And finally he told the refugees in Arabic, “no, wait, go back, please go back.” The verdict also claimed that Ahmed gave the police two hours to open the border. How did the police know this? He held up two fingers. But this can also mean “victory.” Finally, he was found guilty of illegally crossing the border, but even that judgment was wrong because Ahmed had free access to all EU countries, including Hungary. At the most, Ahmed was guilty of a misdemeanor (szabálysértés).

Ahmed H. with his back toward us is trying to calm the crowd / Source: police.hu

After the appellate court sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial, Zsolt Bayer wrote an opinion piece in Magyar Idők titled “H. Bárándy and Ahmed Péter.” Bayer may seem to have gotten a little mixed up. I assume you get the gist of what he wants to tell us. It was a relief to read close to the end of the article that “we are not going to incarcerate the judge [of the appellate court] or H. Bárándy.” That’s awfully charitable.

Let’s end this post on a lighter note. The management of state television M1 channel most likely was certain that the Ahmed H.’s verdict would not be reversed or annulled. Perhaps he will even get 17.5 years as the prosecution demanded. They decided to send a camera crew to the trial along with their legal experts who were supposed to give live commentary. For three solid hours one could watch the trial. Once the decision was handed down, however, M1 ended the live broadcast in a great hurry. No further commentary necessary.

The reaction of the top Fidesz leadership has been as expected–a complete denial of any possibility that the original verdict could be flawed and a charge that the socialists, the civic organizations, Brussels, and everybody else under the sun are working together to open the borders and let in all those migrants who are in Bayer’s words members of “the terrible mob of Mordor, the Third World.”

June 18, 2017

Sources of Fidesz propaganda: Foreign and domestic alt-right sites

While I was doing background research for my post on how the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s reference to the “evil multibillionaire Zionist-American” as applied to George Soros made it to the evening news of M1, the Hungarian Television’s news channel, I became fascinated with the question of how and from where Hungarian right-wing sites get their information.

As I discussed in that post, George Soros, based on Khamenei’s accusation, intended to overthrow Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, and he was instrumental in the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia, an event normally described as the Rose Revolution. It derives its name from the climactic moment, when demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili stormed the parliamentary session, red roses in hand. As far as Khamenei is concerned, Soros was guilty in the overthrow of Shevardnadze, but the truth is not at all clear-cut. In the three years prior to the Georgian regime change, foreign support for Shevardnadze’s regime had declined. The United States announced a reduction in aid, and the International Monetary Fund suspended aid to the country. Foreign governments and individuals, among them George Soros, gave financial aid to NGOs, but surely if the time had not been ripe for a regime change, Soros’s $1.5 million wouldn’t have mattered.

Hungarian journalists working on the news that night were not satisfied with these two claims and looked for other instances in which Soros’s financing of NGOs made a difference in election outcomes. They pointed to the 2015 election in Canada where Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party achieved an overwhelming victory against the Conservative Stephen Harper, who had been prime minister for the previous 12 years. The win was so large that it impossible to fathom that the couple of millions of dollars Soros may have given to Canadian NGOs would have made any difference. But the real question is: did George Soros’s NGOs tip the Canadian elections? I’m almost certain they didn’t.

M1’s claim is based on an article that appeared in the Calgary Herald. It reported that an organization called Canada Decides filed a complaint in which it claimed that “the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners.” According to the complaint, the culprit was the U.S. based Tides Foundation, which gave $1.5 million to Canadian third parties. One of the three directors of Canada Decides is a former Conservative MP from Calgary who lost her seat to a Liberal in the election in question. I should add that George Soros’s name is not mentioned in the Calgary Herald article. Only questionable sources claim that Soros was funneling some of his money through the Tides Foundation. For example, Activist Post, which specializes in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, claims that Soros is the largest contributor to the Tides Foundation, but I doubt that since the Tides Foundation’s total assets were $284,560,083 in 2015.

But let’s move on to Hungarian “fake news” sites. This morning a friend of mine called my attention to a Zsolt Bayer article which appeared on Bayer’s blog Bádog. Thanks to that article, I became acquainted with a number of far-right Hungarian sites. From the look of it, Hungarian extreme right “journalists” freely take over each other’s articles. Zsolt Bayer, without changing a word, copied an article which appeared on the alt-right site Magyar Közösség on May 25. The fake news this time was that “19 girls have disappeared without a trace from the location of the terror attack in Manchester.” If you try to find the origin of this story in English, you are out of luck. There are many stories about children who got lost and were eventually found, but nothing about 19 missing girls. A Cosmopolitan article even wrote about ostensibly Muslim taxi drivers who helped many children get home free of charge after the attack. The author of the Hungarian story, on the other hand, was convinced that the girls were kidnapped by these Muslim taxi drivers and sold as sex slaves. The British government is fully aware of it all, the article claims, but “it cannot tell it to the public because otherwise there would be a revolt.”

Brits out, Turks in. They would replace Brits with Turks

You would think that Magyar Közösség was the original source of the story. But no, it had already appeared on another far-right site, Világlátó, on May 24. The number of news items that appear every day on this particular site is truly remarkable. It is an Islamophobic site which just today, for example, informed its readers that “ISIS actually represents 1.5 billion Muslims” and therefore “Europe is doomed.” Or, “We must be prepared for a huge new wave of refugees: 500 million people may head toward Europe.” Or, “The Pentagon is said to be in complete panic after a ‘Russian super gun’ paralyzed the protection of Alaska.” Or, “About half of the potential terrorists are in Germany.”

What I’m driving at is that Fidesz’s well-known journalists, like Zsolt Bayer, have a strong affiliation with far-right Hungarian circles. They publish on each other’s news sites and borrow each other’s stories. It is high time to call Fidesz and its propaganda machine what it is: a far-right party that relies on far-right western and domestic sources for at least some of its news. The state propaganda apparatus–television, radio, and the internet–influences and misleads millions of people.

May 28, 2017

The Hungarian right and the Manchester terrorist attack

Every time there is a terrorist attack anywhere in Europe, the Hungarian government and Fidesz, besides sending the customary condolences to the appropriate authorities, immediately begin to use it as a political tool. From the statements emanating from various Fidesz quarters in the last two days, I came to the conclusion that the Manchester case has been singled out as an event that is the beginning of a new chapter in the history of terrorism in Europe. Péter Szijjártó’s statement labelled it “the most malicious terrorist attack” to date because young teenagers were likely to attend the concert. The Orbán government also declared the present terrorist threat in Europe the highest ever. European politicians should realize the danger and devote all their energy to making Europe a safe place.

Lajos Kósa, the leader of the Fidesz parliamentary delegation, was more forthright. He accused the European political leaders of blindness. They inexplicably “still don’t realize what’s happening on the European continent.” How many more people will have to die before they wake up? Terrorism doesn’t start with a “suicide bomber.” It starts when “terrorists illegally come to Europe and many people actually assist them.”

Bence Tuzson, undersecretary in charge of government communications in the prime minister’s office, gave an interview this morning on Magyar Rádió’s early morning political program. He emphasized “the close connection between immigration and terrorism.” Illegal immigration should not be “managed” but stopped. In this connection, he criticized Jean-Claude Juncker who, according to Tuzson, said: “Today is still a day of mourning, but from tomorrow on we must fight against those who question European values.” The real battle should be at the borders of Europe. “One shouldn’t preach about European values; the most important question is the security of the people.” Knowing Fidesz’s penchant for not being faithful to the original source, I looked at Juncker’s actual statement. Here is what the EU president had to say: “Today we mourn with you. Tomorrow we will work side by side with you to fight back against those who seek to destroy our way of life. They underestimate ours and [British] resilience—these cowardly attacks will only strengthen our commitment to work together to defeat the perpetrators of such vile acts.”

Members of the Fidesz propaganda media were also appalled by Juncker’s “clichés.” Mariann Őry, head of the foreign desk at Magyar Hírlap, who about a month ago wrote an article titled “Sorosjugend,” was especially upset over the phrase “those who seek to destroy our way of life.” Here is a man, says Őry, who allegedly is fighting against terrorism while he keeps kissing (puszilkodik) George Soros, the promoter of “unlimited immigration,” whose activities present “a significant security risk to Europe.”

Zsolt Bayer also devoted an editorial to the Manchester terrorist attack, in which he stressed the “utter predictability” of every one of these atrocities. People of Europe know what’s coming,“but we don’t do anything. We know that they have launched a war against us and we burn candles like drooling idiots.” The western half of Europe is “condemned to death if the citizens there tolerate it.” East of the former Berlin Wall people still have a sense of self-preservation, but in the West it is called a “violation of European values.” I think it is quite clear from these examples that references to European values or the European way of life get under the skin of far-right Fidesz scribblers and most likely of Fidesz politicians as well.

A third op-ed piece by Levente Sitkei, a journalist who wrote a book on Saudi Arabia, is especially offensive because, according to the author, “Salman didn’t die. He is still walking on the streets of Manchester, Liverpool, London, and Glasgow. He is standing on the street corner, a lonely savage [vadember] devoid of soul with rights but without responsibility and gratitude. No soldier or policeman can stop him because neither his family, fear of the authorities, neither humanity nor love of country can deter him.” These generalizations stoke fear in the hearts of Hungarians, far away from Manchester, living in a country where these “savages” are nowhere to be found.

Tibor Kovács, who works for the government propaganda site 888.hu, agrees with Sitkei. After praising Christian Europeans whose “whole culture is based on understanding and goodwill,” he writes that we must learn to forget about all these Christian virtues if “we want to remain alive.” There is no hope; these Muslim communities will never accept our values. In fact, “the longer they live among us the more likely it is that they will become our enemies, the more likely it is that they will identify with movements that threaten our lives.” And that’s not all. Kovács claims that “those currently peaceful Muslim taxpayers are potential enemies of European Christians, only waiting for the time to unveil their real identity.”

Vigyázó!, a fiercely anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli, pro-Trump site, translated into Hungarian an article written by Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist who got into quite a bit of trouble about five years ago when he was caught lifting passages without attribution from other authors. He writes a column for Arutz Sheva, an Israeli media network “identifying with Religious Zionism.” This article is a stomach-turning piece. Europe must learn to respond forcefully to these attacks because “otherwise, Europe will reach the point where the soldiers of Allah will have to be hunted down, from door to door, as in Mosul and Raqqa.”

Meotti in this article repeats a theory that has gained traction of late in right-wing circles: the inability or unwillingness of European leaders to fight the Muslims stems from the fact that most of them have no children. “Is it possible that Europe’s leaders have chosen to avoid fighting because they are all childless? German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and the head of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, have one thing is common: they are all childless.” Therefore “they don’t have the most powerful stake in the future of the country they lead. Having children and grandchildren influences the desire to ensure that they are given protection and the best chance to flourish in the future. Perhaps a childless leader is unable to see farther into the future, apart from his own life. Instead of children, Europeans have a weary death wish.”

The Hungarian right-wing media embraced the theory practically overnight. In addition to Vigyázó!, Mandiner, Pesti Srácok, althír.hu, and avilagma.com published opinion pieces on the childlessness of European political leaders. András Stumpf of Heti Válasz decided to counter the primitive argument that childless people don’t care about the future of mankind or the destiny of Europe. I’m sure, however, that the theory will spread like wildfire in Hungary where a decreasing population offers the specter of the possible extinction of Hungarians.

May 25, 2017