The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
The U.S. Government Hates the Huns
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

In the New York Times, the recent U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, who is the daughter of a real estate developer in Sacramento who is a big time Hillary-contributor, denounces the barbarism of the Huns:

Hungary’s Xenophobic Response
By ELENI KOUNALAKIS SEPT. 6, 2015

SAN FRANCISCO — The scene at Budapest’s Keleti train station is returning to normal. Trains are running again, and most of the thousands of desperate people stranded there last week are on their way to other, more hospitable countries in Europe. Hungary, a country rarely in the news, is already fading from the headlines.

The challenges facing Europe from the largest refugee crisis since World War II, however, have only just begun. And the example of how and why the Hungarian government detained and harassed these people, mostly from Syria but also from Afghanistan and North Africa, should continue to be a worrisome factor.

To understand the logic behind the Hungary’s recent actions, it’s helpful to know something about its powerful leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Mr. Orban came to power five years ago in a landslide election, winning more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. I was the United States ambassador to Hungary at the time, and I witnessed the first years of his so-called Two-Thirds Revolution. My fellow diplomats and I watched as Mr. Orban and his Fidesz party voted in 700 new laws and adopted a new constitution. Laws governing virtually every institution — the media, the courts, universities, local government, religious institutions — were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders.

Prime Minister Orban

The United States was the first country to raise concerns that the radical reform process was weakening the independence of Hungary’s democratic institutions, concentrating power in the hands of fewer people and eliminating important checks and balances. In 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Hungary against “democratic backsliding.”

Mr. Orban’s reaction was to double down. In a speech last summer, he declared that European-style “liberal democracy” had failed. Instead, Hungary would pursue “illiberal democracy,” he said, citing Russia and Turkey as role models. With this speech, Orban dropped all pretense that he valued the basic principles of Western-style democracy.

When I last visited Budapest, in June, I asked Hungary’s ambassador to Austria about the government’s proposal to put up a fence on the border with Serbia.

“It’s going to happen,” he told me with certainty. Being accustomed to the definitive way that Fidesz officials spoke about policy, I understood. If Mr. Orban had decided, it was done.

PM Orban

What is notable is how early Mr. Orban prepared for an influx of refugees. Three months ago, the government posted signs with messages like “If you come to Hungary, you cannot take the jobs of Hungarians!” Since the billboards were in Hungarian only, it was clear that this was a message not for immigrants, but for Hungarians. Mr. Orban was laying doing the groundwork to inoculate the Hungarian public against feeling sympathy for these supposed job-stealers. …

Through all the drama of the Hungarian refugee crisis, the biggest question was this: If Hungary didn’t want the refugees, why go to such lengths to detain them? Why not just let them go to Germany, which promised to accept 800,000 asylum seekers?

As an answer, Mr. Orban hid behind European Union protocols, which require member states to register asylum seekers at the country of entry. But the truth is Mr. Orban does not only want to keep these refugees out of Hungary. He wants to keep them out of Europe. If razor wire fences don’t work, perhaps intimidation and detention will.

“Let us not forget, that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims,” Mr. Orban wrote in an article published in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He went on: “Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”

If Mr. Orban’s method of dealing with Europe’s refugee crisis was limited to the way he is handling the situation in his own country, it would be worrisome enough. But far more troubling is the possibility that his political views could gain ground elsewhere in Europe.

Buoyed to power in Hungary through his nationalistic messages and policies, Mr. Orban is attempting to bring his star power to a much larger stage. And it’s not a message that reflects the fundamental values behind the European Union.

Mr. Orban argued in the Allgemeine Zeitung that “People want us Europeans to be masters of the situation, and defend our borders …”

In contrast to his muscular, aggressive tone, European Union leaders seem to be struggling to find a unified approach in dealing with the refugees, now numbering more than 250,000 so far in 2015. There has been a vacuum of leadership — not only to take action and provide aid, but simply to articulate a response. In what is clearly a state of emergency, the European Union as a body has appeared paralyzed, with outdated protocols and plans that fail to account for the enormity of the problem.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker is preparing to address the European Parliament this week, and lay out a plan. It is expected that its cornerstone will be a quota system to relocate asylum seekers throughout Europe. But Central European countries — including Hungary but also Poland and the Czech Republic — have already vowed to oppose this.

The question is what European leaders will do now. Can they work together, through the architecture of the European Union to devise a set of principles, and act in a cohesive and effective manner to deal with the humanitarian and political crisis gripping the continent?

Or will Mr. Orban’s xenophobic platform and his advocacy for harsher methods of dealing with refugees be allowed to fill the vacuum?

European civilization is being ripped apart by these cruel Eastern barbarians.

But perhaps love can heal even the Huns:

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Let me sail, let me sail,
    let the orinoco flow,
    Let me reach, let me beach
    On the shores of Tripoli.
    Let me sail, let me sail,
    Let me crash upon your shore,
    Let me reach, let me beach
    Far beyond the Yellow Sea.

    From the North to the South,
    Ebudc into Khartoum,
    From the deep sea of Clouds
    To the island of the moon,
    Carry me on the waves
    To the lands I’ve never been,
    Carry me on the waves
    To the lands I’ve never seen

    We can sail, we can sail…
    We can steer, we can near

    As you may remember, in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo an evil billionaire torturer plays this song to the chained and helpless hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-u-s-government-hates-the-huns/#comment-1116535
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. If the Israelis (wherever on the globe they are] are so upset about ”refugees” that are getting numbers written (not tattooed) on them and being transported on trains to a camp (where they are not being killed) should not Israel offer them refuge?

    Read More
    • Replies: @zaqan
    The cultural marxists you mean. Jews (the term you are afraid to use), ethnic and religious, are more mixed in opinion.
    , @Dave M.
    No.
  3. His right hand man, George Schöpflin, taught me politics for my BA. The good thing about being taught by refugees from the Eastern Bloc is you get spared the lefty indoctrination. Orban and Schöpflin dislike the EU’s lefty soft totalitarianism, so well explored by Roland Huntford in ‘The New Totalitarians’, as much as the old Soviet left hard totalitarianism.

    Orban has been targeted for destabilisation by the US government but he maintains good ties with Germans, especially with the Bavarian CSU, so he should be fine. Of course he is also fantastically popular (note to the neocon/R2P crowd, that is why Putin is still in power too).

    Read More
  4. …the radical reform process was weakening the independence of Hungary’s democratic institutions, concentrating power in the hands of fewer people and eliminating important checks and balances.

    Thank God that could never happen here!

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    Irony does not appear to be Ambassador Kounalakis' strong suit. Or history. No worries, doubtless her patrón Presidente Hillary (or Jeb -- Kang/Kodos redux) could achieve as much for immigration policy as President Obama has for race relations.

    The voters of U.S. and Western European countries are each getting the democracy they deserve, good and hard. With the valued assistance of the NYT (etc.), I'm sure that Hungarian citizens can get in on the joke, too. All good fun.

    , @Busby
    When it comes to parliamentary v. American democracy, that's considered a feature, not a bug. Isn't it?
    , @Percy Gryce

    Laws governing virtually every institution . . . were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders.
     
    [cough]Obamacare[/cough]
  5. In light of the picture painted in this article of Mr. Orban, his treatment of Richard Spencer and the conference that he sought to organize last year becomes even more incomprehensible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Spencer was an outsider whose plans were ferreted out by enemies in the USA and communicated to their Hungarian fellow travelers well in advance of the Spencer NPI meeting. Unbeknownst to Spencer, the Hungarian activists started talking Spencer up in the Hungarian media: anti-semite, Nazi, KKK, anti-semite, racist, etc. (you know the drill).

    Orban knew nothing except what he read in the papers and what he could easily figure out: Spencer and pals were foreigners whose presence the Hungarian activists were using for agitprop purposes in the media. Spencer had no ground game or connections in Hungary. He just wanted to meet in a nice European town.

    From Orban's perspective, why waste political capital on a handful of unknown foreign tourists/conventioneers meeting in a local hotel? Particularly since Orban had no idea of the factual claims the Hungarian press was making. If you are Orban, you pick your own battles. You don't let Hungarian activists use random foreigners and pick them for you.
  6. This column is so boring and formulaic it might as well have been written by a computer.

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?
     
    One traditional candidate for the exact geographic center of Europe is in the village of Suchowola, Poland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe#Poland

    , @Matra
    If you ever visit Poland and call it eastern Europe there's a reasonable chance the locals will point out to you, politely, that they are in central Europe. That goes doubly for Czechs who might not be as polite as Poles.
    , @reiner Tor
    I think traditionally Central Europe was considered to be between the rivers Rhein and Vistula, and since WW2 most of Poland is there. Before WW2 it was more questionable, but the Polish heartland was definitely in Central Europe even then. We Hungarians consider ourselves Central European, and we also consider Poles our brothers, and so naturally we think they are Central Europeans, too.
  7. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The 4th Axis power was Hungary so Europe is extra careful about what direction Hungarians go. Not as on guard as with Austrians but still.

    Orban doesn’t want total war against the EU so he has made a concession with important implications for future generations of Hungarians. He has acknowledged the Nazi character of Hungary during WWII.

    “”(During World War Two), we were love-less and indifferent when we should have helped, and there were many, very many Hungarians who chose evil over good, who chose shameful acts instead of honest ones.”

    That was the kind of uncompromising language that his critics called for in vain last year, when Orban’s government erected a World War Two monument that Jewish groups said whitewashed Hungary’s role in the Holocaust.” (January 2015)

    The door is now open to fill the curriculum of future generations of Hungarian children with the call to atone for past generations.

    Read More
  8. @Jonathan Silber
    ...the radical reform process was weakening the independence of Hungary’s democratic institutions, concentrating power in the hands of fewer people and eliminating important checks and balances.

    Thank God that could never happen here!

    Irony does not appear to be Ambassador Kounalakis’ strong suit. Or history. No worries, doubtless her patrón Presidente Hillary (or Jeb — Kang/Kodos redux) could achieve as much for immigration policy as President Obama has for race relations.

    The voters of U.S. and Western European countries are each getting the democracy they deserve, good and hard. With the valued assistance of the NYT (etc.), I’m sure that Hungarian citizens can get in on the joke, too. All good fun.

    Read More
  9. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This pretty much illustrates the low quality, crappy nature of the people appointed as our ambassadors abroad: campaign contributors, politically connected types, promoters of the gay agenda, etc. It’s a national embarrassment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "This pretty much illustrates the low quality, crappy nature of the people appointed as our ambassadors abroad: campaign contributors, politically connected types, promoters of the gay agenda, etc. It’s a national embarrassment."

    Well said. A corps of talentless, mediocre hacks.
  10. Orban is a genuine hero, if only he led a more important country, there are certainly others waiting for the cover to get in line.

    Read More
  11. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, “go to Saudi Arabia.” Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people – apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the “editors” definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA

    These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.
     
    LOL. Tell that to the bleeding hearts purging public housing projects within gun shot distance of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NIMBY with yoga meditation.
    , @Whiskey
    We can't go back to Europe. It is run by Muslims now and we don't fancy enslavement like Cervantes.

    As for Hungary, it, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and Greece were all conquered and enslaved by Muslims. So the remember Mohacs and don't want a repeat.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I thought we were better than that."

    We? There is no "we" here that includes "you". We are better. You are not.
    , @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society.

    Why does racism depress you? Sincere question.
    , @Demon for Truth
    Niih,

    Couldn't agree more. I too am embarrassed that you are an American.
    , @Jim Sweeney
    I am a native American with ancestors from Ireland, Hungary and Germany. I come from here - the USA - and I am not the least embarrassed about it. You wrote that you are. Perhaps you ought to leave and live where you won't be embarrassed. I don't much care where you go but you have plenty of choices. Please exercise your freedom to choose and get out of here.
    , @dr kill
    Oh my, who bitch this is? Apparently one who never learned that there are no Native Americans. Clovis People, Vikings or Asiatic wanderers, everybody is from somewhere else.
    The remainder of her comment is similarly error-filled, but I can't be bothered.
    , @Big Bill

    These comments make me embarassed to be an American.
     
    Please don't be embarrassed about being American. I never get embarrassed as an American when Muslim-Americans announce they want to overthrow the Constitution, impose Sharia law, dress all women in gunny sacks, and lynch homosexuals.

    However, given your deep commitment to Third World suffering, I think you should be embarrassed that you have not sponsored one refugee personally. In the five minutes it took you to write your missive, thirty Third World children starved to death.
  12. Steve.

    Hungary comes from “Ungarn” as in Finno-Ugric languages.

    Neither the word Hungary nor Hungarians have anything to do with Huns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm Hungarian. Unfortunately many Hungarian nationalists belong to the tinfoil hat crowd who believe that we are descended from the Huns. (Or at least our language. According to them, Huns were actually the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. How or why those Sumerians would adopt a nomadic lifestyle is left unexplained, but logic or historical knowledge or a basic understanding of linguistics are not the particular strong points of these nationalists.)

    Otherwise your explanation is wrong. The name probably comes from the Onogurs, a conglomerate of Turkic groups, who were mostly unrelated to ancient nomadic Hungarians, but somehow Western European chroniclers used the name to describe Hungarians, too, when they first had contact with them.

    Otherwise we call ourselves magyar (singular) or magyarok (plural) (we don't capitalize ethnic names, but in English that's required so I guess it would be Magyar and Magyars). I personally use the English word Hungarian, regardless of the fact that it comes from medieval chroniclers with limited knowledge.
    , @reiner Tor
    Two of your points were correct, though, the Hungarian language is Finno-Ugric, and the name had nothing to do with Huns.

    The Hungarian nomads probably had something to do with Huns, because nomadic tribal alliances often got reshuffled, women were stolen, tribal alliances were strengthened by arranged intermarriages etc. so probably all nomads in Eastern Europe were at least partly related to each other, and probably also to the remnants of the Huns.
  13. Why Orban detained “asylum” seekers he didn’t want? I don’t know how in Hungary but in Poland it’s deviced that way: Poland gets money per refugee to give him housing, education and stuff, but if he gets caught in Germany then Poland faces financial penalty per every refugee that jumped the border. So Poland has incentive to detain every registered “asylum” seeker. I guess it’s the same in Hungary.
    Btw recently in Polish refugee centers Chechens were trying to intimidate other immigrants(mostly Ukrainians and Vietnamese I think) to obey sharia law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Look up Dublin accord or agreement. It's EU policy
  14. Three months ago, the government posted signs with messages like “If you come to Hungary, you cannot take the jobs of Hungarians!”

    Why the nerve of those people. And wanting to preserve Europes Christian heritage, why they might just as well pull up stakes and move to Branson, MO.

    The Europeans always get surprised when the Muslim immigrants don’t adopt their enlightenment agnosticism. Case in point Michel Houellebecq.

    Read More
  15. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    But the truth is Mr. Orban does not only want to keep these refugees out of Hungary. He wants to keep them out of Europe. If razor wire fences don’t work, perhaps intimidation and detention will.

    What a great guy.

    Read More
  16. @Jonathan Silber
    ...the radical reform process was weakening the independence of Hungary’s democratic institutions, concentrating power in the hands of fewer people and eliminating important checks and balances.

    Thank God that could never happen here!

    When it comes to parliamentary v. American democracy, that’s considered a feature, not a bug. Isn’t it?

    Read More
  17. @Jonathan Silber
    ...the radical reform process was weakening the independence of Hungary’s democratic institutions, concentrating power in the hands of fewer people and eliminating important checks and balances.

    Thank God that could never happen here!

    Laws governing virtually every institution . . . were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders.

    [cough]Obamacare[/cough]

    Read More
  18. Note well that the option that lies beyond all respectable consideration is simply to refuse admittance to these Muslims. In the days of the mass media this monopoly of the thoughscape was effective; much less so in the age of the Internet.

    Read More
  19. Hungarians are genetically related to neighboring European peoples, linguistically related to the Finns, and they have religious ties with Rome and Geneva.

    The Hungarians are not a barbaric Central Asian people. They are the very heart of Europe.

    Their devotion to European political values such as freedom and democracy is nothing less than heroic. They long defended Europe against external threats such as the Cumans, Mongols and Ottomans. They successfully resisted Hapsburg attempts to crush religious liberty and national identity. More than any other European nation, they fiercely resisted Communism, rising up and deposing Communist governments three times (1919, 1956, 1989).

    No wonder they are hated by the intellectual descendants of Bela Kun and Matyos Rakosi, such as Eleni Kounalakis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moo
    But unlike Slovenia or the Czech Republic, Hungary still has not become a developed country. Is there something lacking in them? Some European essence that is not there? Is there average IQ maybe 95?
    , @HA
    "The Hungarians are ...the very heart of Europe."

    The word "America" may have a Hungarian connection. It comes, of course, from Amerigo Vespucci, but Amerigo's name is believed to be the Italian version of St. Imre, the son of King St. Stephen I of Hungary.

    (That being said, while the namesake was Hungarian, Imre may actually be Gothic in origin, as in Emeric or Emmerich.)

  20. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Will US call Israel ‘xenophobic’?

    Is the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia calling it ‘xenophobic’?

    Besides, did Hungarians cause the mess in the Middle East?

    Jews abuse the world and then excuse themselves as they accuse others for the problems they caused.

    Hungarians didn’t engineer the mess in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

    US is now an evil nation.

    Germany is its main whore.

    Jewish power had a big big hand in what is happening, but the Jewish-dominated media spun this around into ‘good suicidal whites and evil patriotic whites’. It’s unbelievable that Jews take no blame or responsibility and even have the temerity to accuse others.

    Read More
  21. …Mr. Orban hid behind European Union protocols…

    …with outdated protocols…

    I wish my old man had given enough money so I could be an Ambassador without ever learning what a Treaty is. Something slightly different than Protocols — like don’t hug the Queen of England.

    Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.

    That’s pretty much what the American Indian Tribes said and, boy, look at how wrong they were.

    The Palestinians too. They’re still mumbling about that “Nakba” thingie, even as Israeli Jews generate economic growth and tax revenues like it’s nobody’s business.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Palestinians too. They’re still mumbling about that “Nakba” thingie, even as Israeli Jews generate economic growth and tax revenues like it’s nobody’s business.

    The nerve of those Palestinian natives! The invaders of their homeland made the desert bloom!
    , @Hibernian
    International agreements are sometimes called protocols. It's true that protocol as in "chief of protocol" relates to order of precedence among officials and proper behavior in order to avoid international incidents, etc.
  22. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Are women aroused by the sight of groups of military men, especially when such groups are seen moving into new territory? Evolutionary theory might predict they would be. It could explain why women seem to tend to be so supportive of current mass immigration patterns.

    Read More
  23. Apparently “Kounalakis” doesn’t (((echo))), but that article sure reads like it does.

    Read More
  24. One would expect Eleni Koulanakis, a descendant of Greek victims of the muslim ottoman empire would be sympathetic to Hungarians being inundated by Muslim infiltrators. Unfortunately, the American victims of the US governments immigration policy such as 9/11, Nidal hassan and the Boston bombing do not have the financial and legal resources to take on the US government. If they had the resources, the US government policy toward muslim immigrants would have changed after 9/11.

    Read More
  25. Eleni Kounalakis is Greek and rich. Why doesn’t she go and help her own people in their distress, rather than pulling a Mrs. Jellyby?

    Read More
  26. @Bert
    This column is so boring and formulaic it might as well have been written by a computer.

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?

    One traditional candidate for the exact geographic center of Europe is in the village of Suchowola, Poland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe#Poland

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Traditionally Europe Ended and Asia began at the Ural Mountains. So that could well be correct.

    The US of course tries to redefine Europe as the NATO tools.
  27. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    LOL. Tell that to the bleeding hearts purging public housing projects within gun shot distance of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NIMBY with yoga meditation.

    Read More
  28. But the truth is Mr. Orban does not only want to keep these refugees out of Hungary. He wants to keep them out of Europe.

    And if the rest of the people of Europe had any sense, they’d be grateful.

    Read More
  29. @John Gruskos
    Hungarians are genetically related to neighboring European peoples, linguistically related to the Finns, and they have religious ties with Rome and Geneva.

    The Hungarians are not a barbaric Central Asian people. They are the very heart of Europe.

    Their devotion to European political values such as freedom and democracy is nothing less than heroic. They long defended Europe against external threats such as the Cumans, Mongols and Ottomans. They successfully resisted Hapsburg attempts to crush religious liberty and national identity. More than any other European nation, they fiercely resisted Communism, rising up and deposing Communist governments three times (1919, 1956, 1989).

    No wonder they are hated by the intellectual descendants of Bela Kun and Matyos Rakosi, such as Eleni Kounalakis.

    But unlike Slovenia or the Czech Republic, Hungary still has not become a developed country. Is there something lacking in them? Some European essence that is not there? Is there average IQ maybe 95?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I'm not going to speak for my Hungarian friend, but in cases where IQ is not necessarily lacking, I would attribute the lag to two things:

    1. a certain cultural inclination/tolerance/resignation towards corruption (and disregard of the public interest), especially of the petty variety, which I believe we were soaked in during our time under the Ottomans. Some of that stereotypical Eastern "decadence" rubbed off on us. We even have quite a number of Turkish/Persian loanwords to describe tipping, bribery etc - șpagă, peșcheș, bacșiș etc ș being read as sh.

    2. a lack of natural inclination towards Western institutions (which require trust and a conscientious majority among functionaries who are also mindful of the public weal) which we have, nevertheless, adopted wholesale as a way of bridging the economic and technological development gap. People say you can't bring democracy to the Middle East, to a people lacking in certain traditions and gradual development of key institutions, habits, modes of thought and social interactions, but there is also gap between Western Europeans and the rest of Europe as well, just not as large. It might have been made worse by Communism. Romania borrowed liberally from Belgian constitutional law, French civil codes etc and frankensteined a good enough framework to facilitate some catch-up growth throughout its modern history. But our hearts were never in it, and corruption, cliques, scandals and the undermining of institutions through personal behavior always cropped up.

    I read some time ago Anatoly Karlin's treatment of Nikolay Trubetzkoy's views on the inherent dangers of Europeanization. I'm going to quote some of it here:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/struggle-europe-mankind/

    "Furthermore, not only is Westernization “extremely difficult and hemmed in by obstacles”, but is also a “thankless undertaking”, since all indigenous inventions, as well as most mixtures of Romano-Germanic and indigenous traditions, will be rejected by Europe because of their taint-by-association with non-European values.

    One consequence of this is that a Westernizing nation “borrows its evaluation of culture from the Romano-Germans”. Cultural imports will always exceed cultural exports, creating a dependency relationship. And these cultural imports must always be implemented, regardless of how jarring or unwholesome is the resultant clash with indigenous traditions – “it must accept without protest everything that genuine Romano-Germans create and consider valuable, even if it conflicts with its national psychology and is poorly understood”. (This basically defines Russia’s unsuccessful attempts to create a Western free-market economy in the early 1990′s, which was carried out by ideologues and hijacked by insiders).

    This has several very deleterious consequences. First, national unity degrades and there arise intense class conflicts and genealogical struggles in the Westernizing nations because of the big differences between various social groups in their degree of Westernization – “social, material and professional differences are much greater in Europeanized nations than in Romano-Germanic nations precisely because ethnographic and cultural distinctions have been added to them”. (Again, one could cite as an example the culturally ultra-stratified Tsarist class system).

    The destruction of national unity and belief in oneself leads to a national inferiority complex – because the standard of comparison is with the West, and because the Europeanized nation is in a constant state of cultural backwardness, this results in low levels of social morale and lack of patriotism. The unfortunate nation is either dominated by, or is forced to take up a subordinate, dependent position relative to the Romano-Germanic nations – even though the latter aren’t really as good or talented as they present themselves.

    Not only do intense attempts to catch up with the West result in permanent, self-reinforcing backwardness (because their powers of indigenous innovation are hemmed in by structural obstacles, hence their forced spiritual dependency on the West), but they are also looked down upon by Westerners – either a) for not Europeanizing far enough, or b) deceitfully repressing their “true nature” under a European veneer. This simultaneous outreach towards the West, and the West’s rejection of it, evokes a tendency in the Europeanized nation to sporadically overcompensate by making leaps into the future in Sisyphean attempts to overtake the West, but this only leads to exhaustion and long periods of stagnation.

    Europeanized nations, finding it impossible to keep pace with the Romano-Germans and so gradually falling behind, try to catch up from time to time by attempting long leaps. Such leaps distort the entire course of historical development. A nation must cover very quickly a distance that the Romano-Germans covered gradually and over a much longer period of time. It must skip several historical rungs and create overnight, ex abrupto, what arose in Romano-Germanic nations as a result of a “series of historical changes”. The consequences of such “leaping” evolution are terrible. Every leap is followed by a period of apparent (from the European standpoint) stagnation, when it is necessary to bring order to the culture, to coordinate the results achieved by a leap in a particular area with other elements of the culture. During this period of “stagnation”, the nation again falls even farther behind. The histories of Europeanized nations are always characterized by brief periods of apparent “progress”, alternating with more or less protracted periods of “stagnation”. In destroying the wholeness and the unbroken incrementalism of the historical process, such historical leaps also disrupt tradition, which is already fragile in a Europeanized nation.

    Let us emphasize: unbroken tradition is a prerequisite for normal evolution. Leaps and jumps create a temporary illusion that the “common European level of civilization” has been achieved, but they cannot advance a nation in the true sense of the word. Leaping evolution wastes national energies, which are already overburdened owing to the very existence of Europeanization. Just as a person who, in trying to keep pace with a speedier companion, will become exhausted and collapse after resorting to long jumps to catch up, so a Europeanized nation will perish after choosing such an evolutionary path and squandering there its national energies. And all of this will happen while faith in oneself is lost, and without the sustaining sense of national unity which was destroyed long before by the fact of Europeanization. Using Russia as an example, the red Bolsheviks – as well as their rabidly free-market, pro-Western Bolshevik descendants, the Russian liberals – are excellent illustrations of this entire phenomenon. Both tried their best to leap into the future of the West, which was perceived to be socialism in 1918, and free-market utopia in 1991 – yet both failed and were destined to fail because of the deep conflict between these Western values and indigenous Russian traditions."
     
    I see a lot of this in my own country. Having read John Lothrop Motley's "Rise of the Dutch Republic", it seemed obvious to me that the descendants of people who had pre-industrial capitalism, mercantilism, localized Republican government and who vigorously defended their ancient privileges in the XVIth century would be better at it today than a people who were a mass of subsistence famers/serfs/peasant soldiery ruled by a small clique of warrior or foreign elites until much later. If Harpending and Cochran were right, they have had quite a few hundred years more of practice/evolution at it than my own countrymen and it shows in their character. Individuals with certain inclinations or IQ levels can close the behavioral gap and behave as the Westerners, but they can't drag their average fellows with them through it.

    I have pondered the idea that, since there is a spectrum of acceptable democratic quality to a system, we could tinker with our system in a way that suits our culture but still provides the best parts of constitutional democracy and republicanism, meaning the avoidance of excess (supposedly, today I'm not so sure), the peaceful transfers of power, the likely repudiation of bad or tyrannical policies and the lesser threat to rights and property.

    I would ditch the stupid semi-presidential system we have currently (where the President and the PM are both major players and are often at loggerheads) and introduce a simple Presidential system (not a fan of Westminster regimes). I would build less for checks and balances and more for rapidly getting things done (older West style, not new West, which is busy with autoerotic asphyxiation). I'd have a system of public initiatives similar to the Swiss one, as a sanity check on the government and as a last ditch effort against derailment through incompetence or political capture. I'd reverse administrative devolution to the counties for the most part, because they are often the most corrupt and have the least amount of inquisitorial press efforts or working local watchdogs (the former mayor of my hometown had Picasso paintings hidden in a crypt and in a nursing home, but he'd been upgraded to finance minister in the meantime so it makes more sense). My vision would be for a clearer focus on individuals, rather than the activity of impersonal institutions which are vulnerable to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy or to capture by corrupt bureaucrats whom the public has never heard of. Just these past few days, a manager at the Mayor's Office in Bucharest was revealed to have accumulated bribes in excess of 100 million euros. I couldn't believe it - just some random pencil pusher I had never heard of with a stamp and brass balls, not the infamous politicians we are all used to.

    I get the sense that my people like it if someone's in charge and they like to be able to assign blame/shame to a person, not some faceless institution one can blame with as much meaningfulness as the weather. So I'd give the people in government more power to get things done and bypass the indolence and inertia characteristic of our organizations, but compensate for it by turning them into real public figures and with hugely invasive means of transparency and draconic anti-corruption laws. This would also make government activity more easily understandable and identifiable to people to the left of the bell curve, who can barely keep up with political shuffling at the top (I know I can't). Besides, I never understood why we still have early XXth century style bureaucracies when we can shift so much to the digital sphere (with appropriate countermeasures and backups of course). Well, I understand their unions are very influential (the most powerful one is called Cartel Alfa, so you can imagine). The legislative branch can keep on playing Angry Birds, but I would try, somehow, to find a way to ensure that a larger number of legislators have specific competencies and experience for work in one of the 19 permanent Parliamentary Commissions (only around four people out of the whole lot of 400 Deputies have any actual experience and knowledge corresponding to the activity of the Commission they're a part of, whether it has something to do with security, politics, social issues, international relations etc).

    Much more to be said but, if I continue, I'd have to join the Dark Enlightenment types.
  30. @YIH
    If the Israelis (wherever on the globe they are] are so upset about ''refugees'' that are getting numbers written (not tattooed) on them and being transported on trains to a camp (where they are not being killed) should not Israel offer them refuge?

    The cultural marxists you mean. Jews (the term you are afraid to use), ethnic and religious, are more mixed in opinion.

    Read More
  31. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    We can’t go back to Europe. It is run by Muslims now and we don’t fancy enslavement like Cervantes.

    As for Hungary, it, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and Greece were all conquered and enslaved by Muslims. So the remember Mohacs and don’t want a repeat.

    Read More
  32. “My fellow diplomats and I watched as Mr. Orban and his Fidesz party voted in 700 new laws and adopted a new constitution. Laws governing virtually every institution — the media, the courts, universities, local government, religious institutions — were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders.”

    Why those dastardly Magyar swine! The nerve! Changes in the law, made at lightning speed, and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders!? What kinds of changes? A massive reordering of the health-care sector? Redefining the age-old definition of marriage? Edicts permitting illegal aliens to enter the country and granting them special benefits and protections? Laws vitiating the protections against unreasonable search and seizure and permitting wholesale surveillance of the public!?

    I’m sure glad I don’t live in a country like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @new guy
    Prohibiting execution of murderers who happen to be under 18?
    , @Perplexed
    Stakeholders: code for buttinskis with their own agendas.
  33. @anonymous
    This pretty much illustrates the low quality, crappy nature of the people appointed as our ambassadors abroad: campaign contributors, politically connected types, promoters of the gay agenda, etc. It's a national embarrassment.

    “This pretty much illustrates the low quality, crappy nature of the people appointed as our ambassadors abroad: campaign contributors, politically connected types, promoters of the gay agenda, etc. It’s a national embarrassment.”

    Well said. A corps of talentless, mediocre hacks.

    Read More
  34. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    “I thought we were better than that.”

    We? There is no “we” here that includes “you”. We are better. You are not.

    Read More
  35. @Bert
    This column is so boring and formulaic it might as well have been written by a computer.

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?

    If you ever visit Poland and call it eastern Europe there’s a reasonable chance the locals will point out to you, politely, that they are in central Europe. That goes doubly for Czechs who might not be as polite as Poles.

    Read More
  36. @Kamran
    Steve.

    Hungary comes from "Ungarn" as in Finno-Ugric languages.

    Neither the word Hungary nor Hungarians have anything to do with Huns.

    I’m Hungarian. Unfortunately many Hungarian nationalists belong to the tinfoil hat crowd who believe that we are descended from the Huns. (Or at least our language. According to them, Huns were actually the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. How or why those Sumerians would adopt a nomadic lifestyle is left unexplained, but logic or historical knowledge or a basic understanding of linguistics are not the particular strong points of these nationalists.)

    Otherwise your explanation is wrong. The name probably comes from the Onogurs, a conglomerate of Turkic groups, who were mostly unrelated to ancient nomadic Hungarians, but somehow Western European chroniclers used the name to describe Hungarians, too, when they first had contact with them.

    Otherwise we call ourselves magyar (singular) or magyarok (plural) (we don’t capitalize ethnic names, but in English that’s required so I guess it would be Magyar and Magyars). I personally use the English word Hungarian, regardless of the fact that it comes from medieval chroniclers with limited knowledge.

    Read More
  37. @Bert
    This column is so boring and formulaic it might as well have been written by a computer.

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?

    I think traditionally Central Europe was considered to be between the rivers Rhein and Vistula, and since WW2 most of Poland is there. Before WW2 it was more questionable, but the Polish heartland was definitely in Central Europe even then. We Hungarians consider ourselves Central European, and we also consider Poles our brothers, and so naturally we think they are Central Europeans, too.

    Read More
  38. @Kamran
    Steve.

    Hungary comes from "Ungarn" as in Finno-Ugric languages.

    Neither the word Hungary nor Hungarians have anything to do with Huns.

    Two of your points were correct, though, the Hungarian language is Finno-Ugric, and the name had nothing to do with Huns.

    The Hungarian nomads probably had something to do with Huns, because nomadic tribal alliances often got reshuffled, women were stolen, tribal alliances were strengthened by arranged intermarriages etc. so probably all nomads in Eastern Europe were at least partly related to each other, and probably also to the remnants of the Huns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kamran
    Right,


    I think Steve is overthinking things here. The age of barbaric alpha male pastoralists invading settled technologically advanced urban areas has past.

    What the fuck are they going to, throw their spears at NATO armies? Shoot AKs?
    , @iSteveFan
    As a Hungarian could you let us know if the average Hungarian would agree with our little ambassador, a Greek no less, or tell her to mind her own business and keep quiet.
  39. @reiner Tor
    Two of your points were correct, though, the Hungarian language is Finno-Ugric, and the name had nothing to do with Huns.

    The Hungarian nomads probably had something to do with Huns, because nomadic tribal alliances often got reshuffled, women were stolen, tribal alliances were strengthened by arranged intermarriages etc. so probably all nomads in Eastern Europe were at least partly related to each other, and probably also to the remnants of the Huns.

    Right,

    I think Steve is overthinking things here. The age of barbaric alpha male pastoralists invading settled technologically advanced urban areas has past.

    What the fuck are they going to, throw their spears at NATO armies? Shoot AKs?

    Read More
  40. I think iSteve was just having a little fun with the Hun=Hungarian concept, and wasn’t trying to be precise. Beyond that, I think I am feeling a lot of East European patriotism here; which is great, but I am an outsider (American) so I will disagree. BTW, I studied most of the languages and culture of the region, but that was a long time ago and I claim no fluency today. IOW, I know where posters are going, and I appreciate it.

    I always considered Central Europe to be the line up the Italian boot through the old German trading towns through the middle up to Hamburg and Denmark. It follows that everything to the East is — Eastern Europe. (It was often called “East Central Europe” back in the ’70′s and ’80′s: It that sense it basically meant the Soviet buffer zone).

    Obviously a lot of the Western orientation of these countries goes hand in hand with their relationship with Germanic entities, either HRE, or the Habsburgs, or the German and Prussian monarchs, and the Hanseatic League (in the north) and so on. And I certainly consider the Baltic states, Poland, Czechia (Bohemia? What is the name now?), and Hungary to be “Western.” But I wouldn’t use that adjective in the same way at least for most of the former Yugoslavia, or Slovakia (despite being under Hungarian control), or Rumania (complicated history) or Bulgaria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I've always considered Western Europe to be Latin, Germanic, and Celtic Europe, basically Germany and Austria and everything west of them. None of the Slavic countries seem fully Western, despite some of them being Roman Catholic and using the Latin alphabet like Poland or Croatia, or having significant German influence, like the Czechs or Hungarians.
    , @Anon 2
    Claiming there is no Central Europe, only East and West, is like claiming there is no Midwest in the U.S.

    Historically, when the major European powers were coming into being around AD 800-900, the fundamental dividing line
    (the markers are still in existence) was Limes Saxoniae which roughly ran along the Elbe-Saale rivers. Under Charlemagne
    it separated the Saxons on the west and the Western Slavs on the east. Slavic territory then ran from Limes Saxoniae (near today's Hamburg) to the Vistula river and beyond. Hence there are hundreds of Slavic place names east of the Elbe, e.g., Krakow near Hamburg. Poland formed in the middle of that vast Slavonic territory around 900 AD. Hence, culturally speaking it's sensible to situate Central Europe as that part of Western Christendom that lies east of the Elbe. It would then encompass eastern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria.
    , @reiner Tor
    We Hungarians don't love the Slovaks too much, but I think they aren't any less Western than Hungarians.
  41. @reiner Tor
    Two of your points were correct, though, the Hungarian language is Finno-Ugric, and the name had nothing to do with Huns.

    The Hungarian nomads probably had something to do with Huns, because nomadic tribal alliances often got reshuffled, women were stolen, tribal alliances were strengthened by arranged intermarriages etc. so probably all nomads in Eastern Europe were at least partly related to each other, and probably also to the remnants of the Huns.

    As a Hungarian could you let us know if the average Hungarian would agree with our little ambassador, a Greek no less, or tell her to mind her own business and keep quiet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Most (like 60 or 70%) of the FB posts by my friends back in Hungary are SWPL, helping refugees, giving them food, etc., but they are mostly upper middle class.

    Also my friends might be more liberal in outlook because I was also very liberal a decade ago.

    And I know of a few people (myself included) who don't post much on FB but are quite worried about immigration. According to surveys most Hungarians are worried. How that will translate to action is hard to tell. It's more a top-down thing pushed by Orbán then a bottom-up thing pushed by the masses. The masses (enough of them) go along, but they don't want it strongly enough to make it happen under a different leader.
  42. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MLK

    ...Mr. Orban hid behind European Union protocols...
     

    ...with outdated protocols...
     
    I wish my old man had given enough money so I could be an Ambassador without ever learning what a Treaty is. Something slightly different than Protocols -- like don't hug the Queen of England.

    Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.

     

    That's pretty much what the American Indian Tribes said and, boy, look at how wrong they were.

    The Palestinians too. They're still mumbling about that "Nakba" thingie, even as Israeli Jews generate economic growth and tax revenues like it's nobody's business.

    The Palestinians too. They’re still mumbling about that “Nakba” thingie, even as Israeli Jews generate economic growth and tax revenues like it’s nobody’s business.

    The nerve of those Palestinian natives! The invaders of their homeland made the desert bloom!

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society.

    Why does racism depress you? Sincere question.

    Read More
  44. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    Niih,

    Couldn’t agree more. I too am embarrassed that you are an American.

    Read More
  45. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    I am a native American with ancestors from Ireland, Hungary and Germany. I come from here – the USA – and I am not the least embarrassed about it. You wrote that you are. Perhaps you ought to leave and live where you won’t be embarrassed. I don’t much care where you go but you have plenty of choices. Please exercise your freedom to choose and get out of here.

    Read More
  46. Trumpenprole [AKA "Haven Monahan"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “And it’s not a message that reflects the fundamental values behind the European Union.”

    -American Progressivism

    Read More
  47. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    Oh my, who bitch this is? Apparently one who never learned that there are no Native Americans. Clovis People, Vikings or Asiatic wanderers, everybody is from somewhere else.
    The remainder of her comment is similarly error-filled, but I can’t be bothered.

    Read More
  48. @Mr. Anon
    "My fellow diplomats and I watched as Mr. Orban and his Fidesz party voted in 700 new laws and adopted a new constitution. Laws governing virtually every institution — the media, the courts, universities, local government, religious institutions — were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders."

    Why those dastardly Magyar swine! The nerve! Changes in the law, made at lightning speed, and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders!? What kinds of changes? A massive reordering of the health-care sector? Redefining the age-old definition of marriage? Edicts permitting illegal aliens to enter the country and granting them special benefits and protections? Laws vitiating the protections against unreasonable search and seizure and permitting wholesale surveillance of the public!?

    I'm sure glad I don't live in a country like that.

    Prohibiting execution of murderers who happen to be under 18?

    Read More
  49. @John Gruskos
    Hungarians are genetically related to neighboring European peoples, linguistically related to the Finns, and they have religious ties with Rome and Geneva.

    The Hungarians are not a barbaric Central Asian people. They are the very heart of Europe.

    Their devotion to European political values such as freedom and democracy is nothing less than heroic. They long defended Europe against external threats such as the Cumans, Mongols and Ottomans. They successfully resisted Hapsburg attempts to crush religious liberty and national identity. More than any other European nation, they fiercely resisted Communism, rising up and deposing Communist governments three times (1919, 1956, 1989).

    No wonder they are hated by the intellectual descendants of Bela Kun and Matyos Rakosi, such as Eleni Kounalakis.

    “The Hungarians are …the very heart of Europe.”

    The word “America” may have a Hungarian connection. It comes, of course, from Amerigo Vespucci, but Amerigo’s name is believed to be the Italian version of St. Imre, the son of King St. Stephen I of Hungary.

    (That being said, while the namesake was Hungarian, Imre may actually be Gothic in origin, as in Emeric or Emmerich.)

    Read More
  50. @Diversity Heretic
    In light of the picture painted in this article of Mr. Orban, his treatment of Richard Spencer and the conference that he sought to organize last year becomes even more incomprehensible.

    Spencer was an outsider whose plans were ferreted out by enemies in the USA and communicated to their Hungarian fellow travelers well in advance of the Spencer NPI meeting. Unbeknownst to Spencer, the Hungarian activists started talking Spencer up in the Hungarian media: anti-semite, Nazi, KKK, anti-semite, racist, etc. (you know the drill).

    Orban knew nothing except what he read in the papers and what he could easily figure out: Spencer and pals were foreigners whose presence the Hungarian activists were using for agitprop purposes in the media. Spencer had no ground game or connections in Hungary. He just wanted to meet in a nice European town.

    From Orban’s perspective, why waste political capital on a handful of unknown foreign tourists/conventioneers meeting in a local hotel? Particularly since Orban had no idea of the factual claims the Hungarian press was making. If you are Orban, you pick your own battles. You don’t let Hungarian activists use random foreigners and pick them for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Thanks! Seems to me a reasonable and cogent explanation. Perhaps Richard should have coordinated with Generation Identitaire and held the conference somewhere in France. They could have made French government efforts to disrupt the conference (and they would have tried) more difficult.
  51. If they can’t read the sign in simple Hungarian, they should not be “immigrants”.

    Read More
  52. If they can’t read the sign in simple Hungarian, they should not be “immigrants”.

    Read More
  53. If they can’t read the sign in simple Hungarian, they should not be “immigrants”.

    Read More
  54. If they can’t read the sign in simple Hungarian, they should not be “immigrants”.

    Read More
  55. @Anonymous
    It is so depressing to read the countless comments that demonstrate the racism that thrives in our society, the geographic and cultural ignorance that prompts people to write, "go to Saudi Arabia." Just imagine what the rest of the U.S. population thinks. Trumps rise is no surprise. At least his crowd is more honest. Too bad there not more Syrain/Iraqi Christian and Jewish people - apparently the only folks worthy of compassion and action. History repeats itself. We must work to keep Syrians together and intact so that an entire civilization is not lost. How many commenters here are Native American? If you are not, I suggest you go back to where you came from as your families were not refugees but actual migrants. This comment probably will not be published, the "editors" definitely have a narrative they are promoting. These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.

    These comments make me embarassed to be an American.

    Please don’t be embarrassed about being American. I never get embarrassed as an American when Muslim-Americans announce they want to overthrow the Constitution, impose Sharia law, dress all women in gunny sacks, and lynch homosexuals.

    However, given your deep commitment to Third World suffering, I think you should be embarrassed that you have not sponsored one refugee personally. In the five minutes it took you to write your missive, thirty Third World children starved to death.

    Read More
  56. Note the phrase “Trains are running again”.
    Perhaps that is a dog whistle/train whistle reference to Nazis and their trains running on time?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    It was Mussolini's Italian Fascists who made the trains run on time.
  57. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    I think iSteve was just having a little fun with the Hun=Hungarian concept, and wasn't trying to be precise. Beyond that, I think I am feeling a lot of East European patriotism here; which is great, but I am an outsider (American) so I will disagree. BTW, I studied most of the languages and culture of the region, but that was a long time ago and I claim no fluency today. IOW, I know where posters are going, and I appreciate it.

    I always considered Central Europe to be the line up the Italian boot through the old German trading towns through the middle up to Hamburg and Denmark. It follows that everything to the East is -- Eastern Europe. (It was often called "East Central Europe" back in the '70's and '80's: It that sense it basically meant the Soviet buffer zone).

    Obviously a lot of the Western orientation of these countries goes hand in hand with their relationship with Germanic entities, either HRE, or the Habsburgs, or the German and Prussian monarchs, and the Hanseatic League (in the north) and so on. And I certainly consider the Baltic states, Poland, Czechia (Bohemia? What is the name now?), and Hungary to be "Western." But I wouldn't use that adjective in the same way at least for most of the former Yugoslavia, or Slovakia (despite being under Hungarian control), or Rumania (complicated history) or Bulgaria.

    I’ve always considered Western Europe to be Latin, Germanic, and Celtic Europe, basically Germany and Austria and everything west of them. None of the Slavic countries seem fully Western, despite some of them being Roman Catholic and using the Latin alphabet like Poland or Croatia, or having significant German influence, like the Czechs or Hungarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Hungarians are not Slavs. Neither are Romanians.
    , @Anon 2
    If democracy is considered a defining feature of the Western
    tradition, then Germany can barely be regarded as part of the West.
    For centuries, the German states, which were part of the Holy
    Roman Empire until 1806, were ruled autocratically . Germany's
    love of its Sonderweg, basically strong man rule (e.g., Frederick the Great
    or more recently Hitler) meant that democracy had to be imposed
    on Germany from the outside e.g., after WW I. In this sense Germany is more
    like Russia. Both countries have a very short or almost nonexistent
    tradition of democracy or the rule of law. Need I mention Emperor
    Putin or Empress Merkel? That's why I think that Germany should be
    viewed as part of Central Europe, and not Western Europe. It's
    definitely not a country like Britain or France.

    By contrast, the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, which in 1600 was the
    largest country in Europe, had around that time a guarantee of religious
    freedom even as religious wars were raging in German states and
    elsewhere, had habeas corpus, and had a proportion of people
    entitled to vote (15%) that wasn't reached in Britain until the 19th
    century. In 1791 Poland also had the first written constitution in
    Europe. Would Germany or Russia allow such Jacobin tendencies
    in their midst? Of course not. They pounced on Poland, and throughout
    the 19th century systematically tried to destroy Poland's
    educational system (keep them stupid, you know) , etc. But Poland has
    a very strong culture, so it survived that onslaught with flying colors.

  58. @Mr. Anon
    "My fellow diplomats and I watched as Mr. Orban and his Fidesz party voted in 700 new laws and adopted a new constitution. Laws governing virtually every institution — the media, the courts, universities, local government, religious institutions — were rewritten, most at lighting speed and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders."

    Why those dastardly Magyar swine! The nerve! Changes in the law, made at lightning speed, and with little or no input from opposition parties or civil society stakeholders!? What kinds of changes? A massive reordering of the health-care sector? Redefining the age-old definition of marriage? Edicts permitting illegal aliens to enter the country and granting them special benefits and protections? Laws vitiating the protections against unreasonable search and seizure and permitting wholesale surveillance of the public!?

    I'm sure glad I don't live in a country like that.

    Stakeholders: code for buttinskis with their own agendas.

    Read More
  59. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I don’t think Steve is making a serious anthropological point. In American and British culture, the Hungarians have been associated with the Huns simply because of the name and the fact they are east of the US and Britain. The Germans as well alongside the Austro-Hungarian Empire were demonized as Huns during WW1 because they were considered hostile barbarians east of the UK and US. The criticism of the Hungarians for being cruel barbarians by US government officials today is sort of in the same vein, but obviously less cartoonish and colorful.

    Read More
  60. @Moo
    But unlike Slovenia or the Czech Republic, Hungary still has not become a developed country. Is there something lacking in them? Some European essence that is not there? Is there average IQ maybe 95?

    I’m not going to speak for my Hungarian friend, but in cases where IQ is not necessarily lacking, I would attribute the lag to two things:

    1. a certain cultural inclination/tolerance/resignation towards corruption (and disregard of the public interest), especially of the petty variety, which I believe we were soaked in during our time under the Ottomans. Some of that stereotypical Eastern “decadence” rubbed off on us. We even have quite a number of Turkish/Persian loanwords to describe tipping, bribery etc – șpagă, peșcheș, bacșiș etc ș being read as sh.

    2. a lack of natural inclination towards Western institutions (which require trust and a conscientious majority among functionaries who are also mindful of the public weal) which we have, nevertheless, adopted wholesale as a way of bridging the economic and technological development gap. People say you can’t bring democracy to the Middle East, to a people lacking in certain traditions and gradual development of key institutions, habits, modes of thought and social interactions, but there is also gap between Western Europeans and the rest of Europe as well, just not as large. It might have been made worse by Communism. Romania borrowed liberally from Belgian constitutional law, French civil codes etc and frankensteined a good enough framework to facilitate some catch-up growth throughout its modern history. But our hearts were never in it, and corruption, cliques, scandals and the undermining of institutions through personal behavior always cropped up.

    I read some time ago Anatoly Karlin’s treatment of Nikolay Trubetzkoy’s views on the inherent dangers of Europeanization. I’m going to quote some of it here:

    [MORE]

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/struggle-europe-mankind/

    “Furthermore, not only is Westernization “extremely difficult and hemmed in by obstacles”, but is also a “thankless undertaking”, since all indigenous inventions, as well as most mixtures of Romano-Germanic and indigenous traditions, will be rejected by Europe because of their taint-by-association with non-European values.

    One consequence of this is that a Westernizing nation “borrows its evaluation of culture from the Romano-Germans”. Cultural imports will always exceed cultural exports, creating a dependency relationship. And these cultural imports must always be implemented, regardless of how jarring or unwholesome is the resultant clash with indigenous traditions – “it must accept without protest everything that genuine Romano-Germans create and consider valuable, even if it conflicts with its national psychology and is poorly understood”. (This basically defines Russia’s unsuccessful attempts to create a Western free-market economy in the early 1990′s, which was carried out by ideologues and hijacked by insiders).

    This has several very deleterious consequences. First, national unity degrades and there arise intense class conflicts and genealogical struggles in the Westernizing nations because of the big differences between various social groups in their degree of Westernization – “social, material and professional differences are much greater in Europeanized nations than in Romano-Germanic nations precisely because ethnographic and cultural distinctions have been added to them”. (Again, one could cite as an example the culturally ultra-stratified Tsarist class system).

    The destruction of national unity and belief in oneself leads to a national inferiority complex – because the standard of comparison is with the West, and because the Europeanized nation is in a constant state of cultural backwardness, this results in low levels of social morale and lack of patriotism. The unfortunate nation is either dominated by, or is forced to take up a subordinate, dependent position relative to the Romano-Germanic nations – even though the latter aren’t really as good or talented as they present themselves.

    Not only do intense attempts to catch up with the West result in permanent, self-reinforcing backwardness (because their powers of indigenous innovation are hemmed in by structural obstacles, hence their forced spiritual dependency on the West), but they are also looked down upon by Westerners – either a) for not Europeanizing far enough, or b) deceitfully repressing their “true nature” under a European veneer. This simultaneous outreach towards the West, and the West’s rejection of it, evokes a tendency in the Europeanized nation to sporadically overcompensate by making leaps into the future in Sisyphean attempts to overtake the West, but this only leads to exhaustion and long periods of stagnation.

    Europeanized nations, finding it impossible to keep pace with the Romano-Germans and so gradually falling behind, try to catch up from time to time by attempting long leaps. Such leaps distort the entire course of historical development. A nation must cover very quickly a distance that the Romano-Germans covered gradually and over a much longer period of time. It must skip several historical rungs and create overnight, ex abrupto, what arose in Romano-Germanic nations as a result of a “series of historical changes”. The consequences of such “leaping” evolution are terrible. Every leap is followed by a period of apparent (from the European standpoint) stagnation, when it is necessary to bring order to the culture, to coordinate the results achieved by a leap in a particular area with other elements of the culture. During this period of “stagnation”, the nation again falls even farther behind. The histories of Europeanized nations are always characterized by brief periods of apparent “progress”, alternating with more or less protracted periods of “stagnation”. In destroying the wholeness and the unbroken incrementalism of the historical process, such historical leaps also disrupt tradition, which is already fragile in a Europeanized nation.

    Let us emphasize: unbroken tradition is a prerequisite for normal evolution. Leaps and jumps create a temporary illusion that the “common European level of civilization” has been achieved, but they cannot advance a nation in the true sense of the word. Leaping evolution wastes national energies, which are already overburdened owing to the very existence of Europeanization. Just as a person who, in trying to keep pace with a speedier companion, will become exhausted and collapse after resorting to long jumps to catch up, so a Europeanized nation will perish after choosing such an evolutionary path and squandering there its national energies. And all of this will happen while faith in oneself is lost, and without the sustaining sense of national unity which was destroyed long before by the fact of Europeanization. Using Russia as an example, the red Bolsheviks – as well as their rabidly free-market, pro-Western Bolshevik descendants, the Russian liberals – are excellent illustrations of this entire phenomenon. Both tried their best to leap into the future of the West, which was perceived to be socialism in 1918, and free-market utopia in 1991 – yet both failed and were destined to fail because of the deep conflict between these Western values and indigenous Russian traditions.”

    I see a lot of this in my own country. Having read John Lothrop Motley’s “Rise of the Dutch Republic”, it seemed obvious to me that the descendants of people who had pre-industrial capitalism, mercantilism, localized Republican government and who vigorously defended their ancient privileges in the XVIth century would be better at it today than a people who were a mass of subsistence famers/serfs/peasant soldiery ruled by a small clique of warrior or foreign elites until much later. If Harpending and Cochran were right, they have had quite a few hundred years more of practice/evolution at it than my own countrymen and it shows in their character. Individuals with certain inclinations or IQ levels can close the behavioral gap and behave as the Westerners, but they can’t drag their average fellows with them through it.

    I have pondered the idea that, since there is a spectrum of acceptable democratic quality to a system, we could tinker with our system in a way that suits our culture but still provides the best parts of constitutional democracy and republicanism, meaning the avoidance of excess (supposedly, today I’m not so sure), the peaceful transfers of power, the likely repudiation of bad or tyrannical policies and the lesser threat to rights and property.

    I would ditch the stupid semi-presidential system we have currently (where the President and the PM are both major players and are often at loggerheads) and introduce a simple Presidential system (not a fan of Westminster regimes). I would build less for checks and balances and more for rapidly getting things done (older West style, not new West, which is busy with autoerotic asphyxiation). I’d have a system of public initiatives similar to the Swiss one, as a sanity check on the government and as a last ditch effort against derailment through incompetence or political capture. I’d reverse administrative devolution to the counties for the most part, because they are often the most corrupt and have the least amount of inquisitorial press efforts or working local watchdogs (the former mayor of my hometown had Picasso paintings hidden in a crypt and in a nursing home, but he’d been upgraded to finance minister in the meantime so it makes more sense). My vision would be for a clearer focus on individuals, rather than the activity of impersonal institutions which are vulnerable to Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy or to capture by corrupt bureaucrats whom the public has never heard of. Just these past few days, a manager at the Mayor’s Office in Bucharest was revealed to have accumulated bribes in excess of 100 million euros. I couldn’t believe it – just some random pencil pusher I had never heard of with a stamp and brass balls, not the infamous politicians we are all used to.

    I get the sense that my people like it if someone’s in charge and they like to be able to assign blame/shame to a person, not some faceless institution one can blame with as much meaningfulness as the weather. So I’d give the people in government more power to get things done and bypass the indolence and inertia characteristic of our organizations, but compensate for it by turning them into real public figures and with hugely invasive means of transparency and draconic anti-corruption laws. This would also make government activity more easily understandable and identifiable to people to the left of the bell curve, who can barely keep up with political shuffling at the top (I know I can’t). Besides, I never understood why we still have early XXth century style bureaucracies when we can shift so much to the digital sphere (with appropriate countermeasures and backups of course). Well, I understand their unions are very influential (the most powerful one is called Cartel Alfa, so you can imagine). The legislative branch can keep on playing Angry Birds, but I would try, somehow, to find a way to ensure that a larger number of legislators have specific competencies and experience for work in one of the 19 permanent Parliamentary Commissions (only around four people out of the whole lot of 400 Deputies have any actual experience and knowledge corresponding to the activity of the Commission they’re a part of, whether it has something to do with security, politics, social issues, international relations etc).

    Much more to be said but, if I continue, I’d have to join the Dark Enlightenment types.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @anon
    I think the idea of tailoring the mechanisms of western style democracy to different demographics is spot on.

    The aims are the important bit not the precise mechanisms that work(ed) among particular groups.
    , @reiner Tor
    Your long post was worth reading. Orbán is moving the Hungarian system in that direction, but I'm afraid once he loses power the centralization might go with him or worse, be used by leftists for leftist agendas.

    On the other hand, while we also have the word "baksis" (as in Romanian, to be pronounced "bakshish"), so there's some Ottoman influence, but we had centuries of Habsburg rule afterwards, and so Hungary's corruption levels dropped with time. However, then came communism...
  61. @MLK

    ...Mr. Orban hid behind European Union protocols...
     

    ...with outdated protocols...
     
    I wish my old man had given enough money so I could be an Ambassador without ever learning what a Treaty is. Something slightly different than Protocols -- like don't hug the Queen of England.

    Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.

     

    That's pretty much what the American Indian Tribes said and, boy, look at how wrong they were.

    The Palestinians too. They're still mumbling about that "Nakba" thingie, even as Israeli Jews generate economic growth and tax revenues like it's nobody's business.

    International agreements are sometimes called protocols. It’s true that protocol as in “chief of protocol” relates to order of precedence among officials and proper behavior in order to avoid international incidents, etc.

    Read More
  62. @SPMoore8
    I think iSteve was just having a little fun with the Hun=Hungarian concept, and wasn't trying to be precise. Beyond that, I think I am feeling a lot of East European patriotism here; which is great, but I am an outsider (American) so I will disagree. BTW, I studied most of the languages and culture of the region, but that was a long time ago and I claim no fluency today. IOW, I know where posters are going, and I appreciate it.

    I always considered Central Europe to be the line up the Italian boot through the old German trading towns through the middle up to Hamburg and Denmark. It follows that everything to the East is -- Eastern Europe. (It was often called "East Central Europe" back in the '70's and '80's: It that sense it basically meant the Soviet buffer zone).

    Obviously a lot of the Western orientation of these countries goes hand in hand with their relationship with Germanic entities, either HRE, or the Habsburgs, or the German and Prussian monarchs, and the Hanseatic League (in the north) and so on. And I certainly consider the Baltic states, Poland, Czechia (Bohemia? What is the name now?), and Hungary to be "Western." But I wouldn't use that adjective in the same way at least for most of the former Yugoslavia, or Slovakia (despite being under Hungarian control), or Rumania (complicated history) or Bulgaria.

    Claiming there is no Central Europe, only East and West, is like claiming there is no Midwest in the U.S.

    Historically, when the major European powers were coming into being around AD 800-900, the fundamental dividing line
    (the markers are still in existence) was Limes Saxoniae which roughly ran along the Elbe-Saale rivers. Under Charlemagne
    it separated the Saxons on the west and the Western Slavs on the east. Slavic territory then ran from Limes Saxoniae (near today’s Hamburg) to the Vistula river and beyond. Hence there are hundreds of Slavic place names east of the Elbe, e.g., Krakow near Hamburg. Poland formed in the middle of that vast Slavonic territory around 900 AD. Hence, culturally speaking it’s sensible to situate Central Europe as that part of Western Christendom that lies east of the Elbe. It would then encompass eastern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Like I said earlier, I can understand that East European patriots would want to claim that they are "Central Europeans" but all I see are arguments that somewhat arbitrarily get the result one wants.

    "Western Europe" usually stops at the Rhine: Thus France, Benelux, UK, Spain, etc. = West. Germany is Central Europe, along with Italy, and Bohemia. Not all Germany, historically, either. I mean, East Prussia is not normally considered "Central Europe". Eastern Europe is everything else.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Slavic place names in Germany, and there are also hundreds of German place names in Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary. So I don't see where that gets us. Especially in the case of Poland, where the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended all the way to the Dniepr. That's not "Central Europe".

    When Germans and Poles were looking for a name to describe Germanic expansion into today's Poland, the Baltic, Transylvania, etc. they came up with "Drang nach Osten" (Drive to the East) not "Drang nach Mitte". On the other hand, when Germans were looking for a term to describe German hegemony in the East, they came up with "Mitteleuropa", which more or less corresponds with your idea of "Central" Europe and my notion of "Western orientation."

    But these are all cultural-political notions, just as the reason most people normally conceive of anything East of (today's) Germany as "Eastern Europe" is due to Soviet domination (and thus an Eastern orientation) for 50 years. By the same token, any territories which were under Russo-Soviet domination since forever and especially since the Partitions (over 230 years ago) were also considered "Eastern."

    Again, I appreciate the patriotism involved, but in ordinary English parlance neither Poland nor Hungary are considered "Central Europe" although that definition is changing, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU.

    BTW, this may have been said already, but the entire "Hun" usage goes back to Wilhelm II's invocation of the "Huns" when the German contingent was going off to assist the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. The name was then used to bash the Germans in 1914, with an expansion of the meaning since then. (I remember talking to a WW1 veteran 40 years ago who still had a noticeable chest wound who told me he went to war because "We had to stop the Hun.")

    iSteve used the general opprobium associated with that term to make some amusing parallels with the demonization of Hungary (Magyarorszag, for the magyars) by the SJW crowd today. That is all.
  63. @Ivy
    Note the phrase "Trains are running again".
    Perhaps that is a dog whistle/train whistle reference to Nazis and their trains running on time?

    It was Mussolini’s Italian Fascists who made the trains run on time.

    Read More
  64. @Lex
    Why Orban detained "asylum" seekers he didn't want? I don't know how in Hungary but in Poland it's deviced that way: Poland gets money per refugee to give him housing, education and stuff, but if he gets caught in Germany then Poland faces financial penalty per every refugee that jumped the border. So Poland has incentive to detain every registered "asylum" seeker. I guess it's the same in Hungary.
    Btw recently in Polish refugee centers Chechens were trying to intimidate other immigrants(mostly Ukrainians and Vietnamese I think) to obey sharia law.

    Look up Dublin accord or agreement. It’s EU policy

    Read More
  65. @Percy Gryce

    Also Poland is in central Europe now?
     
    One traditional candidate for the exact geographic center of Europe is in the village of Suchowola, Poland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe#Poland

    Traditionally Europe Ended and Asia began at the Ural Mountains. So that could well be correct.

    The US of course tries to redefine Europe as the NATO tools.

    Read More
  66. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “These comments make me embarassed to be an American. I thought we were better than that.”

    You sound like a hopelessly naive callow girl for which all things are possible, for which everything is optional, for which there is no reason not to live in the world as it should be rather than the world as it is. I used to wonder how all those aristocrats could have been so tone deaf as to end up with their heads on poles. No more. I think people like you, though you don’t intend it, are among the greatest causes of evil in the world.

    Read More
  67. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Just to reiterate for young US readers or readers outside the US, during WWI “The Hun” was the generic term for “the enemy” (at least in the US). If you were a boy that browsed history books during the 20th century, you saw a lot of war posters about the Evil Hun. He was worse than Haven Monahan! These sort of history books are probably declasse today.

    Arts of the Great War, 1914-1919:

    “…Rapidly the term “Hun” became synonymous for German in the Allied press—a name designed to elicit a sense of peril and monstrous barbarism. …

    …Allied propagandists used this allusion to characterize Germans as barbarians and savages with no respect for European civilization or humanitarian values. …

    …The term “Hun” was used to great effect in many poster campaigns during the conflict. …

    …Film cartoons like Lancelot Speed depicted idealized clashes between noble Tommies and horrible Huns. …

    …In Germany, many were surprised by their portrayal. …

    …the “Hun” imagery never faded and was an evocative and persuasive tool in the propaganda war.”

    “Here comes the Hun: how First World War cemented a popular term for Germans”.

    Read More
  68. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Romanian
    I'm not going to speak for my Hungarian friend, but in cases where IQ is not necessarily lacking, I would attribute the lag to two things:

    1. a certain cultural inclination/tolerance/resignation towards corruption (and disregard of the public interest), especially of the petty variety, which I believe we were soaked in during our time under the Ottomans. Some of that stereotypical Eastern "decadence" rubbed off on us. We even have quite a number of Turkish/Persian loanwords to describe tipping, bribery etc - șpagă, peșcheș, bacșiș etc ș being read as sh.

    2. a lack of natural inclination towards Western institutions (which require trust and a conscientious majority among functionaries who are also mindful of the public weal) which we have, nevertheless, adopted wholesale as a way of bridging the economic and technological development gap. People say you can't bring democracy to the Middle East, to a people lacking in certain traditions and gradual development of key institutions, habits, modes of thought and social interactions, but there is also gap between Western Europeans and the rest of Europe as well, just not as large. It might have been made worse by Communism. Romania borrowed liberally from Belgian constitutional law, French civil codes etc and frankensteined a good enough framework to facilitate some catch-up growth throughout its modern history. But our hearts were never in it, and corruption, cliques, scandals and the undermining of institutions through personal behavior always cropped up.

    I read some time ago Anatoly Karlin's treatment of Nikolay Trubetzkoy's views on the inherent dangers of Europeanization. I'm going to quote some of it here:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/struggle-europe-mankind/

    "Furthermore, not only is Westernization “extremely difficult and hemmed in by obstacles”, but is also a “thankless undertaking”, since all indigenous inventions, as well as most mixtures of Romano-Germanic and indigenous traditions, will be rejected by Europe because of their taint-by-association with non-European values.

    One consequence of this is that a Westernizing nation “borrows its evaluation of culture from the Romano-Germans”. Cultural imports will always exceed cultural exports, creating a dependency relationship. And these cultural imports must always be implemented, regardless of how jarring or unwholesome is the resultant clash with indigenous traditions – “it must accept without protest everything that genuine Romano-Germans create and consider valuable, even if it conflicts with its national psychology and is poorly understood”. (This basically defines Russia’s unsuccessful attempts to create a Western free-market economy in the early 1990′s, which was carried out by ideologues and hijacked by insiders).

    This has several very deleterious consequences. First, national unity degrades and there arise intense class conflicts and genealogical struggles in the Westernizing nations because of the big differences between various social groups in their degree of Westernization – “social, material and professional differences are much greater in Europeanized nations than in Romano-Germanic nations precisely because ethnographic and cultural distinctions have been added to them”. (Again, one could cite as an example the culturally ultra-stratified Tsarist class system).

    The destruction of national unity and belief in oneself leads to a national inferiority complex – because the standard of comparison is with the West, and because the Europeanized nation is in a constant state of cultural backwardness, this results in low levels of social morale and lack of patriotism. The unfortunate nation is either dominated by, or is forced to take up a subordinate, dependent position relative to the Romano-Germanic nations – even though the latter aren’t really as good or talented as they present themselves.

    Not only do intense attempts to catch up with the West result in permanent, self-reinforcing backwardness (because their powers of indigenous innovation are hemmed in by structural obstacles, hence their forced spiritual dependency on the West), but they are also looked down upon by Westerners – either a) for not Europeanizing far enough, or b) deceitfully repressing their “true nature” under a European veneer. This simultaneous outreach towards the West, and the West’s rejection of it, evokes a tendency in the Europeanized nation to sporadically overcompensate by making leaps into the future in Sisyphean attempts to overtake the West, but this only leads to exhaustion and long periods of stagnation.

    Europeanized nations, finding it impossible to keep pace with the Romano-Germans and so gradually falling behind, try to catch up from time to time by attempting long leaps. Such leaps distort the entire course of historical development. A nation must cover very quickly a distance that the Romano-Germans covered gradually and over a much longer period of time. It must skip several historical rungs and create overnight, ex abrupto, what arose in Romano-Germanic nations as a result of a “series of historical changes”. The consequences of such “leaping” evolution are terrible. Every leap is followed by a period of apparent (from the European standpoint) stagnation, when it is necessary to bring order to the culture, to coordinate the results achieved by a leap in a particular area with other elements of the culture. During this period of “stagnation”, the nation again falls even farther behind. The histories of Europeanized nations are always characterized by brief periods of apparent “progress”, alternating with more or less protracted periods of “stagnation”. In destroying the wholeness and the unbroken incrementalism of the historical process, such historical leaps also disrupt tradition, which is already fragile in a Europeanized nation.

    Let us emphasize: unbroken tradition is a prerequisite for normal evolution. Leaps and jumps create a temporary illusion that the “common European level of civilization” has been achieved, but they cannot advance a nation in the true sense of the word. Leaping evolution wastes national energies, which are already overburdened owing to the very existence of Europeanization. Just as a person who, in trying to keep pace with a speedier companion, will become exhausted and collapse after resorting to long jumps to catch up, so a Europeanized nation will perish after choosing such an evolutionary path and squandering there its national energies. And all of this will happen while faith in oneself is lost, and without the sustaining sense of national unity which was destroyed long before by the fact of Europeanization. Using Russia as an example, the red Bolsheviks – as well as their rabidly free-market, pro-Western Bolshevik descendants, the Russian liberals – are excellent illustrations of this entire phenomenon. Both tried their best to leap into the future of the West, which was perceived to be socialism in 1918, and free-market utopia in 1991 – yet both failed and were destined to fail because of the deep conflict between these Western values and indigenous Russian traditions."
     
    I see a lot of this in my own country. Having read John Lothrop Motley's "Rise of the Dutch Republic", it seemed obvious to me that the descendants of people who had pre-industrial capitalism, mercantilism, localized Republican government and who vigorously defended their ancient privileges in the XVIth century would be better at it today than a people who were a mass of subsistence famers/serfs/peasant soldiery ruled by a small clique of warrior or foreign elites until much later. If Harpending and Cochran were right, they have had quite a few hundred years more of practice/evolution at it than my own countrymen and it shows in their character. Individuals with certain inclinations or IQ levels can close the behavioral gap and behave as the Westerners, but they can't drag their average fellows with them through it.

    I have pondered the idea that, since there is a spectrum of acceptable democratic quality to a system, we could tinker with our system in a way that suits our culture but still provides the best parts of constitutional democracy and republicanism, meaning the avoidance of excess (supposedly, today I'm not so sure), the peaceful transfers of power, the likely repudiation of bad or tyrannical policies and the lesser threat to rights and property.

    I would ditch the stupid semi-presidential system we have currently (where the President and the PM are both major players and are often at loggerheads) and introduce a simple Presidential system (not a fan of Westminster regimes). I would build less for checks and balances and more for rapidly getting things done (older West style, not new West, which is busy with autoerotic asphyxiation). I'd have a system of public initiatives similar to the Swiss one, as a sanity check on the government and as a last ditch effort against derailment through incompetence or political capture. I'd reverse administrative devolution to the counties for the most part, because they are often the most corrupt and have the least amount of inquisitorial press efforts or working local watchdogs (the former mayor of my hometown had Picasso paintings hidden in a crypt and in a nursing home, but he'd been upgraded to finance minister in the meantime so it makes more sense). My vision would be for a clearer focus on individuals, rather than the activity of impersonal institutions which are vulnerable to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy or to capture by corrupt bureaucrats whom the public has never heard of. Just these past few days, a manager at the Mayor's Office in Bucharest was revealed to have accumulated bribes in excess of 100 million euros. I couldn't believe it - just some random pencil pusher I had never heard of with a stamp and brass balls, not the infamous politicians we are all used to.

    I get the sense that my people like it if someone's in charge and they like to be able to assign blame/shame to a person, not some faceless institution one can blame with as much meaningfulness as the weather. So I'd give the people in government more power to get things done and bypass the indolence and inertia characteristic of our organizations, but compensate for it by turning them into real public figures and with hugely invasive means of transparency and draconic anti-corruption laws. This would also make government activity more easily understandable and identifiable to people to the left of the bell curve, who can barely keep up with political shuffling at the top (I know I can't). Besides, I never understood why we still have early XXth century style bureaucracies when we can shift so much to the digital sphere (with appropriate countermeasures and backups of course). Well, I understand their unions are very influential (the most powerful one is called Cartel Alfa, so you can imagine). The legislative branch can keep on playing Angry Birds, but I would try, somehow, to find a way to ensure that a larger number of legislators have specific competencies and experience for work in one of the 19 permanent Parliamentary Commissions (only around four people out of the whole lot of 400 Deputies have any actual experience and knowledge corresponding to the activity of the Commission they're a part of, whether it has something to do with security, politics, social issues, international relations etc).

    Much more to be said but, if I continue, I'd have to join the Dark Enlightenment types.

    I think the idea of tailoring the mechanisms of western style democracy to different demographics is spot on.

    The aims are the important bit not the precise mechanisms that work(ed) among particular groups.

    Read More
  69. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Kounolakis is a perfect example of Washington’s role in trying to destroy the European nations.

    Read More
  70. Just to reiterate for young US readers or readers outside the US, during WWI “The Hun” was the generic term for “the enemy” (at least in the US)

    I’m surprised some people took the ‘hun’ thing literally. It’s used beyond the US too. In Scotland and Northern Ireland it has long been derogatory slang for Protestants.

    Rangers fans to lobby for ban of ‘hun’

    and

    Northern Ireland police outlaw ‘fenians’ and ‘huns’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard
    It's like how "Vandal" is a generic term for people engaged in destruction and mindless defacing, not seriously meant to imply genetic kinship with the Germanic tribe that used to inhabit Spain and North Africa.
  71. @Romanian
    I'm not going to speak for my Hungarian friend, but in cases where IQ is not necessarily lacking, I would attribute the lag to two things:

    1. a certain cultural inclination/tolerance/resignation towards corruption (and disregard of the public interest), especially of the petty variety, which I believe we were soaked in during our time under the Ottomans. Some of that stereotypical Eastern "decadence" rubbed off on us. We even have quite a number of Turkish/Persian loanwords to describe tipping, bribery etc - șpagă, peșcheș, bacșiș etc ș being read as sh.

    2. a lack of natural inclination towards Western institutions (which require trust and a conscientious majority among functionaries who are also mindful of the public weal) which we have, nevertheless, adopted wholesale as a way of bridging the economic and technological development gap. People say you can't bring democracy to the Middle East, to a people lacking in certain traditions and gradual development of key institutions, habits, modes of thought and social interactions, but there is also gap between Western Europeans and the rest of Europe as well, just not as large. It might have been made worse by Communism. Romania borrowed liberally from Belgian constitutional law, French civil codes etc and frankensteined a good enough framework to facilitate some catch-up growth throughout its modern history. But our hearts were never in it, and corruption, cliques, scandals and the undermining of institutions through personal behavior always cropped up.

    I read some time ago Anatoly Karlin's treatment of Nikolay Trubetzkoy's views on the inherent dangers of Europeanization. I'm going to quote some of it here:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/struggle-europe-mankind/

    "Furthermore, not only is Westernization “extremely difficult and hemmed in by obstacles”, but is also a “thankless undertaking”, since all indigenous inventions, as well as most mixtures of Romano-Germanic and indigenous traditions, will be rejected by Europe because of their taint-by-association with non-European values.

    One consequence of this is that a Westernizing nation “borrows its evaluation of culture from the Romano-Germans”. Cultural imports will always exceed cultural exports, creating a dependency relationship. And these cultural imports must always be implemented, regardless of how jarring or unwholesome is the resultant clash with indigenous traditions – “it must accept without protest everything that genuine Romano-Germans create and consider valuable, even if it conflicts with its national psychology and is poorly understood”. (This basically defines Russia’s unsuccessful attempts to create a Western free-market economy in the early 1990′s, which was carried out by ideologues and hijacked by insiders).

    This has several very deleterious consequences. First, national unity degrades and there arise intense class conflicts and genealogical struggles in the Westernizing nations because of the big differences between various social groups in their degree of Westernization – “social, material and professional differences are much greater in Europeanized nations than in Romano-Germanic nations precisely because ethnographic and cultural distinctions have been added to them”. (Again, one could cite as an example the culturally ultra-stratified Tsarist class system).

    The destruction of national unity and belief in oneself leads to a national inferiority complex – because the standard of comparison is with the West, and because the Europeanized nation is in a constant state of cultural backwardness, this results in low levels of social morale and lack of patriotism. The unfortunate nation is either dominated by, or is forced to take up a subordinate, dependent position relative to the Romano-Germanic nations – even though the latter aren’t really as good or talented as they present themselves.

    Not only do intense attempts to catch up with the West result in permanent, self-reinforcing backwardness (because their powers of indigenous innovation are hemmed in by structural obstacles, hence their forced spiritual dependency on the West), but they are also looked down upon by Westerners – either a) for not Europeanizing far enough, or b) deceitfully repressing their “true nature” under a European veneer. This simultaneous outreach towards the West, and the West’s rejection of it, evokes a tendency in the Europeanized nation to sporadically overcompensate by making leaps into the future in Sisyphean attempts to overtake the West, but this only leads to exhaustion and long periods of stagnation.

    Europeanized nations, finding it impossible to keep pace with the Romano-Germans and so gradually falling behind, try to catch up from time to time by attempting long leaps. Such leaps distort the entire course of historical development. A nation must cover very quickly a distance that the Romano-Germans covered gradually and over a much longer period of time. It must skip several historical rungs and create overnight, ex abrupto, what arose in Romano-Germanic nations as a result of a “series of historical changes”. The consequences of such “leaping” evolution are terrible. Every leap is followed by a period of apparent (from the European standpoint) stagnation, when it is necessary to bring order to the culture, to coordinate the results achieved by a leap in a particular area with other elements of the culture. During this period of “stagnation”, the nation again falls even farther behind. The histories of Europeanized nations are always characterized by brief periods of apparent “progress”, alternating with more or less protracted periods of “stagnation”. In destroying the wholeness and the unbroken incrementalism of the historical process, such historical leaps also disrupt tradition, which is already fragile in a Europeanized nation.

    Let us emphasize: unbroken tradition is a prerequisite for normal evolution. Leaps and jumps create a temporary illusion that the “common European level of civilization” has been achieved, but they cannot advance a nation in the true sense of the word. Leaping evolution wastes national energies, which are already overburdened owing to the very existence of Europeanization. Just as a person who, in trying to keep pace with a speedier companion, will become exhausted and collapse after resorting to long jumps to catch up, so a Europeanized nation will perish after choosing such an evolutionary path and squandering there its national energies. And all of this will happen while faith in oneself is lost, and without the sustaining sense of national unity which was destroyed long before by the fact of Europeanization. Using Russia as an example, the red Bolsheviks – as well as their rabidly free-market, pro-Western Bolshevik descendants, the Russian liberals – are excellent illustrations of this entire phenomenon. Both tried their best to leap into the future of the West, which was perceived to be socialism in 1918, and free-market utopia in 1991 – yet both failed and were destined to fail because of the deep conflict between these Western values and indigenous Russian traditions."
     
    I see a lot of this in my own country. Having read John Lothrop Motley's "Rise of the Dutch Republic", it seemed obvious to me that the descendants of people who had pre-industrial capitalism, mercantilism, localized Republican government and who vigorously defended their ancient privileges in the XVIth century would be better at it today than a people who were a mass of subsistence famers/serfs/peasant soldiery ruled by a small clique of warrior or foreign elites until much later. If Harpending and Cochran were right, they have had quite a few hundred years more of practice/evolution at it than my own countrymen and it shows in their character. Individuals with certain inclinations or IQ levels can close the behavioral gap and behave as the Westerners, but they can't drag their average fellows with them through it.

    I have pondered the idea that, since there is a spectrum of acceptable democratic quality to a system, we could tinker with our system in a way that suits our culture but still provides the best parts of constitutional democracy and republicanism, meaning the avoidance of excess (supposedly, today I'm not so sure), the peaceful transfers of power, the likely repudiation of bad or tyrannical policies and the lesser threat to rights and property.

    I would ditch the stupid semi-presidential system we have currently (where the President and the PM are both major players and are often at loggerheads) and introduce a simple Presidential system (not a fan of Westminster regimes). I would build less for checks and balances and more for rapidly getting things done (older West style, not new West, which is busy with autoerotic asphyxiation). I'd have a system of public initiatives similar to the Swiss one, as a sanity check on the government and as a last ditch effort against derailment through incompetence or political capture. I'd reverse administrative devolution to the counties for the most part, because they are often the most corrupt and have the least amount of inquisitorial press efforts or working local watchdogs (the former mayor of my hometown had Picasso paintings hidden in a crypt and in a nursing home, but he'd been upgraded to finance minister in the meantime so it makes more sense). My vision would be for a clearer focus on individuals, rather than the activity of impersonal institutions which are vulnerable to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy or to capture by corrupt bureaucrats whom the public has never heard of. Just these past few days, a manager at the Mayor's Office in Bucharest was revealed to have accumulated bribes in excess of 100 million euros. I couldn't believe it - just some random pencil pusher I had never heard of with a stamp and brass balls, not the infamous politicians we are all used to.

    I get the sense that my people like it if someone's in charge and they like to be able to assign blame/shame to a person, not some faceless institution one can blame with as much meaningfulness as the weather. So I'd give the people in government more power to get things done and bypass the indolence and inertia characteristic of our organizations, but compensate for it by turning them into real public figures and with hugely invasive means of transparency and draconic anti-corruption laws. This would also make government activity more easily understandable and identifiable to people to the left of the bell curve, who can barely keep up with political shuffling at the top (I know I can't). Besides, I never understood why we still have early XXth century style bureaucracies when we can shift so much to the digital sphere (with appropriate countermeasures and backups of course). Well, I understand their unions are very influential (the most powerful one is called Cartel Alfa, so you can imagine). The legislative branch can keep on playing Angry Birds, but I would try, somehow, to find a way to ensure that a larger number of legislators have specific competencies and experience for work in one of the 19 permanent Parliamentary Commissions (only around four people out of the whole lot of 400 Deputies have any actual experience and knowledge corresponding to the activity of the Commission they're a part of, whether it has something to do with security, politics, social issues, international relations etc).

    Much more to be said but, if I continue, I'd have to join the Dark Enlightenment types.

    Your long post was worth reading. Orbán is moving the Hungarian system in that direction, but I’m afraid once he loses power the centralization might go with him or worse, be used by leftists for leftist agendas.

    On the other hand, while we also have the word “baksis” (as in Romanian, to be pronounced “bakshish”), so there’s some Ottoman influence, but we had centuries of Habsburg rule afterwards, and so Hungary’s corruption levels dropped with time. However, then came communism…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    The decentralization is killing us. It's like handing the keys to the confectionery store to a bunch of hyperactive sugar-crazed children. Of course, I understand that it was unfair that only the Capital people got to steal like crazy and there are real problems regarding disparate development that could be addressed by motivated administration with local knowledge and the right incentives, but these finer points will be lost/are being lost in an orgy of graft.

    I think Communism really topped the cake. It did to the peasants what imperialism hadn't managed to yet, erode their morality and work ethic, which were literally assigned from God. I have a trustworthy friend who tells of an acquaintance who started a slaughterhouse in an area known for animal husbandry and little else, but couldn't find workers because the excess people were gone to greener pastures. So he hired the village drunks. He took them to the village priest and gave him 30 euros per head to make them swear in the face of God that they wouldn't drink anymore. And they didn't. He paid them good wages and the slaughterhouse was modern and nice. Right off the bat, their hands were shaking so hard that the people in the emergency rooms got to know them really well because they always cut themselves. Then, one day, after a few months, they didn't show up for work. The employer went looking for them and found them passed out drunk. He started berating them for breaking their word to God and they said it was ok, they had paid the priest 50 euros per person to release them from the vow, because they really wanted to drink. So the owner took them by force to the village priest, berated him as well, then gave him 70 euros per head to make them swear off drink again and to swear himself that he would never release them from the vow unless the employer had approved beforehand and had been present.

  72. @Anon 2
    Claiming there is no Central Europe, only East and West, is like claiming there is no Midwest in the U.S.

    Historically, when the major European powers were coming into being around AD 800-900, the fundamental dividing line
    (the markers are still in existence) was Limes Saxoniae which roughly ran along the Elbe-Saale rivers. Under Charlemagne
    it separated the Saxons on the west and the Western Slavs on the east. Slavic territory then ran from Limes Saxoniae (near today's Hamburg) to the Vistula river and beyond. Hence there are hundreds of Slavic place names east of the Elbe, e.g., Krakow near Hamburg. Poland formed in the middle of that vast Slavonic territory around 900 AD. Hence, culturally speaking it's sensible to situate Central Europe as that part of Western Christendom that lies east of the Elbe. It would then encompass eastern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria.

    Like I said earlier, I can understand that East European patriots would want to claim that they are “Central Europeans” but all I see are arguments that somewhat arbitrarily get the result one wants.

    “Western Europe” usually stops at the Rhine: Thus France, Benelux, UK, Spain, etc. = West. Germany is Central Europe, along with Italy, and Bohemia. Not all Germany, historically, either. I mean, East Prussia is not normally considered “Central Europe”. Eastern Europe is everything else.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Slavic place names in Germany, and there are also hundreds of German place names in Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary. So I don’t see where that gets us. Especially in the case of Poland, where the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended all the way to the Dniepr. That’s not “Central Europe”.

    When Germans and Poles were looking for a name to describe Germanic expansion into today’s Poland, the Baltic, Transylvania, etc. they came up with “Drang nach Osten” (Drive to the East) not “Drang nach Mitte”. On the other hand, when Germans were looking for a term to describe German hegemony in the East, they came up with “Mitteleuropa”, which more or less corresponds with your idea of “Central” Europe and my notion of “Western orientation.”

    But these are all cultural-political notions, just as the reason most people normally conceive of anything East of (today’s) Germany as “Eastern Europe” is due to Soviet domination (and thus an Eastern orientation) for 50 years. By the same token, any territories which were under Russo-Soviet domination since forever and especially since the Partitions (over 230 years ago) were also considered “Eastern.”

    Again, I appreciate the patriotism involved, but in ordinary English parlance neither Poland nor Hungary are considered “Central Europe” although that definition is changing, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU.

    BTW, this may have been said already, but the entire “Hun” usage goes back to Wilhelm II’s invocation of the “Huns” when the German contingent was going off to assist the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. The name was then used to bash the Germans in 1914, with an expansion of the meaning since then. (I remember talking to a WW1 veteran 40 years ago who still had a noticeable chest wound who told me he went to war because “We had to stop the Hun.”)

    iSteve used the general opprobium associated with that term to make some amusing parallels with the demonization of Hungary (Magyarorszag, for the magyars) by the SJW crowd today. That is all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    But the Slavic place names in eastern Germany are much older.
    They go back to 800 AD or earlier because the entire area east
    of the Elbe-Saale was Slavonic. There are still many Polabian
    Slav communities in eastern Germany. My wife's family partly
    originated in that area. Even the word 'Berlin' is derived from
    a Slavic term for a swamp. The Germanic names in Poland, etc.
    came centuries later, and were a result of Ostsiedlung which
    had a destructive effect on Slavic communities. But the
    Germanics had a 2:1 population edge over the western Slavs
    even 1000 years ago, so guess who won? At least until Marshal
    Zhukov pushed the Germans back in 1945 and only stopped
    at the Elbe because, as he said, he wanted to restore the old
    Slavic territory.
    I mention Limes Saxoniae in my posts because of its historical
    importance. Charlemagne was allied with the Slavs against (then)
    heathen Saxons on the western side of the Elbe, and, as long as
    he was alive he kind of promised the Slavs that the Saxons would
    be prevented from trying to conquer the territory east of the Elbe.
    Did they obey? Of course not. So Drang nach Osten originally
    meant the drive east of Limes Saxoniae.

    Much of this understanding is quite recent. German and Polish
    historians have undertaken a vast project called Germania
    Slavica in Germany and Slavia Germanica :) in Poland. Nothing
    like this would have been allowed in Hitler's Germany because
    it implies that many Germans are partly of Slavic origin, and
    specifically of Polish descent like von Clausewitz or maybe Nietzsche.
    The mysterious island of Wolin, near the Oder, with its pagan
    temples, now hosts annual reenactments of old battles involving
    the Vikings, the Polish, and the Germans. Fun is had by all and sundry.
    , @Prokop
    If your definition of Central Europe is indeed the prevailing one in ordinary English parlance, then I don't see any need for the term in English at all, you can just say Germany. I doubt that Italians consider their country to be Central Europe.
    , @szopen
    I'd say that differences between cultures of Hungary, Poland on one side and Russia, Georgia on second side are vastly larger than between Germany and England. You would want basically divide Europe into three parts: two very small, and quite similar to each other, and the third very large, comprised of many very different countries.
  73. @iSteveFan
    As a Hungarian could you let us know if the average Hungarian would agree with our little ambassador, a Greek no less, or tell her to mind her own business and keep quiet.

    Most (like 60 or 70%) of the FB posts by my friends back in Hungary are SWPL, helping refugees, giving them food, etc., but they are mostly upper middle class.

    Also my friends might be more liberal in outlook because I was also very liberal a decade ago.

    And I know of a few people (myself included) who don’t post much on FB but are quite worried about immigration. According to surveys most Hungarians are worried. How that will translate to action is hard to tell. It’s more a top-down thing pushed by Orbán then a bottom-up thing pushed by the masses. The masses (enough of them) go along, but they don’t want it strongly enough to make it happen under a different leader.

    Read More
  74. @Anonymous
    I've always considered Western Europe to be Latin, Germanic, and Celtic Europe, basically Germany and Austria and everything west of them. None of the Slavic countries seem fully Western, despite some of them being Roman Catholic and using the Latin alphabet like Poland or Croatia, or having significant German influence, like the Czechs or Hungarians.

    Hungarians are not Slavs. Neither are Romanians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    I just want to say I deeply sympathize with the Hungarians in
    their hour of need. Poland and Hungary have always been close.
    It was grossly irresponsible for Merkel to basically say, "Come
    one, come all," without consulting with Hungary, and without
    regard to the consequences
  75. @SPMoore8
    I think iSteve was just having a little fun with the Hun=Hungarian concept, and wasn't trying to be precise. Beyond that, I think I am feeling a lot of East European patriotism here; which is great, but I am an outsider (American) so I will disagree. BTW, I studied most of the languages and culture of the region, but that was a long time ago and I claim no fluency today. IOW, I know where posters are going, and I appreciate it.

    I always considered Central Europe to be the line up the Italian boot through the old German trading towns through the middle up to Hamburg and Denmark. It follows that everything to the East is -- Eastern Europe. (It was often called "East Central Europe" back in the '70's and '80's: It that sense it basically meant the Soviet buffer zone).

    Obviously a lot of the Western orientation of these countries goes hand in hand with their relationship with Germanic entities, either HRE, or the Habsburgs, or the German and Prussian monarchs, and the Hanseatic League (in the north) and so on. And I certainly consider the Baltic states, Poland, Czechia (Bohemia? What is the name now?), and Hungary to be "Western." But I wouldn't use that adjective in the same way at least for most of the former Yugoslavia, or Slovakia (despite being under Hungarian control), or Rumania (complicated history) or Bulgaria.

    We Hungarians don’t love the Slovaks too much, but I think they aren’t any less Western than Hungarians.

    Read More
  76. @Anonymous
    I've always considered Western Europe to be Latin, Germanic, and Celtic Europe, basically Germany and Austria and everything west of them. None of the Slavic countries seem fully Western, despite some of them being Roman Catholic and using the Latin alphabet like Poland or Croatia, or having significant German influence, like the Czechs or Hungarians.

    If democracy is considered a defining feature of the Western
    tradition, then Germany can barely be regarded as part of the West.
    For centuries, the German states, which were part of the Holy
    Roman Empire until 1806, were ruled autocratically . Germany’s
    love of its Sonderweg, basically strong man rule (e.g., Frederick the Great
    or more recently Hitler) meant that democracy had to be imposed
    on Germany from the outside e.g., after WW I. In this sense Germany is more
    like Russia. Both countries have a very short or almost nonexistent
    tradition of democracy or the rule of law. Need I mention Emperor
    Putin or Empress Merkel? That’s why I think that Germany should be
    viewed as part of Central Europe, and not Western Europe. It’s
    definitely not a country like Britain or France.

    By contrast, the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, which in 1600 was the
    largest country in Europe, had around that time a guarantee of religious
    freedom even as religious wars were raging in German states and
    elsewhere, had habeas corpus, and had a proportion of people
    entitled to vote (15%) that wasn’t reached in Britain until the 19th
    century. In 1791 Poland also had the first written constitution in
    Europe. Would Germany or Russia allow such Jacobin tendencies
    in their midst? Of course not. They pounced on Poland, and throughout
    the 19th century systematically tried to destroy Poland’s
    educational system (keep them stupid, you know) , etc. But Poland has
    a very strong culture, so it survived that onslaught with flying colors.

    Read More
  77. @Matra
    Just to reiterate for young US readers or readers outside the US, during WWI “The Hun” was the generic term for “the enemy” (at least in the US)

    I'm surprised some people took the 'hun' thing literally. It's used beyond the US too. In Scotland and Northern Ireland it has long been derogatory slang for Protestants.

    Rangers fans to lobby for ban of 'hun'

    and

    Northern Ireland police outlaw 'fenians' and 'huns'

    It’s like how “Vandal” is a generic term for people engaged in destruction and mindless defacing, not seriously meant to imply genetic kinship with the Germanic tribe that used to inhabit Spain and North Africa.

    Read More
  78. @Anon 2
    If democracy is considered a defining feature of the Western
    tradition, then Germany can barely be regarded as part of the West.
    For centuries, the German states, which were part of the Holy
    Roman Empire until 1806, were ruled autocratically . Germany's
    love of its Sonderweg, basically strong man rule (e.g., Frederick the Great
    or more recently Hitler) meant that democracy had to be imposed
    on Germany from the outside e.g., after WW I. In this sense Germany is more
    like Russia. Both countries have a very short or almost nonexistent
    tradition of democracy or the rule of law. Need I mention Emperor
    Putin or Empress Merkel? That's why I think that Germany should be
    viewed as part of Central Europe, and not Western Europe. It's
    definitely not a country like Britain or France.

    By contrast, the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, which in 1600 was the
    largest country in Europe, had around that time a guarantee of religious
    freedom even as religious wars were raging in German states and
    elsewhere, had habeas corpus, and had a proportion of people
    entitled to vote (15%) that wasn't reached in Britain until the 19th
    century. In 1791 Poland also had the first written constitution in
    Europe. Would Germany or Russia allow such Jacobin tendencies
    in their midst? Of course not. They pounced on Poland, and throughout
    the 19th century systematically tried to destroy Poland's
    educational system (keep them stupid, you know) , etc. But Poland has
    a very strong culture, so it survived that onslaught with flying colors.

    Polish serfdom FTW!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    And Prussian serfdom. Serfdom was pretty universal in
    Central and Eastern Europe until about the same time
    that slavery was abolished in the U.S. Even in Dickensian
    England there was child labor and debtors' prisons. That's as
    bad as serfdom if not worse. Economy always needs cheap
    labor - it's gonna get it one way or another
  79. @SPMoore8
    Like I said earlier, I can understand that East European patriots would want to claim that they are "Central Europeans" but all I see are arguments that somewhat arbitrarily get the result one wants.

    "Western Europe" usually stops at the Rhine: Thus France, Benelux, UK, Spain, etc. = West. Germany is Central Europe, along with Italy, and Bohemia. Not all Germany, historically, either. I mean, East Prussia is not normally considered "Central Europe". Eastern Europe is everything else.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Slavic place names in Germany, and there are also hundreds of German place names in Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary. So I don't see where that gets us. Especially in the case of Poland, where the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended all the way to the Dniepr. That's not "Central Europe".

    When Germans and Poles were looking for a name to describe Germanic expansion into today's Poland, the Baltic, Transylvania, etc. they came up with "Drang nach Osten" (Drive to the East) not "Drang nach Mitte". On the other hand, when Germans were looking for a term to describe German hegemony in the East, they came up with "Mitteleuropa", which more or less corresponds with your idea of "Central" Europe and my notion of "Western orientation."

    But these are all cultural-political notions, just as the reason most people normally conceive of anything East of (today's) Germany as "Eastern Europe" is due to Soviet domination (and thus an Eastern orientation) for 50 years. By the same token, any territories which were under Russo-Soviet domination since forever and especially since the Partitions (over 230 years ago) were also considered "Eastern."

    Again, I appreciate the patriotism involved, but in ordinary English parlance neither Poland nor Hungary are considered "Central Europe" although that definition is changing, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU.

    BTW, this may have been said already, but the entire "Hun" usage goes back to Wilhelm II's invocation of the "Huns" when the German contingent was going off to assist the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. The name was then used to bash the Germans in 1914, with an expansion of the meaning since then. (I remember talking to a WW1 veteran 40 years ago who still had a noticeable chest wound who told me he went to war because "We had to stop the Hun.")

    iSteve used the general opprobium associated with that term to make some amusing parallels with the demonization of Hungary (Magyarorszag, for the magyars) by the SJW crowd today. That is all.

    But the Slavic place names in eastern Germany are much older.
    They go back to 800 AD or earlier because the entire area east
    of the Elbe-Saale was Slavonic. There are still many Polabian
    Slav communities in eastern Germany. My wife’s family partly
    originated in that area. Even the word ‘Berlin’ is derived from
    a Slavic term for a swamp. The Germanic names in Poland, etc.
    came centuries later, and were a result of Ostsiedlung which
    had a destructive effect on Slavic communities. But the
    Germanics had a 2:1 population edge over the western Slavs
    even 1000 years ago, so guess who won? At least until Marshal
    Zhukov pushed the Germans back in 1945 and only stopped
    at the Elbe because, as he said, he wanted to restore the old
    Slavic territory.
    I mention Limes Saxoniae in my posts because of its historical
    importance. Charlemagne was allied with the Slavs against (then)
    heathen Saxons on the western side of the Elbe, and, as long as
    he was alive he kind of promised the Slavs that the Saxons would
    be prevented from trying to conquer the territory east of the Elbe.
    Did they obey? Of course not. So Drang nach Osten originally
    meant the drive east of Limes Saxoniae.

    Much of this understanding is quite recent. German and Polish
    historians have undertaken a vast project called Germania
    Slavica in Germany and Slavia Germanica :) in Poland. Nothing
    like this would have been allowed in Hitler’s Germany because
    it implies that many Germans are partly of Slavic origin, and
    specifically of Polish descent like von Clausewitz or maybe Nietzsche.
    The mysterious island of Wolin, near the Oder, with its pagan
    temples, now hosts annual reenactments of old battles involving
    the Vikings, the Polish, and the Germans. Fun is had by all and sundry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Obelix
    I believe in the old days of the Austria/Prussia rivalry it was a common prejudice in southern Germany that Prussians were Germanized Slavs. Not 'real' Germans at all. I can see why east Germans would be touchy about this.
    , @SPMoore8
    Many Germans are of partly Slavic origin, and many Poles and Czechs -- even Hungarians -- are of partly German origin.

    I know that it's getting deep when people start promoting the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth as the dream deferred of Universal Human Rights.

    European nationalism cracks me up. At least people aren't killing each other over it, now.
  80. @5371
    Polish serfdom FTW!

    And Prussian serfdom. Serfdom was pretty universal in
    Central and Eastern Europe until about the same time
    that slavery was abolished in the U.S. Even in Dickensian
    England there was child labor and debtors’ prisons. That’s as
    bad as serfdom if not worse. Economy always needs cheap
    labor – it’s gonna get it one way or another

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Wrong.

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.

    More discretionary income = more prosperity.

    The banking mafia's lust for cheap labor destroys economies.
  81. @Big Bill
    Spencer was an outsider whose plans were ferreted out by enemies in the USA and communicated to their Hungarian fellow travelers well in advance of the Spencer NPI meeting. Unbeknownst to Spencer, the Hungarian activists started talking Spencer up in the Hungarian media: anti-semite, Nazi, KKK, anti-semite, racist, etc. (you know the drill).

    Orban knew nothing except what he read in the papers and what he could easily figure out: Spencer and pals were foreigners whose presence the Hungarian activists were using for agitprop purposes in the media. Spencer had no ground game or connections in Hungary. He just wanted to meet in a nice European town.

    From Orban's perspective, why waste political capital on a handful of unknown foreign tourists/conventioneers meeting in a local hotel? Particularly since Orban had no idea of the factual claims the Hungarian press was making. If you are Orban, you pick your own battles. You don't let Hungarian activists use random foreigners and pick them for you.

    Thanks! Seems to me a reasonable and cogent explanation. Perhaps Richard should have coordinated with Generation Identitaire and held the conference somewhere in France. They could have made French government efforts to disrupt the conference (and they would have tried) more difficult.

    Read More
  82. @SPMoore8
    Like I said earlier, I can understand that East European patriots would want to claim that they are "Central Europeans" but all I see are arguments that somewhat arbitrarily get the result one wants.

    "Western Europe" usually stops at the Rhine: Thus France, Benelux, UK, Spain, etc. = West. Germany is Central Europe, along with Italy, and Bohemia. Not all Germany, historically, either. I mean, East Prussia is not normally considered "Central Europe". Eastern Europe is everything else.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Slavic place names in Germany, and there are also hundreds of German place names in Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary. So I don't see where that gets us. Especially in the case of Poland, where the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended all the way to the Dniepr. That's not "Central Europe".

    When Germans and Poles were looking for a name to describe Germanic expansion into today's Poland, the Baltic, Transylvania, etc. they came up with "Drang nach Osten" (Drive to the East) not "Drang nach Mitte". On the other hand, when Germans were looking for a term to describe German hegemony in the East, they came up with "Mitteleuropa", which more or less corresponds with your idea of "Central" Europe and my notion of "Western orientation."

    But these are all cultural-political notions, just as the reason most people normally conceive of anything East of (today's) Germany as "Eastern Europe" is due to Soviet domination (and thus an Eastern orientation) for 50 years. By the same token, any territories which were under Russo-Soviet domination since forever and especially since the Partitions (over 230 years ago) were also considered "Eastern."

    Again, I appreciate the patriotism involved, but in ordinary English parlance neither Poland nor Hungary are considered "Central Europe" although that definition is changing, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU.

    BTW, this may have been said already, but the entire "Hun" usage goes back to Wilhelm II's invocation of the "Huns" when the German contingent was going off to assist the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. The name was then used to bash the Germans in 1914, with an expansion of the meaning since then. (I remember talking to a WW1 veteran 40 years ago who still had a noticeable chest wound who told me he went to war because "We had to stop the Hun.")

    iSteve used the general opprobium associated with that term to make some amusing parallels with the demonization of Hungary (Magyarorszag, for the magyars) by the SJW crowd today. That is all.

    If your definition of Central Europe is indeed the prevailing one in ordinary English parlance, then I don’t see any need for the term in English at all, you can just say Germany. I doubt that Italians consider their country to be Central Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    People don't say "Germany" or "German" for pretty obvious reasons associated with 20th Century history. But, you are right, when people talk about the "great Central European tradition in music" they are usually talking about Germans, with Dvorak, Smetana, and Mahler thrown in. (The Austrians were assumed to be basically Germans until the 20th Century.)

    Hungary might squeeze in because of the association with the Hapsburgs, but Poland, due to the fact that most of its historic territory was under the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, and was dominated by the Soviet Union for 50 years after WW2 (in what was called the "Eastern Bloc") never would have been considered "Central" Europe.
  83. @SPMoore8
    Like I said earlier, I can understand that East European patriots would want to claim that they are "Central Europeans" but all I see are arguments that somewhat arbitrarily get the result one wants.

    "Western Europe" usually stops at the Rhine: Thus France, Benelux, UK, Spain, etc. = West. Germany is Central Europe, along with Italy, and Bohemia. Not all Germany, historically, either. I mean, East Prussia is not normally considered "Central Europe". Eastern Europe is everything else.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Slavic place names in Germany, and there are also hundreds of German place names in Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary. So I don't see where that gets us. Especially in the case of Poland, where the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended all the way to the Dniepr. That's not "Central Europe".

    When Germans and Poles were looking for a name to describe Germanic expansion into today's Poland, the Baltic, Transylvania, etc. they came up with "Drang nach Osten" (Drive to the East) not "Drang nach Mitte". On the other hand, when Germans were looking for a term to describe German hegemony in the East, they came up with "Mitteleuropa", which more or less corresponds with your idea of "Central" Europe and my notion of "Western orientation."

    But these are all cultural-political notions, just as the reason most people normally conceive of anything East of (today's) Germany as "Eastern Europe" is due to Soviet domination (and thus an Eastern orientation) for 50 years. By the same token, any territories which were under Russo-Soviet domination since forever and especially since the Partitions (over 230 years ago) were also considered "Eastern."

    Again, I appreciate the patriotism involved, but in ordinary English parlance neither Poland nor Hungary are considered "Central Europe" although that definition is changing, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU.

    BTW, this may have been said already, but the entire "Hun" usage goes back to Wilhelm II's invocation of the "Huns" when the German contingent was going off to assist the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1898. The name was then used to bash the Germans in 1914, with an expansion of the meaning since then. (I remember talking to a WW1 veteran 40 years ago who still had a noticeable chest wound who told me he went to war because "We had to stop the Hun.")

    iSteve used the general opprobium associated with that term to make some amusing parallels with the demonization of Hungary (Magyarorszag, for the magyars) by the SJW crowd today. That is all.

    I’d say that differences between cultures of Hungary, Poland on one side and Russia, Georgia on second side are vastly larger than between Germany and England. You would want basically divide Europe into three parts: two very small, and quite similar to each other, and the third very large, comprised of many very different countries.

    Read More
  84. @reiner Tor
    Hungarians are not Slavs. Neither are Romanians.

    I just want to say I deeply sympathize with the Hungarians in
    their hour of need. Poland and Hungary have always been close.
    It was grossly irresponsible for Merkel to basically say, “Come
    one, come all,” without consulting with Hungary, and without
    regard to the consequences

    Read More
  85. @Anon 2
    But the Slavic place names in eastern Germany are much older.
    They go back to 800 AD or earlier because the entire area east
    of the Elbe-Saale was Slavonic. There are still many Polabian
    Slav communities in eastern Germany. My wife's family partly
    originated in that area. Even the word 'Berlin' is derived from
    a Slavic term for a swamp. The Germanic names in Poland, etc.
    came centuries later, and were a result of Ostsiedlung which
    had a destructive effect on Slavic communities. But the
    Germanics had a 2:1 population edge over the western Slavs
    even 1000 years ago, so guess who won? At least until Marshal
    Zhukov pushed the Germans back in 1945 and only stopped
    at the Elbe because, as he said, he wanted to restore the old
    Slavic territory.
    I mention Limes Saxoniae in my posts because of its historical
    importance. Charlemagne was allied with the Slavs against (then)
    heathen Saxons on the western side of the Elbe, and, as long as
    he was alive he kind of promised the Slavs that the Saxons would
    be prevented from trying to conquer the territory east of the Elbe.
    Did they obey? Of course not. So Drang nach Osten originally
    meant the drive east of Limes Saxoniae.

    Much of this understanding is quite recent. German and Polish
    historians have undertaken a vast project called Germania
    Slavica in Germany and Slavia Germanica :) in Poland. Nothing
    like this would have been allowed in Hitler's Germany because
    it implies that many Germans are partly of Slavic origin, and
    specifically of Polish descent like von Clausewitz or maybe Nietzsche.
    The mysterious island of Wolin, near the Oder, with its pagan
    temples, now hosts annual reenactments of old battles involving
    the Vikings, the Polish, and the Germans. Fun is had by all and sundry.

    I believe in the old days of the Austria/Prussia rivalry it was a common prejudice in southern Germany that Prussians were Germanized Slavs. Not ‘real’ Germans at all. I can see why east Germans would be touchy about this.

    Read More
  86. @reiner Tor
    Your long post was worth reading. Orbán is moving the Hungarian system in that direction, but I'm afraid once he loses power the centralization might go with him or worse, be used by leftists for leftist agendas.

    On the other hand, while we also have the word "baksis" (as in Romanian, to be pronounced "bakshish"), so there's some Ottoman influence, but we had centuries of Habsburg rule afterwards, and so Hungary's corruption levels dropped with time. However, then came communism...

    The decentralization is killing us. It’s like handing the keys to the confectionery store to a bunch of hyperactive sugar-crazed children. Of course, I understand that it was unfair that only the Capital people got to steal like crazy and there are real problems regarding disparate development that could be addressed by motivated administration with local knowledge and the right incentives, but these finer points will be lost/are being lost in an orgy of graft.

    I think Communism really topped the cake. It did to the peasants what imperialism hadn’t managed to yet, erode their morality and work ethic, which were literally assigned from God. I have a trustworthy friend who tells of an acquaintance who started a slaughterhouse in an area known for animal husbandry and little else, but couldn’t find workers because the excess people were gone to greener pastures. So he hired the village drunks. He took them to the village priest and gave him 30 euros per head to make them swear in the face of God that they wouldn’t drink anymore. And they didn’t. He paid them good wages and the slaughterhouse was modern and nice. Right off the bat, their hands were shaking so hard that the people in the emergency rooms got to know them really well because they always cut themselves. Then, one day, after a few months, they didn’t show up for work. The employer went looking for them and found them passed out drunk. He started berating them for breaking their word to God and they said it was ok, they had paid the priest 50 euros per person to release them from the vow, because they really wanted to drink. So the owner took them by force to the village priest, berated him as well, then gave him 70 euros per head to make them swear off drink again and to swear himself that he would never release them from the vow unless the employer had approved beforehand and had been present.

    Read More
  87. @YIH
    If the Israelis (wherever on the globe they are] are so upset about ''refugees'' that are getting numbers written (not tattooed) on them and being transported on trains to a camp (where they are not being killed) should not Israel offer them refuge?

    No.

    Read More
  88. @Anon 2
    But the Slavic place names in eastern Germany are much older.
    They go back to 800 AD or earlier because the entire area east
    of the Elbe-Saale was Slavonic. There are still many Polabian
    Slav communities in eastern Germany. My wife's family partly
    originated in that area. Even the word 'Berlin' is derived from
    a Slavic term for a swamp. The Germanic names in Poland, etc.
    came centuries later, and were a result of Ostsiedlung which
    had a destructive effect on Slavic communities. But the
    Germanics had a 2:1 population edge over the western Slavs
    even 1000 years ago, so guess who won? At least until Marshal
    Zhukov pushed the Germans back in 1945 and only stopped
    at the Elbe because, as he said, he wanted to restore the old
    Slavic territory.
    I mention Limes Saxoniae in my posts because of its historical
    importance. Charlemagne was allied with the Slavs against (then)
    heathen Saxons on the western side of the Elbe, and, as long as
    he was alive he kind of promised the Slavs that the Saxons would
    be prevented from trying to conquer the territory east of the Elbe.
    Did they obey? Of course not. So Drang nach Osten originally
    meant the drive east of Limes Saxoniae.

    Much of this understanding is quite recent. German and Polish
    historians have undertaken a vast project called Germania
    Slavica in Germany and Slavia Germanica :) in Poland. Nothing
    like this would have been allowed in Hitler's Germany because
    it implies that many Germans are partly of Slavic origin, and
    specifically of Polish descent like von Clausewitz or maybe Nietzsche.
    The mysterious island of Wolin, near the Oder, with its pagan
    temples, now hosts annual reenactments of old battles involving
    the Vikings, the Polish, and the Germans. Fun is had by all and sundry.

    Many Germans are of partly Slavic origin, and many Poles and Czechs — even Hungarians — are of partly German origin.

    I know that it’s getting deep when people start promoting the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth as the dream deferred of Universal Human Rights.

    European nationalism cracks me up. At least people aren’t killing each other over it, now.

    Read More
  89. @Prokop
    If your definition of Central Europe is indeed the prevailing one in ordinary English parlance, then I don't see any need for the term in English at all, you can just say Germany. I doubt that Italians consider their country to be Central Europe.

    People don’t say “Germany” or “German” for pretty obvious reasons associated with 20th Century history. But, you are right, when people talk about the “great Central European tradition in music” they are usually talking about Germans, with Dvorak, Smetana, and Mahler thrown in. (The Austrians were assumed to be basically Germans until the 20th Century.)

    Hungary might squeeze in because of the association with the Hapsburgs, but Poland, due to the fact that most of its historic territory was under the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, and was dominated by the Soviet Union for 50 years after WW2 (in what was called the “Eastern Bloc”) never would have been considered “Central” Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Isn't the simplest thing to assume that Orthodox regions are Eastern European and the Protestant and Catholic regions are Central or Western European?

    For example, Lvov in Ukraine is Catholic and the locals see themselves as Central Europeans. Some other places in Ukraine are Orthodox and seem to be culturally Eastern European.

    Serbia is Eastern European culturally, Slovenia is Central European.
  90. @SPMoore8
    People don't say "Germany" or "German" for pretty obvious reasons associated with 20th Century history. But, you are right, when people talk about the "great Central European tradition in music" they are usually talking about Germans, with Dvorak, Smetana, and Mahler thrown in. (The Austrians were assumed to be basically Germans until the 20th Century.)

    Hungary might squeeze in because of the association with the Hapsburgs, but Poland, due to the fact that most of its historic territory was under the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, and was dominated by the Soviet Union for 50 years after WW2 (in what was called the "Eastern Bloc") never would have been considered "Central" Europe.

    Isn’t the simplest thing to assume that Orthodox regions are Eastern European and the Protestant and Catholic regions are Central or Western European?

    For example, Lvov in Ukraine is Catholic and the locals see themselves as Central Europeans. Some other places in Ukraine are Orthodox and seem to be culturally Eastern European.

    Serbia is Eastern European culturally, Slovenia is Central European.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I don't have any problem with someone claiming to be "Central European" since it is now obviously a status marker, evidently nobody wants to be seen as "Eastern European", sort of like everyone wants to be "Middle Class" just as garbagemen are all "sanitation engineers." Perhaps we can solve this problem with one stroke by decreeing that everyone living east of the Oder is "African American." That should settle the matter for 20 years or so.

    More seriously, as someone raised in the '50's and '60's I consider the former Soviet Bloc countries as "East European" because that's how they were construed then (this includes the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia). If a more modern definition pushes "Central Europe" from the Oder to the Bug and includes (as with L'viv) all the former territories of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchies I am fine with that also.

    Defining the limits of Central Europe by the limits of Western Christendom (both Catholic and Protestant) which also tends to correspond to the use of the Roman alphabet also makes sense, but that would include Romania, but not Bulgaria, and so on.

    The only problem with extending the concept of Central Europe eastward in this way is that it tends to emphasize the Germanic input in the development of these "new" Central European nations. After all, we do not think in terms of East European nobility, or even East European peasantry, but in terms of Pan European bourgeois civilization, which, from Germany eastward, always had a strong German flavor (and in the 19th and 20th Centuries, a strong Jewish flavor as well.) I am not sure acknowledging this will satisfy the righteous patriots of the former Eastern Europe.

    My own experience with Central and East Europeans (excluding Belarus, Russia, and Eastern Ukraine) is that they are all pretty much the same. But the whole point of nationalism is that they don't want to be the same.
    , @Anon 2
    Steve, I totally agree with you. Someone who never lived in
    Europe like SPMoore8, and is still stuck in the past
    ways of thinking of Poland as part of the Soviet block
    will never understand the profound effect that being
    part of Western Christendom had on Poland. That
    meant having contact with the cultures of France
    and Italy since about 900 AD. The effect of Germany
    on the Polish culture was minimal, and after 1517 when
    the eastern states converted to Lutheranism it was
    something to rebel against. Lutheranism with its dour
    ethics of duty (as formalized by Kant) could never
    appeal to freedom-loving libertarian Poles.

    As late as 1800, Goethe when asked about the German culture
    said, "What culture?" France was the center of culture,
    and this is what the educated classes aspired to. German
    music was one positive effect of the fact that under the
    Holy Roman Empire Germany was divided into hundreds
    of principalities, each with an extensive patronage system
    which enabled local princes to compete with others in
    their support of the arts. Musicians have got to eat. It's
    not so much that they were brilliant but that they were
    financially supported. One negative effect was that Germany
    didn't develop an ocean-going navy until the 20th century,
    and by then it was too late. Hence hardly anybody is
    studying German today.

    On the other hand, Poland (as well as Hungary) were always très
    simpatico with the Catholic German states like Austria and
    Bavaria. After all, the Hapsburgs replaced the Jagiellonians,
    centered in Krakow, that used to dominate Central Europe before
    them. The southern parts of Poland that found themselves in the
    Austrian partition actually thrived in the 19th century.

    When Poland looks east, it sees despotism and lawlessness. Read
    Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice" for how he differentiates
    between Polish nobility and Russian nobility or for that matter read
    Joseph Conrad (Korzeniowski) for his novels are really about the
    confrontation between modernity and individuals who try to
    remain noble in spirit. By the way, when Poland looks west it
    sees materialism, decadence, and nihilism. So Central Europe
    is a good appellation for a country that fits neither West nor East.

    I often mention the Polish-Lithuanian Republic (patterned after the
    Roman Republic) which may be hard to understand for people
    whose country is barely 200 years old. But in Poland, e.g., The Battle
    of Grunwald (1410) in which The Teutonic Knights were defeated
    might as well happened yesterday. You have to start thinking like that
    if you want to understand Europe
    , @Hibernian
    There are large Uniate regions which worship according to the Eastern Rite, but recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope. Ukraine was the largest of these, but the Soviets pressured many Ukrainian Uniates to become Orthodox
  91. @Steve Sailer
    Isn't the simplest thing to assume that Orthodox regions are Eastern European and the Protestant and Catholic regions are Central or Western European?

    For example, Lvov in Ukraine is Catholic and the locals see themselves as Central Europeans. Some other places in Ukraine are Orthodox and seem to be culturally Eastern European.

    Serbia is Eastern European culturally, Slovenia is Central European.

    I don’t have any problem with someone claiming to be “Central European” since it is now obviously a status marker, evidently nobody wants to be seen as “Eastern European”, sort of like everyone wants to be “Middle Class” just as garbagemen are all “sanitation engineers.” Perhaps we can solve this problem with one stroke by decreeing that everyone living east of the Oder is “African American.” That should settle the matter for 20 years or so.

    More seriously, as someone raised in the ’50′s and ’60′s I consider the former Soviet Bloc countries as “East European” because that’s how they were construed then (this includes the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia). If a more modern definition pushes “Central Europe” from the Oder to the Bug and includes (as with L’viv) all the former territories of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchies I am fine with that also.

    Defining the limits of Central Europe by the limits of Western Christendom (both Catholic and Protestant) which also tends to correspond to the use of the Roman alphabet also makes sense, but that would include Romania, but not Bulgaria, and so on.

    The only problem with extending the concept of Central Europe eastward in this way is that it tends to emphasize the Germanic input in the development of these “new” Central European nations. After all, we do not think in terms of East European nobility, or even East European peasantry, but in terms of Pan European bourgeois civilization, which, from Germany eastward, always had a strong German flavor (and in the 19th and 20th Centuries, a strong Jewish flavor as well.) I am not sure acknowledging this will satisfy the righteous patriots of the former Eastern Europe.

    My own experience with Central and East Europeans (excluding Belarus, Russia, and Eastern Ukraine) is that they are all pretty much the same. But the whole point of nationalism is that they don’t want to be the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox. It's a common mistake
    for people to think of Romania, because of its name I suppose, as belonging
    to Western Christendom.

    Another correction: it's Krakow, not Warsaw, that's the most historic city
    in Poland. Krakow, which goes back to about 600 AD, was its historic capital
    and the seat of the Jagiellonian dynasty that dominated Central and Eastern
    Europe for centuries until it was displaced by the Hapsburg dynasty (also
    Catholic), and then for a hundred years or so was part of the Hapsburg Empire
    along with the rest of Galicia, and did reasonably well. The Catholic Hapsburgs
    were much more humane than the Lutheran Prussians.
  92. More seriously, as someone raised in the ’50′s and ’60′s I consider the former Soviet Bloc countries as “East European” because that’s how they were construed then (this includes the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia). If a more modern definition pushes “Central Europe” from the Oder to the Bug

    I was under the assumption (possibly wrong) that Poland, the Czech land, and Hungary were always considered to be Central European until the Cold War when a binary West v East perception arose, at least in the non-Soviet occupied countries. A person born in 1960s Vienna was a Western European but a person born in 1960s Prague was Eastern European even though the Austrian capital is east of the Czech capital. So today we may just be reverting back to pre-Cold War terminology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Prague definitely would have been considered "Central European" under the Hapsburgs. Czechoslovakia, not so sure: the Transcarpathian tail end doesn't strike me as particularly "Central European" even under Hapsburg rule.

    As for the Kingdom of Hungary, I don't think it was understood to be "Central" but it also included the Transcarpathian region, as well as parts of Translyvania (Rumania, today) also parts of Slovakia and other areas.

    Poland basically didn't exist for 150 years and the strongest Polish areas (Warsaw, Lwow, and Wilno) were all in the Russian Empire. Of these, only Warsaw is Polish today. Poland also had a strong Eastern orientation (up to the Dniepr banks). So if it was conceived as "Central Europe" only very briefly during the Interwar Period.

  93. @Steve Sailer
    Isn't the simplest thing to assume that Orthodox regions are Eastern European and the Protestant and Catholic regions are Central or Western European?

    For example, Lvov in Ukraine is Catholic and the locals see themselves as Central Europeans. Some other places in Ukraine are Orthodox and seem to be culturally Eastern European.

    Serbia is Eastern European culturally, Slovenia is Central European.

    Steve, I totally agree with you. Someone who never lived in
    Europe like SPMoore8, and is still stuck in the past
    ways of thinking of Poland as part of the Soviet block
    will never understand the profound effect that being
    part of Western Christendom had on Poland. That
    meant having contact with the cultures of France
    and Italy since about 900 AD. The effect of Germany
    on the Polish culture was minimal, and after 1517 when
    the eastern states converted to Lutheranism it was
    something to rebel against. Lutheranism with its dour
    ethics of duty (as formalized by Kant) could never
    appeal to freedom-loving libertarian Poles.

    As late as 1800, Goethe when asked about the German culture
    said, “What culture?” France was the center of culture,
    and this is what the educated classes aspired to. German
    music was one positive effect of the fact that under the
    Holy Roman Empire Germany was divided into hundreds
    of principalities, each with an extensive patronage system
    which enabled local princes to compete with others in
    their support of the arts. Musicians have got to eat. It’s
    not so much that they were brilliant but that they were
    financially supported. One negative effect was that Germany
    didn’t develop an ocean-going navy until the 20th century,
    and by then it was too late. Hence hardly anybody is
    studying German today.

    On the other hand, Poland (as well as Hungary) were always très
    simpatico with the Catholic German states like Austria and
    Bavaria. After all, the Hapsburgs replaced the Jagiellonians,
    centered in Krakow, that used to dominate Central Europe before
    them. The southern parts of Poland that found themselves in the
    Austrian partition actually thrived in the 19th century.

    When Poland looks east, it sees despotism and lawlessness. Read
    Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice” for how he differentiates
    between Polish nobility and Russian nobility or for that matter read
    Joseph Conrad (Korzeniowski) for his novels are really about the
    confrontation between modernity and individuals who try to
    remain noble in spirit. By the way, when Poland looks west it
    sees materialism, decadence, and nihilism. So Central Europe
    is a good appellation for a country that fits neither West nor East.

    I often mention the Polish-Lithuanian Republic (patterned after the
    Roman Republic) which may be hard to understand for people
    whose country is barely 200 years old. But in Poland, e.g., The Battle
    of Grunwald (1410) in which The Teutonic Knights were defeated
    might as well happened yesterday. You have to start thinking like that
    if you want to understand Europe

    Read More
  94. @Matra
    More seriously, as someone raised in the ’50′s and ’60′s I consider the former Soviet Bloc countries as “East European” because that’s how they were construed then (this includes the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia). If a more modern definition pushes “Central Europe” from the Oder to the Bug

    I was under the assumption (possibly wrong) that Poland, the Czech land, and Hungary were always considered to be Central European until the Cold War when a binary West v East perception arose, at least in the non-Soviet occupied countries. A person born in 1960s Vienna was a Western European but a person born in 1960s Prague was Eastern European even though the Austrian capital is east of the Czech capital. So today we may just be reverting back to pre-Cold War terminology.

    Prague definitely would have been considered “Central European” under the Hapsburgs. Czechoslovakia, not so sure: the Transcarpathian tail end doesn’t strike me as particularly “Central European” even under Hapsburg rule.

    As for the Kingdom of Hungary, I don’t think it was understood to be “Central” but it also included the Transcarpathian region, as well as parts of Translyvania (Rumania, today) also parts of Slovakia and other areas.

    Poland basically didn’t exist for 150 years and the strongest Polish areas (Warsaw, Lwow, and Wilno) were all in the Russian Empire. Of these, only Warsaw is Polish today. Poland also had a strong Eastern orientation (up to the Dniepr banks). So if it was conceived as “Central Europe” only very briefly during the Interwar Period.

    Read More
  95. The problem is that these aren’t mutually exclusive groups. Poland is both Central European and Eastern European. Which term you use is a matter of context and convenience.

    It’s the same way Spain is both Southern European and Western European.

    Read More
  96. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon 2
    And Prussian serfdom. Serfdom was pretty universal in
    Central and Eastern Europe until about the same time
    that slavery was abolished in the U.S. Even in Dickensian
    England there was child labor and debtors' prisons. That's as
    bad as serfdom if not worse. Economy always needs cheap
    labor - it's gonna get it one way or another

    Wrong.

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.

    More discretionary income = more prosperity.

    The banking mafia’s lust for cheap labor destroys economies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.
     
    That sounds counter intuitive.

    Do you have references?

    Can you suggest a mechanism?
  97. @anon
    Wrong.

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.

    More discretionary income = more prosperity.

    The banking mafia's lust for cheap labor destroys economies.

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.

    That sounds counter intuitive.

    Do you have references?

    Can you suggest a mechanism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    It was banned in 1867,* in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, at the same time as the proliferation of fossil fuel technology, large-scale steel production, electricity, steam power, the telegraph, etc. etc. and political/administrative changes like the rise of joint-stock companies, opening of new foreign markets, settlement of new territories etc.

    The most reasonable interpretation, I would say, is that banning child labor had a minor negative effect on economic growth, but not significant compared to the many factors acting to increase growth in that time period. I'd also personally agree with the general assessment that the increased quality of life from banning child labor was worth the reduced level of growth it entailed.

    *It was banned gradually in a series of acts, from the early 19th century to the 20th, the 1867 act seems to be the one generally regarded as the first comprehensive enough to qualify as a "ban" on child labor.

    , @anon

    That sounds counter intuitive.
     
    Only to a bankster.
  98. @Bad memories

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.
     
    That sounds counter intuitive.

    Do you have references?

    Can you suggest a mechanism?

    It was banned in 1867,* in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, at the same time as the proliferation of fossil fuel technology, large-scale steel production, electricity, steam power, the telegraph, etc. etc. and political/administrative changes like the rise of joint-stock companies, opening of new foreign markets, settlement of new territories etc.

    The most reasonable interpretation, I would say, is that banning child labor had a minor negative effect on economic growth, but not significant compared to the many factors acting to increase growth in that time period. I’d also personally agree with the general assessment that the increased quality of life from banning child labor was worth the reduced level of growth it entailed.

    *It was banned gradually in a series of acts, from the early 19th century to the 20th, the 1867 act seems to be the one generally regarded as the first comprehensive enough to qualify as a “ban” on child labor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There was no minimum age for chimney sweeps in England until 1875.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-axis-of-amnestys-ideology-of-cheap-labor

    , @The most deplorable one
    So, one interpretation was that they started banning child labor when there was no longer an economic need, just like the North started banning slavery.
  99. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Bad memories

    When Britain banned child labor prosperity increased.
     
    That sounds counter intuitive.

    Do you have references?

    Can you suggest a mechanism?

    That sounds counter intuitive.

    Only to a bankster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    However, I see that you decided to keep making bald assertions and not to back up your claims with some references or a mechanism.

    I suspect that some of us can think of a mechanism, but it would be nice to know that you know what you are talking about.
  100. @snorlax
    It was banned in 1867,* in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, at the same time as the proliferation of fossil fuel technology, large-scale steel production, electricity, steam power, the telegraph, etc. etc. and political/administrative changes like the rise of joint-stock companies, opening of new foreign markets, settlement of new territories etc.

    The most reasonable interpretation, I would say, is that banning child labor had a minor negative effect on economic growth, but not significant compared to the many factors acting to increase growth in that time period. I'd also personally agree with the general assessment that the increased quality of life from banning child labor was worth the reduced level of growth it entailed.

    *It was banned gradually in a series of acts, from the early 19th century to the 20th, the 1867 act seems to be the one generally regarded as the first comprehensive enough to qualify as a "ban" on child labor.

    There was no minimum age for chimney sweeps in England until 1875.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-axis-of-amnestys-ideology-of-cheap-labor

    Read More
  101. @Steve Sailer
    Isn't the simplest thing to assume that Orthodox regions are Eastern European and the Protestant and Catholic regions are Central or Western European?

    For example, Lvov in Ukraine is Catholic and the locals see themselves as Central Europeans. Some other places in Ukraine are Orthodox and seem to be culturally Eastern European.

    Serbia is Eastern European culturally, Slovenia is Central European.

    There are large Uniate regions which worship according to the Eastern Rite, but recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope. Ukraine was the largest of these, but the Soviets pressured many Ukrainian Uniates to become Orthodox

    Read More
  102. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @anon

    That sounds counter intuitive.
     
    Only to a bankster.

    However, I see that you decided to keep making bald assertions and not to back up your claims with some references or a mechanism.

    I suspect that some of us can think of a mechanism, but it would be nice to know that you know what you are talking about.

    Read More
  103. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @snorlax
    It was banned in 1867,* in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, at the same time as the proliferation of fossil fuel technology, large-scale steel production, electricity, steam power, the telegraph, etc. etc. and political/administrative changes like the rise of joint-stock companies, opening of new foreign markets, settlement of new territories etc.

    The most reasonable interpretation, I would say, is that banning child labor had a minor negative effect on economic growth, but not significant compared to the many factors acting to increase growth in that time period. I'd also personally agree with the general assessment that the increased quality of life from banning child labor was worth the reduced level of growth it entailed.

    *It was banned gradually in a series of acts, from the early 19th century to the 20th, the 1867 act seems to be the one generally regarded as the first comprehensive enough to qualify as a "ban" on child labor.

    So, one interpretation was that they started banning child labor when there was no longer an economic need, just like the North started banning slavery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    A lot of prominent thinkers argued for a long time that if you couldn't hire a five year old to climb up inside chimneys, something bad would happen. But when Lord Shaftesbury finally got an age minimum law through Parliament after decades of trying, Britain didn't freeze to death en masse. Instead, master chimneysweeps figured out some workarounds (brushes with longer handles?).
  104. @The most deplorable one
    So, one interpretation was that they started banning child labor when there was no longer an economic need, just like the North started banning slavery.

    A lot of prominent thinkers argued for a long time that if you couldn’t hire a five year old to climb up inside chimneys, something bad would happen. But when Lord Shaftesbury finally got an age minimum law through Parliament after decades of trying, Britain didn’t freeze to death en masse. Instead, master chimneysweeps figured out some workarounds (brushes with longer handles?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Sure. I have no doubt that there was a lot of resistance to change, and a good part of that likely from those who would lose in the transition to the new ways of doing things.

    However, I doubt that it negates my point that a lot of these abolition things occur when there is no longer a compelling economic reason for continuing in the old ways.

    Similarly, I suspect that quite a bit of the opposition to children working (in home-based crafts, etc) was the need to get their parents into the factories and crush the small-scale production of goods by families.
  105. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    A lot of prominent thinkers argued for a long time that if you couldn't hire a five year old to climb up inside chimneys, something bad would happen. But when Lord Shaftesbury finally got an age minimum law through Parliament after decades of trying, Britain didn't freeze to death en masse. Instead, master chimneysweeps figured out some workarounds (brushes with longer handles?).

    Sure. I have no doubt that there was a lot of resistance to change, and a good part of that likely from those who would lose in the transition to the new ways of doing things.

    However, I doubt that it negates my point that a lot of these abolition things occur when there is no longer a compelling economic reason for continuing in the old ways.

    Similarly, I suspect that quite a bit of the opposition to children working (in home-based crafts, etc) was the need to get their parents into the factories and crush the small-scale production of goods by families.

    Read More
  106. @SPMoore8
    I don't have any problem with someone claiming to be "Central European" since it is now obviously a status marker, evidently nobody wants to be seen as "Eastern European", sort of like everyone wants to be "Middle Class" just as garbagemen are all "sanitation engineers." Perhaps we can solve this problem with one stroke by decreeing that everyone living east of the Oder is "African American." That should settle the matter for 20 years or so.

    More seriously, as someone raised in the '50's and '60's I consider the former Soviet Bloc countries as "East European" because that's how they were construed then (this includes the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia). If a more modern definition pushes "Central Europe" from the Oder to the Bug and includes (as with L'viv) all the former territories of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchies I am fine with that also.

    Defining the limits of Central Europe by the limits of Western Christendom (both Catholic and Protestant) which also tends to correspond to the use of the Roman alphabet also makes sense, but that would include Romania, but not Bulgaria, and so on.

    The only problem with extending the concept of Central Europe eastward in this way is that it tends to emphasize the Germanic input in the development of these "new" Central European nations. After all, we do not think in terms of East European nobility, or even East European peasantry, but in terms of Pan European bourgeois civilization, which, from Germany eastward, always had a strong German flavor (and in the 19th and 20th Centuries, a strong Jewish flavor as well.) I am not sure acknowledging this will satisfy the righteous patriots of the former Eastern Europe.

    My own experience with Central and East Europeans (excluding Belarus, Russia, and Eastern Ukraine) is that they are all pretty much the same. But the whole point of nationalism is that they don't want to be the same.

    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox. It’s a common mistake
    for people to think of Romania, because of its name I suppose, as belonging
    to Western Christendom.

    Another correction: it’s Krakow, not Warsaw, that’s the most historic city
    in Poland. Krakow, which goes back to about 600 AD, was its historic capital
    and the seat of the Jagiellonian dynasty that dominated Central and Eastern
    Europe for centuries until it was displaced by the Hapsburg dynasty (also
    Catholic), and then for a hundred years or so was part of the Hapsburg Empire
    along with the rest of Galicia, and did reasonably well. The Catholic Hapsburgs
    were much more humane than the Lutheran Prussians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox.

    No, it's considered Western because it uses the Roman alphabet. Cyrillic is usually (but not always) a pointer to Orthodoxy.

    Yes, I know about Krakow. Here are some things about Krakow:

    The 15th and 16th centuries were known as Poland's Złoty Wiek or Golden Age.[25] Many works of Polish Renaissance art and architecture were created,[26][27] including ancient synagogues in Kraków's Jewish quarter located in the north-eastern part of Kazimierz, such as the Old Synagogue.[28] During the reign of Casimir IV, various artists came to work and live in Kraków, and Johann Haller established a printing press in the city[29] after Kasper Straube had printed the Calendarium Cracoviense, the first work printed in Poland, in 1473.[30][31]
     

    In 1520, the most famous church bell in Poland, named Zygmunt after Sigismund I of Poland, was cast by Hans Behem.[32] At that time, Hans Dürer, a younger brother of artist and thinker Albrecht Dürer, was Sigismund's court painter.[33] Hans von Kulmbach made altarpieces for several churches.[34]
     
    Oh, I thought "The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal." I won't even mention Veit Stoss.

    Let's look at L'viv:

    Throughout the 14-15th centuries the city acted as a major German handicraft centre. In the 16th century Lviv's German-speaking population become Polonised and Lviv became an important Polish and also Jewish cultural centre. Poles and Jews comprising a demographic majority of the city until the outbreak of the Second World War, until the Holocaust and the population transfers of Poles. The other ethnic groups living within the city – Germans, Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and Armenians – also contributed greatly to Lviv's culture.
     

    In 1356 Casimir brought in more Germans and within 7 years granted the Magdeburg rights which implied that all city matters were to be resolved by a council elected by the wealthy citizens. The city council seal of the 14th century stated: S(igillum): Civitatis Lembvrgensis.
     
    Of course it's well known that large numbers of Germans, Dutch, and Frisians were invited into Poland by Polish monarchs but many of them became polonized, but "The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal."

    Let's look at the fact that about 40% of present day Poland was mostly Germanic for hundreds of years. That means that many of the municipal buildings, palaces, opera houses, museums, town halls, universities and old towns in places like Szczecin, Gdansk, Poznan, Breslau, etc. etc. were built by Germans for Germans but are used to this day by Poles. But, never mind,"The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal."

    I will note however that: "Musicians have got to eat. It’s not so much that they were brilliant but that they were financially supported," as an explanation for the German musical dominance in the 18th and 19th Century is certainly one I haven't heard before.

    I think Freud had the endless German-Polish contest in mind when he coined the term, "narcissism of minor differences."
  107. @Anon 2
    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox. It's a common mistake
    for people to think of Romania, because of its name I suppose, as belonging
    to Western Christendom.

    Another correction: it's Krakow, not Warsaw, that's the most historic city
    in Poland. Krakow, which goes back to about 600 AD, was its historic capital
    and the seat of the Jagiellonian dynasty that dominated Central and Eastern
    Europe for centuries until it was displaced by the Hapsburg dynasty (also
    Catholic), and then for a hundred years or so was part of the Hapsburg Empire
    along with the rest of Galicia, and did reasonably well. The Catholic Hapsburgs
    were much more humane than the Lutheran Prussians.

    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox.

    No, it’s considered Western because it uses the Roman alphabet. Cyrillic is usually (but not always) a pointer to Orthodoxy.

    Yes, I know about Krakow. Here are some things about Krakow:

    The 15th and 16th centuries were known as Poland’s Złoty Wiek or Golden Age.[25] Many works of Polish Renaissance art and architecture were created,[26][27] including ancient synagogues in Kraków’s Jewish quarter located in the north-eastern part of Kazimierz, such as the Old Synagogue.[28] During the reign of Casimir IV, various artists came to work and live in Kraków, and Johann Haller established a printing press in the city[29] after Kasper Straube had printed the Calendarium Cracoviense, the first work printed in Poland, in 1473.[30][31]

    In 1520, the most famous church bell in Poland, named Zygmunt after Sigismund I of Poland, was cast by Hans Behem.[32] At that time, Hans Dürer, a younger brother of artist and thinker Albrecht Dürer, was Sigismund’s court painter.[33] Hans von Kulmbach made altarpieces for several churches.[34]

    Oh, I thought “The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal.” I won’t even mention Veit Stoss.

    Let’s look at L’viv:

    Throughout the 14-15th centuries the city acted as a major German handicraft centre. In the 16th century Lviv’s German-speaking population become Polonised and Lviv became an important Polish and also Jewish cultural centre. Poles and Jews comprising a demographic majority of the city until the outbreak of the Second World War, until the Holocaust and the population transfers of Poles. The other ethnic groups living within the city – Germans, Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and Armenians – also contributed greatly to Lviv’s culture.

    In 1356 Casimir brought in more Germans and within 7 years granted the Magdeburg rights which implied that all city matters were to be resolved by a council elected by the wealthy citizens. The city council seal of the 14th century stated: S(igillum): Civitatis Lembvrgensis.

    Of course it’s well known that large numbers of Germans, Dutch, and Frisians were invited into Poland by Polish monarchs but many of them became polonized, but “The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal.”

    Let’s look at the fact that about 40% of present day Poland was mostly Germanic for hundreds of years. That means that many of the municipal buildings, palaces, opera houses, museums, town halls, universities and old towns in places like Szczecin, Gdansk, Poznan, Breslau, etc. etc. were built by Germans for Germans but are used to this day by Poles. But, never mind,”The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal.”

    I will note however that: “Musicians have got to eat. It’s not so much that they were brilliant but that they were financially supported,” as an explanation for the German musical dominance in the 18th and 19th Century is certainly one I haven’t heard before.

    I think Freud had the endless German-Polish contest in mind when he coined the term, “narcissism of minor differences.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    There is a profound difference between Eastern Christendom
    and Western Christendom. One is that the eastern churches
    have split into many national branches which made them
    weak and easy to manipulate by the governments of their
    respective countries. I think one reason why the Bolsheviks
    took over Russia so easily in 1917 is due to the weakness of
    the Eastern Church there, and its lack of contact with the
    West. Another difference is that the Eastern churches, despite
    married clergy, are too otherwordly and therefore failed
    to develop any sort of social doctrine, as a Russian theologian
    once explained to me. I was raised as a Catholic, and the Marxist
    onslaught in Poland, despite the state apparatus behind it, was
    easily swatted away with the Catholic Church acting effectively
    as a powerful opposition party. We all know about Lech Walesa
    and John Paul II. The Church has its problems but the ease with
    which it disposed of Marxism (and before that, of German Nazism)
    was nothing short of amazing.

    Poland had two strikes against it in relation to Germany. First,
    even 1,000 years ago Germany had a 2 to 1 population advantage
    which it still maintains. Secondly, culture came from the West, so the
    Germans got it first, from Italy and France. Did they want to share it
    with Poland? As little as possible. Even in the 1920s German professors
    refused to accept doctoral students from Poland. That's why Maria
    Sklodowska Curie had to go (earlier) to France to study physics.

    However, when I said "culture" I meant primarily the language, the arts,
    the cuisine, and religion, and not so much science and technology. Here
    France had a much deeper influence than Germany. Besides, as Terrence
    McKenna said, "Culture is not your friend." Beethoven and a quarter won't
    buy you a cup of coffee. I'm a sucker for music as much as anybody,
    but it's mere entertainment. It won't feed your soul. For that you need
    silent contemplation, meditation or prayer, i.e., spiritual arts.

    In 1945 General Zhukov with its Red Army divisions didn't stop until
    he got to the Elbe-Saale rivers, i.e., basically the old Limes Saxoniae.
    Under Charlemagne (around 800 AD), the German tribes were supposed
    to stay to the west of that line, and not bother the Slavs who were on the
    other side. Well, we know what happened, and then in 1945 Zhukov in a matter
    of months undid 1,000 years of German Ostsiedlung, and Poland basically
    went back to the borders it had ca. 1000 AD. All those wars, with countless
    millions of victims, have produced nothing except enormous progress in
    weaponry and huge profits for the arms manufacturers. Let's hope we learned
    something from that.
  108. @SPMoore8
    A correction: Romania is 90% Eastern Orthodox.

    No, it's considered Western because it uses the Roman alphabet. Cyrillic is usually (but not always) a pointer to Orthodoxy.

    Yes, I know about Krakow. Here are some things about Krakow:

    The 15th and 16th centuries were known as Poland's Złoty Wiek or Golden Age.[25] Many works of Polish Renaissance art and architecture were created,[26][27] including ancient synagogues in Kraków's Jewish quarter located in the north-eastern part of Kazimierz, such as the Old Synagogue.[28] During the reign of Casimir IV, various artists came to work and live in Kraków, and Johann Haller established a printing press in the city[29] after Kasper Straube had printed the Calendarium Cracoviense, the first work printed in Poland, in 1473.[30][31]
     

    In 1520, the most famous church bell in Poland, named Zygmunt after Sigismund I of Poland, was cast by Hans Behem.[32] At that time, Hans Dürer, a younger brother of artist and thinker Albrecht Dürer, was Sigismund's court painter.[33] Hans von Kulmbach made altarpieces for several churches.[34]
     
    Oh, I thought "The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal." I won't even mention Veit Stoss.

    Let's look at L'viv:

    Throughout the 14-15th centuries the city acted as a major German handicraft centre. In the 16th century Lviv's German-speaking population become Polonised and Lviv became an important Polish and also Jewish cultural centre. Poles and Jews comprising a demographic majority of the city until the outbreak of the Second World War, until the Holocaust and the population transfers of Poles. The other ethnic groups living within the city – Germans, Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and Armenians – also contributed greatly to Lviv's culture.
     

    In 1356 Casimir brought in more Germans and within 7 years granted the Magdeburg rights which implied that all city matters were to be resolved by a council elected by the wealthy citizens. The city council seal of the 14th century stated: S(igillum): Civitatis Lembvrgensis.
     
    Of course it's well known that large numbers of Germans, Dutch, and Frisians were invited into Poland by Polish monarchs but many of them became polonized, but "The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal."

    Let's look at the fact that about 40% of present day Poland was mostly Germanic for hundreds of years. That means that many of the municipal buildings, palaces, opera houses, museums, town halls, universities and old towns in places like Szczecin, Gdansk, Poznan, Breslau, etc. etc. were built by Germans for Germans but are used to this day by Poles. But, never mind,"The effect of Germany on the Polish culture was minimal."

    I will note however that: "Musicians have got to eat. It’s not so much that they were brilliant but that they were financially supported," as an explanation for the German musical dominance in the 18th and 19th Century is certainly one I haven't heard before.

    I think Freud had the endless German-Polish contest in mind when he coined the term, "narcissism of minor differences."

    There is a profound difference between Eastern Christendom
    and Western Christendom. One is that the eastern churches
    have split into many national branches which made them
    weak and easy to manipulate by the governments of their
    respective countries. I think one reason why the Bolsheviks
    took over Russia so easily in 1917 is due to the weakness of
    the Eastern Church there, and its lack of contact with the
    West. Another difference is that the Eastern churches, despite
    married clergy, are too otherwordly and therefore failed
    to develop any sort of social doctrine, as a Russian theologian
    once explained to me. I was raised as a Catholic, and the Marxist
    onslaught in Poland, despite the state apparatus behind it, was
    easily swatted away with the Catholic Church acting effectively
    as a powerful opposition party. We all know about Lech Walesa
    and John Paul II. The Church has its problems but the ease with
    which it disposed of Marxism (and before that, of German Nazism)
    was nothing short of amazing.

    Poland had two strikes against it in relation to Germany. First,
    even 1,000 years ago Germany had a 2 to 1 population advantage
    which it still maintains. Secondly, culture came from the West, so the
    Germans got it first, from Italy and France. Did they want to share it
    with Poland? As little as possible. Even in the 1920s German professors
    refused to accept doctoral students from Poland. That’s why Maria
    Sklodowska Curie had to go (earlier) to France to study physics.

    However, when I said “culture” I meant primarily the language, the arts,
    the cuisine, and religion, and not so much science and technology. Here
    France had a much deeper influence than Germany. Besides, as Terrence
    McKenna said, “Culture is not your friend.” Beethoven and a quarter won’t
    buy you a cup of coffee. I’m a sucker for music as much as anybody,
    but it’s mere entertainment. It won’t feed your soul. For that you need
    silent contemplation, meditation or prayer, i.e., spiritual arts.

    In 1945 General Zhukov with its Red Army divisions didn’t stop until
    he got to the Elbe-Saale rivers, i.e., basically the old Limes Saxoniae.
    Under Charlemagne (around 800 AD), the German tribes were supposed
    to stay to the west of that line, and not bother the Slavs who were on the
    other side. Well, we know what happened, and then in 1945 Zhukov in a matter
    of months undid 1,000 years of German Ostsiedlung, and Poland basically
    went back to the borders it had ca. 1000 AD. All those wars, with countless
    millions of victims, have produced nothing except enormous progress in
    weaponry and huge profits for the arms manufacturers. Let’s hope we learned
    something from that.

    Read More
  109. Again please stop using ancient peoples to describe modern ones it has been over 1500 years we have no idea who the huns were. Thank you

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.