What seems "smart" to the Europeans is the same thing which seemed
"smart" to Chamberlain (Munich) and Hoare (Ethiopia).  It is lack of what
the Germans have come to call "Civilcourage," and it leads to disaster.  For
when a bully finds out he can terrorize, he will do so.  And that's what
Radovan Karadzic is.
        Waiting for leadership?  In Europe?  Are you serious, Greg?  Major
has the worst polls since 1932, Balladur just barely survived a student
revolt, and Kohl's victory is quite thin.
        It seems that Plato was right, "The asses of Athens go about the
streets braying democratically" and not just in Greece.

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

Funny.

An RFE/RL report (dated Oct 26, 1994) notes that Horn was a
member of the 'Padded Coats' unit in 1956 .... I assume they meant
'pufajkasok'...

How would you translate 'pufajkasok'  to English?

> An RFE/RL report (dated Oct 26, 1994) notes that Horn was a
> member of the 'Padded Coats' unit in 1956 .... I assume they meant
> 'pufajkasok'...
>
> How would you translate 'pufajkasok'  to English?

That's how.  Exactly!

Joe

Glen writes:

>         What seems "smart" to the Europeans is the same thing which seemed
> "smart" to Chamberlain (Munich) and Hoare (Ethiopia).  It is lack of what
> the Germans have come to call "Civilcourage," and it leads to disaster.  For
> when a bully finds out he can terrorize, he will do so.  And that's what
> Radovan Karadzic is.

The problem is, as I see it, that the Germans see the problem but they
cannot assert the leadership because of their recent past.  The British
have too much investment in the former Yugoslavia and the Serbs.
The French?  Well, they were the primary architect of post-WW I East-Central
Europe left pretty much intact after WW II.  Having them act would
tantamount to admitting they screwed up Europe.

The problem is that we've had only politicians lately, but no statesmen.

Joe Pannon

Tibor Benke writes:
> In an ongoing debate about Anarchismm Jeliko replied to me:


> > [snip]

> >I have no problem with anything good folks write as long as the items are
> >shown as opinions (when they are in fact only that) and do not try make
> >their opinions into a holy writ.
> >

> I have difficulty figuring out what you mean by 'opinion', 'fact', or 'holy
> writ'
> I tend to favour the ontological and epistemological position of the
> American Pragmatist Philosophers who point out the paradox that no
> individual can discern the difference between illusion and what they name
> 'fact' except in retrospect.
Sorry, if I am mistaken but I thought "history" was in retrospect.


>This results in the situation that any
> statement can be no more then a more or less well stated or more or less
> better supported opinion.
Yeah, but there can be a big difference in how it is "supported"
>A scientific opinion differs from a common sense
> opinion or a personal opinion only in that it is underpinned by evidence
> which is deemed valid by the community of scientists.
IMHO, scientific opinion can be very "common sense". As a matter of fact more
often than not, it is common sense.

>The methodology for
> the evaluation of the validity of an item of evidence is based on past
> experience of whether the given opinion worked in practice.
It is obvious that your interpretation of past experience is very different
from mine.


>As for holy
> writ, if I were quoting the Christian Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad Ghita, I
> would so indicate, and since I never claimed to be endowed with prophetic
> power, I don't see how I can be acused of  making my knowledge claims
> appear as holy writ.
IMHO, the writers of the above were not necessarily prophetic either.
> then I said:

> >> I make no bones about it, I think we would all be better of without the
> >> state.  However, I understand that the state evolved some 6,000 years
ago
> >> and is therefore a historical social reality, we can't just wish it
away.
> >

> and you replied

> >If anything, I prefer the libertarian approach to that of the anarchist
> >approach.
> >
Mainly by left wing anarchists.
> Libertarianism is sometimes called 'right wing anarchism'.  As I pointed
> out before, anarchism is extreemely heterogenous.  Personally I lean
> towards syndicalism, since I find the notion of natural property rights as
> Ayn Rand and other libertarians conceive of it about as reasonable as the
> concept of the divine right of kings.
I presume you are responding on a community computer. :-)

> Here I must insist that the archeological and anthropological opinion based
> on the observation of stateless social formations and analysis of the rise
> of cities in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, supports my opinion. roup of
> failing to control is much less crucial, (one can more easilyentral
OK so there was a state first that created the population. I have heard
states doing that. Naughty of them.

> Whether the state is still useful in the post industrial age, is another
> question.  Liberals and conservatives and fascists all agree that it is.
> Marrxists, libertarians and anarchist beleive the opposite.
IMHO, the major disagreement seemed to have been who controls the state and
not whether it useful or not.


>I  have
> indicated why I disagree with libertarianism.                            I
wouldn't have guessed.


>Marx  predicted a certain
> sequence of events for the way the state would disappear.
Something gives me the sneaky feeling that is not the only prediction where
he was off base.


>Something about
> violent revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and withering away of
> the state.  This was a pretty good first approximation of what would
> happen.  But because he couldn't have known about the depth to which
> activity controls consciousness,  he didn't realize that as soon as
> something like a dictatorship of the proletariat is established (assuming
> that a proletariat can establish such a dictatorship)  the folks who do the
> dictating, because they are engaged in management instead of labour,
> experience a change of consciousness with their change of social situation.
And let's hang all the managers too.

>  And, to carry out a successful revolution, one must organize violence, and
> as one does that, one's consciousness becomes violent.
Yes, I do recall all those fathers of the American  revolution becoming
violent.

>This is why
> "actually existing socialism" failed and this is why it failed by a
> "revolution from above":  from management's perspective, capitalism is a
> lot more convenient (I hope I needn't list the advanteges, the main one is
> that the rulers abdicate responsibility for the livelyhood of all the
> citizens;  labour discipline can then be maintained by indirect force (i.e.
> market forces) instead of direct force and the costs of technological
> progress can be transferred to the unemployed.)
It sounds so good that tomorrow I will start working.(But only if the boss
forces me.)

> I also wrote:

> >>Perhaps modern technology would not
> >> have evolved either.

> To which you reply with hairsplitting:

> >Lets see first the clearing up of some terminology, at which point does
> >technology become "modern"? There were major advances in technology,
> >before the state got itself involved in technology promotion and even then
> >it was selective in its promotion.
Yeah, but is a big hair.
> This is a good question but not revelant to the argument.  I was originaly
> responding to your argument that as an anarchist I had no right to take
> advantage of computer networks because it, was a creation of, or made
> possible by the, state.  We were speaking not of technology in general but
> modern technology and computer technology in particular, which originaly
> *you* credited to the achivement of the state.  I merely said that since
> both the state and the technology was there, I would not disadvantege
> myself against the former by refusing to use the latter.  Nor would I
> disadvvantage myself by refusing any possible benefirs the state may offer.
> you continued
Yes, don't do like I do, but do as I say. (it reminds me more of state
thinking than crass individualism)

> >To the best of my knowledge, items like
> >the reaper or the citton gin or treshing machines did not come out of
> >government laboratories. The greatest achievements in technology came from
> >individual minds. Or is that an anrchist tenet? :-)

> But the state maintains patent laws.
So, let me see, if there were no patent laws, there would be no discoveries.
It is a very original tenet.

>It was Karl Mannheim who pointed out
> that it is incorrect to maintain that any individual thinks,
Well, as long as he speaks for himself, it is OK with me.

>it is more
> correct to recognize that people think further what others have thought
> before.  Einstein too, recognized that he would have had no great
> achievements if he hadn't been "standing on the shoulders of giants".
But they were not thinking either. Oops.

> Everyone has existential liberty.  Even a concentration camp inmate is free
> to disobey and be killed or run for the electric fence.  But I see no
> reason, other then maybe symbolic why I should put myself at  disadvantage
> in my struggle.  Opting out is possible, but not a solution - the behemoth
> rolls on.  There are people who do withdraw (Though not as far back as you
> suggest)  the Amish, for example.  But their solution is based on the
> belief that they are the saving (and to be saved) remnant and  God will
> destroy the rest of us. :-(
Let me see, your state and technology generated comforts are OK, but the ones
used by the rest of the society are the evil ones.

> I was not speaking of the degree of violence at any particular time and
> place, but the relative effectiveness of organized violence as opposed to
> unorganized violence in the long run.  Violence, like energy can be
> potential.  The level of social control by the state is dependent on the
> level of violence the state is *capable of* and known to be capable of.
OK so we are talking about an imaginary place that is not based on historical
facts. Like let's say in Hobbit land. Ther you maybe right. I do not live
there and have not studied their socio-history.

> While empires are powerful, they appear to be peaceful.
How we got from a peacful empire to an "oppressor"?

I am sorry, what we see from the past and observing in the current is so
different, that there is very little addition I can make to waht we are
discussing. If the measuring stick we use, as a good anarchist would have it,
does not have a scale marking on it, it is very difficult to have a
discussion.

Regards,Jeliko.

Glen Camp writes

>         Waiting for leadership?  In Europe?  Are you serious, Greg?

Err, leadership, as in perhaps American leadership; if the European
variety is so lacking.

--Greg

Greg quotes and comments:
> Gabor Barsai writes:

> > All Germans are nazis.
> > All Russians are commies.
> > All Slovaks are hicks.
> > All Americans are uncivilized rednecks.
> > ...etc.
> >
> > Yeah, just kill us all,

> and restore the stone age!

> --Greg
Gee, sounds like the anarchist philosophy. :-)
Regards,Jeliko. Include me out.

Greg quotes, comments and "insinuates"
> Tibor Benke writes:

> > But be aware that Hobbes was wrong.

> What is Jeliko's mantra, Delenda est Carthago?  No, sorry,
> it's That is your opinion, don't state it as a fact.  :-)

> --Greg
> PS hugging is OK, planting trees is better
Considering that some historians claim that the Carthago was a Semite state,
I flatly state that I never harbored any delenda sentiments toward Carthago.
Regards,Jeliko.

Charles writes:    (Parts deleted)
> that the principle still operates.  The melting pot never was.  A man
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, will you settle for a pressure cooker?

> called Israel Zangwill wrote a play by that name shortly after the turn
> of the century.  Zangwill himself, however, became a Zionist shortly
> after and rejected the theme of the play himself.  The fundamental
> idea that an American was a new creature to whom ethnicity and national
> heritage were irrelevent is old enough, going back to Crevecouer's
> *Letters from an American Farmer* in the 18th century.  But it never
> was true in the real world.

As a matter of fact there is some evidence, that some good folks become more
"ethnic" in their American domain than those who were left behind. But there
are some indications that it is valid for Australia also. :-)
> >Charles
Regards,Jeliko.

Imi Bokor writes:  (Text deleted)

A little American history would have been helpful also in some early grades.
Regards,Jeliko.

Greg quotes:
> Hobbes wrote:

> No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all,
> continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life
> of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

> --Greg
Oh let me go back please, pretty please. It sound so "humanistic" so
"ideal" so, so anarchistic.

Regards,Jeliko

George Lazar writes:

> Well, I don't always agree with Joe, but he has a point with the Khazars.
> The Khazar theory is not 'unscientific', there are indications (no proof)
that
>  Jews
> of Eastern-Europe had no connection with the diaspora; they are
descendants of
> converted slavic tribes. Obviously, Israel opposes the idea.

> I found Koestler's book  fascinating.

To add to the intrigue, the Khazars were fairly well identified as a Turkish
origin folk, and some of them migrated to the Carpathian basin with those
identified as Hungarians. Well, there is nothing more serious than sibling
disagreements. :-)
Regards,Jeliko.

Charles quotes and writes:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:18:40 GMT JELIKO said:
> >Tibor Benke writes:
> >
> >> Eva Bokor writes, quoting me:
> >
> >That should get the keyboard rolling.:-)

> --Whatever else you are, Jeliko, you are an evil, dirty old man.

> Charles
Evil, dirty old men need a good laugh also.

Regards,Jeliko.

Mark Fletcher writes:

>Having just signed up for this e-mail thingy, I decided to join a few
>news-groups that covered areas of interest to me. Being a fairly regular
>visitor to Hungary this news-group was a must.
>
>However, after 3 weeks on the system and no messages, I am forced to ask
>
>1. Is there any news? - or does the whole country feel that there is
>nothing worth communicating.
>
>2. Is there any group? - Am I the only person outside Hungary who feels
>that this list is worth subscribing to, or has the system gone down
>through over use?
>
>Yours
>
>Mark Fletcher


Mark,
I am having the same problem here, in the USA (btw. you can find the daily
postings
of the  bit.listserv.hungary group under "*** HUNGARY *** ####" headers in the
soc.culture.magyar group), no postings appear in the  bit.listserv.hungary
USENET group on my site.
Is there anyone who reads the bit.listserv.hungary group on the USENET rather
than subscribing to the list ? Do you get all of the postings with no problem?
Take care,
Gotthard

Dear Colleagues, for those  of  you interested in  the Khazars I
          would recommend Khazar studies: an historico-philological inquiry
          into the origins of  the Khazars, by Peter Golden (Bp:  Akademiai
          Kiado, 1908).  When I took classes in Hungarian protohistory from
          Tibor Halasi-Kun at Columbia back  in  the  late  1970s  we  used
          Golden's manuscript as one of our texts (Golden was  a student of
          the late H-K).  One of the major problems in studying the Khazars
          is getting at the primary sources in  a number of languages, from
          Slavic to Chinese, and this  is where Golden's work  is scholarly
          but  Koestler's  is   not.   Ken   Nyirady   

Some bit.listserv.* suffer poor propagation - eg. a major NorthEastern
provider does not carry b.l.hungary at all (and has inexplicable gaps
in b.l.slovak). Try complaining to your local system administrator (and
swear that the group is supposed to be carried ;-(). And bear in mind
that the list is primarily LISTSERV based, the Usenet gateway is only
secondary. The surest way to get everything is to subscribe at
 via email!

-- Zoli

Well, Clinton *is* showing signs of life in Kuwait and Haiti and
*is* introducing his "lift the embargo" motion in the UNSC.  But he's
unwilling or unable to lead if Russia and the UK and Fr. refuse to go along
(and they have a UNSC veto anyway).  So he won't go "lift and strike" on
Bosnia-Herzegovina unilaterally which I think is the only way to make the
Bosnian Serb leadership take America, the Contact Group, or the UN or NATO
seriously.  The Serbs *have* shown they are willing to pull back when the
UN has shown muscle, but now view the UN as someone who can be pushed around
or attcked with impunity.
        Aggression is still aggression and "ethnic cleansing" is still
similar to "Die Endloesung" of Hitler's "Judenrein" policy during WWII.
We Americans just should start acting like the Superpower we still claim
to be!  Otherwise the "Third Balkan War" could easily spread with the
Russians and Greeks supporting the Serbs and the Germans the Croats, etc.
Tragically, the Europeans need American courage and will just as they did
when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler at Munich or Hoare gave in to Mussolini
over Ethiopia!

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Mon, 31 Oct 1994  wrote:

> Glen Camp writes
>
> >         Waiting for leadership?  In Europe?  Are you serious, Greg?
>
> Err, leadership, as in perhaps American leadership; if the European
> variety is so lacking.
>
> --Greg
>

On Mon, 31 Oct 1994 16:57:57 -0500 Glen Camp said:
>Tragically, the Europeans need American courage and will just as they did
>when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler at Munich or Hoare gave in to Mussolini
>over Ethiopia!
>
--I'll probably get flamed again for discussing non-Hungarian topics, but
I am old enough to have a conscious memory of the Second World War.
If you recall, Professor Camp, America did nothing when Chamberlain gave
in to Hitler.  It was Churchill who raised hell, and rightly so, not
Roosevelt.  We did not distinguish ourselves over Ethiopia, either.  If
I were British, I would vote for Tony Blair if the election were held
today, but I must respectully argue that it was Winston Churchill who
was the rock when he was needed most.  I recall Ed Murrow's big voice
beginning his report, "This is London" while broadcasting from beneath
a table while the bombs fell.

An personal sidelight.  I was teaching modern European history, for my
sins, back in the 1960s.  I was lecturing on the Second World War.  I said,
"And who can forget Edward R. Murrow's broadcasts from London," when I
suddenly realized that none of my students knew what in the hell I was
talking about.  It was then that I realized that I was growing old.  Now,
I am ancient!

Charles Atherton

Joe Pannon wrote re Western dithering about the Yugoslav conflict:

>The problem is, as I see it, that the Germans see the problem but they
>cannot assert the leadership because of their recent past.  The British
>have too much investment in the former Yugoslavia and the Serbs.

I have no info about British investment in the Serbs.  My perception is that
the Brits' main problem is that they still haven't decided if they are part
of Europe or not.  The Chamberlainesque 'faraway country about which we
know little' mentality must still be part of the Foreign Office thinking
about xYugoslavia.  They feel compelled to do something, to prove that they
still are a power to reckon with, but do not really want to get involved.

>The French?  Well, they were the primary architect of post-WW I East-Central
>Europe left pretty much intact after WW II.  Having them act would
>tantamount to admitting they screwed up Europe.

They are also paranoid about Moslems and secretly must be wishing if the
Serbs had cleared up this 'anomaly' in Central Europe.  Reports of French
UN soldiers going over to the Serbs speak for themselves.  In her misguided
effort to contain Islam, France is creating another justly resentful and ever
less tolerant Muslim community, this time in the middle of Europe.

Greg Grose wrote:
>Glen Camp writes
>>Waiting for leadership?  In Europe?  Are you serious, Greg?

>Err, leadership, as in perhaps American leadership; if the European
>variety is so lacking.

Actually, arguably American leadership started it all.  It was George Bush
who said that Yugoslavia (the old one) was a splendid idea and it should
remain intact.  The next day the Yugo Army tanks started rolling towards
Slovenia.  Then, as the Serbs pounded Vukovar, he walked away from it all
and let the 'European Initiative' do the running.

Glen Camp wrote:
>Well, Clinton *is* showing signs of life in Kuwait and Haiti and
>*is* introducing his "lift the embargo" motion in the UNSC.

After much hesitation, but better late than never.

>But he's
>unwilling or unable to lead if Russia and the UK and Fr. refuse to go along
>(and they have a UNSC veto anyway).  So he won't go "lift and strike" on
>Bosnia-Herzegovina unilaterally which I think is the only way to make the
>Bosnian Serb leadership take America, the Contact Group, or the UN or NATO
>seriously.

I only hope that at least satellite information about Serb military movements
is being passed on to the Bosnian government, along with some Stingers and
antitank weapons 'lost' during Desert Storm.

>The Serbs *have* shown they are willing to pull back when the
>UN has shown muscle, but now view the UN as someone who can be pushed around
>or attcked with impunity.

In the end it can only be the Bosnians who can roll back the Serb conquest.
Clinton's biggest achievement in assisting this so far was to pull that hare-
brained Tudjman into line, the one who gave Serbs the reason for attack in the
first place and then supported Herzegovinan Croats in battling the Muslims
instead of joining up against the Serbs.

And what is the Hungarian relevance in this, you ask.  Plenty.

Hungary cannot rely on more than sporadic lip service from the self-righteous
West in her support for ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries.  Whatever
the regimes in those neighbouring countries, be it Meciars or Milosevices, as
much contact must be maintained with them as possible.  If it came to conflict
of any form, rights or wrongs would not matter, and Hungary would be treated
the same way as Croatia and Bosnia was/is: the West would only want to smother
the conflict and not solve the reasons for it.

The only way to make rich European countries interested enough in Hungary is
to integrate with them economically as much as possible: then the lobbying
will come from the foreign companies having something at stake in Hungary.
The German orientation is necessary, as it is still the Germans who put their
money, at least, where their mouth is.  This was started off pretty well by
the Nemeth government and carefully cultivated by the late PM Antall.  As long
as Kohl is in power, Hungary has a sympathetic ear in Western Europe, the trick
is to broaden the German links beyond him and the CDU.  Just as Austria is an
economic appendage of Germany, the best thing that could happen to Hungary is
to become the economic appendage of them.

George Antony

George Antony writes:

> Actually, arguably American leadership started it all.  It was George Bush
> who said that Yugoslavia (the old one) was a splendid idea and it should
> remain intact.

Yes, like his Chicken Kiev speech.  But I've heard--won't defend, only
report--the idea that it was Germany's rush to recognize the breakaway
republics that pushed the Serbs over the line into military action.


> ...If it came to conflict
> of any form, rights or wrongs would not matter, and Hungary would be treated
> the same way as Croatia and Bosnia was/is...

> ...the best thing that could happen to Hungary is
> to become the economic appendage of [the Austro-German economy].

I think you're right twice.

--Greg

I am glad that Tibor Benke realizes that his knowledge of Hungarian history
is inadequate and he is planning to read a bit on the subject. The right move
in the right direction.

Why did we have these atrocities, red or white? I think that after four years
of a brutal war, human life became cheap and atrocities were committed
somewhat more easily than otherwise would have been. Also, you must realize
that, in either case, you are dealing with extremes: the extreme left and the
extreme right. Both Kun and Szamuelly served on the Russian front and both
were captured by 1915. They spent about two years in POW camps. Both had been
social democratic newspapermen who sympathized with the Bolsheviks. Between
November 1917 and November 1918 they were involved in the Bolshevik
Revolution and the Civil War. Both kept moving further and further to the
left, while they were being surrounded by brutality. They were extremely
doctrinaire--much more so than Lenin, for example, who was quite willing to
compromise as long as it ensured the survival of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Kun and Szamuelly didn't have the flexibility of Lenin--they introduced a
regime which was doomed to fail. And soon enough there were challenges to the
new regime--their answer was terror.

On the other side, we have a bunch of people who are also extremists. They
are certain that all the trouble of the country originates with the left, and
that left consists of urban, Jewish intelligentsia and their sympathizers.
These officers also went through four years of hell at the front, where life
was cheap. They were extremely bitter about the lost war, the lost
territories, and brutalized by the war which just ended. Therefore, I am not
at all surprised about the atrocities committed on either sides.

Macartney's book on interwar Hungary is an excellent one. He also has a good
book on the monarchy.

Eva Balogh