At 10:20 PM 5/25/96 -0600, Cecilia elaborated mightily on the term
"genocide," quoting a legal dictionary (famous, I realize) and an
encyclopedia in order to prove that mental cruelty or mental anguish falls
under the term "genocide." Never mind that Black's dictionary talks mostly
about divorce cases and that normally when we hear the word "genocide," we
indeed think of bodily harm and not mental anguish. Moreover, the United
Nations' definition of "genocide," although lists five points as
constituting "genocide," is mentioning "mental anguish" or "mental cruelty,"
take your pick, only once and surely not most importantly. Moreover, since
the word was coined only in 1944, most likely it was coined in order to
describe a contemporary event: the mass murders of Europe's Jewish
population. To compare the Romanian or Slovak treatment of the minority
populations living in these countries as genocide is highly misleading, if
not fradulant. Moreover, the use of such extreme words gives fertile grounds
for the other side to use extreme words and methods against the very
population Cecilia would like to protect. I call the attention on that score
to Gabor Fencsik's excellent piece.

        I came to the conclusion a long time ago--at least twenty years
ago--that Hungarian propaganda concerning very legitimate grievances of the
country was misdirected or, perhaps better put, lacked sophistication and a
knowledge of its audience. When I read first time the famous book *Justice
for Hungary,* published in the early 1930s, I was horrified at the
primitiveness of its propaganda. As if the Hungarian political elite, who
after all was directing these propaganda efforts, had no knowledge of the
thinking of their former enemies. As I always said: here was Count Albert
Apponyi, the head of the Hungarian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference
in 1920, who was able to speak three or four languages equally well (and my
God, he did repeat the same text three times over, I am sure, to the utter
delight of his audience!!!) and yet, he delivered a speech at that
not-so-important meeting (the reason I am saying that the meeting at Trianon
wasn't important at this junction because all the decision had been reached
already a year earlier) which was completely misdirected. It was arrogant in
the sense that it kept repeating the superiority of the Hungarians over the
nationalities, over and over again. The obvious question to such a speech
was: Why were these nationalities so behind as far as educational
attainments were concerned? Why didn't the Hungarian government make sure
that the Slovaks, Romanians, Serbians, etc. received equal education to that
of the Magyar-speaking citizens? And, don't fear, these questions came
immediately. Hungarians were never any good at this game of "influencing
public opinion in the West." And they'd better learn it because it is
important. A good example of good foreign propaganda came from the Czech in
all through the First World War and after. And TODAY!  Their propaganda
worked then and it works today.


>I guess Eva and Joe, and a few others coming from a culture where practicing
>"mental cruelty" on one another nearly all the time is considered normal
>behavior, they haven't yet learned that in some Western countries, it is
>possible to cause mental harm without the use of something like a literal
>2-by-4.

        Aniko questioned this rather interesting passage already. Joe, as
far as I know, was a young child when his family came to this country and
somehow I don't think that his family "practiced mental cruelty" on him
either in Hungary or in Canada. I myself was only a few years older than Joe
and I don't remember any "mental cruelty" practiced in my family or in my
general surroundings. Moreover, we have been both living in this
country/Canada for a very long time and even if we had been brought up in a
society where "mental cruelty" is acceptable (which it is not), I am sure,
by now, forty years later, it has been wiped out from the dark corners of
our souls.

>If Eva, Joe and others really
>understood all that, they wouldn't persist in castigating characters and
>persons instead of just the ideas.

        I don't know what personal attack you are referring to. I did object
to your use of wrong statistics. Somehow I don't think that it helps your
case if you think that there had been 20+ million Magyars in 1910, and today
there are only 16 million, when the first figure is entirely wrong and the
second one is most likely wrong. That certainly wasn't a personal attack. If
you want to be an effective lobbyist you ought to have at least your facts
straight.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:11 PM 5/27/96 -0600, Csipkay Karoly, wrote:

>Dear Szalai,
>
>thanks for your declaration of love.

Your sarcasm is unbecoming.  But then you're the guy who says things like,
"gays despise the straights and straights despise the gays" and then write a
couple of posts saying that you meant to say something else, like, "perhaps
they don't understand each other".

>For a week now I was considering just
>filing it away with the rest of my fan mail, since I understand that those
>are your opinions, and if you never had the opportunity to learn how to
>express yourself in a civilized way, who can blame you?

I can express myself in a civilized way, thank you.  If you can't handle it,
get professional help.

>What made me change my mind was that, upon re-reading your posting, I felt
>that I can't ignore the total ignorance of your own character.

No, you mustn't.

>A person whose every second word is an insult, surely can't believe that he
>"EMBRACES all the challenges that life gives.  Gives full and unconditional
>support to all peoples who are trying to rid the world of prejudice and
>hate. You (I) seems to wallow in it."

You say that every second word I use is an insult.  Really?  When you say
that straights despise gays, what kind of words should I use as a rebuttal?

>Do you really think that the only way to get rid of the world of prejudice
>and hate is by physically eliminating all your enemies?

Where did you get this nonsense from?  I never said anything like that.  Are
you looking in the mirror and projecting again?

>You are a typical
>paranoiac who sees threats where there are people who want to help.

And how have you been helping?  Have you contacted Hungarian politicians and
told them that you favour gay rights in Hungary?  Have you told them that
you're sick and tired of anti-semitism in Hungary?  Why do I suspect that
your answer to both questions is "no".

>You use expressions intended to insult, and you don't realize that you are
>insulting yourself.

Maybe I get a sexual kick out of it.  Do you mind?

>If you say I am boring, don't you realize that that
>puts me into very good company? And who cares what bores you? If you see
>it's boring, don't read it. If a large segment of our members would tell me
>that I am boring, I would line myself up with Milton and Thackaray and Paul
>Johnson, but, unlike them, I would stop writing.

You started out by saying that talking about gay rights is boring and
talking about anti-semitism is tiresome.  Too bad for you.  I was just
saying that *you* were boring.  Fighting *for* gay rights and *against*
anti-semitism is anything but boring.

>That I am so cocksure of myself and of what my opinion is, is totally
>wrong, but if that's how I sound, I am going against one of my own
>principles, which is not to coerce or persuade anybody of something they
>don't naturally profess. I will mend my ways.

Yes.  Please do.  But be careful!

>You say I am homophobic.

"Gays despise the straights and straights despise the gays and never the
twain shell meet."  Sounds homophobic to me.

>First of all, homophobic is a bastard word, it does not mean really >anything.

Are you saying that some words begin life legally?  You probably can't get
over the fact that homosexuals call themselves (or, ourselves) gay.

>What you want to say is " phobic against homosexuals", which I am simply
>not..

That's your opinion.  Mine is very different.  I think that you are
"homophobic".

>But I am, up to a point, anthropophobic, an attitude one develops with age
>and a lot of experience and by just having one's eyes open.

Oh boy!  I can hardly wait to mature.  I don't have to hate gays when I can
hate humankind.  Sounds like a complete package deal to me.

>You feel, that when I say "in tune with my age", being angry all the time,
>that you are very much superior, because you are not angry, yet also
reached >a certain age.

It's not a question of superiority.  One can be in tune with one's age, and
have one's eye open, and still not be angry.  Anger dulls the senses and
makes action for change impossible.  Just look at yourself!

>If you are not angry
>then you must accept all the unfairness, the inequities, the
>discrimination, the genocide, the prejudices, etc. which exist in this
>world, and against which neither insults nor your unconditional support
>will make a damn bit of difference.

Well, you'd be right if the world was populated with people like you.  But
it's not.  There are a lot of people who like diversity.

>You suggest Geritol, and you seem to have good results with it. I would
>nearly say that you should cut down on it a bit, your junior high school
>level behavior might be the result of overdose.

You're too kind.

>You berate me for bringing my (English) wife into this Hungarian matter.

I didn't berate you.  I was simply trying to make the point that it's odd
that you don't think that this newsgroup is the place to discuss gay rights
but you felt perfectly OK to share aspects of your heterosexual lifestyle.
It's not a case of "do as I say, not as I do", is it?

>English is not my first, nor my second, nor my third, nor my fourth, but my
>fifth language.

Just goes to show that if you can be wrong in one language, you can be wrong
in many languages.

>It's her first language. So it is only natural that I often
>ask for her editing aspecially in grammar and syntax, but also in correct
>use of words. She is VERY unhappy, for not seeing that "despise" word.

And how do you feel about it?  Are you unhappy about using that word?

>Besides, she seems to me a better Hungarian than you are.

Good, since you'll be going to bed with her and not with me.

>Finally, my use of a quote from one of the highest regarded Hungarian poets
>gets your goat. Well, it may be considered corny, but it expresses my
>feelings exactly, just as it would reflect the feelings of other nations,
>like American, Canadian, Rumanian, Slovak, Bosniak Serb, Bosnian Muslim,
>Chroatian, German, Japanese, etc. . One is what one is, you know.

Yeah.  Tell me about it.

>I was thirty-five when I left Hungary, and there are an awful lot of things
>I can't shed.

You don't have to shed everything.  Nobody is asking you to.  However, if
you got rid of your homophobia and stopped being such a misanthrope you
might realize that other lives are worth living too.

>Not just paprika, palacsinta and porkolt, but for instance that
>I can only enjoy "futball "(called soccer here, because they applied
>"football" to a hate game which is not even played with feet) and in
>general  aggressive games leave me only angry.

Then don't watch them.

>Baseball is OK, except that I never learnt to understand it.

Baseball is like watching paint dry.

>There. Now I can go back to my normal daily gripes.

Sorry to cause you "abnormal" gripes.

Joe Szalai

Friends,

       I agree with Martha fully that much of the correspondence
    should be done privately.  There is no need  to discuss such
    private matters publically,  unless they are relevant to the
    subject at hand. This is, in part, what Martha wrote to Joe:

> Please tell me if this post was RELEVANT to many things that were
> discussed up to that time.  It was full of me, Me, ME...  For
> some time now it's been a continuous list of: MY studies, MY
> health problems, MY computer, MY friends, MY garden, MY
> bookshelves, MY family - ad nauseam.  To a single person, to a
> group of close friends, these are every day topics.  But to a
> list of hundreds - hardly!

    And please don't  tell me that this is  an attempt by Martha
    to control the agenda. This is nonsense and those who attack
    her know it full well. BTW Joe,  do you know  how to write a
    sentence without trying to insult somebody?

       Cecilia, besides talking about HER everything, has a very
    interesting way of trying to make friends and convince folks
    about the correctness of her views:

> ... and a few others coming from a CULTURE where practicing
> "mental cruelty" on one another  all the time is considered
> normal behavior,

    Is this really your view of the culture of Hungary, Cecilia?
    With half  a sentence you  are insulting  and alienating all
    the Hungarians in Hungary. And then

> ...they haven't yet learned that in some Western countries ...

    So you also manage to insult those who live in the West. Not
    the most recommended way to make friends.

                                                Amos

At 08:00 AM 5/27/96 -0600, Cecilia wrote:

>It seems to an insignificant non-cultural item, relegated only to as Count
>Michael Karolyi put it in his first autobiography (before he ended up in
>exile), "those stupid southwestern Hungarians who don't see how important
>his mother's soirees to discuss the political milieu really are, and prefer
>to spend as much time getting mud on their boots among the peasants, or
>more,   than attending his mother's or the imperial court."

        Which autobiography are you referring to? To my knowledge Karolyi
hadn't written an autobiography before he left for exile in 1919. Moreover,
the quotation is not very clear to me.


>Is there perhaps another forum around that covers the other endeavors that
>some Hungarians might practice as avocations or hobbies, and might consider
>worth sharing?  Perhaps a Hungarian "rennaissance persons" forum where
>people who grew up more like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, rather
>than like Karl Marx, Lenin, or Goebbels, learning to appreciate and explore
>all kinds of things in life, might be congregating?

        I am afraid Cecilia is becoming more and more insulting. If I
understand the above paragraph correctly, she is comparing us to Marx,
Lenin, and Goebbels, as opposed to true democrats like Jefferson and
Washington. I find all these name-callings unacceptable.

        Eva Balogh

At 11:38 PM 5/27/96 -0400, Martha wrote:

>Please tell me if this post was RELEVANT to many things that were
>discussed up to that time.  It was full of me, Me, ME...  For
>some time now it's been a continuous list of: MY studies, MY
>health problems, MY computer, MY friends, MY garden, MY
>bookshelves, MY family - ad nauseam.  To a single person, to a
>group of close friends, these are every day topics.  But to a
>list of hundreds - hardly!  They couldn't be more tedious, and -
>let's be honest ! - utterly boring!

        The above coupled with Sam Stowe's observation on Cecilia's method
of corresponding pretty well sums it up.

        Eva Balogh

At 12:00 PM 5/27/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:

>Cecilia Fabos-Becker wrote in connection with Wallenberg:

>> So, go ahead and just believe whatever it is you want to believe.  You
>> probably won't find a lot of rational debate in this group, and even less
>> likely any consensus since Wallenberg represents something political to most
>> of them.
>
>To whom is the latter addressed ?

        asked George. I would also be very curious to get an answer to this
question. I regret that Cecilia has such a low opinion of us; i.e., she
doesn't think that we are capable of rational debate. Hmm! Until now I
really thought that we had been actually quite rational in our discussions.
Admittedly, here and there one finds people who find it hard to marshal
rational thoughts and simply make personal attacks on other people, but they
are relatively few in number.

        In any case, don't forget to answer the above question. I am very
curious.

        Eva Balogh

Hello,

I was just informed by my company that some of the mail sent to the hungarylist
is not getting through to me and has been erased.  Could someone please verify
my receiver i.d. and see if you all have noticed any problems?

Thank you,
Mark Humphreys

>At 12:00 PM 5/27/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>
>>Cecilia Fabos-Becker wrote in connection with Wallenberg:
>
>>> So, go ahead and just believe whatever it is you want to believe.  You
>>> probably won't find a lot of rational debate in this group, and even less
>>> likely any consensus since Wallenberg represents something political to mos
t
>>> of them.
>>
>>To whom is the latter addressed ?
>
>        asked George. I would also be very curious to get an answer to this
>question. I regret that Cecilia has such a low opinion of us; i.e., she
>doesn't think that we are capable of rational debate. Hmm! Until now I
>really thought that we had been actually quite rational in our discussions.
>Admittedly, here and there one finds people who find it hard to marshal
>rational thoughts and simply make personal attacks on other people, but they
>are relatively few in number.
>
>        In any case, don't forget to answer the above question. I am very
>curious.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>
>I belive Eva it was addressed to me.I was the one who asked about the truth
with Raul Wallenberg.Did not find out too much,but anyway we ow ourlife to  him
.
Maybe he was a bigger hero than Schindler,butfor god's sake I don't want to
start a discussion about who was better.
Regards:Andy K.

Dear Martha,
on Mon, 27 May 1996 00:26:41 -0400 you wrote:

>Cecilia,
>I cannot believe that you have meant this almost entirely personal note,
>addressed to Aniko, containing over 7,000 bytes for all of us.  After
>all, not everyone is interested in gardening, manure and the like - nor
>other topics that this letter of yours contains.
I wonder  what prompted you on this quiet (referring to the Hungarian
list) Memorial Day week-end to lash out at Cecilia. Granted, her note to
Aniko did mention gardening and other
topics, but than, so what? This was ONE posting. She may have clicked on
the wrong
reply button. (Instead of 'Reply to Author' she may have done 'Reply').

>May I respectfully request that we all try to direct the mail ONLY to
those
>who are involved in the correspondence?
I have seldom seen any private correspondence on the HL.

>Thanks for your attention.
I have to admit, your note really got my attention. Egnek allt a hajam.

>P.S.
>I am also somewhat guilty with my query about some food, that
precipitated
>the arrival of the recipes.  For that, I apologize.  I asked for a
_general_
>idea what they were.  I had no idea that I was going to get the recipes
>ON the list!
Come on Martha, I thought it was great.....what is wrong with an
occasional
light subject? Even discussion of recipes can lead to serious historical
discussion.

>As to the best method of disseminating recipes, by all means, let's
>exchange them, but it can be done in private.  I don't even have any
>objections against posting them with the appropriate heading:  ".....
recipe"
Why the lecture? You may not realize it, but you sound like a school
master.
I think most of us are out of school .

>It is all the non-essential, foreign topics that I desire to eliminate.
Pardon me, but I think your posting was 'non-essential' or if I may say
so, it is
'petty'.

>A little consideration can go a long way.
So can some introspection.

Regards,
Marina

At 03:06 PM 5/26/96 -0600, Cecilia wrote:

>Dear Joe and Eva;

>I wasn't surprised at your responses.  Predictable, very predictable.  I
>suppose this is why your postings never appear in the Hungarian Lobby--you
>probably think everyone of the 200 some odd people are all a bunch of
>paranoic nuts.  And all those letters and calls from Transylvania, Slovakia
>and the Voivodina, etc?-- all generated by the same few isolated crazy
>cranks, right?

        You are jumping to conclusions, but you are right that I never
appeared in the Hungarian Lobby. I will try to explain to you why not.
        First and foremost, I am not at all sure whether the Hungarian
Lobby's general approach to the problems of the Hungarian minorities is the
correct one. I am convinced that the only way to handle the question is to
make sure that the best possible relations exist between the Yugoslav,
Romanian, and Slovak governments, on the one hand, and Hungary, on the
other. I am also convinced that the best possible solution to the problem
would be the inclusion of all these countries in the European Union. In this
happy event, the borders between these countries would be of less
significance than it is now and thus easier intercourse between the
citizenry of the countries would be beneficial to the Hungarian minorities.
Therefore, antagonistic calls for exclusion of Romania and Slovakia from the
European Union, or NATO are, at least in my opinion, counterproductive.
        Second, some of the letters sent out by the Hungarian Lobby were not
the kind I could endorse. Although suggestions to change the tone or the
contents of some of the letters were pouring in--on this very list, by the
way--those suggestions were totally ignored. The letters went out as they
had been originally submitted, wrong historical information and all. If I
recall Gabor Fencsik, Andras Kornai, Roman Kanala, and myself offered
opinions but obviously nobody was interested in our, in my opinion, very
sensible suggestions.
        Third, I have very little interest in organized activities of this
sort. I have never joined any emigre organization, partly because I hate
meetings and if I can help it I avoid them, and partly because I couldn't
associate myself with their aims.

>Sometimes they're right, sometimes not.  But no one is calling most of them
>"crazy" or suggesting they have some sort of psychological illness for
>holding the views they do.

        I didn't call you crazy. I just don't think that your approach is
the correct one. That's all.

>Fortunately, the world is free in a lot of places, and you have a
>right to your opinions, also. You're experiences are just as valid as mine,
>although often quite different it seems.   Although I disagree with many of
>them, I will defend your right to hold them--as any others, and I will
>continue to try and extend those rights to many others.

        Thank you very much. That is very kind of you.


>By the way, does the term "quisling" mean anything to either of you?

        You are again in your insulting phase. Moreover, since you just gave
a lecture on respecting other people's views, this is an odd way of
addressing me. Oh, yes, you did add:

>I would not correlate it to you, or
>anyone else, in this matter, but others could certainly try it upon someone
>or much worse.

        But then, why mention it.


>Some entire lists I no longer subscribe to.  There may be a
>few roses in the garbage, but finding them is no longer worth sorting
>through so much stinking filth.

        Now, now, this isn't nice: stinking filth. Please, if that's how you
feel, by all means, unsubscribe.


>Oh but those inferior UC Berkeley professors and stupid church
>do-gooders can't possibly know more than Joe Szalai and Eva Balogh, right?

        Again, please watch your language.

        Eva Balogh

From:    (Stowewrite) wrote:
on 27 May 1996 00:58:05 -0400

.............
>Maybe if we all
>listened to our stomachs, the world would be a better place.

Sam,
How true !

mep

HUNGARIAN AMERICAN COALITION

For further information please contact  Klary Hefty at: (202) 296-9505


HUNGARIAN AMERICAN COALITION

At 10:13 AM 5/27/96 -0400, Darren wrote:
>Context for this question.
>
>Last weekend, 60 Minutes ran a story on the author of the Turner Diaries,
>the books that many militia are allegedly using as the source and reason
>for the racsist stances they take. The book describes a race war of the
>1990's. The author, is shown in one scene of the interview walking with
>his Hungarian wife.
>
>He then goes on to talk about the aryan nation, the other assorted
>garbage about how the US should be a whtie nation, everyone readign this
>gets the drift I hope.

        I am glad that you mentioned this. I saw the program too, although I
was a bit late turning the TV on and I missed the Hungarian wife but someone
from this list wrote about the Hungarian connection to me privately.

        As far as I know the Aryans were people who spoke an Indo-European
language and migrated into northern India and therefore, I don't think that
the Hungarians qualify. However, what I found interesting was that this man
is highly educated, and has a rather distinguished demeanor. He could utter
the most horrendous things in the calmest manner. His tone was measured. And
he looked like a retired university professor. Isn't he one, by the way? I
found not just him frightening but that a man of his background and general
countenance could possibly utter those words.

        Eva Balogh

Mark,

This posting duly arrived in our mailboxes.  Please tell us what you have
written before - that way we can recall whether your missive made it to
the list or not.

BTW: there were only a handful of messages during last weekend, as it was
Memorial Day on Monday and people were not posting during the long weekend.
Perhaps that is why you presume that something was missing.

Martha


On Tue, 28 May 1996, Mark Humphreys wrote:

> I was just informed by my company that some of the mail sent to the
 hungarylist
> is not getting through to me and has been erased.  Could someone please verif
y
> my receiver i.d. and see if you all have noticed any problems?

On Mon, 27 May 1996, Mpflerr wrote:

> I wonder  what prompted you on this quiet (referring to the Hungarian
> list) Memorial Day week-end to lash out at Cecilia. Granted, her note to

It was not a sudden decision; it has been brewing for MONTHS.  About two
months ago, I tried to post a much less pointed plea, but it bounced back
each time.  When someone else tried it on my behalf, it ended with the
same results.  Just then, Cecilia had an operation and it was untimely
and unnecessary.  So, I threw my letter away.

> I have seldom seen any private correspondence on the HL.

You must not be reading Cecilia's letters.  - I can't blame you there,
but may I direct you to the archives if you need further proof?  I am not
talking about letters that were *addressed* to a certain individual, but
posted for ALL of us, full of *personal* information.

> light subject? Even discussion of recipes can lead to serious historical
> discussion.

Agreed.  I was the first one to welcome the chain of discussion on the
culinary arts.  It IS a part of our nation's culture, thus very relevant
to the list.

> Why the lecture? You may not realize it, but you sound like a school
> master.
> I think most of us are out of school .

Once a teacher, always a teacher.  I guess it is an occupational hazard.
I didn't mean to lecture, but give a common-sensical suggestion.  Sorry
if I stepped on anyone's toes.  It was not intentional.

> >It is all the non-essential, foreign topics that I desire to eliminate.
> Pardon me, but I think your posting was 'non-essential' or if I may say
> so, it is
> 'petty'.

It got your attention.  It was read by everyone who cared.  That was my
aim.   Therefore it was necessary - from where I stand.

> >A little consideration can go a long way.
> So can some introspection.

I will consider my alternate options.

Thank you for expressing your opinions.
Martha

Aniko Dunford wrote

> The part that really bothers me... rather than begin the ['Freedom Fight']
> debate
> with a maliciously demeaning posting, why is it impossible to spell out
> background, intents and intended requests from the beginning, lay all cards
> on the table so to say?

Well, this would be tantamount to the king declaring himself naked: "we need
some heroes from the past, and the only way we can do that is to twist
the facts around a bit".

> Rather than resorting to accussation, followed by dragging people's past
> involvements with '56 into the picture in a most demeaning fashion; ie the
> attack on E.Balogh's involvement, Liptak's ... to site a few names we are
> all familiar with.

The political extremes never consider calm, factual and considerate
argumentation the preferred way of getting their points through.  As far as
they are concerned, it is war, total war.  In a war, you try to destroy your
enemy, and the ideological war is no different.

I suppose we can be grateful for the fact that among Hungarians such attitudes
characterize a small, albeit noisy, minority, and that violence is so far only
verbal, not physical.  The trouble is when large enough segments of the
population use violence to add punch to their arguments: see the Balkans.

> Let alone the many others whom the topic will
> undoubtadly end up reaching and resulting in who will ever know what?  I
> guess I must be a pure idealist/dreamer, and a very naive one at that.  For
> the approach having been utilized in this thread makes about as much sense
> to me as jumping into the North Atlantic Ocean in the middle of January with
> a dental floss to pose as my cover, that would protect my bawd from the
 weather.

This is what the extremists cannot understand or do not want to know about.
So far, the evidence of Hungarian elections is that most people are turned
off by extremist vituperation just as much as you are.

George Antony

P.S. I am glad that you, and evidently others, found my essay interesting.

I spent Memorial Day with friends in the Washington DC area. On Sunday we
visited the Vietnam War Memorial and the Korean War Memorial. Regardless of
one's feelings about those or any other wars, it is heartbreaking to see the
thousands of names of young people who died for their country. You can see a
few Hungarian names on the wall.

On the other hand it was strange to see the thousands of motorcyclists. Some
of them looked like real war veterans but many of them looked like Hell's
Angels.

Gabor D. Farkas

Aniko Dunford writes about the revolution vs. freedom fight "debate":

> The part that really bothers me... rather than begin the debate with
> a maliciously demeaning posting, why is it impossible to spell out
> background, intents and intended requests from the beginning, lay all
> cards on the table so to say?

George Antony replies:

> Well, this would be tantamount to the king declaring himself naked:
> "we need some heroes from the past, and the only way we can do that is
> to twist the facts around a bit".

If I might elaborate on George's point: it's not so much a matter of
inventing heroes where none existed -- more like a concerted attempt
to malign, slander, and discredit the heroes that did exist.

George observes -- I think correctly -- that, in discussing '56, the
antipathy of the extreme Right toward the word "revolution" is
largely due to its left-wing connotations.  This is not always obvious
to a (mostly) American audience, because here the word is associated
with the American Revolution which was made by people who were
radicals by everyone's definition, but were not left-wing at all.

The art of using loaded terms for political purposes is not, of course,
an invention of Eastern Europeans.  Just consider the uses of innocent-
sounding expressions such as "states' rights" or "moral majority" or
"family values" or "pro-life" in American political discourse.  The
East European twist is to use, and abuse, and constantly re-write
history in order to score political points in the present.  This
technique would not work in the U.S. because of the general lack of
interest in historical hairsplitting, or history in general -- as in
"History is Bunk".

-----
Gabor Fencsik

At 07:48 AM 5/28/96 -0400, "Amos J. Danube" >, wrote:

>    Friends,
>
>       I agree with Martha fully that much of the correspondence
>    should be done privately.

Sort of like masturbation, eh?

>    There is no need  to discuss such
>    private matters publically,  unless they are relevant to the
>    subject at hand.

Whose hand?  Yours or mine?

>    This is, in part, what Martha wrote to Joe:
>
>> Please tell me if this post was RELEVANT to many things that were
>> discussed up to that time.  It was full of me, Me, ME...  For
>> some time now it's been a continuous list of: MY studies, MY
>> health problems, MY computer, MY friends, MY garden, MY
>> bookshelves, MY family - ad nauseam.  To a single person, to a
>> group of close friends, these are every day topics.  But to a
>> list of hundreds - hardly!
>
>    And please don't  tell me that this is  an attempt by Martha
>    to control the agenda. This is nonsense and those who attack
>    her know it full well. BTW Joe,  do you know  how to write a
>    sentence without trying to insult somebody?

Sorry to disappoint you, Amos, but I'm going to tell you that the above *is*
an attempt by Martha to control the agenda.  Martha seems to be addicted to
controlling people.  First she wants people to do this, and then that, and
then the other.  In this case she is simply lashing out at style and
content.  If she doesn't like Cecilia's posts she should use the delete key.
She should allow us, other adults, to deceide for ourselves if we want to
read Cecilia's posts or not.  As you know, I'm not one of Cecilia's fans but
as far as I'm concerned she can post as much as she wants.

Oh, and you want to know if I "know how to write a sentence without trying
to insult somebody?"  Yes, I know how to write sentences like that.  Why?
Are you interested in learning?

Joe Szalai

marina you miserable creature

On Tue, 28 May 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

> >Last weekend, 60 Minutes ran a story on the author of the Turner Diaries,
> >the books that many militia are allegedly using as the source and reason
> >for the racsist stances they take. The book describes a race war of the
> >1990's. The author, is shown in one scene of the interview walking with
> >his Hungarian wife.

snip

>                          ... what I found interesting was that this man
> is highly educated, and has a rather distinguished demeanor. He could utter
> the most horrendous things in the calmest manner. His tone was measured. And
> he looked like a retired university professor.

I am very unhappy that in the many years of watching 60 Minutes I had missed
this one, so I cannot comment on its contents.

The face or demeanor of someone is not necessarily a guidance in the
evaluation of his ideas.  Several weeks ago, on the same program, Louis
Farakhan (sp?) was just as calm and direct.  Were it not for the facts I
knew about him, I would have found him likeable and utterly convincing.

This just underlines the point that we should always concentrate on the
substance (said or written) and not be fooled by appearances.

Martha

In a message dated 96-05-28 22:43:28 EDT, you write:

 please don't  tell me that this is  an attempt by Martha
>>    to control the agenda. This is nonsense and those who attack
>>    her know it full well. BTW Joe,  do you know  how to write a
>>    sentence without trying to insult somebody?
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, Amos, but I'm going to tell you that the above *is*
>an attempt by Martha to control the agenda.  Martha seems to be addicted to
>controlling people.  First she wants people to do this, and then that, and
>then the other.  In this case she is simply lashing out at style and
>content.  If she doesn't like Cecilia's posts she should use the delete key.
>She should allow us, other adults, to deceide for ourselves if we want to
>read Cecilia's posts or not.  As you know, I'm not one of Cecilia's fans but
>as far as I'm concerned she can post as much as she wants.
>
>Oh, and you want to know if I "know how to write a sentence without trying
>to insult somebody?"  Yes, I know how to write sentences like that.  Why?
>Are you interested in learning?
>
>Joe Szalai

Bohoc.  Te tapasztalatlan, szentimentalis bohoc.  Get a life.  This woman is
just trying to stop this newsgroup dumming down to the level of ever
permissive fools like you who think that there is no greater virtue than
tolerance for the intellectually challenged.  SO

On Tue, 28 May 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

> At 10:13 AM 5/27/96 -0400, Darren wrote:
> >Context for this question.
> >
> >Last weekend, 60 Minutes ran a story on the author of the Turner Diaries,
> >the books that many militia are allegedly using as the source and reason
> >for the racsist stances they take. The book describes a race war of the
> >1990's. The author, is shown in one scene of the interview walking with
> >his Hungarian wife.
> >
> >He then goes on to talk about the aryan nation, the other assorted
> >garbage about how the US should be a whtie nation, everyone readign this
> >gets the drift I hope.
>
>         I am glad that you mentioned this. I saw the program too, although I
> was a bit late turning the TV on and I missed the Hungarian wife but someone
> from this list wrote about the Hungarian connection to me privately.
>
>         As far as I know the Aryans were people who spoke an Indo-European
> language and migrated into northern India and therefore, I don't think that
> the Hungarians qualify. However, what I found interesting was that this man
> is highly educated, and has a rather distinguished demeanor. He could utter
> the most horrendous things in the calmest manner. His tone was measured. And
> he looked like a retired university professor. Isn't he one, by the way? I
> found not just him frightening but that a man of his background and general
> countenance could possibly utter those words.
>
>         Eva Balogh
>

By your criteria, American blacks, because they speak English, are white
Aryans. - The genetic history of a people and the history of the language
they speak are two separate things. I'm afraid - under the circumstances
it must be put this way - Hungarians are ethnically not very different
from their neighbors, who are, for all the wrong - linguistic - reasons,
thought of as Aryans. - The author in question (Pierce?) was, by the way,
indeed a professor at another Oregon institution, though I don't know
in what department.

Lou Elteto
Portland State University

On Tue, 28 May 1996, S or G Farkas wrote:

> I spent Memorial Day with friends in the Washington DC area. On Sunday we
> visited the Vietnam War Memorial and the Korean War Memorial. Regardless of
> one's feelings about those or any other wars, it is heartbreaking to see the
> thousands of names of young people who died for their country. You can see a
> few Hungarian names on the wall.

Today's news reported that yesterday someone defaced the Vietnam Memorial.
I don't know the details.  What a shame!   Now they are trying to clean it
up as soon as it is possible.

Martha

Could anyone identify the towns of Degul-Silvaniei (spelling uncertain),
probably near Temesva1r? Does the Hungarian family name Bontya or Bontye, or
a Romanian name Bontea or Baute sound like a reasonably common name in one
language or the other? What Hungarian name would be Romanized as Vasile?

Any help appreciated, thanks,

Andra1s Kornai