RUTHFULLY YOURS

This week marks the 60th anniversary of the start of the Hungarian Revolution on Oct. 23, 1956. I was 16 years old.

On that day I helped pull down a massive bronze statue of the Russian tyrant Joseph Stalin in my home city of Budapest. The gigantic hollow bronze had been placed in one of the prominent parts of the city, where a chapel used to stand. Tyranny crumbled that day. I grabbed a small scrap of bronze from the fallen statue.

Two weeks later, in the early morning of Nov. 4, under orders from another Russian tyrant, 3,000 tanks crushed our fight for freedom. Hungarian freedom fighters’ radio broadcast Lincoln’s Gettysburg address pleading for help for their cause.

Soviet tank fire crumbled buildings. My family’s home collapsed above as we took shelter in the cellar. I climbed out of that rubble, wiping dust from my temple. Two days later and thousands of miles away, the U.S. voted to elect Dwight D. Eisenhower as president. Eisenhower voted that morning in his hometown of Gettysburg.

I fled Budapest, leaving my home carrying only what fit in my pockets—including that scrap of metal. I crossed the Hungarian frontier, running past a wall of barbed wire and watchtowers into Austria. I was now a refugee—one of 200,000. In the months that followed, Eisenhower’s administration welcomed 40,000 of us to the U.S. Eisenhower stated that: “All free nations share to the extent of their capabilities in the responsibility of granting asylum to victims of Communist persecution.”

Once in America I learned English by reading the words of the greatest president— Abraham Lincoln. I made my life’s work as a scholar of the Civil War and Lincoln, celebrating his belief in every American’s right to rise.

For nearly three decades I taught Civil War history at Gettysburg College. I married, raised a family and settled on a farm in Gettysburg that had served as a stop on the Underground Railroad and later as a Confederate battle hospital. It is near Eisenhower’s home and the cemetery where Lincoln spoke.

The voice of an angry populace will be heard. Recent elections in Germany, Austria, and Spain suggest the migration of displaced Syrians across the continent is leading to political convulsions rarely seen since World War II. Some will describe it as the radicalization of conventional politics. Others will describe these convulsions as a safety valve for the Europeans obliged to deal with the migration issue. For many, any party willing to say “stop” will receive a hearing.

It is not coincidental that in the U.S. that Donald Trump has ridden this horse to the nomination. There are many Americans fed up with uncontrolled immigration and its effect on the criminal justice system, the schools and the quality of city life. Trump may be a maladroit as a spokesman for a movement, but he has a remarkable instinct for unleashing the pent up frustration of a class of people left behind in the race for success.

This populism is a Western wide phenomenon that will reach the Asian shores at some point. In Japan, this political condition will translate into a demographic concern as the population decline affects everything from tax revenue to retail sales. China’s disruption isn’t far off either. When the government pulls the plug on inefficient state subsidized businesses and unemployment soars, a dramatic political effect is inexorable.

Later in the fall, Italy faces a constitutional referendum seen as an up-or-down vote on Premier Matteo Renzi’s pro European government. In each case, a vote represents a persistent sense of fragmentation, an antiestablishment sentiment dogging most of Europe. Clearly the possibility of the EU unravelling is real. Each populist success seems to engender the next in what detractors would describe as the “populist contagion”. French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen is likely to make it into the second round of French voting for the presidency next spring, a prediction that would have seemed far-fetched three years ago.

To some degree the political turbulence is a function of the challenges weighing on Europe’s economies. It is instructive that the Brexit vote did not have the catastrophic effect on the United Kingdom as was predicted. But, interestingly the EU has suffered from the British vote. The precise contours of the political debate vary from one place to the next, but the disaffection with the so-called establishment echoes across the continent and to the other side of the Atlantic.

Clearly the major point of contention that accounted for the Brexit vote and the emergence of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate is the refugee policy. Merkel’s German rivals use slogans such as “Politics for our own people” and Trump contends “we must be a country again”. The meaning is clear. Many people have a diffuse feeling the government no longer has this refugee challenge under control.

Last weekend, Hungary marked the 60th anniversary of its famous 1956 uprising against the Soviet regime. The revolt, which lasted three weeks before it was quashed by Red Army tanks, was the first significant military conflict on European soil since World War II. The events echoed worldwide as the first crack in the Soviet bloc.

When it came to internal Hungarian affairs, the political story was complicated and remains so even today, since the leaders of the revolt against the Soviet communists were mainly idealistic Hungarian communists, who became mythical heroes to the country’s modern Right, and even the extreme Right.

The revolt broke out 11 years and four months after the end of the Holocaust, which in Hungary was perpetrated mainly by locals. The Jewish community was still very afraid of a rise in Hungarian nationalism. The revolt created a problem of loyalty for the Jews of Hungary, whom the Soviet Union had saved from Hitler and his collaborators. The fact that a few of the communist leaders were Jews just fueled the hatred of the anti-Semites.

Sixty years after the revolt, Israel Hayom spoke with some Jewish Hungarians who were there. They describe the tragedy of a generation trapped between Nazism and communism.

‘We woke up to the sound of tanks’

Eva Fahidi did not need the 1956 revolt to understand that sometimes life is an ideological lie. In 1936, when she was 11, her father took the whole family to church to convert to Christianity. He thought that converting would save them from further troubles in a country that had already passed sweeping anti-Semitic laws. Eight years later, the family ended up in a cattle car on a train to Auschwitz, with 14,000 other Jews from Debrecen. Two of Fahidi’s aunts survived the war, although one, a doctor, committed suicide two years later, unable to bear the memories.

It is deeply troubling that the court already before the criminal trial has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and “inconvenient” political views?

If you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including problems with immigrants and other population groups.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

In its case law, the Court has stated that Article 10 “…protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety.

Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no longer independent and impartial state institutions.

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders’ appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd responded “fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

CAIRO, EGYPT–The killing outside his home in Cairo yesterday of a top general responsible for anti-terrorism operations in the restive Sinai province was part of an assassination plot involving Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups and top terror operatives from Hamas in Gaza, Egyptian security sources told PJ Media last night.

The murdered general was responsible for shutting down the smuggling tunnels between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Egypt, and it is believed that the joint operation was intended to relieve some pressure from the Egyptian army’s operation that had placed a stranglehold on one of Hamas’ main sources of income and slowed the movement of weapons and fighters from Gaza into Sinai waging battle against the Egyptian government, including the Islamic State’s group in Sinai.

A statement published after the assassination also invoked the death of a senior Muslim Brotherhood operative killed in a shootout with police earlier this month.

The New York Times reports:

Gunmen suspected of being Islamist militants killed a senior Egyptian Army officer on Saturday in a brazen daylight shooting outside the man’s home in a Cairo suburb.

The state media identified the officer as Brig. Gen. Adel Ragai, commander of the army’s Ninth Armored Division.

General Ragai, according to multiple pro-state papers, had previously been deployed to Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula, where the military is fighting Islamic State militants.

The military did not issue a statement.

“I heard the gunshots and saw him die before my eyes,” Sumaya Zein el-Abedeen, the general’s wife, told the state media. She said neighbors had told her that they saw three gunmen with assault rifles in a vehicle outside the couple’s home. The men fired on General Ragai and his driver. Both men were taken to a hospital, where they were declared dead.

A group called Liwa al-Thawra, the Revolution Brigade, claimed responsibility on Twitter for the attack. The group’s account was then suspended.

General Ragai was also responsible for an armored division in Sinai:

The head of an armored division in #Sinai was tragically murdered today in Cairo outside of his home. Liwa Al Thawra claimed the murder.

A court in The Hague recently ruled that Geert Wilders can be tried on charges of “inciting racial hatred.” In response to this attack on free speech and truth-telling about Islam, the Glazov Gang is running its interview with Mr. Wilders, which became one of the program’s most popular episodes.

Mr. Wilders came on the program to crystallize the only way the West will be able to preserve itself.http://jamieglazov.com/2016/10/23/video-geert-wilders-on-the-wests-battle-for-freedom-on-the-glazov-gang/

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Jamie Glazov introduce Geert Wilders at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend:

If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of “Islamophobia.” If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of “freedom of expression.”

The “Caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of “hate speech,” while the work of Chris Ofili “The Holy Virgin Mary,” in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as “free speech.” Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?

On Halloween night, only the “Sexy Nun” is available, while “Caliph” Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.

The world’s biggest shopping portal, Amazon, sells many Halloween costumes. One of the novelties in 2016 has been the “Sexy Burka”, the typical obscurantist cloak that the Taliban and the Islamic State impose on women. But the sexy burqa, which on Amazon UK was priced at £18.99, did not last long.

The commercial colossus of Jeff Bezos removed the item from the website, after Amazon had been swamped with accusations of “racism”, “Islamophobia,” of marketing an Islamic garment with the white face of a model and using “a religious garment for commercial purposes”. “You are disgusting, my culture is not your costume”, wrote many users of the Islamic faith. Others used a less adorable tone: “Whoever you are, you should fear Allah. This is not a joke.”

A spokesman for Amazon promptly responded: “All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don’t will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. The product in question is no longer available”.

So that Halloween parody of the global symbol of female oppression has been censored. It is because Islamic veils contradict Western values of freedom, equality and human dignity so totally that this relativistic progressive mentality defends these Islamic veils, as it does the burkini, with loyalty.

But here also lies a double standard. What about the “Sexy Nun” Halloween costume that mocks the Catholic Church? Despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the “Sexy Nun” is still on sale at Amazon. Is it not a form of “Christianophobia”? Also, a nun is a religious figure, while a burqa is mere cloth.