Zoli added another reported incident of physical attack on Jews:

> Other than beatings, there was a rather tangible kniving as well (of
>someone who dared to protest Jew-baiting molestation on a bus); however
>according to their mentors the perpetrators were not skinheads but rather
>national-conservative youth - who were provoked by the relentless
>anti-Hungarian anti-antisemitist campaign, so I guess their revenge was
>justified (for the clue-impaired: note my heavy sarcasm here ;-<)...

    So that makes it two. That still does not amount to much, statistically
speaking.

    I am not clue-impared at all, but most of the time your use of smileys
strikes me more as a "cover your ass" maneuver in case somebody took you
up on it than indication of sarcasm. Btw, you didn't really mean seriously
that question to Jeliko asking for proof, did you? You must not be reading
this list regularly then or you've set up too many filters in your mail
reader. I suggest removing them for a while and tune in especially to the
obnoxious posts of a guy who likes to use the word "racialist" a lot for
what I think must mean "racist" around here.
                                                          Matt

Surely it is not true that there is only one race, homo sapiens (rather
arrogantly misnamed, "man the wise")!  Aren't there *branches* of homo
sapiens including Mongoloids, Caucausoids, and Negroids?
        And isn't there a branch of the Caucausoids called "Semites," and
aren't *both* Jews *and* Arabs Semites?  Strictly speaking then, to be anti-
Semitic would be to be prejudiced against both Jews and Arabs!
        I have always found that if I want to start an argument among my
Jewish friends I just ask them, "What is a Jew" then sit back and watch the
fur fly.  For example in Russia "Jew" is a *nationalnost', while in America
Jew generally denotes a religion.
        Can anyone out there better versed in physical anthropology than I
tell me what modern science says--if it addresses the issue at all?

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

Certainly! But there *are* differences between the two parties'
platforms.  And tho' one can't take the party platforms too seriously,
I think they do indicate general positions.  And the GOP platform opposes
all abortion on any grounds (including incest and rape) as well as all
gay rights including military service.
        The Democratic platform supports women's and gay rights.  I feel
the two parties do in general support different policies with respect to
using or not using governmental authority to aid or not aid middle and
lower class persons with their economic, social, and health needs.  The
wealthy don't need government aid so they oppose it for others who do.
Thus they add hypocrisy to their greed.
        Which is why I think Mario Cuomo is a superior candidate since I
believe thos of us who have profitted from being Americans owe something
to those who didn't.  "Ill fares the land/To hastening ills a prey/
Where wealth accumulates/and Men decay"-Oliver Goldsmith


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

On Sun, 23 Oct 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> Glen Camp writes:
>
> >         If he's a pro-gay rights Republican then his position violates
> the
> > GOP's national Party Program.  Does that make him a liberal Republican or
> > a hypocritical Republican or neither and if so why?
>
> As long as we ask the same question for many of the democratic candidates.
>
> Regards,Jeliko.
>

well, whatever it is that you want to call 'race' (and it could be several
things)
the jews don't come up as a race under any of them.
as a religious group they are (kinda) demarcated, as an "ethnic entity"
they are not.
most stuff I know on the subject claims that Askhenzii and Sephardim are,
genetically speaking, as far apart as, say, Gaza palestinians from
Prussians
or Poles.
a
adriano p. PALMA
INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY\CENTER FOR COGNITIVE SCIENCE
NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY
160, San-Hsing, Ming-Hsiung,
Chia-Yi 621 TAIWAN, R.O.C.
off.ph#+886 5 242-8181
FAX#   +886 5 272-1203


On Mon, 24 Oct 1994, Glen Camp wrote:

>         Surely it is not true that there is only one race, homo sapiens (rath
e
r
> arrogantly misnamed, "man the wise")!  Aren't there *branches* of homo
> sapiens including Mongoloids, Caucausoids, and Negroids?
>         And isn't there a branch of the Caucausoids called "Semites," and
> aren't *both* Jews *and* Arabs Semites?  Strictly speaking then, to be anti-
> Semitic would be to be prejudiced against both Jews and Arabs!
>         I have always found that if I want to start an argument among my
> Jewish friends I just ask them, "What is a Jew" then sit back and watch the
> fur fly.  For example in Russia "Jew" is a *nationalnost', while in America
> Jew generally denotes a religion.
>         Can anyone out there better versed in physical anthropology than I
> tell me what modern science says--if it addresses the issue at all?
>
> --
> Glen D. Camp
> Professor of Political Science
> Bryant College
> 401-232-6246
> >
>

Marx insisted that capitalism, like feudalism before it, carried
within itself the seeds of its own destruction.  Personally I believe his
analysis applied much more accurately to Communism but it's still an in-
teresting idea.

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

On Sun, 23 Oct 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> I find it bemusing to discuss the merits of anarchism on a highly organized
> government developed computational information exchange particularly from
> government established educational institutions.
>
> Regards,Jeliko.
>

Jeliko's addition of some qualifying phrases does indeed change the tenor of
the exchange.  Perhaps I have missed the perceived "anti-Hungarian" tone in
some of the postings to which Jeliko and others have referred, although I must
say that my hair starts to stand on end when I hear such phrases.  They remind
me of the casual use of the term "anti-American" or "un-American" in the 1950's
and 1960's.  Unless one believes that this list has been infiltrated by some
kind of anti-Magyar camarilla, "anti-Hungarianess" seems an absurd charge to
make.

I would prefer that Jeliko and others simply point out where they think the
critics of alleged Hungarian anti-Semitism are wrong, and indeed Jeliko has
now done this.  Of course, every member of Hungarian society was not and is
not anti-Semitic, but to deny some unfortunate and wide-spread tendencies to
persistent anti-Semitic attitudes *within* Hungarian society is to do no
more than speak the truth, as I see it.  To compare *some* anti-Semitic
Hungarians with *some* anti-Semitic Americans is to miss the point that
America has never had the kind of apparently deep-seated suspicion of and
even hostility to Jews as such that has characterized most of the Eastern
European countries during the 19th and 20th centuries.  And, yes, not
only *East* European societies--most reasonable people would include France
and Germany here, as well.

Historical truth has never been served by national defensiveness.  Hungary
has no *honor* to be defended against mistaken or even hostile judgements--
lets leave that to the Third World.  *Hungarians*, however, deserve to have
their history portrayed truthfully and fairly, and an accurate appraisal of
the persistence of anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior within broad sectors
of Hungarian society must be part of that portrayal.  After all, it was Hungary
that invented the idea that an anti-Semite is someone who "hates Jews more
than is *necessary*" [emphasis mine].

Udv.,
Be1la

Matt appears to believe that anti-Semitism *must* spring from some immediate
cause, say, the "constant Hungarian bashing" of Imi Bokor.  The point of
anti-Semitism is that there *is* no "immediate" cause, although as Matt him-
self illustrates, there are always plenty of trumped-up causes.  Let's all
pretend for a while that we are in North America, where criticism, even
mistaken or unwise or extreme criticism, is not generally perceived as put-
ting the critic beyond the pale of the national community.  That is
 characteristic of all too many Third World countries, among which, I assume, w
e
 would *not*
like to have Hungary placed.

Udv.,
Be1la

Adriano Palma is mistaken in her belief that Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews
are genetically far apart.  Jared Diamond has demonstrated on the basis of
the latest DNA research that all Jews are genetically closer to each other
than they are to any non-Jewish group, as well as being genetically close
to their ancient Near Eastern Hebrew ancestors (his article appeared in
an issue of *Natural History* magazine sometime in the last year or so).

Be1la

Glen Camp asks what "modern science" has to say about the question of
human "races"--

*Modern* science has had a lot to say about this topic, and it generally
boils down to this--all humans belong to the same "race" (i.e., genus,
species, and variety), namely, homo sapisapiens         ens sapiens,in the same
way
 that  g
all dogs belong to the same race, namely, canis familiaris.  Anthropology,
in particular, which earlier did so much to promote the pernicious doc-
trine of spearate human races, now recognizes its error, and speaks in-
stead about human "cultures".  There simply are no sub-species or sub-
races of humans, any more than there are sub-species of domestic dogs.
We have to go much higher up the clyadic (classificatory) tree to find
these kind of divisions, as, for example, between gorillas and humans,
or between domestic dogs and wolves.

Like it or not, that is what modern science has to say about the matter
and anything else is simply not modern science.  For those who will demand
"references," any introductory cultural anthropology textbook will do nice-
ly.

If Glen Camp's question is an indication of the state of modern *political*
science, my own dissatisfaction with the state of our discipline
















science, my own dissatisfaction with the state of our discipline is doubly
justified.
Udv.,
Be1la

Bill writes:

> The point of
> anti-Semitism is that there *is* no "immediate" cause,

How do you know that, Bill?  I thought we just discussed some of that
in connection with the White Terror.

> pretend for a while that we are in North America, where criticism, even
> mistaken or unwise or extreme criticism, is not generally perceived as put-
> ting the critic beyond the pale of the national community.

Oh, come now Bill!  Dont' tell me that the kind of America bashing we
have witnessed on the net from some East Europeans studying here with
the assistance of US taxpayers does not create negative feelings in many
Americans reading it toward East Europeans in general!  Especially if it
continues as persistently as the Hungary bashing by Bokor here.

Joe

George writes:

> Well, maths does not seem to be one of your strong points.  Assuming that 5
 per
> cent of the Hungarian population consider themselves Jewish, only another 5
 per
> cent of the Gentile Hungarians need to be sufficiently relaxed about 'mixed'
> marriages for all Jews to end up in a mixed marriage.  This could still leave
> 90 per cent of the population not wanting to marry a Jew.  Ergo, your
 statement
> above about the accuracy of the poll is a non sequitur.

Considering the odds that such small numbers find each other in that
"huge" sea of Hungarian anti-semites, the number of intermarriages is
amazing, isn't it?

Joe

Dear Matt,

 For the record: I did not add another reported incident of physical
attack on Jews, rather referred to one well-known example of anti-Semitic
violance against a fellow Hungarian (in response to your assertion that
physical attacks couldn't have happened since you haven't read about them).
 FYI I do read the list regularly, even those posts consisting of pathetic
blaming of the victims and spelling flames. What exactly was your point,
if any?
 As to the part perhaps meant to be more substantial:
>     So that makes it two. That still does not amount to much,
statistically speaking.
 Now the murder rate by Hungarians is small "statistically", eg. compared
to the total death rate or the US murder rate or the Rwuandan one. Does
that mean murders committed my some hungarians do not happen at all? Or
that we should not condemn them since they only affect a small number of
victims? Or that being bothered by their being explained away instead of
taking cognizance would amount to being anti-Hungarian?? Perhaps the
victims are to be blamed, since they were there in the first place to be
attacked (and they wouldn't have been, had there been any real danger)...

-- Zoli, no smileys today

Dear Joe,

as more and more people learn about what the Internet really is, I think
it's time to take "assistance of US taxpayers" off the list of things you
use against those you disagree with. Just a suggestion!

-- Zoli

> the number of intermarriages is amazing, isn't it?
It might be, if we know what is it. Do you?

-- Zoli, half-amazed

> Several posters indicated that Hungary in general was antisemitic. That is
 > the relation to my question. I do not disagree that there are Hungarians
 > who are anti-Semitic, however, I disagree that anti-Semitism is an endemic
 > trait of the Hungarians and I do feel that those who state it are anti-
 > Hungarian.

I really do not believe that anyone on the Hungarian mailing list is anti-
Hungarian.  The idea that someone would have their mailbox filled everyday by
hungarian topics and be anti-hungarian at the same time is quite ludicrous.
..marc

Jeliko writes:

>I find it bemusing to discuss the merits of anarchism on a highly organized
>government developed computational information exchange particularly from
>government established educational institutions.
>
 As someone said, consistency is the bane of small minds. :-).  Seriously
though, I don't think its the discussion of anarchy that you mind so much,
but my advocacy of it.  After all, I am sure you at least believe in free
speech, no?

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.
If the state hadn't evolved, the density of population on the planet would
never have reached its present level.  Perhaps modern technology would not
have evolved either.  But now we have both, and we have to deal with it.
That fact, however, does not imply that we have to like it, or accept that
it will never change.  I am thinking all the time about how we can get rid
of it.

 Historical experience tells us that it cannot be done violently, for two
reasons: 1.)  The state arose as a method of organizing violence and
organized violence beats unorganized violence every time - that is why
states exist;  2)  human consciousness is determined by human activity (and
not, as is commonly thought, the other way around) so that violent activity
leads to a violent consciousness which will lead to more violence and the
state will always reconstitute itself.  Thus we have to figure out how to
get rid of the state without violence.  The IWW was on the right track.  We
simply have to persuade enough people (about 90%) that they would be better
off organizing their lives voluntarily and ignoring all violent orders.
Those who use force can kill, but they can't make anyone who is willing to
die for their freedom *do* anything.  When everyone's mind is freed, the
state will wither away.  Meanwhile, think for yourself, and do what you can
to educate others, and don't be fooled by the powertrippers.

Csurka raises the spectre of the Kun Belas return.  But the mistake of the
communists was not their picture of common property and a cooperative
society based on mutual aid, but the idea that they could institute it by
violence which only begets more violence.  But don't be deceived, uncle
Karl was right about a lot of things, and no one has, as far as I can see,
refuted the theory of the falling rate of profit, thus the eventual demise
of capitalism is sure - either we reform or the planet will become devoid
of human life sooner or later.

Cheers,

Tibor

Glen D. Camp writes

>        Marx insisted that capitalism, like feudalism before it, carried
>within itself the seeds of its own destruction.  Personally I believe his
>analysis applied much more accurately to Communism but it's still an in-
>teresting idea.
>
>--


I think it remains to be seen whether capitalism will survive.  I think the
rise of what R. Bahro called 'actually existing socialism'  was not the
revolution Marx predicted.  Marx was not aware  of the role of political
centres and margins and therefor didn't anticipate that revolution would
break out where capitalism was weakest to begin with.  This merely delayed
the demise of capitalism which remains an inherently unstable system.
Either it will run out of natural resources or it will succumb to the
falling rate of profit.  (I read recently that it took Audi a 300 million
mark investment to create 200 jobs in a motor factory in Gyo"r, that is
more then a million per job).

Cheers,

Tibor Benke

evidence????
where is the rate of profit falling?
by which percentage?
in which sector?
of which country?


On Mon, 24 Oct 1994, Tibor Benke wrote:

> Jeliko writes:
>
> >I find it bemusing to discuss the merits of anarchism on a highly organized
> >government developed computational information exchange particularly from
> >government established educational institutions.
> >
>  As someone said, consistency is the bane of small minds. :-).  Seriously
> though, I don't think its the discussion of anarchy that you mind so much,
> but my advocacy of it.  After all, I am sure you at least believe in free
> speech, no?
>
> 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.
> If the state hadn't evolved, the density of population on the planet would
> never have reached its present level.  Perhaps modern technology would not
> have evolved either.  But now we have both, and we have to deal with it.
> That fact, however, does not imply that we have to like it, or accept that
> it will never change.  I am thinking all the time about how we can get rid
> of it.
>
>  Historical experience tells us that it cannot be done violently, for two
> reasons: 1.)  The state arose as a method of organizing violence and
> organized violence beats unorganized violence every time - that is why
> states exist;  2)  human consciousness is determined by human activity (and
> not, as is commonly thought, the other way around) so that violent activity
> leads to a violent consciousness which will lead to more violence and the
> state will always reconstitute itself.  Thus we have to figure out how to
> get rid of the state without violence.  The IWW was on the right track.  We
> simply have to persuade enough people (about 90%) that they would be better
> off organizing their lives voluntarily and ignoring all violent orders.
> Those who use force can kill, but they can't make anyone who is willing to
> die for their freedom *do* anything.  When everyone's mind is freed, the
> state will wither away.  Meanwhile, think for yourself, and do what you can
> to educate others, and don't be fooled by the powertrippers.
>
> Csurka raises the spectre of the Kun Belas return.  But the mistake of the
> communists was not their picture of common property and a cooperative
> society based on mutual aid, but the idea that they could institute it by
> violence which only begets more violence.  But don't be deceived, uncle
> Karl was right about a lot of things, and no one has, as far as I can see,
> refuted the theory of the falling rate of profit, thus the eventual demise
> of capitalism is sure - either we reform or the planet will become devoid
> of human life sooner or later.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tibor
>

Marc:

> I really do not believe that anyone on the Hungarian mailing list is anti-
> Hungarian.  The idea that someone would have their mailbox filled everyday by
> hungarian topics and be anti-hungarian at the same time is quite ludicrous.

Don't be so sure, Marc!  It's entirely possible that some of these
people join the list entirely for the purpose of spilling their venom
against Hungary.  Why else would we be going through the same topics all
over again at almost regular intervals?  And that's not even with new
people.

Joe

I am so sick and tired of people who vote for politicians based on their ethnic
backgrounds.  That is not how democracy is supposed to work!  At least not in
America.  We should vote as Americans, not ****-Americans.   Pataki should be
running as a representative of the people of New York, not Hungary.  I am not
Italian but I would vote for Cuomo anyday over Pataki and his pro-death penalty
friends...marc

I WROTE:
>> I really do not believe that anyone on the Hungarian mailing list is anti-
>> Hungarian.  The idea that someone would have their mailbox filled everyday b
>> hungarian topics and be anti-hungarian at the same time is quite ludicrous.

JOE REPLIED:
>Don't be so sure, Marc!  It's entirely possible that some of these
>people join the list entirely for the purpose of spilling their venom
>against Hungary.  Why else would we be going through the same topics all
>over again at almost regular intervals?  And that's not even with new
>people.


Joe, your last name doesn't happen to be Mcarthey, does it?...marc<;)

Zoli Fekete writes:

>  Other than beatings, there was a rather tangible kniving as well (of
> someone who dared to protest Jew-baiting molestation on a bus); however
> according to their mentors the perpetrators were not skinheads but rather
> national-conservative youth - who were provoked by the relentless
> anti-Hungarian anti-antisemitist campaign, so I guess their revenge was
> justified (for the clue-impaired: note my heavy sarcasm here ;-<)...

I am not aware of the details of the above. In general I am not reading
Hungarian newspapers. But what I am gleaning from it is that somebody was
willing to protest Jew-baiting on the particular bus, regardless of his
personal safety for which he got knifed. Whoever started the event was
obviously a moron in addition to being an antisemite. I do not know who
claimed that the perpetrators were "national-conservative" and who claimed
to be their "mentors", however the way the last part of your statement is
worded your prejudice also shows. (no sarcasm heavy or otherwise)

Regards,Jeliko.

Imi Bokor writes:

> the full quote from my previous posting is:

> ">I think it is a common one everyone would know about
> >or own.  My impression from the few pages I read was that religous
> tension
> >was minor.

> anti-semitism is not so much a case of religious intolreance (although
> that is part of its origin) as a form of racialism. its targets are not
> only those who ascribe to judaism as a religion but just as much
> secular jews, even people who disclaim any "jewishness" but are of
> jewish background.

> if you want references, just look up any set of archives on the jewish
> laws in hungary in the 30's and 40's for a start."


> as anyone who has a rudimentary grasp of the english language and
> logic will surely realise, the reference to the laws of the 1930's and
> 1940's was to the fact that anti-semitism is not a question of hostility
> to a different religion, for it applied and applies to people who share
> a religion or have none, but are of "jewish background".


> does that help?

No, it does not. I think it is incorrect to claim that the definition of
"Jewishness" today can be based on stupid and discrimantory laws passed in
the 30s and 40s. The governemnt that passed those laws, as often pointed
out on this net (including by you) can not be called a democratic and
representative of the  great majority of the Hungarians. I presume that
your definition based on the above of "Jewish background" means those who
were of Jewish religion several generation in the past.
Thus, your definition of "Jewish background" is in fact based on religion.
In the absence of that how would you attempt to claim that somebody is
"Jewish background", I hope you are not implying that there are other
racial differences between Jews and other people. If you do not know that a
person is of Jewish religion or a descendant of people who practiced Jewish
religion (probably needs plural for exact defintion) IMHO you could not
define a person as "Jewish".

Regards,Jeliko.

George Lazar writes:

> Well, according to a poll, recently published by HG (Heti Vilaggazdasag),
more
> than half of the Hungarians don't want to have Jewish neighbors and over
60%
> don't want their kids marry a Jewish person.

I wonder what percentage of the Jews would want to have their children
marry outside the faith. Several Jewish friends of mine here in the US were
very upset when their children married outside the faith. They claim that
such events threaten the disappearance of the traditional Jewish culture
and identity. I am not sure, if such surveys, when performed in the reverse
direction would not show similar numbers.

Antisemitism, as so well stated by someone on the net earlier, is IMHO a
prejudice against a caricature that is artificial and not against anything
real. The individual Jews I know in the US are not in anyway different from
anybody else. Some are conservative in politics, some are not, some are
highly educated, some are not, some are better parents, some are not, some
are pro-Israel, some are not, and so on. While I disagree with Imi Bokor on
many items, I do agree with him that there is only one human race and the
discrimination practiced on any sub-division basis is in toto  moronic.
The people, in general, are the same all over the world, I have not found
larger or smaller percentages of good and bad people anywhere. But I have
not found a larger percentage who is anti-anything or anybody in one place
than in another either.

Regards, Jeliko.

George Anthony writes in response to Joe Pannon:
> Well, maths does not seem to be one of your strong points.  Assuming that
5 per
> cent of the Hungarian population consider themselves Jewish, only another
5 per
> cent of the Gentile Hungarians need to be sufficiently relaxed about
'mixed'
> marriages for all Jews to end up in a mixed marriage.  This could still
leave
> 90 per cent of the population not wanting to marry a Jew.  Ergo, your
statement
> above about the accuracy of the poll is a non sequitur.

Yeah, but a little probability theory will tell you that your derivation is
incorrect also. The matching up of those two 5%s is not automatic either.

> >In fact, I seem to recall another poll a couple of years ago that
> >indicated Hungarians being the most tolerant in East-Central Europe.

> Firmly at the top of the bottom league.  Something to be proud of :-(.

Sometime ago I have read an article in the "World and I" (start bashing),
that the most intolerant society is Japan (including some detailed
commentary on antisemitism). Thus, I am not sure that E-C Europe is at the
bottom of the league. However, even if for the area you are correct, it is
something to be proud of. If at the educational and economic level of
similar places, there is more tolerance toward each other, then that
society is going in the right direction.

Regards,Jeliko.

Regarding esoteric New York City zip codes (re: Pataki address):

A number of years ago they started adding new zip codes in Manhattan which
began with 101-- and 102--. Getting so crowded around here I've got to go to
Brooklyn to change my mind. :-)

All the best,

Marc Nasdor

On Sat, 22 Oct 1994, Marc Nasdor wrote:

> Joe--
>
> I believe Pataki claims to be a pro-choice, tax-cutting, pro-death penalty,
> pro-gay rights Republican.  Ready to write that check?
>
> Back on earth,
>
> Marc Nasdor
> 
>
Yes, I am still ready to write that check.  If anyone knows where to send
it, I too would appreciate the information.   -Jennifer

On Sat, 22 Oct 1994  wrote:

> > ...Homo Sap as a species has been on the face
> > of this planet for some 250,000 years, and of this time only for perhaps
> > 6,000 to 9,000 have some enjoyed the benefits of living under some form of
> > state and only for the last 1,000 has the majority been so blessed.  The
> > question is  whether  humankind and the planet
> >  were better off before or after this achievement?
>
> What a silly question!  Of course we were better off when life was
> nasty, mean, brutish, and short.
>
> --Greg
>
Greg:  If you are implying that life in prehistoric times was nasty,
mean, brutish and short, than I reply that the only accurate adjective in
that series is short, meaning short compared to modern lifespans.  As for
"nasty, mean and brutish", these terms are very harsh and judgmental of a
lifeway about which we all know very little.  It appears that many
people view former or archaic lifestyles as inferior to contemporary
ones.  In most cases, as in this one, I believe that such a superiority
complex is unfounded.

Marc:

Ethnic-based voting is, for better or worse, a political reality that probably
will never go away, but I don't think the numbers (in this election) will
likely affect the outcome, any in any case, in most cases I don't think it is
much to worry about. And further, since one doesn't find many Hungarians is
high public office in the U.S., I suppose you could forgive some members of
this list for a little ethnic enthusiasm, especially since the election this
year has turned into a real contest.

Regards,

The Other Marc         Marc Nasdor
                       

Fellow epistolators:

I have a friend who wants to know where to get a Hungarian key layout and fonts
for writing in Magyar. She has a DOS/Windows computer; I'm a Mac maniac so I
haven't a clue about this subject in the DOS world.

Can anyone suggest a solution for her?

Thanks in advance,

Marc Nasdor

In article >, JELIKO > wrote:
>George Anthony writes in response to Joe Pannon:
>> Well, maths does not seem to be one of your strong points.  Assuming that
>5 per
>> cent of the Hungarian population consider themselves Jewish, only another
>5 per
>> cent of the Gentile Hungarians need to be sufficiently relaxed about
>'mixed'
>> marriages for all Jews to end up in a mixed marriage.  This could still
>leave
>> 90 per cent of the population not wanting to marry a Jew.  Ergo, your
>statement
>> above about the accuracy of the poll is a non sequitur.
>
>Yeah, but a little probability theory will tell you that your derivation is
>incorrect also. The matching up of those two 5%s is not automatic either.
>
>> >In fact, I seem to recall another poll a couple of years ago that
>> >indicated Hungarians being the most tolerant in East-Central Europe.
>
>> Firmly at the top of the bottom league.  Something to be proud of :-(.
>
>Sometime ago I have read an article in the "World and I" (start bashing),
>that the most intolerant society is Japan (including some detailed
>commentary on antisemitism). Thus, I am not sure that E-C Europe is at the
>bottom of the league. However, even if for the area you are correct, it is
>something to be proud of. If at the educational and economic level of
>similar places, there is more tolerance toward each other, then that
>society is going in the right direction.
>
>Regards,Jeliko.

Well, I'm afraid George and Imi are right. Let's all generalize, why think when
ignorance is instantaneous? All Hungarians are anti-everything and anything
living or that has lived or will live, right? So we can proudly say without
further consequences:

All Germans are nazis.
All Russians are commies.
All Slovaks are hicks.
All Americans are uncivilized rednecks.
..etc.

Yeah, just kill us all, and you won't have to worry about Hungarians doing
nefarious deeds anymore, against anyone. I wonder why the great powers ever
left such a country full of sin on the map after WWI? It would've been easier
to carve up the whole place, and Hungarians would really be paying for their
past and future and present sins against the whole world. Yup, we're just a
bunch of losers, who hate everybody. Nothin' better to do. Go ahead, shoot me
and make my day. So I guess I'm at the bottom of the bottom league for being a
Hungarian, and liking it. I think I'll just crawl back into my formaldehide
(sp?).

Sorry Jeliko, but since your a Hun, you can't be right. All you can do is face
up to the sad reality, and admit your sins, and hope you will not be born a Hun
in your next life.

Yeah, right.

Not much to cheer about, since I'm an admitted Hun. :-((((((((((((((((

Gabor

Imi Bokor in response to Joe Pannon:
> >That seems to contradict the actual high rate of intermarriages between
> >Jews and Gentiles in Hungary.  Ergo, I think the poll was wrong.
> >In fact, I seem to recall another poll a couple of years ago that
> >indicated Hungarians being the most tolerant in East-Central Europe.
> >
> >Joe

> that's like like saying that falling off the top of the empire state
> building is less dangerous than falling off the top of one of the hancock
> towers.

Maybe a more relevant comparison could be made about the difference in the
ratio of intermarriage in Hungary between Jews and non-Jews and in Israel
between Jews and non-Jews.

Regards,Jeliko.

Joe Pannon writes:
> > 360 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY  10017
> > TEL. 212.370.9494  FAX 212.370.0064

> The zip code here does not match the one given by Jeliko, which is:
> 10164-2338.

> What gives?

The address on the stamped self-addressed envelope has the ZIP as
10164-2338. The solicitation letter also states write check to
"Pataki/McCaughey Campaign"
Regards,Jeliko.

First of all, thanks for your realistic comment, Ellmann Gabor. I can only
agree, that ant-semitism (anywhere) is not a racial or religious issue.

Secondly, somebody wrote that it seems that some of us are claiming that
Hungary is an anti-semitic country, with the Hungarian people being an
anti-semitic people. I am sorry if any generalization of that kind seemed to be
made by me, I did not intend to claim anything like that. What I am saying is
that there is, without a doubt, anti-semitism in Hungary. Compared with other
Eastern-European countries the situation of Jews might indeed be better in
Hungary - I don't know. But you have to acknowledge that anti-semitism is
present in Hungary, and it is widespread enough that we mustn't ignore it.

Jeliko asked why so many Jews came back to Hungary after the war, and why so
many still chose to live in Hungary if there is anti-semitism in Hungary. As to
why so many of them went back to Hungary after the war, one reason might be
that they felt they could help rebuild the country and make it a better place
(for you, and for me, and the entire human race...:-). A reason for which
relatively so many Jews still chose to live in Hungary couild be the following.
( Let's assume that they chose to live there, although I have doubts that it is
so easy to give up your existence and everything you have for something unknown
and uncertain...) Believe it or not, they have strong feelings about Hungary.
This is their HOME, WHERE THEY FEEL THEY BELONG. They are PATRIOTS. That's why.


                                                        Adam

>Ethnic-based voting is, for better or worse, a political reality that probably
>will never go away, but I don't think the numbers (in this election) will
>likely affect the outcome, any in any case, in most cases I don't think it is
>much to worry about. And further, since one doesn't find many Hungarians is
>high public office in the U.S., I suppose you could forgive some members of
>this list for a little ethnic enthusiasm, especially since the election this
>year has turned into a real contest.


With all due respect, the "It will never go way" argument is a stupid one.
Prostitution will never go away.  Murder will never go away.  Pickpocketing
will never go away.  Racism will never go away.  Cheating will never go away.
Yet these things are all evil.  Perhaps "Evil" is too strong a word to be
applied to Ethnic-Based Voting, however it is at least stupid.  As stupid as
voting for someone based on their hairstyle, race, astrological sign, sex,
manner of dress, ect; ect;  New York is a state in America, not Bosnia...marc

Of course there are antisemitist people living in Hungary as any
other part of the world. The question is on my opinion that how it is
tolarated by the state and by the society, how often happens physical
or verbal attack on jews.
The new government (and the ones before 1990) do not tolerate antisemitism.
In the election the party (MIEP) wich is somewhat antisemitistic views
(hating the capitalism of the big corporations they say:
IMF, World Bank, big corporations = 'intenational jewish community'
try to govern Hungary against the interest of the true magyars)
get something like 1%. The liberal party SzDSz, though considered to be
a jew party, get 20%, I do not know any other europian country where
a liberal party getting such a high vote. So I think the society
is not antisemitic either.
Living until 1988 in Hungary I have never met and heard in my
surrounding any antisemitic incident. One of my best friend a jew
still living in Hungary told me that he also never had such problem.
(He is assimilated, but has a jewish look.)

I personnaly had some negative experience with hungarian jews but not in
Hungary. In 1990 I visited Israel with my wife. I get contact with
several people there also with hungarian speaking ones. After a few
minutes always they ask whether we are jews. After saying that we are not,
they politely finished the talk and left. Once even a dinner invitation was
made back in such a way. We were not angry, they probably looked for
people whom they make settle down, but in that respect the whole journey
was unpleasent for us.
If it is happening with jews in Hungary then there will be a laud
response blaming that Hungary is antisemitic. If a skinhead beat somebody
it is still not antisemitism. He would beat anybody finding any reason.

I think wwII is over. We should not forget that at that time there
was a genocide, and we should not allow to let it anymore independently
of the vctims race, colour, religion (see however Bosnia, Rwanda ...).
But should not overreact few small incidents.
Gyuri Wolf

Thank you, Greg, for the quotation from the Pamle1nyi book.

>Within a few months, about 5,000 people fell
>victim to the white terror, and 70,000 people were crammed into the
>crowded prisons and newly established concentration camps.

I have been intrigued by these numbers for at least twenty years. Pamle1nyi's
5,000 is the highest I have heard but the more frequently cited figure was
2,000. I tracked down the source for the 2,000: a social democratic Viennese
newspaper wrote an expose at the time and quoted this figure. Out of the
blue, of course. In my humble opinion that was far too high. The Hungarian
government in 1920 claimed that there were 350 victims. I think this is too
low. Andra1s Kornai quoted Borsa1nyi's figures as 1,200 and now we have
Gosztonyi's 600. One would have to know their methods of coming up with these
figures before one could ascertain which one is closer to reality.


And to Joe,

>Right.  You have to make allowance for the time the book was published
>and the authors.  Well, at least Berend.

I don't have the book in front of me but I don't think that this particular
chapter was written by Berend. This was not his field. I rather suspect that
it was Zsuzsa Nagy. That was her period rather than Berend's. I happen to
like Zsuzsa Nagy a great deal but a lot of the stuff they were writing in
those days were kind of automatic sentences rolling off the tongue.

Eva Balogh

 writes:

"  But let's assume Hungarians have some kind of propensity for anti-
semitism, as some of you seem to suggest, though not in so many words.
What would you say the reason is for that? I know the reason they cite for
anti-Gypsy sentiments (disproportionately high crimes committed by them,
not wanting to adapt the hygene and work habits of the majority, etc.),
so I'd like to hear similar reasons cited by anti-semites. I just have a
hard time to belive that Jews would be hated so much for no reason at all.
After all, Hungarians have lived with other ethnic groups from times
immemorial against whom they had no such animosity with no reason other
than "being different"."

You might have a hard time to believe that minorities would be hated
so much for no reason at all in Hungary, but the facts are that Gypsies,
Jews, Slovaks, Romans or Svabs were discriminated against in this century.
True, there were outside influences (commmunism, fascism...etc.) but there
was no widespread popular resistance against deportations, forced relocations
or opression of minority cultures (e.g.: minority language, culture education).

My theory is that the "low national self-esteem" of Hungarians never permitted
the nation to accept the concept of "being different". Imredy, Szalasi or
Antall (yes Antall) understood that "playing the card of nationalism"
keeps them in power, at least gives them the biggest return on a minimal
(but dangerous) political investment.  These governments forgot that
Bem, Petofi, Radnoti, Vujicsics or Zoran were/are all minorities..

Do you think that General Bem could get a 'job' in today's Hungarian
army ? (He was Polish and barely spoke Hungarian.) He probably would
be arrested and send back to Poland ...  Times have changed, I think we were
more open-minded in the last century...

Dear Glen, why don't you like Yalies? There are an awful lot of really nice
ones. And it is a great place to go to college.
>        I knew there was something I couldn't stand about Pataki-- He's a
>Yalie! Ugh!

Eva Balogh

Tibor Benke wrote on the topic of red and white terrors:

>Similarly, Bela Kun and his the Lenin boys, didn't just come to be.
>Eastern Europe produced them with generations of pogroms, with serfdom,
>with inhumanity piled on inhumanity.

This is not an accurate description of the Hungarian situation. Hungary had
no pogroms and and serfdom ceased to exist in 1848. This may be an accurate
depiction of the Russian situation, but Hungary was not Russia. In fact, most
of the Hungarian bolsheviks came from quite well-heeled and prosperous
families. Their left-wing politics may have been, in fact, a filial rebellion
against their parents, who were, for the most part, pro-establishment.
Whatever, it is dangerous to make pronuncements of this sort without actually
knowing about the historical background.

And one more thing. Since I got on this list last February we have had
several rounds on anti-semitism in Hungary. To tell you the truth I find
these discussions quite fruitless and boring. There are antisemites
everywhere, including Hungary. But I would not call Hungary an anti-semitic
country per se. Indeed, if it were, Hungary's Jewish population (quite large
by East European standards) would emigrate in hordes. This is obviously not
happening. Eva Balogh

Kocsis Zoltan irta:

>>Hogy ki mit itel a 'nep legbuszkebb pillanatanak' az azt hiszem egyeni kerdes
.
>>Nyilvan sok magyar fiatal ugy gondolja, hogy a magyar tarsadalom eleteben
>>nagyobb lepes volt elore az, hogy immaron tobb, mint negy eve szabadon
>>valasztott kormanya van,

Ez igy van. Sokkal nagyobb lepes. De ez mar a tortenelem arjaval ment, es foleg
a szovjet allam legyengulesenek es Gorbacsevnek koszonheto.

>>mint az, hogy '56-ban forradalom volt, ami alapjaban
>>veve nem valtoztatott a status quo-n.
De igen. Tortenelem alkoto volt. Es a gulyas komunizmust is (az aranylag tobb
szabadsagot es joletet is annak koszonhetjuk.

Laborfalvi Benke Tibor writes:

>>What I was trying to
>>point out is that rather then fixing blame for the past, we should think
>>about how we can have a more just and peaceful society and world, because
>>if we continue as we are, we *shall surely* be destroyed.

With this I agree whole heartedly.

Udv. Sandor

Antisemitsm in Hungary today comes in two varieties: the neo-nazi/skinhead
and the old-fashioned. The neo-nazis are vocal, agressive, highly visible,
but rather small in number. The political figures who showed sympathy to
them, like Izabella B. Kira1ly, were massively voted down. It seems to me
that Hungary has a smaller percentage of neo-nazis than either Germany or
Italy (though I think comparisons with Visegra1d countries would be more
revealing).

The old-fashioned anti-semitism is of course a constituting factor of the
Horthy-nostalgia that the MDF tried to create, and it's principal tenets are
worth enumerating. (1) The Germans did it (2) The Jews, in many ways,
deserved it (3) All Jews are communists, all communists are Jews (4) Nazism
is dead, the real danger is Communism. Needless to say, very few people go
out and say these things openly. What is more typical is the use of
code-words such as "liberal cosmopolitan" or "people with dual loyalities",
and a somewhat toned-down version of these tenets such as (1') The
Hungarians did a bit of it but they were dragged into it by the Germans.
Horthy tried to help. (2') Jews played a disproportionate role in Hungarian
business, finance, industry, etc. (3') Both Be1la Kun and Ma1tya1s Ra1kosi
were Jews (4') "Az ilyen libera1lis fe1rgeket ki fogjuk irtani".

There was a frightening period when it looked that the old-fashioned
antisemites of MDF are able to use the skinheads as their terror-squad:
*this* is what the heckling of Go2ncz and it's unreportability on Hungarian
TV was all about. Eventually, Antall got rid of Csurka, and the subsequent
elections proved that neither the old nor the new antisemitism plays well
with the Hungarian electorate. Altogether, it is impossible to deny that
antisemitism exists in Hungary, but it is insignificant compared to the
interwar period.  Clearly, the number one racial problem in Hungary is not
antisemitism but anti-gypsy feelings.

Andra1s Kornai

Glen Camp asks:

>        Surely it is not true that there is only one race, homo sapiens (rathe
r
>arrogantly misnamed, "man the wise")!  Aren't there *branches* of homo
>sapiens including Mongoloids, Caucausoids, and Negroids?

General modern anthropological concensus is that there is one species of
homo left on earth, called 'sapiens ' (appropriately or not,  Margaret Mead
used to say 'sap' deliberately using the pun) .  There are no subspecies of
homo sapiens that can be consistently defined morphologicaly or genetically
and the concepts of 'Mongoloid', 'Caucosoid' and 'Negroid' are folk
categories not supported by genetic evidence.  The visible differences are
superficial, and socially defined and enhanced  (i.e. the socially defined
attributes are emphasized by dress and comportment).

>        And isn't there a branch of the Caucausoids called "Semites," and
>aren't *both* Jews *and* Arabs Semites?  Strictly speaking then, to be anti-
>Semitic would be to be prejudiced against both Jews and Arabs!

'Semitic' is a linguistic category paralell to 'Indo-European' and
'Finno-Ugric', the last being the family that Hungarian is a member of.
Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic, are some modern semitic languages; Phoenician,
Hittite, and Chartheginian are some anicent ones.   There are many
different Jewish  groups such as ashkenazi, sephardic, ethiopian, etc.
each of which differs genetically as much as spaniards differ from
norvegians.

>        I have always found that if I want to start an argument among my
>Jewish friends I just ask them, "What is a Jew" then sit back and watch the
>fur fly.  For example in Russia "Jew" is a *nationalnost', while in America
>Jew generally denotes a religion.
>        Can anyone out there better versed in physical anthropology than I
>tell me what modern science says--if it addresses the issue at all?
>

 Based on the above, no.

As to whether Hungarians are anti-semitic, it seems to me that to say that
is the logical equavalent of claiming that jews are greedy.   That is being
anti-semitic has as much to do with being Hungarian as greediness has to do
with being Jewish, nothing.

The general level of anti-semitism in Europe from Germany and France in the
West to Russia and the Ukraine in the East, is best explained, IMHO in Karl
Marx's essay  'On The Jewish Question' which was published in the
_Deutche-Franzosische Jarbuch_; basically it said that  anti-semitism
originates in the fact that they are the original bourgeoisie and their
cultural characteristics conflicted with agrarian societies where they
appeared to be the source of capitalist development and the destroyers of
feudal relations and values.  Thus anti-semitism is most intense in areas
with the least capitalistic development and the strongest remnants of
feudal cultural features and values.

BTW, the list ANTHR-L has been having a thread about race, which you can
access through their archive at  by sending the
commands INDEX ANTHRO-L     and selecting the messages from the index with
GET ANTHRO-L LOGxxx, where xxx is the subject of the message.. Look for
Philip Rushton, the racist scholar who started the discussion and look for
'race' 'racism' and other similar subjects.

Cheers,

>@> Tibor Benke                               (^)%(#)
>@> Graduate Student (MA program)
>@> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>@> Simon Fraser University,

I don't know if any of you watched the last Saturday Night Live show on
NBC.  The opening skit was a caricature of the Nobel Prize award
ceremonies and they even had George Olah there briefly.  Unfortunately I
saw it on a bar's TV set and I could hardly understand the TV sound in the
noise.  But the subtitle with Olah's name was there.

Since I did not recognize any of the SNL regulars playing Olah, I'm not
even sure if Olah wasn't playing himself for a good gag.

Does anybody know?

Joe

Jeliko writes:

> The address on the stamped self-addressed envelope has the ZIP as
> 10164-2338. The solicitation letter also states write check to
> "Pataki/McCaughey Campaign"

Now it's "Pataki/McCaughey Campaign"?  I thought it was "Hungarians for
Pataki".  Oh, well ...

Joe

The "other" Marc says:

> I am so sick and tired of people who vote for politicians based on their
 ethnic
> backgrounds.  That is not how democracy is supposed to work!  At least not in
> America.  We should vote as Americans, not ****-Americans.   Pataki should be
> running as a representative of the people of New York, not Hungary.  I am not
> Italian but I would vote for Cuomo anyday over Pataki and his pro-death
 penalty
> friends...marc

Well, good for you, Marc!  May I suggest to vent your anger first
against those whose support of politicians is conditioned on the support
of Israel?  That's where the REAL money goes, you know!

Joe

P.S.  This is getting confusing with two Marcs now.  Until I saw that
mention of "other" Marc I thought I was dealing with the same one.
(I didn't bother to check out the address.)

Text item: Text_1

     I'm the new kid on the block & donb't know "nettiquette" yet so bear
     with me.  I came across some earlier postings from Greg & from
     Asztalos re: the 1993 ceremonies for 23 October.  I attended some of
     this year's ceremonies & thought it might be of some interest.

     In fact, I was just at Kossuth Lajos ter, but not at the cemetery,
     where Horn participated, as well as a variety of other groups
     (including the ultra-nationalist Hungarista Movement).  This year's
     celebration at Parliament was much smaller than in the past two years.
     There was a children's program & lots of entertainment (i.e. music &
     dance & poetry).  The steps of the Parliament were decorated with
     Meanwhile the real commemorating was taking place at the corner (I
     think it's Alkotmany utca) near the memorial tablets put up by the MDF
     a few years ago.  Here people were lighting candles & the mood was
     somber and emotional, unlike the music blaring from the stage over by
     the Parliament).  Security was HEAVY & the police were checking the
     IDs of young men with very short hair.  At one point they led a group
     of three men away from the square, but I later saw these guys,
     behaving themselves.

     When it got dark, the people standing around on the square were
     allowed to proceed with their candles to place them on the steps of
     the Parliament.  Gabor Kunze was there, at first wandering among the
     crowds, then later (with Arpad Gonz) placing candles on the steps (and
     being mobbed by photographers in the process).  Guyla Horn was not
     there, nor did I recognize any MSZP or other members of government.

     A small band of young men (3 or 4) with very short haircuts stomped
     boisterously but nonetheless quietly through the procession, wrapped
     in an enormous Hungarian flag. They were being trailed at very close
     quarters by at least a dozen uniformed & plain-clothes policemen.
     That was the closest thing I witnessed to a disturbance (although
     there was a big, aggressive dog that barked at Kunze).

     Ilonka )

> ======================================================================== 85

            HUSPIAC A VEGETARIANUS MAGYARORSZAGERT ?
   Az utobbi honapokban, mintegy varazsutesre, hirtelen az egbe
szoktek a husarak. Arat emeltek a takrmanypiacon, hat arat
emeltek a tenyesztok is. Eleinte csokkentetek az eloaru
leadasat, mondvan hogy lehet az, hogy amig ok 110- 120 forintot
kapnak kilonkent a sertesekert, addig a bolti hust negyszer
annyiert adjak. Tenyleg : HOGY ?
   De ez csak a mult, mert most mar 140-150 forintert
jutnak elosertesert a vagohidak, ha egyaltalan jutnak (!),
ugyanis ott tartunk, hogy - kulonosen a nagymultu
nagyfeldolgozok eseteben - vagokapacitasuknak csupan 50
szazalekat hasznaljak ki. De a sertesvagohidaknak meg jo,
marmint ahoz kepest, hogy a marhavagohidak egyes esetekben csak
takareklangon, 30 szazalekkal uzemelnek. Visszaterve az alapveto
nepelelmezesi cikkent szamontatott serteshushoz nezzuk meg hol
kezdodnek a gondok ?
    A HUSToZSDE elszamoloarai csak novemberre es decemberre mutatnak
nemi stabilitast. Vagosertes I. kategoria, mely 100 kg elosulyu
serteseket jelent, gyakorlatilag 55 szazalek szinhus-tartalommal,
novemberre 145, decemberre 155 Ft/kg elszamoloarakat produkalt.
A vagosertes II.-es kategoriaban ennel mintegy 10 - 15 forinttal
alacsonyabb ajanlati arakat hozott az oszi szel, minimalis (0.00
forintos) forgalommal.
  "Mondja marha, miert oly bus ?" - idezhetnenk a bekebeli
magyaroszag ismert szlogenjet anno 1930... Hat Budapesten - itt es
most -bizony senki sem tesz ajanlatot az elomarha tozsdepiacan.
  A gazdalkodok egyre dragabban jutnak takarmanyhoz. Meg most
is, hogy a 4 egesz 8 tized millo tonnasra sikerult buzatermesbe
majd bele fullad a viragzo magyar mezogazdasag (lasd: buzavirag,
pipacs, stb.), a tozsden 8100 - 8500 forintot kernek tonnakent a
takarmanybuzaert. Az arpa ara is het es fel ezer forint felett
van. A folytonos forintleertekeles miatt egyre dragabbak a
jobbara csak importbol beszerezheto, takarmanyba keverheto
feherje,- vitamin,- es asvanyianyag kiegeszitok, premixek.
Dragult az uzemanyag, a legutobbi esetet kiveve meg akkor is,
mikor a vilagpiacon a melypontra csokkent az olaj ara.
A termeloi arak azonban mindezeknel aranytalanul jobban nottek.
Tavaly ilyenkor 105 Ft/g, iden tavasszal is csak 109 Ft/kg volt
az eloseres ara. Most 155 forintot is kenytelenek adnni erte a
feldogozok. Ennek hallatan azonban felhaborodnak a tenyesztok.
Toluk ugyanis sokkal olcsobban veszik csak at a felvasarlo
maffiak, (melyek tagjai neha eppen a vagohidak dolgozoibol
kerulnek ki), es dragabban adjak tovabb sajat vallalatuknak.
(Erre nem vonatkozik a versenytorveny ?) Ennek ellenere a
feldogozok sokszor inkabb ezt az arfelhajto lanckereskedelmet
veszik igenybe, minthogy eloszerzodest kotnenek a gazdakkal.
A vagohidak azonban mivel a kapacitasuk toredekevel dolgoznak,
ennek forditott aranyaban novekvo onkoltseggel termelnek, mert
egysegnyi arura tobb altalanos koltseg jut.
   Dolgoznak hat, felgozzel, fel lelekkel. Azert csak igy, mert
koltsegeiket alig honoralja a nagy haszonkulccsal dolgozo, megis
sokszor csak tartalekaibol elo nagykereskedelem. Nos, vegul
ott a kiskereskedelem, mely nem is olyan reg meg  a felsertes
aranak csaknem duplajaert adta a tokehust. Most mar azonban
kisebb az arany, mivel a beszerzesi arak novekedeset nem tudjak
tovabbgorditeni a fogyasztora. Szeptember vegen meg az akcios
aron, kilonkent 520 forintert kilanl serteshust is alig vettek a
fogyasztok, mert a fizetokepes lakossagi kereslet egyre csokken.
(Ez a bolti tolehus is nemreg meg 380 - 400 forint volt)!
Es hanyan vannak, akik peldaul  marhahusbol 600 forintos aron
tobb kilot vasarolnak? Legfeljebb befektetes gyanant veszik,
elteszik a melyhutobe, arra szamitva, hogy a hus-arak tovabbra
is jobban nonek, mint a banki kamatok.
   A huspiac hat egyre csendesebb, a forgalom egyre csokken.
Elelmesebb hentes uzletek mar kenyeret, sot zoldseget is
arulnak, hogy akkor is menjen az uzlet, ha majd atterunk a
vegetarianus eletmodra.
   (Lapzartakor  erkezett a hir: megis 30 szazalekkal
kivanjak emelni az energiaarakat. Ennek hatasa biztos
"begyuruzik" majd a huspiacra. Akkor viszont... de ezt majd
legkozelebb).
                            ORCZAN CSABA SANDOR