> Felado : 
> IMF/World Bank are more sophisticated.How do you explain that almost all
> countries sign and do everything what the US, pardon UN :-), want?
> Because all this countries are in deep in debt, so they can be persuaded.
It is not because they are in debt, it is because they are eager to get more
money, investment, etc. and they know that they won't get it otherwise.

> But now there are only handful independent (?) countries
Sure, places that accept no money (or deal themselves out of the game
by not paying their debts) they can do pretty much as they want. The
only limit is that they don't get new capital, so they are on a lower
growth path. Why is that so good? Unless you sit on a lot of oil or other
readily sellable stuff, it's not such a great position to be in. The
other way to independence is to be independently wealthy.

>  But back to the money bags. Do you think they are charity? Noooo...
Of course not.

> They invest,invest,invest....  Which implies they get, one way or other,
> a profit.
If the investment works out. If it doesn't, they lose money. So they
prefer to discourage people and governments from reneging on their debts.

> That's the name of the game, we like it or not. Just open your eyes my friend
.
They are wide open, thanks.

> Well if one country can't pay cash, there is real estate, isn't it?
Yes indeed. And all other sorts of property, like factories and mines...

> Or even people's life.
The big owners loath to have people. They much prefer robots, haven't you
noticed?

> Of course outright ownership by another country would lead to violence
> so there must be some 'hidden' way to do it.
Why? The US could buy Louisiana from France, Alaska from Russia, and for all
intents and purposes, Palestine from the Arabs. There's talk of buying
Siberia from the Russians, Baja California from Mexico. It's a much better
way of expansion than wars. In the meantime, Japan buys good chunks of
Hollywood and Manhattan, and private shareholders buy a tunnel between
England and France.

> How about international
> organisations with power endorsed by a strong group of contries.
How about them? I sorta like them. I even like the one I'm working
for, IBM. It has money, power, and it pays well. Could pay better,
to be sure, but it ain't like flipping burgers under the golden arches.

> You only see ,hear ,think what you are allowed in the US.
These masterful controllers of vision, hearing, and minds are really
something -- they are so good I don't even notice they are there.
Must be super-intelligent beings from outer space...

> No I don't claim conspiracy theory, it is just what money does to
> the people,and the world naturally.
What are you suggesting, going back to that proto-communist eden that
Marx envisioned (but which never existed -- even Stone Age tribes barter).

> Greedy people who can't see, do not want to see anything else in this world
> do what comes naturally to them.
Indeed. Either you wait for better people to come around, or you work with
what you have. The former approach has been tried many times (most recently
by the communists) and can't boast of great success. The latter approach
implies that you somehow try to channel greed so that it can do good for
the society as a whole -- this is called capitalism.

> Look back to the history of mankind. I could go on forever, no use of
> course, we are few.
Who are you? Saints? Enlightened people? People of good will? A benign
variety of super-intelligent beings from outer space?

> I'm getting old and I do understand that change for a
> better world has to come from more people.
Actually, I think it has to come from fewer people. Unless the South
begins to control its population growth (the most effective means of which
is increasing literacy and less unequal rights for women) the North
will just withdraw beyond its borders. You might dislike all those
international organizations effectively controlled by the North, but
without them the South will be an even bigger mess.

Andra1s Kornai

Finally we get a bit of "civilized" discussion instead of the whining
babble that has plagued this forum of late.
 I will
have to agree with my southern baratom who more than once  opened the doors
 of his "luxury" pecsi-apartment to discuss minority problems (both
Hungarys-pl.the gypsies-and Romanias).
 There are, no doubt, many real problems with the Magyar minorities in
transylvania, however, nothing will be gained via political force and
 extremism.   Real, positive change comes slowly and
cannot be artificially dictated from the outside. Concerned foreigners who
truly desire positive change should support measures which
help countries, like romania, westernize and molt their
eastern/central european nationalism.
The real work, however, must come from among the citizens of Romania.
Though I myself have not visited the country, I have many
Hungarian relatives
who live in Slovakia. There, the extent of the minority problem depends on
who
you ask. Those hungarians who I have spoken with who are open and are not
patronizing to their slav neighbors, have informed me that there are no
problems (except for the politicians of course).They get along with their
neighbors and one is even married(God forbid) to a Slovakian (her children
speak both languages in case your wondering).
In my opinion, extremists, like fonor, are best combated by
appealing to
the majority of romanians who, i am told, are very friendly
people.. the answer is NOT to take the other extreme.
dini metro-roland

>  You see, Eva, the trouble is, that
> I consider Marx also utopistic--there is no way that socialism, as he
> invaseged it, would organically develop. You must use coercion and we know
> what happens when some people "who know better" coerce the rest of the
> population.

Sorry, your statement is not valid. In Spain, Chile
or even in the S.U., there wasn't time allowed for
a democratic conclusion before the countra-attacks
from capitalists. Coersion happened for well explained
factual reasons in the past, if these are not present,
there is no logical reason why socialism cannot be built
bottom - up in a democratic fashion.


> ...  and a utopistic economic theory.

You did not give any reasons for your statement on this.


> The second
> which stuck in my mind from your note is that you bravely defended the work
> ethics of the "existing" socialist countries. There are two problems with
> this. (1) You are practically alone in this opinion; even the Hungarians,
> living in Hungary, admit that they didn't work very hard at their jobs. Sure,
> they worked very hard, building their weekend place or at a second job in
> order to save money for a car, or an apartment. But not at their official
> workplace. (2) On the one hand, you say that "real" socialism has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the "existing socialism" of Eastern Europe, on the
> other, you give glowing examples of well those socialist countries actually
> functioned. You have to decide!
>


1, I did not defend any work "ethic" I don't accept either the
   so called socialist or the protestant one.  All I said, that
   it is an urban legend to compare work "ethics" of different
   people, if the investment/technology/organisation is
   better behind a worker, than productivity or what have you,
   is better. I've heard enough here (UK), that German and
   Japanese workers are better - please, look at the statistics,
   how many times more investment is behind each - or used to be.
   More and better work on the shopfloor rarely brings you
   more money in capitalists countries, only if you get decent
   overtime payments... otherwise the money goes to management/shares
   administration.  And you're lucky if you still have your job...
   True, if you're really seen to be trying, you won't be the
   first to be made redundent, but, you could be the last one...

2. Considering the totalitarian, burocratic/wasteful setup,
   just the nationalised character of the economy must have
   advantages, if inspite of the above, the growth of industry/
   agriculture  and the  health/education/cultural provision
   was at the level, where it was.  Sorry, I am still consistent.


> As for Mr. Vajda's remarks, of course, I agree with him. His comments on
> Canada actually help me to elaborate a little bit on why I don't think that
> the Western variety of socialism--the welfare state--suffers from the same
> ills "existing socialism" did. Everywhere, from Sweden to Germany, the
> governments are forced to cut back on benefits. The problem, of course, is
> that it is very difficult to take "benefits" back, as all governments and
> companies find out. As I mentioned there was a very interesting article about
> Mercedes-Benz and its troubles in the New York Times (I have it on disk, so
> if you want it, just drop a note). Workers at Mercedes-Benz receive 10 weeks
> of vacation! They receive over $40.00/hour! The factories are outmoded and
> takes ages to put a car together. Thus, the car is overpriced! Now
> Mercedes-Benz is moving some of their factories outside of Germany! So, most
> of the Western-European countries are pricing themselves out of the world
> market.
>

Yes, the markets are naarrowing, there are more and more competition
and less cheaap resources, so profits/growth is not high enough
to pump back to the economy and keep the benefits/social peace
paid for.  (and the Mercedes - workers are a small minority with
such benefits, believe me)   What is your suggestion?
Going back 100 years leaving a mass of unemployed/low wage
earners without benefit/health provision/eeducation?
They can't even go to the US or Australia anymore...
That 30 percent of population currently earning less than 1/3
of the national average, not even consuming dutifully, should be
.. what is the classical capitalist solution... : let to die?
And this is just that  fairly-well-developed lot...

>                              The latter approach
> implies that you somehow try to channel greed so that it can do good for
> the society as a whole -- this is called capitalism.
>

Greed to do good for society as a whole?  Sorry, hasn't been done
yet, or not proven to be sustainable for a long period in
a capitalist country.  (Oh, all these naive utopists!)

You perceived the theory wrong, socialism expect people
to be greedy, to own and control society democratically,
so that we can   all   live   better.

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to ask you to send a copy of the E-Mail message you have sent to
the President ), to the Chairman of the Democratic
Party, Christopher Dodd.

Chris was a student of Jancsi Decsy, his first political successes were
partly financed by Connecticut Hungarians, he told me at one of our folksong
exchange parties (Irish-Hungarian), that the first time he has seen his
Father cry, was, when he was watching the unconquerable children on the
bloody streets of Budapest. Chris understands that our cause is just, he also
knows that when it comes to Transylvania, there are no Democrats or
Republicans among the 1.64 million American-Hungarians (1990 census), on that
issue we are all united and will vote for whoever can bring cultural autonomy
to our brethren.

He needs copies of your letters not because he needs to be convinced, but to
prove that there is a wide public concern conerning this issue. His E-Mail
is: 

Best regards: Bela Liptak

Several months ago, a disturbing article appeared in the Wall
        Street Journal about the Hungarian rate of suicide, among the
        home population and immigrant groups as well. Can someone direct
        me to some sociological/psychological research or theorizing
        which has been done on this topic, in English? Thanks!

Sorry to post this to the list, but I am having mail problems.

___________________________________________________________________________

Stephene Gority

Please give me your e-mail address.  I tried to send you a message at
the address given at the top of your message, but it keeps coming back
to me as UNDELIVERED.  Apparently there is a problem with the Host or
Domain name.

I did get your two messages.

Rita Saye
rsaye01@.mail.orion.org

I have been trying to do some genealogy research on my
mother's side of the family who came from Ve'cs Hungary
which is in Heves county.  I have not been able to trace
when Ve'cs became a town.  Where could I go to find out
when the city of Ve'cs was started and what was the name of
that area prior to 1800?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Al Starnes )

Gabor Fencsik wrote yesterday:

>It is even debatable
>whether the debt is among the top five economic problems Hungary faces
>at the moment.  There are many obstacles to economic growth that are
>arguably more important than the debt: dinosaurs of heavy industry left
>over from the ancien regime, the botched privatization, a dysfunctional
>banking system, corruption, over-regulation, trade barriers, excessive
>state intervention in the economy, and a shortage of management skills.

I fully agree with him, and I would like to further elaborate, if I may. I
just finished reading a pile of current Hungarian newspapers and weeklies and
just read the last pieces of news from Hungary on the Internet. While all
this is fresh in my mind I would like to comment on the current Hungarian
political and economic situation as I see it.

(1) The coalition government. Its performance is very disappointing. In the
first eight months the government simply talked about the serious economic
situation without doing anything about it. Apparent reason: a deeply divided
MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) over very basic economic and political
strategies. Although a detailed coalition agreement was signed between the
MSZP and the SZDSZ (Free Democratic Alliance) the coalition was not
functioning properly. Again, in my opinion, the chief culprit was Gyula Horn,
the prime minister, who seems to be a very impulsive man. There are two
things wrong with Gyula Horn: (a) makes impromtu announcement in public
without consulting with his colleagues or with his coalition partners; (b)
most of these improvised moves are not serving the present needs of the
country. Repeated missteps of this sort have led to the current governmental
crisis, which is still unresolved. Again, in my opinion, these coalition
squabbles originate with the prime minister whose instincts don't seem to be
in the right place.

(2) Horn's instincts. I keep reading in the papers about how wonderful a
politician Gyula Horn is. Gyula Horn, we are told, is a great tactician.
Well, maybe the definition of "good politician" has a different meaning in
Hungary from the one I am accustomed to in this country, but I find Gyula
Horn a deplorably bad politician. Perhaps his worst feature is his
provinciality. Somehow he doesn't seem to realize that decisions, which to
him maybe simply tactical moves over his opponents in the party, have either
nationwide or worldwide repercussions. There are many examples of this kind
of moves with huge repercussions: the forced resignation of Finance Minister
Be1ke1si, the appointment of Tama1s Suchman as privatization minister, his
insistence on creating an economic ministry headed by Sa1ndor Nagy, the head
of the trade unions, whose politics and economics are decidedly on the left
of even within the MSZP; suggested appointment of La1szlo1 Pa1l as head of
MOL, while it is a well known fact that Pa1l had left the goverment because
he couldn't agree with the nationalization of the Hungarian energy industry
of which MOL is a part. All these moves are designed, in my opinion, of
quieting down the left wing of the party but, at the same time, the World
Bank, the IMF, and the international financial world are watching all these
moves with growing suspicion.

(3) The role of the SZDSZ. The SZDSZ, a minority party in the coalition, is
opposing almost every move the prime minister makes and not without reason.
As I said above, at least I consider them bad decisisons, as does, it seems
Ivan Peto3, head of SZDSZ. The result is frequent government crises of
varying seriousness. These crises all follow the following pattern: Gyula
Horn announces, out of the blue, a new decision. That decision can be of
varying importance. His last one involved the actual changing of the
constitution because he insisted on a deputy prime minister, a position for
which there is no provision in the Hungarian constitution. The SZDSZ normally
opposes these moves but here and there, the leaders of the party give in.
See, for example, Tama1s Suchman's appointment as privatization minister. (By
the way, a very bad appointment, even the IMF mentioned him as an obstable to
privatization.) This current crisis involves three names and three new
positions. The most important and most objectionable is Sa1ndor Nagy, the
head of the trade unions as economic minister in charge of overall economic
strategy. First of all, as far as the SZDSZ is concerned Sa1ndor Nagy is
unacceptable, period. But, in addition, the creation of such a post would
undermine the position of the current finance minister, Lajos Bokor, the
architect of the austerity program--Hungary's only hope of new credits from
IMF. Although the SZDSZ is perfectly right in opposing this move, the general
perception in Hungary is that a minority party (22 percent of the votes)
keeps the majority party (54 percent) captive.

(4) Public perception of SZDSZ. Considering that I synpathize with the
SZDSZ's economic policy, I am somewhat distraught by public reaction to these
coalition squabbles. I do understand that the public is becoming tired of
these repeated public arguments between the two government parties. I do
understand that the public would prefer a smoothly run government whose
ministers busy themselves at trying to solve the country's considerable ills.
What I don't understand is that the public wrath is not directed at Gyula
Horn, but at the SZDSZ. The same seems to be true about the political
opposition; they also pour venom on the SZDSZ as opposed to Gyula Horn whose
thoughtless actions provoke the crises. The only way out for SZDSZ, in my
opinion, would be to leave the coalition. Two weeks ago all political
commentators were sure that the coalition was dead, but, in the last minute,
Gyula Horn caved in and the coalition remained intact. At least for the time
being. I think this was a tactical error on the part of the SZDSZ. Although
for the country's reputation it might be useful to have the SZDSZ in the
government in order to stifle Gyula Horn's repeated bunglings, but as far as
the SZDSZ's political future is concerned, the maintenance of the coalition
is a mistake. The blame for all the troubles goes to them and not necessarily
to the MSZP or to Gyula Horn personally. Admittedly, the relations between
the opposition and the SZDSZ are not very good at the moment and it might
take a little time before they find their place in the ranks of the
opposition parties but, as Iva1n Peto3 himself said, it is not an
impossibility. While if they remain in the coalition, the growing
dissatisfaction with the government will simply translate to total
dissatisfaction with the SZDSZ. If the SZDSZ left and Gyula Horn were free to
do whatever he wants to do, he would soon realize that even with the
appointment of Sa1ndor Nagy and his ilk, he couldn't introduce a "socially
sensitive" program--that is, if he wants to see any money from the World Bank
and the IMF. And that money is essential for Hungary.

(5) The austerity program. The opposition to the program is understandable.
Everybody who is affected (and a lot of people are) object to the austerity
measures. And even those, who sympathize with the program, claim that it was
not prepared properly. Moreover, as it turned out, several of the measures
were deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, especially
provisions affecting social welfare. The budget deficit was reduced but not
quite to the levels the IMF deemed necessary. The Constitutional Court's
decisions negatively affected the down-sizing of the social welfare program.
and the IMF especially objects to the still extremely high social welfare
costs. All in all, the IMF still refuses to give the nod to Hungary's loan
application. So, the government's popularity suffered greatly as a result of
the austerity program, but the austerity program as it stands now still
doesn't satisfy the IMF.

(6) Privatization. By and large no serious privatization has taken place in a
year and a half. Privatization was slow even before the Horn government took
office. Although some Hungarian official at the AVU I talked to once told me
that it was hard to imagine that privatization could become any slower--that
is exactly what happened. The opposition, in a demagogue fashion, criticizes
privatization (the nonexistent one) as the "squandering of the nation's
wealth." I personally find this disgusting: they forget to mention that the
foundations of this "national wealth" were acquired by the state in the form
of "stolen goods." But, aside from this personal distaste, the state-owned
factories ought to be privatized as soon as possible. As far as I remember
over 50% of the economy is still in the state's hands. Most of them are
losing money. All of them are in great need of investment and the country has
no money to invest. Moreover, the finance minister hoped for a large amount
of income from privatization during 1995 and this amount was calculated into
the budget. Obviously, this money is not going to materialize. The
privatization minister Tama1s Suchman is doing his job half-heartedly at
best. In the first place, I don't think that he is qualified for the job. His
doesn't know languages, he has a law degree (night school), but he worked in
the Budapest Bank, as manager of a branch office in a smaller town. What made
him eligible for the job? For one reason or other, Gyula Horn finds him an
important addition to his cabinet. Currently, the SZDSZ is trying to get rid
of Mr. Suchman, claiming that since the privatization law was passed, there
is no need for privatization minister. Mr. Horn thinks otherwise. In return,
Mr. Suchman has been making utterances about the evil forces which want to
discredit Gyula Horn. That was the situation at least yesterday. Since then
the IMF said a few harsh words about privatization and this might influence
Mr. Suchman's position.

(7) The popularity of the government is at an all-time low. Their standing is
very similar to the MDF's low popularity rating a year and a half after
taking office, and Gyula Horn personal popularity is about as low as his
predecessor's, Jozsef Antall's. Among the opposition parties there is not one
party which seems to have any vision for the future, or any real remedy for
Hungary's current ills. The former governing parties' popularity did not rise
with the ebbing of the popularity of the coalition. There is only one
exception: the Smallholders' Party headed by Jozsef Torgyan. He was mentioned
on this list as a "clown," whom nobody takes seriously. At that time I
ventured to suggest that Torgyan might be more dangerous than he seems at the
moment. Since then an article in Nepszabadsag warned that Torgyan "should be
taken very seriously." According to popular belief the West wants to keep the
coalition going because they are afraid that the MSZP would not be able to
survive alone politically. And, at the next elections, it would be Torgyan's
Smallholders' Party which would come out victorious. I don't share this
interpretation of western thinking about the Hungarian government, but this
story is making its rounds in Budapest.

(8) The government of experts. The new government was heralded by the MSZP
and the SZDSZ (and, of course, the media as well) as a team of experts, as
opposed to the hopeless neophites who had assembled in the Antall/Boross
governments. Interestingly enough, when the government at last was announced
the experts were in short supply. But the problem was not really with the
lack of experts, because, after all, in democratic countries, politicians are
heading ministries and not experts! The problem was that ideologically it
wasn't a team! Gyula Horn, in order to satisfy his colleagues in the party's
different faction, chose his ministers on the basis of narrow party
considerations. He chose a few moderates, whose opinions were not terribly
different from those of the SZDSZ members and a number of left-wingers in
order to satisfy that part of the diverse MSZP leadership. As a result, no
teamwork could be expected and indeed there wasn't. Three ministers left
already. Two left-wingers for ideological reasons. There are also some very
weak ministers: the minister of justice and minister of education (an SZDSZ
member) are mentioned most frequently in this respect. All in all, the
government's overall performance has been very poor.

(9) Ideology of the opposition. And one final note. I have been most
disturbed by the voices of the present opposition. Before the Horn-government
took office, at least one could easily identify the voices of the opposition:
they came from the left of center, MSZP or SZDSZ. Admittedly, there was the
small right-wing opposition of Istvan Csurka, but considering that his party
received 1 or 2 percent of the votes, it really didn't matter very much. Now,
the voices of opposition is much more difficult to discern. People who admit
that they are left-wingers talk like right-wingers, and right-wingers talk
like left-wingers. More and more people tell me in private letters that they
more and more discover the "truths" which were uttered by Istvan Csurka, an
antisemite, anti-democratic right-winger. In brief, I don't see the growth of
the democratic forces. Just the opposite. All in all, I am not terribly
optimistic.

I do hope that this longish letter will provide some material for discussion.

Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh writes:

> I do understand that the public would prefer a smoothly run government
> whose ministers busy themselves at trying to solve the country's
> considerable ills.  What I don't understand is that the public wrath is
> not directed at Gyula Horn, but at the SZDSZ. The same seems to be true
> about the political opposition; they also pour venom on the SZDSZ as
> opposed to Gyula Horn whose thoughtless actions provoke the crises.

In other words, the SZDSZ plays a role in popular mythology analogous
to that of the IMF.  It is the ideal target that is safe to hate.  The
alien thing onto which all of one's troubles can be projected.  The
faceless Other.  This is not a situation consciously created by Horn,
but one that he is the main beneficiary of.  Without the SZDSZ acting
as a surrogate political target, he would be in a far worse shape.
As a result, Horn found out to his great surprise that he needs the
coalition far more than does the SZDSZ.  Which is why his bluff was
called, and he suffered such a humiliating political defeat.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

In article >,
Constantin Donea > wrote:
>
>For God's sake, how many Hungarians live in Transylvania?? Soon there'll
>be like 25 million...

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
May your words be the ones of a prophet! (A pro'fe'ta szo'ljon belo"led!)
Approximately 2.5 million recently.

Gyuri
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


>In article >,  wr
ites:
>>This law destroys the 500 years old Hungarian school system and  subjects the
>>2.5 million Hungarian minority to cultural genocide.

Gyorgy Kovacs wrote:

>In article >,
>Constantin Donea > wrote:
>>For God's sake, how many Hungarians live in Transylvania?? Soon there'll
>>be like 25 million...

>May your words be the ones of a prophet! (A pro'fe'ta szo'ljon belo"led!)
>...
>Gyuri


:-)

One is impressed by the skill of some sweatshops to fabricate
"sleeze, filth, and desperate ad hominem attacks", and to hit our
Internet-fan with their output. It is extremely revealing for the
reader to witness, therefore, how the same characters fail miserably
when forced to DEBATING THE REAL ISSUES.  Whatshisname would
have been much better off by sticking to his only gun, using Big Lies,
as he performs poorly when required to abandon the only thing he is
good at (lies, ad hominem attacks and *big lies*) and is cornered
instead to deal with facts. He should have dismissed Hungary's external
debt altogether, that escalated in the last 14 months from $24,6 Billion
to over $32 Billion, in his trademark style "as a figment of Pellionisz'
imagination". For his incompetency is stripped naked when he
acknowledges the debt, and thus has to get into debating the *real
issue* whether this obviously COMPLETELY OUT OF HAND DISASTER
should be handled (a) by burying our head into the sand in a
characteristic "denial" as he suggests, or (b) by trying to solve it,
preferably by legal means as suggested by Dr. Endrey's lawsuits.
        I don't require readers of "Hungary" to accept MY arbitration on
(1) what a National Debt represents, with its external part exceeding
$30 Billion (with an internal part to match), for a country with the
size and population of the State of Ohio (but with only about 1/10 of
Ohio's per capita production). (2) how one judges a debt having shot
up by a staggering *one third* in hardly more than the last single
year! (3) what thinks of an inflation that skyrocketed from last
year's 17% to the present number above 30%. (4) what you predict
(knowing that Bush lost his presidency when the standard of living
declined by 2%), when you hear that a desperate Hungarian Minister
of Finance announced the draconian measure, in order to avoid total
collapse, of an 8-11%  nosedive of standard of living for next year. It
is up to the reader to judge if the national debt is indeed the literally
"ninth-rate" nuance as whatshisname would like to sell it to you, or it
truly smells of a next international financial crisis, "the next Mexico"?
        For the readers' benefit to reach judgement independent from
me, I'd rather cross-examine *their own witness*, Mr. Soros, who
has just entered public record on this issue by labelling the
impending financial disaster of Hungary as "the next Mexico". And
when it comes to any Whatshisname or Soros to know a financial
crisis when they see one, I'm afraid I take Mr. Soros' judgement. At
least he puts his money where his mouth is, and *bets* on financial
crises in order to profit from them. (Such as the one afflicted the
British Pound the last time, in which Mr. Soros is famed to have
raked in nearly a $Billion). I was not the one bringing up Soros in
this debate, but he even back in 1990 spotted Hungary (with only
less than half of its present debt!) as a case more than justifying debt
write-off. *their own witness* discredits the absurd "denial" of
Fencsix & Comp! If you want still more, the representative of IMF to
Hungary, Gyorgy Kopits himself stated: "the most important task in
Hungary is to halt sinking further into debt".
        The second *real issue* he was cornered to face, is the example
of Polish IMF debt-writeoff. Thank you, Mr. Fencsik again, for
*proving my point*, plain and simple, that IMF writeoff is dished out
NOT to those countries which are in "deepest financial debt to IMF",
but to those countries *doing the most important political favor* to
countries contributing to IMF' coffers!  Poland was never near the
poverty of sub-Sahara, yet HER debt was halved (Poland jumped the
line over dozens of countries much more in need), because of *direct
political favor to USA*, he says. Likewise, Egypt, much above sub-
Sahara in more than one ways, got IMF relief for "signing on the
dotted line" an international plan for stability in an important
geographical region, regardless of other countries being more desti-
tute than she ever was or will be.
        THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT FOR HUNGARY! (Thank you, Mr.
Fencsik, you indeed serve yourself better with your Big Lies. When
debating real issues, you consistently score against yourself).  Now
first, with even Fencsix & Comp. in my wings, I'd point out that
Hungary, with the 1956 Antibolshevist Revolution and Freedom Fight
did *orders of magnitude* greater service both the USA and to entire
Western Civilization than what smuggling a few CIA agents to safety
amounts to! Yes, 56 happened decades earlier, but don't we see steep
bills tendered NOW for deeds prior to even 1945?  1956 happened
"on the watch" of IMF, and MY THESIS IS THAT '56 TOPS 1% ($30
Billion) OF THE GRAND TOTAL OF THE COSTS OF BEATING COMMUNISM
(generally put roughly at $3 Trillion).
        Second, most of us know that Poland's IMF debt was halved
not once, but TWICE. The tale of *second* political favor to West by
Poland might have been so tiny that Mr. Fencsik can't even recall --
or was the second halving SOLELY the work of Western Polish
emigres? (Mind you, CIA smuggling wasn't done *in* Poland either,
but by Polish patriots *abroad* :-).
        Third (and perhaps most important), take the example of Egypt
(thank you again, Mr. Fencsik for proving MY POINT): HUNGARY IS
IN A STRATEGIC GEOPOLITICAL POSITION, not at all much less important
today than the Middle East. (Another parallel of '95 with '56; when
at the same time both Hungary & Middle East played geopolitical roles
larger than their own sizes). Stability of Postcommunist Europe depends
on whether a *regional arrangement* can be written up, and signed
on the dotted line, for Central (East) Europe.  The USA Conservative
Congress has already committed itself *in writing* that Hungary
must join NATO "no later than Jan 10, 1999". Problem is, that BOTH
halves of the present coalition, SZDSZ (led by the son of an AVO
[Hungarian KGB] high officer, who thus could never be required to get
Hungary rid of likenesses of his own father) and MSZP (led by the
Soviet-educated former militia-man, helping Soviets in their armed
suppression of '56 revolution) represent UNACCEPTABLE SECURITY
RISKS TO THE WEST.  (West would never permit "integration" of KGB
into NATO). A conservative Hungary, "under new& clean management",
can bill the West for '56 (Horn & Peto not only won't but can't), and
at the same time a conservative Hungary, which can be integrated into
NATO without security risk, can credibly offer to "sign on the dotted
line" a long-term stability plan anchored with Hungary. It is a hard
multiple task for conservatives inside and outside the borders to
point out that (a) Hungary richly deserved IMF writeoff by its
pioneering fight of communism in '56, (b) Hungary is capable of
securing, IF GETS IMMEDIATE RELIEF and NEW & CLEAN CONSERVATIVE
MANAGEMENT, a long-term stability in Central Europe, (c) that
Hungary is determined not just to "kindly request" the above, but to
"drive a hard bargain" towards these goals, by not merely dangling a
carrot in front of the huge monolith of IMF of "voluntarily" improving
its badly tarnished international image, but also urging the
behemoth by whipping a small but annoying stick, the high-visibility
PR generated by nasty little lawsuits.

My name is Torie and iam 9 years old. My teacher has asked that I prepare
a project on Hungry. I am interested in the customs, food and national
holidays. If you can provide any information, I would appreciate it.
I am sending this message from my grandfather's computer.
Please forward your responses to his e-mail address.

Thank you
Torie Hajdu
p.s. My father's family is Hungrian.
--