Some reflections on the recent ‘migrant crisis’

Recent newspaper headlines are flooded with the ‘migration crisis’ Europe is witnessing. We are bombarded with information from newspapers and news outlets that span the whole political spectrum. Leftists decry the lack of humanity and solidarity shown by Europe as a whole or the intolerance shown by specific countries. Rightists and especially the extreme right foreshadow the demise of Western society, the ‘flood’ of terrorists, etc. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand view this as a masterplan of the US to bring Europe to its knees.

In all of this media frenzy one tends to side with whichever information feels more convenient for his/her own convictions. We often see numbers and statistics floated and used in the interest of a specific political ideology to which the relevant news provider belongs to. Leftists will argue that for e.g. 1 million refugees only constitute X percentage of the total of 510 million people living in the EU (another 13 million if we add the non-EU Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland, which are also members of the Schengen Zone). Rightists will use the same figures to predict the exponential rise of ‘incomers’ in the upcoming decades.

What I fail to see in the media (leaving behind the focus on individual tragedies, crying children, apocalyptic predictions of a fading European civilization, etc.) are balanced discussions about what exactly are the implications of this recent wave of migration. Here are some of my own observations. I would like to keep a balanced approach, since politically I tend to be somewhere in the center (either left or right, depending on the issue).

  1. The Numbers

I would like to discuss the numbers a bit. This year we have seen record crossings into Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, etc. In some cases over 50.000 people just in the month of July in one country alone. It is safe to say that by the end of the year over 1 million people will have entered the territory of the EU.

Now, let us take this number, 1 million. This is roughly 0.2 % of the EUs population. So you can argue that the EU should be able to handle this. But here are some other aspects of this number. This number is not dispersed evenly among the EU member states and represents a very short span of time. Some countries are more affected at the entry point (Greece, Hungary, Italy), while other countries will be more affected as the final destination (Sweden, Germany). By the end of the year roughly 800.000 asylum seekers will look for Germany as an end destination. This is roughly 1 % of the population of Germany. Now you might argue that this number is insignificant for a rich country such as Germany, since countries such as Turkey and Lebanon have a lot more (Syrian) refugees. However, there are two points I want to make here.

First, whether it is 1%, 5% or 0.5%, 1 million people represent 1 million people. I am not sure if you have ever seen 1 million people in one spot, but I can give you a hint. An average football stadium takes in 50.000 people. Multiply this by 20. And this is only for 2015. Who knows how many people will attempt to enter the EU next year. Second, it is one thing to be provided a tent with the lack of basic facilities in southern Turkey, but in the EU and especially in countries such as Germany and Sweden, some standards will need to be met. Even for a country like Germany, to provide a home for 800.000 people, with medical care, education, subsistence allowances is not an easy task. It will put a massive strain on the already strained public budgets. For poor countries such as Greece and Hungary this is an impossible task. As we all know, Europe’s economy is not exactly thriving. So this is a factor people need to start discussing and thinking. What standards do we apply for refugees, how much will it cost our societies and who will pay for this?

  1. The Elephants in the Room

I think there are several ‘elephants in the room’ when it comes to the recent migrant crisis, which are either not discussed by leftist groups or exacerbated by right wing extremist groups.

a. Religion and culture

Modern Europe as such has had a tumultuous history. Its current form, social values, democratic ideals are based on a primarily Christian foundation, followed by the Enlightenment, two devastating world wars, the Cold War, the rise and fall of fascism and communism, the struggle for women’s rights, gender equality, the hurdles of the common European project, etc (and some of these struggles are still present in various member states).

A lot of the new refugees come from societies (predominantly from North Africa and the Middle East) that have a different history and different factors that have influenced their social values. Sometimes these values are compatible with the current European values, sometimes they are not. This is a concern that many people share and which is almost never publicly discussed. It unfortunately ends up in racist slurs on online forums and in online comments, instead of having open debates about it. People want to know whether the arrival of hundreds of thousands of new people every year will end up eventually changing the social values for which most European countries have fought for centuries or whether these European values will prevail. And this leads to the next elephant in the room.

b. ‘Multikulti integrazion’ is not always working

I did not say this, but ‘good old’ Angie Merkel several years ago when she stated that the ‘multikulti’ integration model has failed. Now, I would not be so fatalist about this like Merkel, since a lot of immigrants from various backgrounds managed to integrate perfectly well into various European societies and have brought fame to their countries (look at Swedish-Moroccan singer Loreen who won the Eurovision song contest or German-Turkish football player Mesut Ozil).

But, there are also many problems not properly addressed, such as the formation of ghettos and parallel societies in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc. We tend to shove these problems under the carpet and if someone even mentions that some of the people who have troubles integrating have an immigrant background, that person is automatically labelled as racist. But I do think there are problems with integration and there are problems with rising extremism among some second generation immigrant youths. It is quite sad to see that from the foreign recruits of ISIS, a huge chunk comes from countries such as France, Germany, Denmark, etc.

Since some of the new people fleeing to Europe come from countries or geographical areas from which we can see that certain people have problems integrating in the future, I think the question is valid: can we integrate all of them? Will we see newer ghettos emerging? Are our social values going to be challenged in the future? And this is connected to my third idea.

3. The possibility to remain

 One might say that these concerns are not valid since most refugees will return home. Well, I would disagree with this. I am not sure if statistics exist or not, but most people who will be granted the chance for a new and better life in a country will not return to the country they fled from, especially if the conflicts there will be raging for many years to come. So this leads back to point (b), whether the upcoming generations of new arrivals will be able to integrate, or whether we end up creating parallel societies.

4. The rise of European right-wing extremism

 There are two sad truths. One is that for the last decade or so, exacerbated by the economic crisis, right-wing extremism is on the rise in Europe. Two, Europe is not as tolerant as one might think and history has taught us that this can be one of the bloodiest continents. I am afraid that with new waves of people right-wing extremism will rise. At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, human beings still have group mentalities of “us” vs. “them”. I wish John Lennon was right and we could all live in peace and harmony, but I think history teaches us otherwise. Furthermore, I think the more we do not discuss these issues, the more some people will feel that their governments have ‘betrayed’ them and will turn to extremist ideas.

5. We need immigrants anyway

The second to last elephant in the room refers to the EU’s aging population and how we need new people if we want to have a thriving future economy. However, I think using the migrant crisis as an argument for the need for Europe’s population to grow is a mistaken one. First, I think for the purposes of long term prosperity countries should be able to choose the foreign workforce they need. Large scale migrations, most of which are from war-torn areas should not be used for such purposes. These are not planned events but situations of emergency. Second, if we truly want to combat Europe’s aging population, let’s also discuss other problems, such as the late age at which couples have children, the small number of children in families and the unwillingness of many Europeans to form families.

6. The message it sends

 Lastly, we have to differentiate between people who seek refuge from war-torn areas and people who are economic migrants, looking for a financially better life. I think in the case of the latter people need to go through the standard formalities if they want to seek employment in the EU, as harsh as this sounds. If we loosen these standards, and visas, permits, etc just become empty formalities we send the message that Europe is free for anyone to enter. Now, I know this is what the utopians want to believe, but reality is unfortunately different.

With the above in mind, I think we need more realistic debates about the recent migration crisis taking into consideration the afore-mentioned taboos we like to scrape under the carpet.

Den Haag, 24 Aug 2015


The generation of European legal interns and PhDs. Gashi’s view on certain matters.

Almost 27 years old, started my four year long legal bachelor (LLB) when I was 18, followed by two years of masters (LLM) and soon entering my third and final year of doctorate (PhD). Studied and worked at 7 different universities and institutions in 7 different countries. Interned at law firms, EU institutions and acted as student assistant…This is a short description of my current CV, a CV which many young European academics and professionals at my age possess. Increased European and International mobility does not always mean that the legal profession can keep up with the new changes, even if the new changes are dictated by European and International legal instruments.

In most European countries the ‘traditional legal’ carrier looks as follows. You finish high-school, do a four to five year degree, graduate and after a couple of years of traineeship you become a lawyer, judge or prosecutor. Every country has its own ways of defining this path, ranging from strict systems such as the ones in Germany and Poland, to loser systems such as the ones in Spain or Sweden. Romania is somewhere in the middle, closer to the German model. After four years of law-school comes your first entrance exam to the Bar (not the one where you drink), if you want to become an attorney or the magistrates school, if you want to become a judge or prosecutor. This is followed by another two years of education and practical experience which will culminate in another exam. I am not going to tell you what the failing rate for the first set of exams is but it is in the 80% range. Compared to how the system was 20 years ago, when some people became judges after coming out of law school, the system has the same tendencies as many other professional areas. With every new generation a new set of criteria are introduced to keep you out of the job market. People ask you, so you finished law school, are you a lawyer? Hell no, a bachelor’s degree does not get you far nowadays. Maybe it did several decades ago but things have changed.

Even with the new advancements and Europeanization/Internationalization of the ‘law’, the legal profession is still a tough cookie to crack. This profession is different than engineering, rocket science, medicine, biology or you name it. If you studied rocket science in country X, the same rules of physics and engineering will also apply in country Y. Law is different. Each country has its own legal system, with its own rules and of course language. While the legal profession is partially getting liberalized in Europe, you will not be able to profess in Germany as a foreign lawyer if you do not prove knowledge of the German legal system, the language, etc.; and technically this means getting another degree in that country.

And now we come to another specimen or category of legal professionals. Those who decide to focus on various parts of International or European law. This is a field where the competition all of a sudden gets fierce. Suddenly you realize that you are in a race of gathering more and more international experiences, at more and more foreign universities, coupled with low or mostly unpaid internships and a rising number of languages etc. A race a lot of young people are fully participating in with the hope of arriving to a finish line that offers a better life. But the job opportunities afterwards will remain scarce: academia, EU institutions, international institutions or NGOs and occasionally a return to the home country. Add to this the fact that I come from one of the poorest countries in the EU, add the growing number of young professionals leaving the Southern EU countries and all of a sudden the options for better paid spots become even narrower. Just to give you an example, in 2012 there were almost 50.000 applicants for not even 300 new openings at the EU Commission. It means that almost 200 people apply for one spot. Alright then, you might say. Go and choose academia.

And then you find out that the situation is not much different. First of all, just because you have four years of bachelors and two years of masters will not get you far in European legal academia. In order to advance on the academic ladder, the first step is to do a 3-4 year PhD. Very few countries offer legal PhDs that provide a salary or a grant which can at least provide you with some decent living conditions. PhDs are also designed more and more to just focus on research in the detriment of teaching. It means the system is preparing you to become a post-doc and not an assistant professor or lector. Even if, I for example would like to teach in the long run, the system is still making me write a book that probably 10 people will read. Besides the fact that you focus on a narrow area of law, which might not even have too much practical significance, your writing and research skills will become better (wait, what were six years of law school for??) but you will also lose track of areas of law you were good at during your LLM. Oh, and try remembering your national law studied at the bachelors level. Maybe force equals mass times acceleration, but unlike the laws of physics, law is not static. Law will evolve and it will not wait for you.

Doing a PhD means that you take several risks. First, you take the risk of the legal profession not taking you back because you were ‘out’ doing something else for 3-4 years. Second, nothing is guaranteed after the completion of your PhD. More and more PhDs are becoming unemployed. The promises of an assistant professorship are far and scarce. Plus, a new step is slowly introduced, that of the post-doc. Another temporary position focusing on mostly research (Let us be honest, I do no truly think legal research is at par with for e.g. cancer research). This can hopefully be followed by an assistant professorship, then an associate professorship and maybe by the time you hit 40 you get tenured, with a permanent position. All through these years you do not have a permanent employment contract, but a patchwork of temporary contracts, which means that your chances of obtaining a mortgage, proper pension, etc are dwindling.

As much as people criticize the US, the road to becoming a law professor in the US looks a lot simpler. The first step involves four years of bachelors in any type of area (physics, politics, literature, you name it). You heard me, any area! This is followed by an expensive 3 year JD (juris doctor), which is the first and technically, last legal education you get in the US, which is mandatory. After completing these three years of formal legal education, JD recipients will pass the necessary tests and exams to work for the government, law firms. And the good thing is that you can pass any States’s bar exam, regardless of the State in which you did your legal education. In the meantime you write and publish some articles in your field of work and can then apply for assistant professorships, which is followed by a tenured position. Oh, and a tenured position in the US is better paid than in Europe. Us Europeans laugh at the amount of legal education Americans need to have to become law professors. Let’s be frank. I already have 8 years behind me, more than any law professor I met in the US. But at the end of the day they have a better paid legal profession, better paid academics and the best law-schools in the world. No post-docs and forget about legal PhDs (to my knowledge only Yale offers legal PhDs and only since 2011). What count are your professional experience and the articles you write during those years.

The European system is getting more and more rigid and highly competitive. Academia is even worse, than the professional field. You end up being thirty plus, with no permanent contract yet, your best years invested in a vast amount of studying. Let’s be honest, studying for a law exam is not exactly studying tourism studies (no offence). And what bothers me is that we have more and more law professors in Europe, who unlike their US counterparts, have no practical experience. My honest opinion is that law is a living thing, which cannot be mastered, just by reading articles, books and commenting on them. You have to take part of the action to truly understand it.





Kopp! Kopp! – Ki Az? – A Jobbik

Ha netán még nem tudnátok, a „dicső” nemzetünket megmentő politikai alakulat (ne nevezzük pártnak), a Jobbik Magyarországért (Mozgalom?!) immár Kolozsvár kincses kapuján is kopogtatott. Na és mi történt? Hát beengedtük, mi más történhetett volna. Ezáltal a magyarországi szélsőjobb immár nyolc erdélyi székhellyel rendelkezik (hasonlóság képen ez olyan mintha a Vadim által vezetett Nagy-Románia Párt is székhelyeket állítana föl Békéscsabán és Méhkeréken) és úgy néz ki, hogy egyre csak terjeszkednek. És ilyenkor csak állok és tűnődök, hogy ugyebár semmi új nincs a Nap alatt és be nem ártana, ha néha napján a történelem könyvet is kezünkbe vennénk.

A Jobbikról csak annyit, hogy a nemzetet megváltó/felemelő/jelenlegi kakiból kiszedő pártként adja elő magát. Mindenfele (sőt még mennyire külföldön is) ismeretes a cigány és zsidóellenes pártpolitikájuk, a betiltott és újból működő Magyar Gárdával (valaki még emlékszik a román vasgárdistákra, mert nagyanyámék még elég jól emlékeztek) való szoros kapcsolatuk. Honlapjukat olvasva sok „nemes” célt kitűznek, mint például a nemzet szaporodását (a romániai komcsik is ezt akarták, de senki sem kérdezte meg a nőket, meg miből lesz pénz fenntartani a gyerekeket), a kismamák támogatását, de ugyanakkor az adók csökkentését. Nem vagyok én közgazdász, de ha netán nem épp Norvégia, vagy Katar vagyunk, nem látom miből lehetne fedezni a nemzet szaporodását elősegítő programokat, ha nem épp adókból. A legtöbb populista  programjukat egy ember egy este simán meg tudja szerkeszteni. Kedvenceim közé tartóznak a közép ázsiai rokonokkal való szoros kapcsolatok megteremtése és a magyar őskorszak kutatása (kissé mint a román dákopátia). Kíváncsi vagyok, ha SCHÖN (németül „szép”) Péter, Dr. STAUDT Gábor, ÁRGYÉLÁN (románul „erdélyi”) János és SNEIDER (magyarul „szabó”) Tamás is épp a sztyeppei őseiket keresik… Ja, meg elfelejtettem a kedves pártelnököt és a Magyar Gárda megalapítóját, Vona (született ZÁZRIVECZ) Gábort. Elég érdekes ugyebár, hogy a saját bevallása szerint osztrák-sváb Schön Úr épp egy ilyen pártnak lenne tagja, aki a más kisebbségek ellen uszít. Úgy látszik Magyarország legnagyobb gondja, nem az elmúlt évtizedben elkúrt gazdaságpolitika, hanem a zsidók és a cigányok. Nem tudom, de lehet az osztrák származású Schön Úr elfelejti, hogy épp az osztrákok ellen harcoltunk majdnem kétszáz évig, na meg nekik köszönhető, hogy belesodortak egy olyan háborúba, aminek a vége Trianon lett. Uppsz, biztos Trianont is a zsidó összeesküvők és a hegedülő cigányok okozták.

A Jobbik terjeszkedése aggasztó, hiszen elfelejtjük, hogy a harmincas évekbeli gazdasági válság mennyire kedvező talajnak bizonyult a német, olasz és magyar fasizmus elterjedéséhez. Vagy netán nem emlékszünk arra, hogy majdnem félmillió magyar zsidó deportálásában a magyar nemzet is épp részt vett? Vagy erről jó nem beszélni? Képviselőik önéletrajzait olvasva ugyanaz a kép mutatkozik. Mi, a „bátor” férfiak, akik amikor kell „emberek a talpukon” majd megváltjuk a nemzetet. Ja, megint elfelejtjük, hogy a Hitlerrel való kis barátságunk mihez vezetett? A kiirtott zsidó lakosságon kívül egy romokba dőlt ország, szovjet deportálások, fél millió katona és civil áldozat? Ne sírj Vona Gábor, az én dédnagyapám is épp a Don kanyarban hunyt el. És kiknek az oldalán? A nácik oldalán. Soha ne feledjük, hogy kik mellett álltunk ki több, mint hatvan évvel ezelőtt.

A Jobbik terjeszkedése aggasztó, mert eddig három társadalmi csoportot aknáztak ki, de most már itt a negyedik is. Az első három a klasszikus és egyszerű recept: a) a munkahelyét elvesztő munkásréteg, vagy vidéken nem boldoguló vidéki réteg, aki frusztrált mindenre és mindenki más a hibás, csak ő nem b) Manci néni és Gyuri bácsi, akik még visszasiratják az oly szép fehér lovon bejövő „Vitéz Nagybányai Horthy Miklóst” c) a munkanélküli fiatal értelmiségi, aki meg akarja mutatni, hogy ő is valamire képes. És erre most már rátevődik a határon túli magyar. Te és én. Mert ez a cikk főleg nekünk, határon túli magyaroknak, szól. A „szegény, sanyargatott sorsú” testvéreink, akiket a „nagyhatalmak” elcsatoltak az anyaországtól. És tudják, hogy ebben a rétegben is sok elégedetlen fiatalra lehet rábukkani, na meg ne feledjük, hogy közel fél millió határon túli magyar már rendelkezik a magyar állampolgársággal és szavazati joggal. Ugyebár, minden szavazat számít. Ideje kampányolni külföldön is.

Kedves Jobbik, úgy látszik még nem voltatok a ló másik felén. Én már voltam kolozsvári magyar a Funár korszakban, amikor a „bozgorok (mi magyarok, ha nem tudnátok), a zsidók és a cigányok” voltak hibásak a város gondjaiért. De azt megtanultam, hogy én soha a büdős életben nem fogok eme tapasztalataim miatt egy más csoportot megalázni. Mert elég sok mindenre megtanít az, amikor te vagy a kisebbség, a bevándorló, a bozgor, vagy a kelet európai.

Amikor zsidózol és cigányozol nemcsak Palya Beát, Cziffra Györgyöt, Fodor „Neti” Sándort, Kertész Imrét, Hofi Gézát, Neumann Jánost, Szilárd Leót, Karácsony Benőt, Radnóti Miklóst, Teller Edét sérted meg, hanem minden magyart, határon innen vagy túl. És nekünk erre nincs szükség.

Zökkenőmentes és tökéletes társadalmi modellek nincsenek és nem is lesznek, legyen az kapitalista, vagy szocialista. De a világ történelemben a legtöbb kárt mégis a radikális jobboldal okozta és Magyarországot az összeomlás szélére sodorta. A jelenlegi helyzetből való kilépést nem a cigányok és zsidók elleni gyűlölet, vagy a külföldtől való elzárkózás fogja hozni. Ha akartok egy jó modellt, itt van egy roma polgármester, aki mégis megállta a helyét.

Bágyi János – Pávai

Tehát az e heti népmese “Pávai” lesz.

Pavai 1



Pávai-page-004 (1)


Pávai-page-006 (1)

Az eszös gyermök – Bágyi János bözödi népmeséi

Mindenki emlékszik kedvenc meséjére, amit annak idején valamelyik kedves családtagja olvasott. Pávai, a kicserélt szömű királyküsasszon vagy netán Vas Jancsi voltak gyerekkorom mese hősei, akiket minden este azóta már elhúnyt nagyanyám elevenített föl. Egy olyan világban, ahol már nehéz megőrizni saját szólásainkat, hagyományainkat és mesevilágunkat, nem árt, ha néha visszatekintünk saját szellemi vagyonunkra. Bágyi János már rég nincs az élők sorában, de az ő kisrégiójának meséit elevenen őrzik az “Eszös Gyermök” lapjai. A kötetet 1958-ban adta ki a bukaresti Ifjúsági Könyvkiadó és nem tudom, ha netán még léteznek későbbi kiadások. Ezért elhatároztam, hogy minden héten megosztok egy mesét, hogy mások is megismertethessék gyerekeikkel gyermekkorom meséit. Ezek a mesék már csak azért is értékesek, mert az eredeti tájszólásban jegyezték le, amit manapság már egyre nehezebb fenntartani.




Kergessük csak a turulmadarakat…


Mit kíván a Magyar nemzet? Remélem józan eszet, műveltséget, toleranciát, megértést, más kultúrák iránti nyitottságot… De hát van egy egyre jobban növekvő réteg, akinek mindez nem számít. Egy réteg, aki a 21. században képes egy szélsőjobb pártot az ország második pártjává választani. Akik szerint mindaz, ami az országban döcög a mások hibája. A kicsi, hülye gyerek, akit az anyja rajtakap a rossz tetten, de hát nem ő a hibás, hanem a zsidó, a cigány, a nagyhatalmak, az EU, a világ konspiráció. De ne félj testvér! Mert jön a turul gárda, az árpád sávos gárda, a turáni fiúk és netán Micimackó. Mi majd megmentünk. Mert mi igaz, vérbeli magyarok vagyunk, akik a szent turul madárral és Krisztus Urunkkal majd mindenki mást főbe ütünk!

Először gondoltam, hogy csak internetes fórumokon nyilvánulnak meg, de az elmúlt években már pofátlanul eljönnek a határ másik oldalára, kolozsvári magyar ünnepekre, ordítva és részegen bömbölik a székely himnuszt Csíksomlyó fele haladva, vagy netán Bukarest régi központját teszik tönkre egy focimeccs miatt. Mi ebből nem kérünk, köszönöm szépen.

Ez a magyar elfelejti, hogy nincs olyan, hogy színtiszta, vérbeli magyar. Ha valami is igaz, az netán az, hogy Európa legkevertebb népe vagyunk, akik már eleven többnyelvűen és keverten érkeztünk a Kárpát-medencébe. Vagy netán elfelejtjük, hogy a magyar törzsek mellett ott voltak a török nyelveket beszélő kabarok. Vagy később letelepedtek itt jászok, besenyők, kunok és magunkba olvasztottunk szlovákokat, ruténeket, szerbeket, horvátokat, románokat, németeket, zsidókat, örményeket? Kedves turul madárt kergető egyén, nem ártana kis történelmet olvasnod és netán egy gén tesztet végezned.

Ez a magyar elfelejti, hogy épp ebből a keveredésből születtek e nemzet legnagyobbjai. Mert Liszt anyja osztrák volt és nem magyar. Mert Petőfi félig elmagyarosodott szerb és félig szlovák. Mert a szigetvári Zrínyi Miklós éppen horvát származású. Dugovics Titusz aki leesett a falról éppen szerb, Hunyadi János pedig kun-román származású. Bartók Béla anyja német volt, Kodályé pedig lengyel. Teller Ede, Neumann János, Szilárd Leó, Radnóti Miklós, Karácsony Benő, Kertész Imre pedig igenis is zsidó származásúak. Ne feledjük József Attila sorait sem „Anyám kun volt, az apám félig székely, félig román, vagy tán egészen az.” Kedves turul madárt kergető magyar, nem tudod milyen világon élsz és elfelejted, hogy azok az emberek, akik ezt a nemzetet a világtérképre tették, nem épp magyar származásúak voltak. És kedves turul madárt kergető egyén, Radnótihoz pedig ne nyúlj, könyvét el ne égesd!

Ez a magyar elfelejti, hogy nyelvünk is épp ezt a sokszínűséget tükrözi. Hogy az asztalon citerával muzsikáló és táncoló peches medvét Árpád népe nem volt, hogyan megértse, mert nyelvünk is iráni, török, szláv, német és más nyelvek sokasága.

Ennek a magyarnak „fáj” a legjobban Trianon és siratja szegény határon túli testvéreit. Mit tudsz te Trianonról turult kergető egyén? Mond, azt egy Kolozsváron, Funar korszak alatt felnőtt erdélyi magyarnak, hogy tudod is te mit jelent Trianon. Voltál már kisebbség? Kaptál már seggbe rúgást mert magyarul beszéltél a buszon és képes voltál mindezeket háttérbe tenni felnőttként és józan ésszel és megértéssel elfogadni a másikat. Vagy egy „színtiszta” magyar túl büszke ehhez?

Ez a magyar fél az újtól, a nemzetközitől az idegentől. Ez a magyar nem látja meg saját országa és saját hibáit. Hisz a globális cionista összeesküvésben, aminek egyedüli nagy célja a magyar nemzet likvidálása. Ez a magyar anélkül, hogy egy másik nyelvet is megtanulna, okulna és a jelenlegi helyzetből a legjobbakat kihozná, ököllel fenyeget mindent, ami külföldi, Európa és nem az általa megszokott. Mert ez a magyar nem élt külföldön, nem fogta a kezét egy más nemzetiség lányának, nem akar fejlődni és előre látni, hanem sebeit nyalogatva siratja, azt amit üknagyapáink elbasztak. Kedves turul madárt kergető egyén. Én már voltam magyar románok közt, román nyugat‑európaiak közt, fehér Afrikában és európai amerikaiak közt. Éltem buzgó kereszténnyel, ateistával, muzulmánnal, zsidóval és buddhistával. Én már láttam és átéltem sok mindent amit az emberi gyűlölet képes szülni. De egy dolgot megtanultam. Minden a megértésen, a tudáson és a más iránti tolerancián alapul. De a bunkó ezt nincs, hogy megértse.

Ez a magyar, sajnos nem magyar. Aggaszt, hogy ezek az egyének ellen a magyar kormány nem lép fel. Aggaszt, hogy ezt exportálják határon túli magyar fiatalok köreiben. Aggaszt, hogy egyre több magyarországi fiatalt látok külföldön és általában az hagyja el az országot, akinek márt tele van a turul kergetésből. Ne feledjük, hogy hetven évvel ezelőtt a Nyilasok és nácik rekord idő alatt deportáltak fél millió magyar zsidót. Mai napig szégyenünk, hogy Auschwitzban mindenki csak arról beszél, hogy az ottan kivégzett emberek nagy hányada magyar volt. Igenis, magyar! Mert sokan azon emberek közül többet tettek a magyar irodalom, kultúra és tudomány terén, mint a te és a „vérbeli, színtiszta ősöd”!

Pentru toți cei care au părăsit, au revenit sau vor să părăsească România…

 Câteva cuvinte pentru toți cei care au părăsit România definitiv, pentru cei care vor s-o părăsească și pentru cei care au părăsit-o, dar au revenit. Am 26 de ani și am trăit deja în șase țări străine. Am plecat când am avut 2O de ani, am revenit după un an pentru o perioadă de 1O luni și din 2OO9 n-am mai revenit în țară în afara vizitelor de Paști, Crăciun și altele. Am trăit în Europa de Vest, Africa și America. Am învățat la diverse universități, am muncit în supermarketuri, fabrici, centre de catering, dar și la universități și instituții europene. Deci ceea ce o să scriu e bazată pe o experiență destul de mare pe care o am când vine vorba de a trăi în străinătate, călătorii și toletanță față de alte culturi.

Mai întâi încep cu cei care postează în ultima vreme că România e o țară de rahat și ce bucuroși sunt că au părăsit-o. Ce să vă zic. O să treacă luna de miere și o să vedeți că nici în străinătate nu stă cârnatu’ pe gard. Mai ales dacă pleci la 2O de ani cu 11OO de euro în buzunar și crezi că cineva va fi dat pe spate că ai fost tu mare șef de promoție la Babeș-Bolyai din Cluj. Babeș-Bolyai? De unde? Ammm, da pe locul 88O din lume. Cei care ați plecat la studii și muncă academică dintr-odată vă treziți că universitatea vă dă un pachet cu informații și descurcă-te. Nu te duci la tanti Mițica s-o întrebi dacă mai sunt locuri în căminele studențești. Du-te frumos și fă bani și plătește chiria dacă-ți găsești o cameră undeva. A și nu te mira când chiria pentru o cameră va fi 5OO de euro/lună. Să mănânci la cantină? Dacă ai în fiecare zi 7 euro pentru o masă, ești binevenit s-o faci. O să vezi că dintr-o dată prețuiești banul și-i vei numera la fiecare sfârșit de săptămână. Și miturile cu salarii de mii de euro? Da, poate după ani buni de studii, datorii și altele și după multă muncă și perseverență. Nu uita. Nu mai concurezi cu Maricica și Ionuț ci cu oameni din întreaga lume care luptă pentru același post ca tine. Ori ești cel mai bun, ori pa și puszi și du-te acasă.

Te-ai întrebat vreodată, dacă România este o țară așa de rahat, cum de tu ai putut să fi bun în ceva? Păi din rahat numai rahat se poate face, nu? Și ui că nu. Câteodată circumstanțele mai grele ne învață să fim mai buni, mai ambițioși și perseverenți. Dar să nu crezi că dacă ai plecat deja te-ai rupt în totalitate de așa zisul ”rahat”. O să vezi când ești în străinătate că ești mai șmecher (se aplică și magharilor din RO) decât ai fi crezut vreodată, că unii din Vest se vor uita la tine ca la un alt jegos din Est și autoritățile germane n-o să se bucure prea mult când îți văd pașaportul. Poate o să vezi că o bere costă cât cinci beri acasă și nu mai ieși în oraș cu așa mare poftă. Poate vezi, că nu toată lumea se bucură de tocurile tale și parfumul în exces. Poate iernile devin mai lungi, mai întunecate și nu poți să ieși așa de ușor la o bere cu colegii, că ei se țin de un orar strict. Poate mâncarea nu-ți mai cade așa de bine ca acasă și ce bine ar fi o lebeniță bună de Dăbuleni, dar ui că ori n-au nordicii ăștia lebeniță ori costă al naibii de mult și are un gust de plastic. Eu am trecut deja prin luna de miere cu ani buni în urmă și știu deja ce vreau de la o țară.

Pot să vă zic un lucru cert, încă n-am găsit o țară unde vreau să mă stabilesc și nu există o țară perfectă. În Olanda te omoară lipsa de spațiu și cerul noros, în Danemarca și Germania oamenii-s reci față de străini, în Africa de Sud tre să plătești mai mult ca în Europa ca să ai un stil de viață asemănător, din America te dă afară dacă ți-a expirat viza, iar în Bruxelles o să ai probleme cu apa, încălzirea și internetul. Dacă crezi că România e așa de rahat, mai du-te prin Africa. Dacă n-ai crescut într-o cocioabă cu 5 frați țigani și nimic pe masă, nu te văita. Ai stat la bloc, era cald iarna, aveai mâncare pe masă. Poate de te-ai fi născut în ghettoul Khayelitsha  de lângă Cape-Town cu peste un milion de oameni fără apă, canalizare etc te-ai răzgândi când numești țara în care te-ai născut ”de rahat”.

Pentru cei care vă duceți pentru muncă fizică, să nu vă gândiți că Johann și Jepp vă vor lăsa la ”o țigară” în fiecare zece minute. 7 dimineața înseamnă că îți termini cafeaua la 6.55 și pauza de cafea va fi de 1O minute și nu 2O ca acasă. Dintr-o dată o să vezi că ai niște cote de îndeplinit și dacă nu le îndeplinești, sunt destui care îți vor lua locul. Am trecut și prin astea, dar pentru visători vă recomand să luați un Atlassib către Spania și să vorbiți cu oamenii care au lucrat acolo ani buni.

Pentru cei care vă întoarceți acasă după câteva luni petrecuți în străinătate aveți grijă cum vă comportați acasă. Dacă ai făcut bani afară, fi fericit, tu i-ai câștigat. Asta nu înseamnă că ai dreptul să te dai mare și să arăți la vecinu ce mare ”jmecher” te-ai făcut; să intri în bar și să arunci cu banii, și să crezi că ești marele șef numai pentru-că ai lucrat afară. Nu uita că cel mai probabil făceai munca de jos, într-un loc din care postai zilnic pe facebook cântece de acasă și n-aveai banii sau erai prea zgârcit să-ți cumperi o bere la prețurile lor. Vino acasă, învestește-ți banii cu cap și nu-i arunca pe nimicuri.

Pentru cei care vă întoarceți acasă definitiv, mai încetați cu ”acolo era mult mai bine”. Dacă a fost așa de bine, raiul pe pământ, de ce te-ai mai întors? Fi fericit că ai avut șansa de a lucra în străinătate și că cel mai probabil ai mai învățat câte ceva când erai acolo. Și dacă vrei să faci un bine pentru locul unde te-ai născut, aplică cunoștințele pe care le-ai însușit în străinătate. Nu te da mare, nu compara cele două țări. Lucrează frumos în tăcere cum ai putut s-au alții te-au făcut să lucrezi acolo.

Pentru cei care nu vă mai întoarceți. Mai încetați cu criticile. Că era mai bine când voi erați acasă, că țara se duce de râpă, că nu mai e viitor acasă. Ai plecat, bravo ție. Dar din moment ce nu mai trăiești acasă, nu mai contribui la economia locală, nu-ți mai plăteși taxele acasă, nu mai ai dreptul să critici o țară pe care ai lăsat-o cu ani buni în urmă. Iar, pentru cei care nu vă mai întoarceți și vă credeți mai români acolo ca acasă, de ce ați plecat? Dacă era așa de bine acasă, întoarce-te.

Pentru toți cei care sunt, vor să se ducă sau se întorc în țară și nu compară tot timpul, nu se dau mare când vin acasă, sau sunt fericiți în străinătate, faceți ce ați făcut până acum. Fiecare are dreptul să-și trăiască viața cum vrea și cum poate.

Din moment ce ai plecat și nu te mai întorci străinătatea nu va fi ”acasă” dar nici ”acasă” n-o să mai fie cum a fost.