The first President of Hungary, Mihály Károlyi, had been forced to swallow many bitter pills in his short time in office. The last appointed Hungarian Prime Minister by Austro-Hungarian Emperor Charles I, Károlyi had ushered the relative bloodless Astar Revolution (with a couple of notable exceptions) and Hungary’s full independence. In short order, Károlyi watched the Allied powers disintegrated the lands of the ancient Habsburg regime by decree and by force. The latest blow had arrived the day before with the arrival of the “Vix Note” – a communique from the French that Hungarian troops were expected to retreat even further than originally agreed upon in order for those lands to be seized by Hungary’s neighbors.
The note had caused Károlyi’s prime minister to resign on March 21st, 1919 as the Hungarians didn’t wish to agree to France’s demands but were in little military position to resist. With his authority evaporating as quickly as Hungary’s borders, Károlyi proclaimed that the National Council, the legislative body through which he ruled, would attempt to form another government. But as Károlyi was a determined anti-communist, only the center-left Social Democrats would be allowed as the organizing party. The Social Democrats agreed on the same day and made a surprising announcement – Károlyi was resigning as President.
Mihály Károlyi had most certainly not told the Social Democrats he intended to resign. And the Social Democrats had most certainly not told Károlyi that they had secretly entered into an alliance with the Hungarian Communist Party and had released their imprisoned leadership the night before. Béla Kun, the Moscow-dispatched leader of the Hungarian Communists, immediately declared a Hungarian Soviet Republic, deposing and arresting Károlyi by fiat. Kun then radioed Vladimir Lenin in Russia, telling him that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” had seized control in Budapest.
The fear of most nations around the world since the Russian Revolution of 1917 had arrived – a Communist dictatorship had taken hold in the heart of Europe.
The Astar Revolution – Hungary’s hopes for an Allied-supported government died a quick death, even with a pro-Allied leader like Mihály Károlyi at the helm
“I was certainly no adherent of the ancient regime, but it seems doubtful to me whether it is a sign of political shrewdness to beat to death the smartest of the many counts [Count István Tisza] and to make the stupidest one [Count Mihály Károlyi] president.” – Sigmund Freud
Hungary’s fate was far from sealed as the Great War ended on November 11th, 1918. It took a series of terrible moves from leadership to ensure the rise of a Soviet Republic.
As the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into the dustbin of history, Hungarian legislators had already begun the process of separation from the Dual Monarchy. Count Mihály Károlyi had been one of those legislators – indeed, he had been pushing for separation from Austria since the turn of the century when the one-time adventurer and wealthy playboy finally settled down into a life of politics (some say Károlyi partied to make up for his youngest years when he had a cleft lip and palate). Legislative affairs didn’t dull his reckless reputation; he would become deep political enemies with Prime Minister István Tisza over Károlyi’s refusal to shake hands following a heated debate. The disagreement would escalate to the two dueling with sabres until Tisza wounded Károlyi after an hour of fighting and each man’s second intervened to stop the fight. Károlyi’s reputation for passion and poor judgement wouldn’t improve over the years.
Mihály Károlyi – despite his initial views and actions, Károlyi was rejected by the West as a Communist. Partially as a result, he would embrace socialism after WWII and return to Hungary to briefly be in government before resigning in protest to the Soviet puppet state
For a regime hoping to avoid a punitive peace, Károlyi’s pro-Allied/anti-war stances during the war made him an attractive legislative figurehead for Charles I as various factors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire split away. The degree to which either Charles I or Károlyi believed Hungary would completely separate from the monarchy is debatable, but with federal troops opening fire on Hungarian protestors, the appointment of a pro-independence politician might prevent violence from engulfing the country. Regardless of what Charles I thought may happen by such a promotion, Károlyi immediately formalized the end of the Compromise of 1867 that had created the Dual Monarchy and shortly thereafter announced a Hungarian People’s Republic, run by the Hungarian National Council of which Károlyi was a leading member. The moves, later called the “Astar Revolution” for the flower that rebels wore on their lapels or hats, had minimized further violence, but not before the murder of István Tisza. The former prime minister had his home broken into by Astar rebels (or disgruntled soldiers, depending upon the definition) and was shot to death in front of his family. The men who did it claimed it was retribution for initially supporting the war.
The nation Mihály Károlyi inherited was in dire straits but not powerless. 1.4 million Hungarian soldiers were still under arms as Serbian troops entered the south of Hungary and the newly formed Czechoslovak Army crossed the northern frontier. Plus, French commander Louis Franchet d’Espèrey at Salonika was encouraging the Romanians to expand their claims on Transylvania. Károlyi saw the situation, and the tenuous hold the National Council had on a shrinking Hungary, and decided to unilaterally disarm. Not stand-down or partially demobilize, but to completely disband the Hungarian army. The Hungarian Republic had literally no one to defend themselves.
Károlyi’s motivation was likely to try and gain more generous terms from the Allies by embracing Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but like the Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Germans had already learned, the United States was not going to interfere in armistice talks as a third party. The French would lead the armistice negotiations with the new Hungarian government and Paris was merciless in their demands. The Hungarian army would permanently be reduced to eight divisions – six infantry, two cavalry – and the entire country had to grant access to Allied forces at all times; essentially a floating, ceaseless occupation. The Hungarians had to turn over their entire rail and transportation systems as war indemnity and pay for the cost of repairing Serbian infrastructure. These weren’t even the final terms of any peace treaty, just the preconditions to ending the war. Károlyi’s prior decisions had left him no choice – Hungary signed the punitive armistice.
Hungarian Soviets – Károlyi’s epic mismanagement initially attracted a wide and varied political coalition to the Soviet, even otherwise conservative elements and royalists
The months that followed unfolded much as they had in Russia after the February Revolution and in the winter of 1918 in Germany – a system of dual power between revolutionary councils and relatively more moderate executive leaders. Károlyi and the Social Democrats would endlessly thrust and pare legislative measures, turning Károlyi’s cabinet into what critics called more of a debating society than a government. And as both sides debated, Hungary fell further into disarray. The Allies had continued to blockade Hungary until a final peace treaty would be signed, cutting them off from needed coal to heat homes in the winter. The loss of most of the country’s transportation in the armistice terms triggered massive unemployment as workers were unable to get to their jobs while the supply chain froze with goods unable to move. And the nation’s neighbors continued to occupy more and more territory en route to Hungary losing 75% of it’s pre-war territory.
Károlyi had presided over a spectacular political, military and societal collapse in less than four months of governance. The fact that he never saw a coup coming only adds to his list of profound failures.
The seizure of power by Hungary’s Communists was made all the more terrifying to the European powers by the virtue of it’s organization and control from Russia. Béla Kun, the de facto leader of the party, was Hungarian born and raised, but gone from being a Social Democrat-supported journalist to a Bolshevik firebrand after his imprisonment in Russia as an Austro-Hungarian POW. While Kun would develop a reputation as the Hungarian Lenin, and would constantly inform and seek advice from the father of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin had little direct use for Kun himself. Although the Bolsheviks gave Kun vast sums of money to help finance the revolution, Lenin viewed Kun as a part of the movement he mockingly called “kunerists” who wanted to immediately spread Communism to the rest of Europe by force. Such revolutionaries could only embolden Communism’s international enemies, thus threatening the core revolution that was still far from resolved in Russia. Thus, when the Hungarian Soviet Republic needed help the most over the coming months, Lenin and Russia refused to do much more than provide occasional advice and rhetorical support.
Béla Kun – the Russians would transplant him around eastern Europe, both supporting and undermining his revolutionary efforts at the same time. His final reward would be execution by Stalin as part of the dictator’s “Great Purge”
Such a laissez faire attitude from Moscow didn’t appear to be the case just days into the Hungarian Revolution. Lenin gave Kun one of his few direct orders during the life of the Hungarian Soviet Republic – purge the Social Democrats from the government. Like the Bolsheviks casting out the Mensheviks, there was no room in the revolution for a competing political party, even an allied one. The order was easier to give than follow; while rank-and-file Social Democrats were excluded from the government, a true purge would have left the Republic without any experienced leadership. Most of the Republic’s first commissars were former Social Democrats, including the president, Sándor Garbai. Ultimately, it could be argued the former Social Democrats were a fig leaf covering the fact that control of the government was in the hands of Kun (who technically only held the post of Foreign Minister) and other communists who had travelled with him from Russia.
What few could have foreseen was that the new Communist government initially had decent support among the nation’s former royalists and nationalists. While the government’s domestic policies of nationalization alienated anyone not already politically allied with them, Kun’s declaration that Hungary would reclaim her original borders, coupled with the nation’s rearmament, were welcome changes from Károlyi’s seemingly effete governance. Former Hungarian officers and soldiers flooded the ranks of the new Red Guard and when Kun’s Soviet Republic reached a stalemate in negotiations with the Allies in late May after another round of demands for the nation to cede territory, Hungary attacked.
In June of 1919, the Hungarian army crushed the Czechoslovak units in Upper Hungary, successfully cutting off the Czechs from their Romanian and French allies. Large tracts of modern Slovakia would be liberated by this new Red Army and it appeared that Kun had kept his promise to restore Hungary to it’s prominence. The goodwill was short-lived. Kun and his allies proclaimed a Slovak Soviet Republic in the new territory. The government had already begun dropping the use of “Hungarian” in it’s title of Hungarian Soviet Republic, and had unleashed a wave of violence in the rural countryside that would be known as the “Red Terror” as the communists tortured or executed anyone who opposed them. Kun and the Moscow-backed revolutionaries had no allegiance to Hungary; this was revolution for revolution’s sake and the exodus of officers and trained soldiers quickly left the Red Guards as little more than a disorganized paramilitary group with heavy weapons.
Kun speaks to a group of supporters – Kun tried to balance telling the Hungarian masses that he supported reuniting the empire while downplaying such rhetoric to Moscow who worried he was more of a nationalist than Communist
What remained of the Hungarian Red Army was quickly defeated by the Romanians. Like the rest of Europe, Romania was the in process of settling her new borders and had fought a small-scale war with the Russian Soviets over Bessarabia. The Romanians weren’t interested in being boxed in by aggressive communist governments to their east and west and went on the offensive against Kun’s regime. By late July, the writing was on the wall as the Romanians approached Budapest. Kun and his supporters fled the country, looting the National Bank and numerous works of art as they fled to Austria. The “White Hungarian” resistance government of Admiral Miklós Horthy, backed by the French, would claim authority shortly thereafter, bringing a much more conservative government to the Allies’ liking to power. It would also usher in an era of “White Terror” that executed most of the leadership and sympathizers of the Soviet Republic.
The Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted for barely a blip in time, and despite the fears and potential it brought about on both sides of the communist/democratic divide, it also revealed how little either side was truly willing to risk to either advance or contain communism in the aftermath of the Great War.
In the spring of 1919, it would have appeared that communism was about to run rampant across eastern and central Europe, between the military victories of the Russians, the abortive German revolution and successful Hungarian one. Yet Lenin and the Russians were seemingly of two-minds on whether to encourage or discourage their revolutionary brethren. They gave Kun the tools necessary to foment a revolution but then backed away once he gained power. They’d repeat this cycle in the future with Kun again, dispatching him to Germany to advise the Communist Party there only to recall him when he actually encouraged another attempted violent revolution in 1921. The Western Allies weren’t really any better – despite the rise of another communist government in central Europe, and one that was actively marching (and winning) to advance the cause of Bolshevism, the Allies couldn’t be bothered to muster forces to stop the Hungarians. Even after the defeat of the Czechoslovaks, the large French and Serbian armies to Hungary’s south did nothing, outsourcing the campaign to the Romanians.
Miklós Horthy – the regent of Hungary; Horthy would draw Hungary closer to Nazi Germany in the inter-war period as American journalists claimed the nation was “the jackal of Europe.” In 1944, Horthy would first halt deportations of Hungarian Jews and then switch sides, joining the Allies
For all the talk of revolution, Europe was simply exhausted. Not enough leaders or even ordinary citizens were that interested in spilling more blood, whether it was to overthrow or preserve the current system.
FR, the more I read what you write, the more I am convinced history is 100% serendipitous as it happens. Everybody can say anything when using hindsight, but as it happens – day in and day out, no way no how. About the only learning is that any and all outcomes of comusoc besting the West results in untold bloodshed and misery. But day to day – nobody armed with today’s facts can predict what will happen tomorrow.
When you research the background of the most prominent Communist leaders, you begin to understand the rise of the Third Reich.
moderation hell
here we go again… THE JOOOS! I guess now we know unequivocally where BN’s sympathies lie. He would have been tickled pink to see final solution being brought to its final conclusion. Because JOOOOS are the ABSOLUTE and ONLY reason for ALL the evil in the world. Well, BLACKS as well because they are controlled by JOOOS! Listening to BN brings back the tirade of the Illinois Nazis on the bridge. BN probably nodded his head and applauded it and booed the Blue Brothers.
Here we go again…indeed.
We’ve noticed a penchant for stretching the boundaries of paraphrasing with you, jpa. Making shit up out of thin air, isn’t paraphrasing. It’s also not a very effective debating technique. Neither is Argumentation From Outrage.
So when Károlyi had to make a critical decision, he made the wrong one, 100% of the time.
Remind you of any modern day world leader?
Strange that a nation at least as outwardly religious as Hungary succumbed, even for a time, to the siren song of Communism. You would figure they’d have been done with “religion is the opiate of the masses” and all that. I guess they at least had the excuse that they couldn’t look back at the Holodomor and other atrocities of the Communists.
BN, so which part of your statement that without JOOOS there would be no Third Reich am I incorrectly paraphrasing? I think fact you wrote your statement is attributable to Kun being a JOO is quite accurate, no?
Actually, jpa, I didn’t attribute anything to Kun personally. I spoke about *all* the leaders of the Communist revolution in Europe.
Could have been they all held a grudge against France.
*You* immediately, and yes correctly, assigned ethno-religious connections to them and felt compelled to jump to their defense.
Why is that jpa? You certainly do not strike me as a Communist sympathizer and the facts are irrefutable.
Why you mad?
And, to be clear, it’s my opinion that one (of many) of the factors that fueled Hitler’s insane rampage was his intense hatred of Communism.
The intersection between Jews and Communism fueled his inchoate hate of them.
It indisputably played a major part of the virulent anti-Semitism in Poland.
We can discuss these topics rationally, and without rancor on my part.
Jews were over represented in the international communist movement in Europe in the 20s and 30s. This was a cultural thing, intellectualism, education, and bourgeois values were cultural values of the Jews in Europe back then. They were excluded from national life in almost every nation in Europe. They were foreigners living in Hungary, Poland, Britain, etc.
What happened was WWI destroyed the multinational empires of Europe. Nationalism took its place. Nations wanted wanted one people within its borders. Jews (and gypsies and others) had no place in this scheme. Jews weren’t immune from this trend, many European Jews moved to the Holy Land with the objective of restoring Israel as the Jewish nation.
During and after WW 2 Stalin began to persecute Jews in Russia and the communist party. He championed the Russian people instead as opponents of the Jews, very odd. The Russians are a weird ethnicity, they don’t really have a homeland in Russia, history tells us that they are descended from Scandinavians.
The persecution of Jews within the USSR began within Stalin’s lifetime, and his death gave the Soviet Jews a little relief. But they were, and I suppose still are, viewed as second class citizens in Russia.
“ But they were, and I suppose still are, viewed as second class citizens in Russia.”
Maybe so, MP. But there’s a sizable population that still revers Lenin and Marx.
Blade, I recommend Stefan Zweig’s _The World of Yesterday_ (1942). Zweig was an Austrian Jew (b. 1881). He was a secular Jew who lived through lived through WW 1, and escaped Europe to South America when WW 2 began. He killed himself in 1942 out of despair at the loss of Europe to the Nazis. Zweig was an upper middle class Jew, an academecian, writer, and literary critic, who considered himself to have a purely European identity because he was not a protestant or Catholic, a Frenchman or Austrian or Englishman (etc). It makes an interesting companion to Belloc’s _The Jews_.
“ Nations wanted wanted one people within its borders.”
Like Israel does.
I’ve read Belloc, MP. Will follow up with Zweig.
I don’t know how it worked in old Russia or France, but in Austria-Hungary, one of the big reasons Jews were overrepresented in all the skilled professions was that Jews generally weren’t allowed to own land. That, combined with periodic pogroms, led many to conclude that life was better when you could put your life’s work in a gunny sack and run off to the next safe town. So from the Balkans to the Rhine, Jews were far overrepresented in most any profession they were allowed to practice. And hence–being overrepresented in the professions–they also were overrepresented among Communists. That particular affliction was learned in the same universities where the professionals studied, of course.
That said, it’s worth noting that as I looked at the biographies of notable Communists of Lenin’s era, most of them are gentiles. Hence it really doesn’t make sense that Schicklgruber’s Dolchstoss arguments flow from the actual heritage of early Communists.
Pro tips for Swiftee; first, if your comment seems to indicate that you think that Nazi arguments made sense, you will catch H*** for it, and rightly so. Second; guilt by association is a logical fallacy, and that’s part of the reason you try to avoid Nazi arguments, which use this fallacy a LOT.
I’m not gonna waste my time making a fool of Bubba again.
Bubba’s thorough (but unshared) biographical research not withstanding, the fact that Jewish men and women were and are wildly over represented among the leaders of the Communist revolution from the early 20th century, to this day, is an accepted fact. Hell, even they admit it; see also “Red diaper baby” by David Horowitz.
If the consequence of saying the truth out loud is catching Hell from brainwashed boomers, bring it. Doesn’t change the fact I’m right.
BTW, bubba; you really need to look up “guilt by association”. Protip: it doesn’t include guilt of the first party. Lol
Here’s a little lite reading, Bubba. It’s the Jewish version. Yeah, it’s apologetic, they excuse themselves, but they don’t deny the facts.
https://www.jta.org/2017/11/06/global/what-was-the-jewish-role-in-1917-russian-revolution-moscow-museum-gives-a-full-picture
I understand. You’ve gone through a lifetime of indoctrination that continues to this day, Bubba. But that’s not an excuse for continued ignorance.
*You* immediately, and yes correctly, assigned ethno-religious connections to them and felt compelled to jump to their defense.
Why is that jpa? You certainly do not strike me as a Communist sympathizer and the facts are irrefutable.
So ALL JOOS are communists and ALL communists are JOOS. Gotcha! Not anti-semitic… not anti-semitic at all. Still wondering if think your life would be better if ALL JOOS would have final solutioned. That no JOOS existed. EVER. Your rhetoric sure suggests you want JOOS to be eliminated from the face of the earth because they are the ones responsible for ALL the evil in the world and you will be in the front not just guiding JOOS into a gas chamber but cranking the dial to 11.
It indisputably played a major part of the virulent anti-Semitism in Poland.
Are you mad? Are you suggesting virulent anti-semitism STARTED with Communism? That it became MORE virulent than blood libel (which I am sure you are a big believer in)?
“So ALL JOOS are communists and ALL communists are JOOS. Gotcha!”
Again…I didn’t say that, jpa. You’re losing this debate; bigly. Here’s a tip:
JTA… reasoned, though flawed argument.
The ADL histrionics…old and busted.
“Still wondering if think your life would be better if ALL JOOS would have final solutioned [sic]”
No.
“Your rhetoric sure suggests you want”….and off the edge, and into space we go! Wheeee!
Pro tip, dullee; when Nazis were spewing forth virulent anti-Semitism against German Jews on the basis of what Russian Jews had allegedly done, yes, that fits the textbook definition of “guilt by association.”
Note also that the link you provide says exactly what I asserted; that it was indeed disproportionate, but not a majority. Maybe learn to read for comprehension someday.
And what JPA notes about anti-semitism in Europe (and really elsewhere). As I noted above, read the very link you provided and understand that the Tsarist parties were indeed appealing to long-standing anti-semitism to try to maintain power. Put differently, if anti-semitism were new in 1917, somebody forgot to explain that to Wagner, to Scholem Aleichem, and the writers of numerous anti-Jewish works dating back to the Dark Ages. I’ve personally read one in Old High German, dating from before the 10th century.
Pro tip, dullee; when Nazis were spewing forth virulent anti-Semitism against German Jews on the basis of what Russian Jews had allegedly done
What Russian Jews had *allegedly done*, Bubba? Hahahaha! OK, bro.
And the German Jews were blamed for what Russian Jews did? Not so much…or at all.
Read the history of the Weimar Republic; the November Revolution; the SPD and the USPD. Find out who Wilhelm Liebknecht, Ferdinand Lasalle (Lassel) and Franz Mehring were. Inform yourself, Delenda.
Ignorance is always quite unattractive, but never so much as when demonstrated by older people who are supposed to have gained some wisdom.
Note also that the link you provide says exactly what I asserted; that it was indeed disproportionate, but not a majority. Maybe learn to read for comprehension someday.
Where did I say it was a majority? Comprehension Delenda; get some. I said “the most prominent” Communist leaders were Jewish; and so they were. Trotsky, Lenin; Marx himself. There were 170 million people in the Russian Empire in 1917, 5,000 of whom were Jewish. Do the math.
And maybe 3,000 of that 5,000 were Communist or Communist sympathizers….most came to regret it. As they always do, fellow travelers no longer needed were among the first the Communists took care of after gaining power. Jews killing Jews; look at the history of the NKVD.
Dullee, looking things up, there were three million Jews, approximately, in the Russian empire in 1918. But hey, what’s being wrong by three orders of magnitude to you?
Thanks for that link, Delinda.
But even if I give that to you, do the math.
From “Jewish History.org”
“The first was simply demographic: the Jewish population exploded during the 19th century. It is estimated that at the time of the Napoleonic Wars (i.e. the beginning of the 1800s) there were about 2.25 million Jews in the world. By 1880, that figure had reached 7.5 million. By 1900 it approached 9 million!“
So, you’re saying that 1/3 of the world wide population of Jews lived in Russia in 1918?
Lol…you’re an idiot, Delenda.
Fess up…you did the Wikipedia, didn’t you?
Sure you did. That’s why you were ashamed to cite it.
Hahahaha.
BN, you keep harping on JOOS being the worst scum of the earth responsible for all the evil in the world. You keep pointing out – correctly, there is no dispute, – that JOOS were disproportionately represented in the communist and soci@list upper echelons. So what? Only a virulent anti-semite like yourself would bring that up over and over again. Why do you? What do you what to accomplish by it? What would you do to prevent this from happening again? The only way for this history NOT to repeat itself is to eradicate ALL JOOS, no? WHAT… WOULD… BN…. DO? Other than foment hatred against the JOOS?
Oh, and by the way, maybe, just maybe, JOOS would not be so enamored with the ideals of communism and soci@lism if they were not persecuted, ostracized and enslaved by just about everyone over the millennia.
“ BN, you keep harping on JOOS being the worst scum of the earth responsible for all the evil in the world.”
No, jpa I don’t.
I address subjects as they come up. But that doesn’t mean every Jew is involved in foul deeds, nor does every foul deed committed have a Jew behind it. As I’ve said more than once, for instance, you seem like a reliable fellow.
I’m an American, but of Irish background. I have an Irish passport, have family still living there.
If there was 1/4 as many Irish people connected to the leftist degeneracy destroying America as Jewish, I’d be all over them. But there’s not. Not in number or in percentage of population.
The Irish have their faults, most glaring for me, a propensity towards “the dole” (socialism), and I instigate many lively discussions among my cousins. My leftist, Irish Aunt won’t speak to me; so be it.
I calls em as I sees em, jpa. History and facts are what they are, but I don’t say “JOOS”.
I’ve been moderated!
Literally shaking rn.
Oh, and by the way, as an addendum to the preceding comment (in moderation), we Irish were brutally persecuted, ostracized, starved and enslaved for more than 700 years. Like the Jews, the Irish were forced to flee to countries around the globe.
Further, as I said in the proceeding comment (in moderation), many living in the Old Sod have a pronounced taste for soci@lism, as well. It’s nasty and I don’t hesitate to say so.
But with all those similarities, they have never worked to undermine the democratic governments of countries that took in the Irish diaspora, nor led outright revolutions to take power.
Facts are facts.
Yes, facts are facts, Dullee. Maybe you should try learning some sometime, like the fact that yes indeed, German Jews were horrifically discriminated against and then murdered in part based on the alleged actions of Russian Jews. And yes, indeed, a huge portion of Jews did indeed live within the Russian empire–that’s how, 25 years later, the Nazis ended up killing six million Jews despite there being only 600,000 Jews within the borders of pre-War Germany. Remember that most of Poland was within the borders of Russia at the time.
In the same way, the disproportionate role of Jews in Communism has a lot to do with historic animus against Jews and their flocking to the professions and universities so they could run away from pogroms with a good portion of their livelihood. Yes, the Nazis twisted this, but you ought to be capable of applying the truth.
You should be ashamed of yourself for aping those arguments.
BN, you still did not answer my question: what’s to be done other than foment hate like you do? What does ceaseless pointing out the facts accomplish? Do you expect someone to read them and say, “I gotta go get me some JOO pelts for all the evil they had done, doing and will do”? What… do… you… expect..? I have never disputed facts. But you keep bringing them up… why? What… do… you… expect..? What you are doing is textbook anti-semitism – fomenting hate against JOOS. What… do… you… expect..?
You asked me if I thought we’d be better off with Jews, and I said no. Let me expand on that.
Leftist activism and revolution aside, Jews also have an outsized presence in medicine, industry and science (I’ll leave out lawyering 😉), we wouldn’t have had so many miraculous medical and scientific advances without them.
As to what I expect, well, I *hope* sensible Jews such as yourself will council your people to reject the leftist degeneracy so many support with their treasure, time and effort. Deny the reprobates your talents.
That’s all.
Say Delenda? We’d probably all save time and frustration if you’d just cut and paste those Wiki articles you’re reading. That way, I can mock the authors for morons and cut out the middle man.
Thanks.
BN, point received. But you cannot erase millennia of systematic prosecution and neverending diaspora in one generation. Plus, how do you address turncoats? Most Jews you (and I) loathe, denounced, renounced and abrogated their Jewishness – Marx, Soros, Trotsky (well, most Russian communists)?
I have plenty of jewish friends who cling to guns and torahs. But it seems the only way to convince the rest is to keep pointing out that most atrocities against the jews, in recent history, were perpetrated by the left (communists and nazis are the same). Fomenting hatred, like you do, does not help the situation and only allows jews to point fingers and say – “but look at all the anti-semitism on the right, I don’t want to go there”. For cripes sake, most libturds still think KKK is a right-wing phenomenon!