Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Has Hungary not learned from History?


Mr.United_Nations

Recommended Posts

Could you then translate “Has Hungary not learned from history?” from English to English so I too can understand what was the meaning of that question?

Over here, when we say “Hungary” we think of whole country called Hungary. What is Hungary to you then if not the whole country?

So according to my understanding of your language, it should have been “Have few hundred Hungarians not learned from history?”, unless you can guess what population of the whole country has or hasn’t learned, based on few hundred exhibitionists.

Its kinda a question not to be answered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its kinda a question not to be answered

Oh, you mean a rhetorical question.

Like, “Who could possibly falsely accuse whole country of bigotry?” or “How smart one has to be in order to notice the irony in the attempt to fight prejudice with prejudice?”

Still, when making rhetorical questions you are supposed to keep away from false accusations, because those can ruin your credibility.

Not to mention p*** off people who are subjects of your prejudices in making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean a rhetorical question.

Like, “Who could possibly falsely accuse whole country of bigotry?” or “How smart one has to be in order to notice the irony in the attempt to fight prejudice with prejudice?”

Still, when making rhetorical questions you are supposed to keep away from false accusations, because those can ruin your credibility.

Not to mention p*** off people who are subjects of your prejudices in making.

ok enough of me, lets start to get back on track, this will derail the thread, its gone past is past, lets move on.

I take note of your statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me guess? you are one of those people who read The Sun?

No, thats as much trash as the BBC is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean a rhetorical question.

Like, “Who could possibly falsely accuse whole country of bigotry?” or “How smart one has to be in order to notice the irony in the attempt to fight prejudice with prejudice?”

Still, when making rhetorical questions you are supposed to keep away from false accusations, because those can ruin your credibility.

Not to mention p*** off people who are subjects of your prejudices in making.

I couldnt agree more.

For those who think the BBC tells the truth - If we round up the people from any political party then I'm quite sure one or two anti-semitists will exist in their ranks. But how does that make a party itself to be about anti-semitism? There is no factual evidence of Jobbik like that.

And all the hysteria coming from one unidentifed person, who doesnt lie Jews, posting on a unofficial Jobbik forum. Yeah that forms the basis of rational argument doesnt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

calm down richard nixon....you mean well but slow down a little and look around....

it's very simple to demonise people as nazis....it doesn't mean they are nazis.

i think it was churchill or maybe huey long (i may be wrong) who said that the next facists will come under the guise of anti-fascism.....think about that...

look at who runs Unite Against Fascism in this country...look at their politics....look at Weymann Bennett the chair of UAF...he's a member of the Socialist Workers Party....look at them....look at their politics and history...

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a far-left party in Britain. Founded as the Socialist Review Group by supporters of Tony Cliff in 1950, it became the International Socialists in 1962 and the SWP in 1977.[1] The party considers itself to be Trotskyist, although Cliff and his followers deviated from certain orthodox precepts, such as the defence of the USSR, instead asserting that the former Soviet Union, and its satellites, were "state capitalist".

Over the decades, the SWP has used a number of 'fronts', such as the Anti-Nazi League in the late 1970s and from 2001, the Stop the War Coalition. It also formed an alliance with George Galloway and Respect; this alignment's eventual dissolution in 2007 caused an internal crisis in the SWP, as did rape allegations against a leading member of the party which publicly emerged at the beginning of 2013

the nazis were National SOCIALISTS....they were seen as a product of the left....the left in the UK were supportive of them during the late 20's / early 30's.....

read Nick Cohens (a jewish journo) fantastic book 'what's left'

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704

most of all richard nixon...don't kneejerk react to baseless allegations of nazism, fascism or anti-semitism....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

calm down richard nixon....you mean well but slow down a little and look around....

it's very simple to demonise people as nazis....it doesn't mean they are nazis.

i think it was churchill or maybe huey long (i may be wrong) who said that the next facists will come under the guise of anti-fascism.....think about that...

look at who runs Unite Against Fascism in this country...look at their politics....look at Weymann Bennett the chair of UAF...he's a member of the Socialist Workers Party....look at them....look at their politics and history...

the nazis were National SOCIALISTS....they were seen as a product of the left....the left in the UK were supportive of them during the late 20's / early 30's.....

read Nick Cohens (a jewish journo) fantastic book 'what's left'

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0007229704

most of all richard nixon...don't kneejerk react to baseless allegations of nazism, fascism or anti-semitism....

Jingoism, xenophobia, genocide, racism and imperialism can be left, right or centre.

Hitler abolished class society, created a brotherhood, made adults attend parenting classes, modernised state health-care, nationalised a large part of the private sector, vastly increased the number of state employees, expanded the scouts+brownies and made it compulsary for all children, COMPLETE AND UTTER SOCIALIST!

The nazis were far-left nationalists. The name workers party is the give away for those who dont know any different!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jingoism, xenophobia, genocide, racism and imperialism can be left, right or centre.

Hitler abolished class society, created a brotherhood, made adults attend parenting classes, modernised state health-care, nationalised a large part of the private sector, vastly increased the number of state employees, expanded the scouts+brownies and made it compulsary for all children, COMPLETE AND UTTER SOCIALIST!

The nazis were far-left nationalists. The name workers party is the give away for those who dont know any different!

most people don't really understand what left and right means politically speaking....

i prefer to think in terms of negative vs positive liberty...it kinda clarifies things and seperates the wheat from the chaff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

most people don't really understand what left and right means politically speaking....

i prefer to think in terms of negative vs positive liberty...it kinda clarifies things and seperates the wheat from the chaff.

far-left is a dictatorship and far-right is a true democracy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

far-left is a dictatorship and far-right is a true democracy

lol....i understand what you mean by that but that post is really gonna stir up a hornets nest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most people don't really understand what left and right means politically speaking....

i prefer to think in terms of negative vs positive liberty...it kinda clarifies things and seperates the wheat from the chaff.

I always find it intriguing to observe that throughout history it is notable that whilst far right dictators have waged war against other nations (Hitler), left wing dictators have waged war against their own people (Stalin, Pohl pot, Maow). And even today it is also observable that right wing types appear more patriotic whereas left wing types seem much more cynical towards their country of origin.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I told myself I wouldn't get invested in a political debate here but damnit, here goes:

You guys are nitpicking over semantics and the definitions of words. By some definitions Fascism is also socialist if you define socialist at minimal as any form of organized labor, not as the internationalist movements typically associated with socialism. Fascism is based more on the social first and the economics second; for a Fascist economics is what works and is best for the people and nation as a whole (which to a Fascist is inseparable), not a "principle". This usually translates to a roughly centrist approach such as Corporatism, which is a form of Guild Socialism (no, it is not rule by big corporations like some conspiracy theorists like to claim it is). Some forms of Fascism, like Strasserist Nazism, are nearly communist as far as economics are concerned.

That said, in my experience Hungarians are more anti-semitic than most, but that is perhaps because it is more transparent to them the disproportionate amount of Jews behind the reigns of multiculturalism and telling Europeans to feel ashamed of their history. It is more accurate to say a disproportionately large percentage of the enemy is Jewish, as opposed to saying most/all Jews are the enemy.

I'm honestly of the belief that Europeans should not be ashamed of their heritage or the holocaust because it has nothing to do with them. Laws such as holocaust denial and whatnot are to benefit Jews and not Europeans - I am not saying this because I think Jews are "inferior", but you could replace the scenario with any other non-European group and my views would be the same. It has nothing to do with us so we shouldn't impose such laws on ourselves. Israel should be concerned with Jewish interests, and Europeans should be concerned with European interests. There is no "absolute moral value" or narrative, just whatever is in the interest of a nationality.

ermmm....all well and good....but judaism is a religion...someone can be just as european as anyone else and still be jewish....certainly in the context you're talking here the jews in question are ashkenazim and so of eastern european extraction in any case...as are most of the establishment in Israel (as opposed to sephardic jews)....to term 'jews' as a 'non-european group' is incorrect.

also 'european' is as generalised as 'african' or using the term 'american' to refer to a brazilian or an argentinian....

your political points are well stated...but your points regarding anti-semitism are deeply flawed...and it isn't jews telling 'europeans' to be ashamed of their heritage...it's generally middle class white academics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I always find it intriguing to observe that throughout history it is notable that whilst far right dictators have waged war against other nations (Hitler), left wing dictators have waged war against their own people (Stalin, Pohl pot, Maow). And even today it is also observable that right wing types appear more patriotic whereas left wing types seem much more cynical towards their country of origin.

i agree with the general point you're making but hitler waged war against his own people just as much as the others you reference.

as did pinochet for example...who is termed a right winger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jews have an identity ethnically as well. Enough that a ton of them decided to go form Israel and identify as something other than European based on survival. There was an organic aspect to it. It is not strictly a religion. I admit however that the definition of "Jew" is not totally consistent, it probably should just mean the religion.

I mean European culturally. My definition of European would also include Americans, Canadians, a percentage of South Americans of which Argentinians make up the bulk, Afrikaners, Rhodesians, Australians, and New Zealanders.

A lot of them are indeed traitors but a disproportionate amount comes from a Jewish background. In fact there are a few that are openly Zionist - which implies it is not the principle of Fascism or Nationalism they oppose, but that they are serving their own interests by opposing movements which they fear may target them. In a way it is a vicious cycle. They oppose European nationalist groups out of fear of Nazism, and in opposing them they make themselves the targets by necessity. The British Union of Fascists had this problem - they never openly attacked Jews, at least initially but the Jews went out of their way to attack them from the get go. In Oswald Mosley's autobiography "My Life" he mentions how dumbfounded he was at their nearly unanimous opposition to his movement. They pretty much made any nationalist movement have to target them by necessity.

The irony is it shows an inherent neuroticism because most far left movements these Jews support tend to be anti-Zionist. I don't think it is a conspiracy - I think it honestly has something to do with their mental states. I think Jews, Ashkenazim at least, are more prone to histrionic and neurotic traits in general whilst simultaneously having higher IQs. It would make sense due to the indirect selective breeding they went through during the middle ages - they've bred in some particular genetics. Same reason they are more prone to certain genetic disorders.

i think you're on some very dodgy ground with some of those comments but to address only one:

I mean European culturally

ashkenazim by their very nature and existence are intrinsically culturally european!!! the rituals and religious practices are not the same as those of middle eastern jews....the hats and the ringlets etc is a european thing...not a middle eastern one!

there is a way of analysing Israel...which i tend to agree with to an extent...as the last of the european colonies....and if you look at the birth of zionism and how it was formulated....in the context of political thought elsewhere in europe at the same time...then it is very much a european concept. ironic that the same genesis of thought that led to zionism also led to nazism....they clashed...one was destroyed....and in th actions and the death of one the other became almost inviolate and gained the support of the majority of jewish people in a way it had not had prior to the actions of the nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it intriguing to observe that throughout history it is notable that whilst far right dictators have waged war against other nations (Hitler), left wing dictators have waged war against their own people (Stalin, Pohl pot, Maow). And even today it is also observable that right wing types appear more patriotic whereas left wing types seem much more cynical towards their country of origin.

far-right = true democracy

right = republic

centre = balance

left = oligarchy

far-left = dictatorship or absolute rule

'Right' is not the same as nationalist, racist, xenophobic or imperialistic so stop labelling nationalist governments as being on the right. Hitler and Stalin were both far-left and the difference between the two is very small.

The 'right' appears more patriotic simply because they dont force their opinions onto people they listen and represent. That means instead of labelling you a bigot and locking you up they give the people the anti-immigrant policies they want (assuming that applies for the majority).

The only far-right governments that have existed to date were the leaders of ancient Greece. They operated a true democracy where every citizen got to be president for just one day.

Edited by Giant Killer B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so this is profoundly autistic and this scale is incredibly arbitrary.

Nazis kill off the inferior to make everyone perfect (Hitler).

Communists kill off the superior to make everyone perfect (Pol-Pot).

Both forms of government lead to a society of 'equals' and are therefore more similar than you'd like to admin (both far-left).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're a mix at best. They've always isolated themselves from the rest of the society at least in practice. Regardless they chose to adopt another identity which makes their interests separate from ours.

no disrespect but you're an american...i'm an englishman....our interests are seperate from each other...as (i assume) white men we have a certain degree of overlap but in your psychology and your national interests you are closer to an american with black skin than a white englishman...other than great britain i have very little respect for most european countries and their history in any case...which leads me to my next point:

They've always isolated themselves from the rest of the society at least in practice. Regardless they chose to adopt another identity which makes their interests separate from ours.

all true to an extent....but that doesn't make them less european....from the british isles the whole of europe seems a little odd and riven by weird factions anyway so to me they are just another one to throw into the mix...

Jews are not one group and most Israelis are good nationalists and many in my experience are potential allies at least on an existential level

absolutely agree with this.

irony:

the 'ethnic' group nearly slaughtered by an unfettered rampant deranged form of (socialist) nationalism run wild is now, because of that very slaughter, the one group that promotes it's own national interests above all others and escapes the various and unfounded charges of racism levelled at other nationalist groups around the globe.

almost makes me believe they're the 'chosen people'...lol.

you have some interesting thoughts gravitorbox...i note your quote from Ian Smith....i recently worked with a black zimbabwean fella who was over here because his family were being persecuted by Zanu-PF....he was schoolmates with morgan tsvangiri from the MDC and as such had had members of his family imprisoned and all sorts....his opinion of smith's government was not what the media would have you believe...and this was from a man whose family had been long active in the 'liberation' struggle though thru non-violent methods...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.