On September 21, 1920, the Hungarian National Assembly approved Europe first Modern Age racist law. It was against the Jews as defined by race (not religion) and it was called the Numerus Clausus (closed number) law, meaning that only a certain number of Jews (about 5% of the total) were allowed to study in Hungarian universities. More than half of the members of the Assembly voted against the law or "voted" absent. The background was that in less than a generation, the most prestigious schools had become dominated by Jews. Hungarian Christian middle class was passing a terrible situation: In the Austro-Hungarian Empire they had administered an area with about 50 million inhabitants, with wide middle-class employment possibilities in the public service, the military and other "gentleman positions". After losing the war, Hungary became a small country of 7 - 8 million and the Hungarian "gentry" became unemployed and unwilling to work in manual trade. Jews had never occupied public service positions so they could not be sacked to make place for others. But the post Trianon bitterness found expression in the universities, where the "Christian-National" students (organized within the framework of something like ROTC reserve units in America) pressured the government to literally to open up positions for them. The understanding of the suffering of their Hungarian neighbors and the rather localized character of antisemitism, explain the blind lack of alarm of the Hungarian Jews and their quiet acceptance of the restrictive measure. Vienna was a train ticket away and the famous German, French, Swiss universities were open and free to Hungarian Jewish students. Most of them spoke superb German and life in Western university towns was cheap and gay. Among those who left Hungary to study were Teller Ede, Neumann János, Cukor György, Arthur Koestler.
13 comments:
Weizmann in his book talks about the population of itinerant Jewish students that were found in every West European university in his day (Czarist times). I assume you exclude Russia from Europe since I gather the Numerus Clausus applied in Russia long before 1920.
If more than 1/2 voted against it, how was it enacted into law?
In retrospect, the Jewish reaction was completely wrong. The Jewish students should have organized their own resistance and kicked the Christian-National student's racist asses. Bullies depend on the non-resistance of their victims. The wealthier Jews should have used their economic power - 300 years earlier, when Peter Stuyvesant wrote to the directors of the Dutch West India Company proposing to keep the Jews out of New Amsterdam (the future New York), management wrote back to the effect that " We hate the deceitful race of Jews as much as you, but we have many Jewish shareholders whom we can't afford to antagonize - let the Jews in." The difference in Hungary I believe is that the Jews were so consumed with their own personal self interest and desire for individual advancement that they refused to use their economic power for the good of the Jews as a whole.
K
Leo Szilard too.
Anon.
May be they were not consumed by self interest but lack of it. Hungary was really in a bad shape and its "gentry" unemployed, declassed and bitter. Hungarian Jews were patriotic and did not fight back because emotionally they shared their enemies arguments. That is the Jewish mental disease, to adopt the enemy's arguments. Here in Israel I see the same every day, when that rug HaAretz fights for the rights of Palestinian haters of Israel, the Sudanese "refugees" and everyone except people like themselves.
I doubt that's what happened. Based on what happened in the US at the same time, the rich and powerful Jews had achieved some measure of acceptance (often in the case of Hungary by actually converting to Catholicism) and they did not want to endanger their own position in society by making waves on behalf of other, poorer Jews. Weizmann writes that in Russia the rich Jews had ways of making sure that THEIR children were not the ones hurt by the numerus clausus - if there was any quota they would be sure (thru bribes, etc.) that their children were not affected by it. Rather it was the children of the rising middle class , those who were ambitious but could barely afford to educate their children, that were affected.
I am always brought back to that awful moment in history where Karski appears before Judge Frankfurter to describe the horrors of Auschwitz and to beg him to act to save the lives of the Jews of Europe and Frankfurter turns him away cold because he doesn't want to be perceived as "too Jewish" by his colleagues, above all his friend Roosevelt. Frankfurter must pretend (to himself above all) not to believe Karski (he calls the saint a liar to his face) because if he believes him then he (even in his assimilated state where he has shed his Yiddishkeit in his climb tot he top as Kahane describes) would have had to do something. Frankfurter was willing to let six million die for his own vanity. So how hard would it have been for a Hungarian Frankfurter to let a little quota escape his attention?
It's interesting that in the US, because of its strong egalitarian legal structure, the numerus clausus was implemented not by public legislation but in secret - the colleges had to deny that such a thing even existed (just as today they do the opposite and pretend that there is not an outright different (now lower) standard for admitting blacks. In both cases, they were able to do this by using the exact same set of tools - by claiming that admissions were now "holistic" - rather than merely looking at admission test scores (which had been their practice until then as it is in most nations), the applicant's "whole package" would be examined - sports he participated in, the application essay he had written , etc. Who is to say that outright discrimination was applied in judging Irving's essay worse or Jamaal's essay better?
K
Paradoxically, the fear of appearing unfair is so strong in the USA that the majority is being discriminated against in university admissions. According to bloggers like Steve SAiler, the situation is absurd.
This has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with Democratic party politics. Blacks form the most reliable voting block for the Democrats - without the black vote they would lose every election. Such loyalty must be repaid, as even Koko knows. "Affirmative Action" (quotas that favor blacks) is payback.
On some level, all people are aware (even thought they won't admit it publicly - of course in such situations the more you are aware the more vigorous your public denials must be) that blacks are on average inferior in intelligence and without compensatory measures would not be able to compete on a level footing, so we look the other way when the thumb is put on the scale on their behalf - we are only "helping" and not "discriminating" though any idiot can see that it is a zero sum game and that for each black who is "helped" there is a victim (usually Asian) who is hurt (just as it is utterly obvious that there can be no "free" health care - only health care that is paid for by someone else). But again we have to ignore the obvious in the interest of political correctness.
K
We goyim have plenty of Frankfurters,don't worry.
Anon.
I am worried. America was a really unique country because of it's civic minded tradition. People actually believed in giving back to the community. Jews had a similar tradition and they thrived here and gave back too (the next time you are at a symphony concert, look at the donor list in the program). If America falls it will not be "good for the Jews".
K
They gave back to the community because the government and culture allowed them to accumulate vast wealth.
This is now becoming progressively more difficult, as high earners will be increasingly obliged to pay for everybody's health care, welfare and wars without end, including the war on the whites who founded the country, and pioneered the philosophy that allowed hard work and talent to be rewarded.
Anon.
The United States was founded by whites, as the whites go so does the US. Only they have the historic memory and the sense of nationhood that is necessary for the preservation of a unitary society. All the other recent migrants talk a lot but in the end racial consciousness counts when preserving national character. Hence the incessant demonisation of the Tea Party, the leftist must be getting the willies that the whites are networking effectively outside of RINO clubs.
For purposes of the above, do Jews count as whites?
I'm not sure I agree. Some of the best Americans are people from elsewhere who realize (having lived in places lacking same and seen the results) the value of living in a society with rule of law, civic values, etc. A lot of WASP type Americans with really deep roots take their birthright as free citizens very much for granted and would be willing to sell it for a bowl of porridge or the approval of their leftist friends, whichever comes first.
K
In the US, Jews are honorary whites. Although leftwing Jews have consistently tried the patience of the Jesusland denizens, they are apt to overlook it in deference to the shared religious heritage. It is pathetic to see the contempt of the leftists Jews for the Palin supporters, who almost to a man are allied to the Israeli cause. I used to credit this long standing opposition to misguided but nonetheless well intentioned social consciousness. I no longer believe this
Why do you not mention Bela Kun? Surely he had something to do with this.
Post a Comment