I recently attended a Rally for Palestine in the main square of a medium-sized French city close to Marseille. There were flags aflutter of the State of Palestine, two booths full of anti-Zionist propaganda, French middle-aged leftists, committed to the cause, concolorous in their political views with their American cousins of circa 1970, all granola and granny glasses. There were pamphlets of testimonies by “Palestinians” describing the unbelievable behavior of the Zionists, when they started the 1948 war, and then the 1956 Sinai war, and then the 1967 war, and the 1973 war, and several wars made on the peaceful citizens of Gaza — all entirely unprovoked attacks by the monstrous Israelis. There were flags of Palestine for sale. There were photographs of Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. There was something — I couldn’t make out the title — by Noam Chomsky. But what attracted my attention the most were the four outline maps of “Palestine” that were spread out on the ground, depicting an ever-expanding seizure of Arab land by the Zionist “settlers.”
The first map of “Palestine” showed it in 1946 as almost entirely Arab, with a handful of diminutive Jewish islands in an Arab sea.
The other three maps told a tale of inexorable Zionist expansion. The second map showed Palestine according to the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947. Palestine is still overwhelmingly Arab, but with a little more land area — still discontinuous bits — than in the 1946 map, assigned to the Jews. Then a map showing Israel just before, and then just after, the Six-Day War. No discussion of what caused the Six-Day War. No display of the Sinai as part of the territory Israel won in that war, or mention of how it was given back to Egypt by the Israelis.
Something was missing. Was that Partition Plan of 1947 put into effect? I sweetly asked the Rally for Palestine people. They looked slightly annoyed at the question, especially since there were other visitors present who might get the wrong — i.e., right — idea. One of them said that “no, the Zionists wouldn’t have it.” And that was all he said on the matter. I assume that he knew the truth, but that he figured that I did not, that I would most likely simply accept this remark, and would not even bother to check online once I got home. The point had been forcefully if laconically made, not just for me but for the onlookers. It did not brook dissent. It must be true. I said nothing more on the matter, but took in their presentation of the history of the Arab-Israeli wars, which was so full of mendacity, each lie more outrageous than the next, that it would have taken many hours to correct. I wasn’t about either to spend the time, or to blow my cover. I was, after all, on a reconnaissance mission.
But coming back to the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947, I knew of course that the Zionists had — reluctantly — accepted Resolution 181, the U.N. Partition Plan, even though it represented a great diminution in the land area that had originally been intended for the Jewish National Home under the League of Nation’s Mandate for Palestine. What else could they do? The Zionists in 1947 were desperate — with hundreds of thousands of Jews still in D.P. camps in Europe, most of them survivors of the death camps, needing refuge — to finally declare the Jewish state. Though keenly aware of how unfair the Partition Plan was, they were at this point willing to take what they could get. It was the Arabs who, at the U.N., unanimously rejected the Partition Plan, believing that they would soon be in a position to militarily crush the Jews, and had no need to agree to giving them anything, no matter how small.
Musing on all this as I walked back from the Rally for Palestine, I realized that the best way to make others, and especially Americans, understand the Partition Plan’s significance is to discuss it in the terms that every first-year law student learns in Contracts, which is about Offer and Acceptance. If A makes an offer to B, B can accept, in which case there is a contract, or reject A’s terms, in which case there is no contract, or B can make a counter-offer, by changing the terms of the original offer, which A is now free to accept, or to reject, or to again make a counter-offer. The Jews, in accepting the plan, in effect had made an offer to the Arabs: We will take the land offered under Resolution 181, if you, the Arabs, agree to the same terms. If the Arabs had at that point accepted that offer — the Partition Plan — there would have been a deal, the Jews (not yet Israelis) bound by the Arab acceptance of their offer. But the Arabs unanimously rejected the Partition Plan. In doing so, and in not modifying the Plan and making a counter-offer, they destroyed the original offer of the Jews.
But after the 1948 war, by force of arms the Israelis ended up with a considerably larger land area than what they would have been assigned under the Partition Plan. The Arabs have tried on many occasions since to revive, and claim to accept, that Partition Plan. Some behave as if they had a perfect right to do so, never referring to their previous unanimous rejection of Resolution 181. But they themselves had destroyed, by rejecting, the Offer which, had they only accepted it, would have certainly assured them of a tiny Israel, consisting of discontinuous bits of land impossible to effectively defend, that would have given the Arabs the ability to eventually launch devastating and possibly even annihilating attacks, on the Jewish state. In 2012, Mahmoud Abbas himself declared that the Arabs’ greatest error was not accepting the Partition Plan of 1947.
The next time you prepare to visit a pro-Palestine rally, where there will undoubtedly be maps showing Palestine divided into Jewish and Arab areas according to U.N. Resolution 181, and no mention of how the Arabs alone destroyed its coming into effect, just remember — even if you are among the handful of Americans who haven’t gone to law school — Offer and Acceptance. Don’t leave home without them.
ConanKong says
I bet there were some pro-Nazi signs there as well. There usually are at pro-Palestinian rallies.
Felix Quigley says
Aye but the fascists are here on Jihadwatch, I know that the position of Wellington and his little bride Graven is Fascist towards Marxism…nothing else in plain words written here
Kay says
Fascist towards (sic) Marxism”
What in the world does that mean?
Are you advocating Marxism? Why?
Felix Quigley says
Jesus another Kay. I had an aunt with the beautiful name of Kathleen Gaelic Caitlin and she changed it to the ugly “Kay” why did she do that…But she was great. And I am sure so are you…But do do some reading.
Felix Quigley says
Are you advocating Marxism? she says
God you are quick!
I am indeed advocating Marxism as the only true liberating ideology which is based on the understanding of our real world.
You read anything? Ever? I mean a book?
Felix Quigley says
Did you not know that the first people to be murdered by the Nazis and the first to the concentration camp were communists, trade unionists? Same with Franco. I would place it in 1933 and 1934. So it is real with real historical roots.
I would guess you did not know that because you did not mention it.
gravenimage says
The appalling Felix Quigley wrote:
Aye but the fascists are here on Jihadwatch, I know that the position of Wellington and his little bride Graven is Fascist towards Marxism…nothing else in plain words written here
…………………….
Good God, what crap. Felix Quigley says that Wellington and I are “Fascists” for not wanting to live under a Trotskyite dictatorship.
As a totalitarian, Felix Quigley cannot imagine that anyone is actually an advocate for freedom and democracy–instead, he assumes that if someone is not for Communist tyranny, that they must be for Fascist tyranny.
Of course, anyone with the most glancing familiarity with my posting history knows that I regularly condemn Fascism and the Nazis.
And that idea that since Wellington and I respect each other and quite often agree that I am his “little bride” could not be more fatuous.
More, in reply to Kay:
Did you not know that the first people to be murdered by the Nazis and the first to the concentration camp were communists, trade unionists? Same with Franco. I would place it in 1933 and 1934. So it is real with real historical roots.
I would guess you did not know that because you did not mention it.
…………………….
I certainly know this history. Hitler saw the Communists as rivals for power, and so targeted them early on.
I am no more a fan of his having done so than I am a fan of the terrible abuse and frequent murder of German POWs by the Communist Soviets.
One need not agree with the ideology of victims to abhor their mistreatment.
Trade unionists are much more intrinsically sympathetic. I may not agree with them on all points, but unionism is far more civilized than either Fascism or Communism. I’ve belonged to unions in the past myself when the job demanded it.
And the Fascists and Communists were hardly always opposed–they were willing to work together to conquer free peoples–just look at the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
gravenimage says
Not important, but my father’s nickname for my mother was Kay–because she reminded him of Kay Francis.
Wellington says
Felix Quigley: I and gravenimage are fascist towards Marxism? What a stupid thing to write.
Marxism is as much an enemy of freedom as are Nazism and Islam. All three are totalitarian ideologies and ones knows this or should know it.
As I wrote to you before, and in detail, Karl Marx got virtually everything wrong, whether it be determinism, dialectical materialism, the labor value theory, the theory of alienation, the class struggle theory and so on. Marxism is pernicious nonsense and despising it does not make one a fascist. Indeed, despising it makes one a cherisher of liberty.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington.
Rarely says
Personally I see it as a civilization v non-civilization fight and not a Christian v muslim thing.
Felix Quigley says
But you are not a Christian about to have your stupid head chopped off…That would clear your head you fool
Rarely says
Point well taken.
Joefelon says
I really enjoy reading idiotic comments from armchair marxists such as yourself. no other political ideology has murdered more civilians in its quest to eliminate freedom and dissent, while subjugating its neighbors than communism. there is nothing liberating about sending innocents to the gulag to die as slave laborers, ending personal ownership of land and businesses, ignoring human rights and man-made famines. maybe your dumbass should move to north korea and experience the leftist utopia for yourself.
gravenimage says
I don’t think he’s defending Christians, Jay Boo–he is calling them stupid.
Kay says
I agree Rarely. What we have known as civilization is built on Judeo- Christian values. It includes everyone, Christian or not. It begins with the value of honesty.
Felix Quigley says
Well can be good certainly the Judeo part…but civilization is based on more than that…Never heard of Don Johannson, Lucy, Van Gogh or even Francis Bacon!?
Once again a little reading may be in order!
Felix Quigley says
I do not wish to quibble but my reading suggests that Paul may not have been that honest with the Jews. As they say “let’s be honest”
Kay says
Who is Paul? Do you mean Saint Paul, the one who said:
More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
eduardo odraude says
In the words of Dan Akroyd, Felix, you ignorant slut.
KJW says
Felix, the arts are an effect a rich civilization…the orchestras, ballet, the famous paintings funded by wealthy people, education, and values. Communists didn’t make great art, e.g., in Russia all those beautiful buildings and art was pre Soviet Russia, or as P. J. O’Routke said on his 1980s book “Holidays in Hell,” commies love cement. What we got from Russia during the gulag days were authors writing about the misery, same with Prague writers as Milan Kundera explained in his books. Communism suppressed the arts, and especially books. My mother lives in Italy-she hates the stark, boring Mussolini architecture.
Any form of totalitarianism stinks to high hell. It is suppressive and oppressive. Funny how Gorbachev said in 2006 that as “we have become less communistic, the EU has become more so.”
You need the government foundation and economy, and leisure to have rich and robust arts. Our government helps fund them, corporations fund them and Public Television, and wealthy people. By the way, Islam destroys art-no nude Renaissance paintings or statues, books, films…anything deemed un-Islamic.
I think Marxist lovers are fools. The anti-capitalists are too…they would rather there be an elite enjoying things the serfs can’t do. It’s like how the princes act and totally violate sharia law and get away with it while a regular Saudi will get lashed if caught with alcohol. Rich going on about climate change ehole living in huge houses and sucking on other energy consumptive things.
The trope applies: Insanity is doing the same thing over expecting different results.
gravenimage says
If Felix Quigley had done any reading, he would know that Vincent Van Gogh was a devout Christian. What is he babbling about?
gravenimage says
Good post, KJW.
Cicero says
Western civilisation IS built on ajudeo – Christian values. You are correct!
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
True–Islam is a threat to *all* civilized people.
Felix Quigley says
“In the US, Leftists love to mock Christianity in addition to hating Israel in an effort to kiss Muslim butts”
And why not mock Christianity JayBoo or does having a name like yours hold you back from mocking in case somebody answers you back!
And mock Islam as well.
And love Israel and love the Jews…no mockery there is needed or good because they have suffered too much.
Kay says
Creating, building and supporting are more worthwhile goals than hating and mocking.
So are analyzing, discovering, developing, studying . . . The list is long.
Mock or hate if you must however. You are free to do so.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Kay.
Felix Quigley says
To reply to you and Mark Swain. I cannot compete with you in the hurt and righteous field but mockery of religion is a very real issue in the struggle to defeat Islam…did you not know Islam does not allow that? I do not do it myself at all except maybe a gentle joke situation but I sure defend the right to do so.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Kay and Mark.
gravenimage says
This is one point where I agree with Felix Quigley–Islam is evil and should be mocked relentlessly.
Felix Quigley says
Indeed childish..but google it yourself the clue is in the Gaelic!
Billy Chickens says
He’s probably from Australia, as in Quigley Down Under.
Lydia Church says
Christians are the ones who have suffered persecution more than anyone, and it happens to be the right religion…. that’s why not!
Oh yes, now I am reminded of my new comment mode of operation… and why!
(Ignore all the idiots and leave my valuable input!)
Felix is obviously an agitator and a troll who loves to brag about all the brainwashing he has had…. I mean ‘reading’ he has done… to make people see how ‘smart’ he is… supposedly.
Just ignore him. I will from now on too.
Exactly the reason I started ignoring comments, which I must remember to do again!
Good thing I will be going out of town for a week… and on a ‘no internet access’ retreat!
(I will catch up later though.) But for now: YAY!
: D
Felix Quigley says
Oh yes Lydia I forgot. “Reading” is now being frowned upon by the commenters in Jihadwatch! I do not have to “troll” you lot do it for yourselves!!!
Elisha says
Felix, you are an utter fool. Why? Because you mock the truth and the very basis for the freedoms you enjoy, preferring the religion of secular humanism, which is a self refuting idiocy. You have to step OUTSIDE your belief system and borrow from mine in order to account for things like morality and logic. This is why the apostle Paul reminded us that it is indeed Satan, the god of this world, who blinds people to the truth of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4). You couldn’t buy a clue.
Felix Quigley says
To address Hugh’s article…it is a really serious experience. I take hope from it. These dogmatists were oldies really old. They were very small in number. They had no connection with the French workers or youth. They are very isolated. Not Marxist not even rationalists. They can be defeated by a serious Trotskyist party which loves Israel.
Felix Quigley says
If that makes you happy OK but I repeat what I said. the experience is useful…they were oldish, filled with dogma, not rational in that refused discussion, they are basically antisemitic which is geared into “palestinianism”, and above all I think they can be defeated by the building of a true Trotskyist leadership party
Felix Quigley says
And Jayboo this is how you saw it
“My only point was to illustrate that KISSING MUSLIM BUTTS is the Leftist dream job and they will throw anyone under the bus to do it.
To my reckoning that does not advance us very far.
And it misses the richness of Hugh’s experience
So finally Jayboo you seem to think that these people Hugh ran into in France represent socialism, and by this I mean the long historical struggle for socialism, from Cromwell’s Levellers on tot he present day.
“Kissing butts…lefts dream job” weird weird language.
Mark Swan says
Felix Quigley,
If one is against the intent of Islam for the free World—one is among like minds here.
Condescension is an insincere approach to others – snobby behavior towards
others showing we consider ourselves some how socially or intellectually superior—
is indicative of Muslim reasoning.
If one thinks of this as an original approach to disrupt the theme of the thread—
it is not— it has been tried here so many times and does not yield the desired
affect one might be hoping for.
The Alt-Left—it thrives on whipped-up emotion—it is not about logic.
eduardo odraude says
Trotsky was a mass murderer, one of the “dictators of the proletariat.” He broke with Stalin because he thought Stalin was not going far enough in extending totalitarian rule. Trotsky got himself murdered with an axe because of the system he enabled.
And Felix has the chutzpah to call others fascist. Felix is worse than fascists. Communism usually goes even farther than fascism in extending authoritarian control into every detail of life and committing democide.
gravenimage says
Felix Quigley’s claim that there are no French youth agitating for the destruction of Israel is just absurd.
Lots of young people in this photo:
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Paris-israel-palestinian-anti-semitism.jpg
And this one:
http://themillenniumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/France-Gaza-Protest-1.jpg
Luckily, this does not apply to *all* young people in France–but it is all too common.
David Hayden says
Lest you all forget, Hugh Fitzgerald was on a mission to understand Muslim Supremacist thinking re: the decision supremacists made dealing with the Partition Plan of 1948 which was rejected by them. Even Abbas believes that they made a mistake by rejecting it. Thanks, Hugh Fitzgerald. Your essays are invaluable.
gravenimage says
Why would Trotskyites love Israel? Israel is a democracy with religious freedom. Everything Communists hate.
In fact, Trotsky sneered at the whole idea of Israel many times, calling it part of “rotting capitalism”.
Bear says
Amen! Plus it is getting worse eachday. These who voice their love as and desire to be a commie, do not really understand what that lifestyle is about and if they did they would run away from it so fast that superman could not catch them. They would lose all their freedom, plus worse. They had better seek JESUS CHRIST before it is too late.
Buraq says
As the saying goes: ‘The Arabs never miss a chance to miss a chance!’
Clowns!
Mark Swan says
Good One Buraq.
Wellington says
Fine article by Hugh Fitzgerald. Just loved the line, “—even if you are among the handful of Americans who haven’t gone to law school—“
Mark Swan says
Yes, Wellington I agree, “Offer and Acceptance”.
Rarely says
Antisemitism in Europe did not die with the defeat of the Nazis in WWII. Consequently muslims have not found it too difficult in trumping up anti-Israel pro-Palestinian support especially among the peasantry as this article so clearly demonstrates.
Such action does, of course, deflect criticism from the muslims themselves. The neo-Marxist left love to support anyone they see as a victim. What I can’t understand is how they can view the 6,000,000 Jewish Israelis living in a sea of 100,000,000 muslim arab antagonists as the victimizers and the clearly self-destructive Palestinians as the victims unless it is anchored in the traditional (but sometimes dormant) antisemitism of the populace.
eduardo odraude says
Rarely,
It is hard to understand. But not that hard. Israel is linked with the West and Western values. Marxists often hate many of those values. Ergo they go with the Palestinians who seek the death of the West and vote for authoritarian collectivist leaders. One election, one time, and no freedom of speech or conscience. That’s not a society. That’s a mob.
gravenimage says
Good post, Eduardo.
DogOnPorch says
The Palestinian Cause…a political movement started by one of Hitler’s Nazis and furthered by said Nazi’s terrorist nephew. What’s not to love?? /sarc
JM says
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
– Winston Churchill
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Offer and Acceptance
……………….
Hugh, thank you for the expose re U.N. Resolution 181. Very enlightening.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely, thank you Mr. Fitzgerald—excellent perspective.
Chatillon says
Over the years I have come to see how smoothly the religions of socialism and Islam work together.
I call them religions because like all religions, they bind their adherents to core beliefs, beliefs that inform their attitude to the world and explain their place in it. The very root of the word “religion” comes from the Latin word “to bind.” But distinct from most other religions, the religions of Islam and National/International Socialism have well-developed dogmas for the binding of non-adherents and are quite clear in projecting the profile of their respective enemies, always in the direst of terms.
The dogmas of these religions spill over into political structures that necessarily descend into mass murder. The Nazis need their Jews as much as the various Marxist franchises need their running-dog capitalists as much as the Mohammedans need their Kaffirun. Why? Because nothing justifies bad behavior like having some lame-assed excuse for it. And trust me collectivist ideologies like Nationalist/Internationalist Socialism and Mohammedism are all about bad behavior, the cheap exaltation of self by the bullying and oppression of a susceptible target population.
So what kind of individual joins these groups? Individuals crippled in blindness or deformed in soul. It no longer surprises me that so-called leftists and Mohammedans make common cause. It’s not because they love one another. Indeed I do not think love is a coin with much value in either camp. But they sure do hate the same way, and right now it’s the rump of the Christian West towards wish they turn their venomous scorn. France is well-advanced on the road to submission. Can France be saved?
A simple, perhaps even facile answer is “Why yes! France can be saved.” But at what cost? The cost will be high. The French, and so many other European nations too, let’s be clear, will not only have to confront the Mohammedan enemy in their midst and the fifth-column traitors behind their backs but will have to re-embrace values that, had they been in place all this time, none of this “migrant” business would have happened in the first place. Start with a renewed sense of family, respect for human life, respect for the clear and traditional meaning of words, protection of individual rights and elimination of group rights, etc. etc. Start with these and never ever let go of them again.
Mark Swan says
good comment Chatillon, thank you.
Felix Quigley says
INTO THE ABYSS OF WELLINGTONIAN IGNORANCE ON JIHADWATCH…ESCAPE BADLY NEEDED!
(this is a bit long but in comparison to the totality of attacks above it is tiny)
Many attacks on Marxism by Jihadwatch fraternity…but bit by bit we will answer the lies
I think it was Wellington who wrote…”Felix Quigley: I and gravenimage are fascist towards Marxism? What a stupid thing to write.”
But you are and I am right. The centre of your “Fascism” on this issue is that you run these histroical events together without any explanation in their historical setting.
So for example a terrible thing happened to the Russian Communist Party which had led the 1917 Revolution, as Stalin gathered power around himself, and basically destroyed the Bolshevik Party, BUT YOU AND GRAVENIMAGE ACTUALLY HIDE THAT.
And I simply ask what way is that to educate a new layer of youth if you proceed by hiding key events of history.
So W writes…”Marxism is as much an enemy of freedom as are Nazism and Islam. All three are totalitarian ideologies and ones knows this or should know it.”
That is exactly what I mean and what I am so opposed to. This is a prime example of “argument by assertion”.
You simply assert it and then expect everybody to agree. And even more important perhaps to understand!
To back up THAT proposition first of all you have to define and explain in some detail what exactly is Marxism, what exactly is Nazism, and what exactly is Islam.
These are three distinct entities. You need to do your homework and show to the reader that you understand what these three distinct entities are.
Islam is actually being pretty well covered and understood by now. We have a heap of really important writers and researchers who it must be said have done brilliantly. I will publicise the coming book by RS! For sure!
But in the other two, Fascism and Marxism, there is great weakness in understanding Fascism, and as regards Marxism there is lie piled upon lie.
AS IN…
“As I wrote to you before, and in detail, Karl Marx got virtually everything wrong, whether it be determinism, dialectical materialism, the labor value theory, the theory of alienation, the class struggle theory and so on. Marxism is pernicious nonsense and despising it does not make one a fascist. Indeed, despising it makes one a cherisher of liberty.”
“determinism”…he (Marx) was very specific on this, Lenin more so, Trotsky above all most explicitely opposed to “determinism”…or any thought that things would happen by themselves in an automatic fashion
“dialectical materialism”…the concept that our thought reflects the material world (dialectically)
“the labour value theory”…well I thought it obvious that adding value through human labour is a concept which is at least a genuine concept and needs to be argued against in some detail. With necessary quotations from Marx and others.
“the class struggle theory” and so on…well Marx and Engels did not invent that concept…in fact as I understand it they simply saw it happening before their eyes…and looking at the working class movement in England emerging before their eyes they sought an explanation of Capitalist Production
So to sum up…Islam being covered by good research, Fascism not at all understood, and Marxism a complete system of lies always there from the beginning and being recreated anew in the present to attack Marxism emerging
Very often I always contend as with the opposition to Donald Trump it is lies by omission. It centres on this in relation to Marx.
Yes it was a terrible thing that happened in Russia from the moment that Stalin began to gather his clique together from about 1922, 1923, 1924 and onwards
Stalinism as Hugh will know or should know had a very big effect in France.
But the central issue for our present is to answer the question…was Stalinism fought against inside of Russia and internationally? So Gravenimage you poor old thing you…was it??? Do some reading instead of following slavishly this ignoramus Wellington.
Buraq says
@ Quigley
You wrote, condescendingly: To back up THAT proposition first of all you have to define and explain in some detail what exactly is Marxism, what exactly is Nazism, and what exactly is Islam.
Marxism, Nazism and Islam share some things in common; World domination, Do what I say when I snap my fingers, And don’t ask any questions. (A bit like you, Quigley!)
Anyway, the creed of the Islam clowns could be written on the back of a cigarette pack; attack, subjugate, impose Shariah. It’s as simple as that. No need to read a library of books to get that understood!
gravenimage says
Fine post, Buraq. These are all totalitarian creeds.
Wellington says
Oh, give it up, Quigley. Marxism is rot, as is Nazism and Islam. On another thread I detailed why Marx’s many theories are crap. For instance, the labor value theory of his by which he and Engels asserted that the only reason why anything has any value is because of the labor put into it. What nonsense. Marx didn’t even take into account such things as advertising costs and intrinsic worth. And his class struggle theory reveals the classic “us v. them” paradigm that is a characteristic of ALL totalitarian ideologies. Such a paradigm is a guarantee of second-class status or death for the “them.” Marxism’s “them” are the upper and middle classes; Nazism’s “them” are certain ethnic groups; and Islam’s “them” are non-Muslims. All three of these totalitarian ideologies are a guarantee of humiliation or death for the “them.”
Let me put it real simple like: Marxism is evil. It is a prescription for genocide. It is a mortal enemy of freedom. And it belongs on the trash heap of history. Oh yes, as I wrote once before, Marx would be my choice for the single most overrated intellectual of all time. If three people had never lived the world would be much better off. Those three people are Mohammed (assuming he did live), Marx and Hitler. Wake the hell up, Quigley. And eduardo in his 3:39 P.M. post of yesterday was eminently correct when he stated that Trotsky was a mass murderer. And yet this is the man you admire. Indeed, you call yourself a Trotskyite. This reveals far more about you than you realize. Done here.
Mark Swan says
Felix Quigley,
You rattle on as if you have some sort of point to make—and with who—
it is apparent that your mind can not sort through such nonsense—
give it a rest.
Felix Quigley says
Well you may have learned nothing from this thread but I have learned a great deal.
Wellington says
“Well you may have learned nothing from this thread but I have learned a great deal.”
No you haven’t. You only think you have learned a great deal. Huge difference. In fact, in light of your many posts, I cannot otherwise conclude that you are almost certainly destined to never learn a great deal, or even a small amount for that matter. Frankly, I look upon you as an intellectual midget only too ready to exculpate one of the worst ideologies ever produced by man—Marxism. Well, this is your problem and not mine or others.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Mark and Wellington.
gravenimage says
Felix Quigley wrote:
INTO THE ABYSS OF WELLINGTONIAN IGNORANCE ON JIHADWATCH…ESCAPE BADLY NEEDED!
(this is a bit long but in comparison to the totality of attacks above it is tiny)
Many attacks on Marxism by Jihadwatch fraternity…but bit by bit we will answer the lies
I think it was Wellington who wrote…”Felix Quigley: I and gravenimage are fascist towards Marxism? What a stupid thing to write.”
But you are and I am right. The centre of your “Fascism” on this issue is that you run these histroical events together without any explanation in their historical setting.
So for example a terrible thing happened to the Russian Communist Party which had led the 1917 Revolution, as Stalin gathered power around himself, and basically destroyed the Bolshevik Party, BUT YOU AND GRAVENIMAGE ACTUALLY HIDE THAT.
………………………………
I have heard this before–and Wellington has as well, no doubt–the idea that Communism is wonderful and the savior of mankind, but has–somehow–never been imposed properly.
Firstly, Stalin was not in power in 1917–that would be Lenin. Stalin did not take power until 1924, on Lenin’s death.
But let’s say that Stalin did destroy “real” Communism in Russia, and that for some reason it was never reinstated.
That would just explain the Soviet Union.
But Communism has been imposed in many places–China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea–yet, somehow, none of these seem to be the “real Communism”, as so many apologists claim.
Communism has been around now over a hundred years in action–and even longer as a theory. Yet everywhere it has been imposed it has led to Gulags and Killing Fields.
There is, of course, a reason for that–and that reason is Communism itself.
Compare this to freedom and democracy. I could well claim–with reason, actually–that no country has ever instituted perfect freedom and democracy, or even perfect free trade–not even the United States.
Yet in almost all cases, even a little bit of freedom and democracy is better than none. Places like Mexico, Thailand, and India have their problems, goodness knows–but they are all *far* superior to places like Venezuela, Pakistan, and North Korea–all unfree nations.
And the West–Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel–all have to greater and lesser extents democracy and freedom. In some of these places that freedom is threatened, but over all it still holds.
More:
And I simply ask what way is that to educate a new layer of youth if you proceed by hiding key events of history.
………………………………
No one here “hid” anything–Felix Quigley is just demanding that Wellington shill for Trotskyism.
The truth is that–as other posters have noted, including myself–Trotsky himself presided over oppression and slaughter. The idea that since he was never in full power that he can hence be considered some sort of blank slate of ideal Communism does not hold.
Here are some of the atrocities of Trotsky, including the massacres at Kronstadt:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/clives_lives/2007/04/leon_trotsky.html
This is what Felix Quigley is hiding.
More:
So W writes…”Marxism is as much an enemy of freedom as are Nazism and Islam. All three are totalitarian ideologies and ones knows this or should know it.”
That is exactly what I mean and what I am so opposed to. This is a prime example of “argument by assertion”.
You simply assert it and then expect everybody to agree. And even more important perhaps to understand!
To back up THAT proposition first of all you have to define and explain in some detail what exactly is Marxism, what exactly is Nazism, and what exactly is Islam.
These are three distinct entities. You need to do your homework and show to the reader that you understand what these three distinct entities are.
Islam is actually being pretty well covered and understood by now. We have a heap of really important writers and researchers who it must be said have done brilliantly. I will publicise the coming book by RS! For sure!
But in the other two, Fascism and Marxism, there is great weakness in understanding Fascism, and as regards Marxism there is lie piled upon lie.
………………………………
Oh, good grief. The horrors of Fascism and Communism have been amply chronicled, from the man-made famine in Ukraine to the death camps of the Holocaust to the Killing Fields of Cambodia to the terrible police state of North Korea today.
Wellington is *quite right* that Fascism, Communism, and Islam are all totalitarian–I have said the same myself. Prove us wrong.
More:
AS IN…
“As I wrote to you before, and in detail, Karl Marx got virtually everything wrong, whether it be determinism, dialectical materialism, the labor value theory, the theory of alienation, the class struggle theory and so on. Marxism is pernicious nonsense and despising it does not make one a fascist. Indeed, despising it makes one a cherisher of liberty.”
“determinism”…he (Marx) was very specific on this, Lenin more so, Trotsky above all most explicitely opposed to “determinism”…or any thought that things would happen by themselves in an automatic fashion
“dialectical materialism”…the concept that our thought reflects the material world (dialectically)
“the labour value theory”…well I thought it obvious that adding value through human labour is a concept which is at least a genuine concept and needs to be argued against in some detail. With necessary quotations from Marx and others.
“the class struggle theory” and so on…well Marx and Engels did not invent that concept…in fact as I understand it they simply saw it happening before their eyes…and looking at the working class movement in England emerging before their eyes they sought an explanation of Capitalist Production
So to sum up…Islam being covered by good research, Fascism not at all understood, and Marxism a complete system of lies always there from the beginning and being recreated anew in the present to attack Marxism emerging
Very often I always contend as with the opposition to Donald Trump it is lies by omission. It centres on this in relation to Marx.
………………………………
Good grief–Felix Quigley is now demanding that we turn Jihad Watch into an interminable Communist meeting. In the real world, of course, this would be followed by denouncements, disappearances, assassinations, and erasures from history. *No thanks*.
More:
Yes it was a terrible thing that happened in Russia from the moment that Stalin began to gather his clique together from about 1922, 1923, 1924 and onwards
………………………………
Again, the claim that the only reason Communism failed was due to Stalin. Stalin was indeed horrific–but so was Mao, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Un.
More:
Stalinism as Hugh will know or should know had a very big effect in France.
………………………………
France has a lot of problems–including a disturbing strain of Socialism. But no–it is not a Stalinist state.
More:
But the central issue for our present is to answer the question…was Stalinism fought against inside of Russia and internationally?
So Gravenimage you poor old thing you…was it???
………………………………
To the extent that Communists fought against Stalinism, it was not terribly successful. Khrushchev and his successors were not as savage as Stalin, but they were pretty damned ugly. Arrests, imprisonment, and frequent murder were still common for the slightest resistance to Communist tyranny, and would remain so until the fall of the Soviet Union. In most cases, those behind the Iron Curtain were not even allowed to leave, and thousands died trying to flee.
More:
Do some reading instead of following slavishly this ignoramus Wellington.
………………………………
What crap. As noted, I very much respect Wellington, but the idea that I had no dislike of Fascism and Communism before I began posting here and encountered Wellington’s comments is ludicrous.
As for my not reading, I have degrees in history and history of art. Right now, I am rereading Andrew Nagorski’s fine book about Western journalists in Nazi Germany before WWII.
I have studied Marx and Engles, the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain countries, Mussolini and Italian Fascism, the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust, Mao, the “Great Leap Forward”, the “Cultural Revolution”, Cuba, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, the Communist takeover of South East Asia, Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, Venezuela under Chavez and now under Meduro, the Korean War, and North Korea.
Felix Quigley’s problem with me is not that I have read too little, but too much.
Mark Swan says
Yes indeed, gravenimage, you have answered this Felix Quigley’s taunt quite well.
Thank You for your time in dong so.
gravenimage says
Thank you so much, Mark–I appreciate your kind words.
And in that long post I forgot to mention the title of Andrew Nagorski’s excellent book–it is the rather unfortunately named but well worth reading “Hitlerland”.
Mark Swan says
I’ll look for it—thank you.
Felix Quigley says
Actually you answer nothing Gravenimage. All of the places you mention and they are many are all totally opposed to the principles of Marxism, and more specifically to the ideas of the Russian Revolution.
The fact is that Marxism was overthrown and defeated by Stalin.
This is an area of huge interest and learning.
But you deal with this like…
“Firstly, Stalin was not in power in 1917–that would be Lenin. Stalin did not take power until 1924, on Lenin’s death.
But let’s say that Stalin did destroy “real” Communism in Russia, and that for some reason it was never reinstated.”
There is no dispute. Stalin did destroy Marxism, or Communism, or socialism whatever name you seek to use.
He did this to the extent of
poisoning Lenin
acting ina conspiracy agaisnt Trotsky
expelling Trotsky
Moscow Trials
Pact with Hitler
His Antisemitism (I have mentioned the lectures in Jerusalem of Robert Wistrich)
murdering Trotsky
wiping out by assasination the Trotskyists as part of his alliance with Hitler
But Gravenimage you are not interested in this. Everything you write is to equate Stalinism with Marx. That is the main lie.
At least I have shown that on Jihadwatch while it does fight to defeat Islam it also is at least as opposed to Marx as it is to Mohammed. That is something.
gravenimage says
More from Felix Quigley:
Actually you answer nothing Gravenimage. All of the places you mention and they are many are all totally opposed to the principles of Marxism, and more specifically to the ideas of the Russian Revolution.
…………………….
As I expected–the claim that all Communism, all over the world and from more than a century now, is not actually Communism. This is, of course, just ludicrous.
And–again–Felix Quigley fails to address Trotsky’s own oppression and violence.
More:
At least I have shown that on Jihadwatch while it does fight to defeat Islam it also is at least as opposed to Marx as it is to Mohammed. That is something.
…………………….
I never claimed to speak for everyone at Jihad Watch.
But most of us here–including myself–stand opposed to Islam not as some sort of random affectation, but because Islam is a vicious totalitarian creed. These are the same reasons I stand against Fascism and Communism.
Billy Bob says
THERE–IS–NO–STATE–OF–PALESTINE. NEVER-HAS-BEEN-NEVER-WILL-BE.
jewdog says
Kudos to Hugh for having the stomach to listen to all that claptrap and not become a total cynic. Well, he probably is, but at least he hasn’t gone off the grid yet.
Here is a little piece of logic to use: If anyone ever claims that the Jews stole Arab land prior to 1948, just ask how a small group of poorly armed Jewish refugees from Europe could have strong armed the Arabs. No, they bought the land from Turkish and Arab landholders, often financed by the JNF (Jewish Nation Fund).
Hugh Fitzgerald says
And the prices paid by Jewish buyers to those often absentee owners in Amman and Beirut and Istanbul in the 1940s were as high as the prices being paid for the richest farmland in the world at the time, in Iowa. My source for this is Battleground, by Samuel Katz.
jewdog says
Thx, Hugh. Great book!
gravenimage says
Thank you, Hugh.
Felix Quigley says
Hugh
I am sure it is not of your wishing for same but are you aware there is a halo being created around your head…you are being elevated into a kind of saint but by those who are (obviously) at the very same timke they are anointing you haters of Trotsky and Marxism.
But you do not explain in your piece where those antisemites of the so called “left” you met in that town outside of Marseilles, in an historical sense, came from.
I mean what in your mind is the political trajectory? Did it start with Marx, with Lenin, with Trotsky, with the Bolsheviks? That is where the ire of your lovers on the site is being directed against.
Any thoughts on that which is certainly the most important question which arises from your visit.
By the 1930s Marx and Engels were dead, Lenin died young the result of a bullet from a social revolutionary, Trotsky was left to carry on. Are you aware that Trotsky advocated the setting up of Israel, at any rate anticipating Israel as he advocated for a Jewish Homeland and was the leading fighter against Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and had become a “Zionist” before he was assassinated by Mercader, who had been set up for the assassination in France.
That action may explain what you saw.
The socialist leadership (Trotskyism) was wiped out by the combined action of the Stalinists and Fascists.
So there is an explanation of what you encountered. It may be right or wrong, but at least it is an explanation, and is the only one on the table that I can see. Over to you Hugh!
gravenimage says
What claptrap. Trotsky said that the founding of Israel could never settle the “Jewish question”, and condemned it as “rotten capitalism”. In fact, he said, “the attempt to solve the Jewish question through the migration of Jews to Palestine can now be seen for what it is, a tragic mockery of the Jewish people”. Does Felix Quigley assume that no one here has actually read Trotsky?
“Leon Trotsky On the Jewish Problem”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
Wellington says
Fine posts, gravenimage. Felix Quigley is a shill for one of the worst ideas ever developed by man—Marxism. You’d think by now there would be no more defenders of that unworkable, heinous, freedom-crushing ideology, but some never learn. For instance, Felix Quigley. And his adulation of Trotsky is beyond pathetic. Trotsky actually wanted world revolution quick like (as opposed to the more realistic, though equally brutal, Stalin who wanted to consolidate things in Russia first) which would have meant, if such had occurred, gulags and genocide across the earth. And Felix Quigley proudly calls himself a Trotskyite. No more words.
Felix Quigley says
Wellington answering lies against an historical figure is not “adulation” of that figure.
You are saying that Stalin was more “realistic” than Trotsky. That is just an assertion.
So Stalin in reality wiped out all the old leaders of the Russian Revolution in the Moscow Trials. And he employed his state to murder the Trotskyists. And he answered Trotsky by means of hiring a murdering thug to murder him in Mexico in 1940.
You end up however by praising the “realism” of Stalin while doing down presumably the non realism of Trotsky.
Yet this man who is lacking according to Wellington in “realism” was able to create the million strong Red Army and win the Civil War against the imperial backed “Whites”, but the defeat of those White foreign financed and promoted armies ended with their defeated leaders moving to Germany to form the backbone of the Nazi Party, Alfred Rosenberg being one example among many.
Indeed this discussion on Jiadwatch is showing it to be a site which is a supporter of Stalinism and its equation of Stalinism with Leninism and Trotskyism.
But that hides that Stalin poisoned Lenin when he realized his game was up
And Stalin to advance his “ideas” set about murdering all opposition.
These details of history of of no importance to Wellington.
Gravenimage mentions Kronstadt and falsely blames Trotsky. But that action was in the context of a war and I do believe that the American Revolution took some military operations also to defend its new state. America was borne out of revolution! Condemn that too in the interests of Gandhi? You fall into Gandhi mode when it suits you!
gravenimage says
What a load of crap. No one here–let alone Wellington–is defending Stalin. What a grotesque claim.
And the American Revolution was to establish freedom–not tyranny.
And nowhere in the American Revolution was there anything like the Kronstadt massacre, nor anything like the ugly follow up of arrests, concentration camps, and executions.
Felix Quigley says
Gravenimage I invite people to read the whole of the articles in that url and there is much else as well, especially in the book by a great Jewish man called Joseph Nedava.
As in…”During my youth I rather leaned toward the prognosis that the Jews of different countries would be assimilated and that the Jewish question would thus disappear in a quasi-automatic fashion. The historical development of the last quarter of a century has not confirmed this perspective. Decaying capitalism has everywhere swung over to an exacerbated nationalism, one part of which is anti-semitism. The Jewish question has loomed largest in the most highly developed capitalist country of Europe, in Germany.
On the other hand the Jews of different countries have created their press and developed the Yiddish language as an instrument adapted to modern-culture. One must therefore reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation will maintain itself for an entire epoch to come. Now the nation cannot normally exist without a common territory. Zionism springs from this very idea. But the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.
And how, you ask me, can socialism solve this question? On this point I can but offer hypotheses. Once socialism has become master of our planet or at least of its most important sections, it will have unimaginable resources in all domains. Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy . This is the grand historical perspective that I envisage. To work for international socialism means also to work for the solution of the Jewish question.”
The solution that Trotsky saw for the Jewish people he makes very clear meant immediately escaping from Europe and building their Homeland in Palestine.
He also saw the role of the British Governments in the Mandate as one of betrayal of the Jews.
He also warned as nobody else in nthe world were able to warn of the dangers from German Fascism and predicted in detail The Holocaust of the Jews, in 1938.
And he warned that Fascism would aim to wipe out the Jews totally also in Palestine.
He supported the Jewish Homeland but also warned that that could also indeed be a trap in which all the Jews in the Homeland, which was to be Israel, could be wiped out.
And to the present. Trotsky was for Jewish nationalism that is Zionism. But that also has a warning. This Jewish nationalism by no means that Jews are safe.
Surely today that is being borne out. It is possible to support and defend Israel and yet warn that Jews are still in danger.
But one can at least surely say that those who on the “left” are supporting Palestinianism have nothing to do with Trotsky and Trotskyism.
I cannot answer everything. I am just setting out to show that the websites like Jihadwatch are complicated. They are against Islam. But they are equating Marxism with Fascism. That is a lie. It is the same trick as the Antisemites are using equating Israel with the Nazis. It is a low, low move by Gravenimage who is obsessed with her hatred of Marx.
gravenimage says
More of Felix Quigley’s claptrap to wade though:
Gravenimage I invite people to read the whole of the articles in that url and there is much else as well, especially in the book by a great Jewish man called Joseph Nedava.
………………………….
I have no real desire to slog through everything in Marxists.org.. Sounds pretty deadly.
More:
As in…”During my youth I rather leaned toward the prognosis that the Jews of different countries would be assimilated and that the Jewish question would thus disappear in a quasi-automatic fashion. The historical development of the last quarter of a century has not confirmed this perspective. Decaying capitalism has everywhere swung over to an exacerbated nationalism, one part of which is anti-semitism. The Jewish question has loomed largest in the most highly developed capitalist country of Europe, in Germany.
………………………….
Yes–he just wanted Jews to disappear. *Ugh*.
And no–Nazi Germany was no longer a Capitalist nation–not once Hitler took over. It was Fascist, as Felix Quigley well knows.
And while it wasn’t as bad as Germany during the Holocaust, the Soviet Union was virulently antisemitic, as well. I worked with Jewish “Refuseniks” in the 1980s who were trying to flee Communism for either Israel or the United States. They lost the ability to work or even legally buy food. They had to rely on friends or relatives who had little margin themselves. One was reduced to living in an unheated barn during the Russian winter before he was able to get out.
More:
On the other hand the Jews of different countries have created their press and developed the Yiddish language as an instrument adapted to modern-culture. One must therefore reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation will maintain itself for an entire epoch to come. Now the nation cannot normally exist without a common territory. Zionism springs from this very idea. But the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.
And how, you ask me, can socialism solve this question? On this point I can but offer hypotheses. Once socialism has become master of our planet or at least of its most important sections, it will have unimaginable resources in all domains. Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy . This is the grand historical perspective that I envisage. To work for international socialism means also to work for the solution of the Jewish question.”
The solution that Trotsky saw for the Jewish people he makes very clear meant immediately escaping from Europe and building their Homeland in Palestine.
He also saw the role of the British Governments in the Mandate as one of betrayal of the Jews.
………………………….
What rot. He does not say anything positive about a Jewish homeland.
And there is no “Jewish question”. Only people like Hitler thought there was.
And–as I noted–life under Communism was pretty awful for Jewish people.
More:
He also warned as nobody else in nthe world were able to warn of the dangers from German Fascism and predicted in detail The Holocaust of the Jews, in 1938.
………………………….
More claptrap. Kristallnacht happened in 1938–as well as synagogue burnings and constant attacks on Jews in Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews were trying to flee.
Few know could have known about the death camps at the time, but many understood that Jews would have get out if they wanted to survive. Trotsky was not in any way prescient on this.
More:
And he warned that Fascism would aim to wipe out the Jews totally also in Palestine.
He supported the Jewish Homeland but also warned that that could also indeed be a trap in which all the Jews in the Homeland, which was to be Israel, could be wiped out.
………………………….
Actually, he said nothing about Fascism being a threat to Jews in Palestine–just “rotting capitalism”.
More:
And to the present. Trotsky was for Jewish nationalism that is Zionism. But that also has a warning. This Jewish nationalism by no means that Jews are safe.
Surely today that is being borne out. It is possible to support and defend Israel and yet warn that Jews are still in danger.
………………………….
Actually, nowhere did Trotsky say that he supported the idea of Israel, as is obvious from the quotes above.
And of course Jews are still in danger. They are in danger from Islam–not from Capitalism. Israel is herself a Capitalist nation.
More:
But one can at least surely say that those who on the “left” are supporting Palestinianism have nothing to do with Trotsky and Trotskyism.
………………………….
Well, isn’t that special? No, I never said that all evil in the world was due to Trotskyism, or even to Communism. Talk about a straw man argument!
More:
I cannot answer everything. I am just setting out to show that the websites like Jihadwatch are complicated. They are against Islam. But they are equating Marxism with Fascism. That is a lie. It is the same trick as the Antisemites are using equating Israel with the Nazis.
………………………….
This is no the same at all, of course. Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian, whereas civilized, democratic Israel is not.
More:
It is a low, low move by Gravenimage who is obsessed with her hatred of Marx.
………………………….
I have no real hatred of Marx–he is a failed figure of history whose ideas have been responsible for the untold suffering of millions, including those suffering today.
But I don’t much think about Marx at all most of the time. Why would I? He has been broadly discredited, and only has continued influence in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and in the minds of a few useful idiots like Felix Quigley.
Most of the world has long since rejected this ugly stupidity.