by Felix Quigley
3 December
Wikipedia is in part a useful giver of information and in other part a mechanism or forum where actual lies are told. But the correction of these lies entails the creation of a revolutionary Trotskyist leadership able to theoretically take up the issues.
We on 4internaional have found that Wikipedia misinformation is prevalent in Serb and Jewish stories.
A good example of the later is on the Wikipedia coverage of the British notorious White Paper of 1939 which was responsible along with the Nazis for the Holocaust of millions of Jews in the camps.
It is necessary to take parts of their article, place it on print and see what the Wikipedia writers are doing
[Start Wikipedia extract on White Paper of 1939]
At the same time, British leaders had an interest in Zionism arising from widespread influence of Evangelism and belief in Jewish economic influence (e.g. Alfred, Lord Milner was employed as Chairman of the Rothschild owned Rio Tinto Zinc some time after 1906). David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister during World War I had worked closely with the Zionist movement and was an Evangelical preacher.[3] This, and a variety of strategic factors, such as securing Jewish support in Eastern Europe as the Russian front collapsed, culminated in the Balfour Declaration, 1917, with Britain promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. These broad delineations of territory and goals for both the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Arab self determination was approved in the San Remo conference.
[End Wikipedia extract here]
The use of the word “Evangelical” may seem a minor matter but it is critical. [I deliberately leave aside the reference to Milner working for a Rothschild company, the target of Protocols of Zion type conspiracy theorists]
Is the writer attempting to bring to the mind of the reader people like Billy Graham or Pat Robertson?
As we have described before there was an authentic movement inside British religious especially on the Protestant side to draw close to the plight of the Jews because of their common ownership of the Bible, the Old Testament.
The writer here is not doing other than bashing religion, which is a feature not of Lenin or Trotsky, but of Stalin and Zinoviev.
Since the Christians like Lord Alfred Balfour were moved to compassion for the persecuted Jews who had been persecuted for 2 years, how could that be other than extremely progressive, in a bourgeois democratic sense, in a truly socialist sense, if you do not want to use the simple word “human sense”
We know that other factors were present but that is a very strong factor indeed.
The proof of that is contained in a fuller knowledge of the facts which the Wikipedia writer obscures. Lord Balfour was part of a Christian trend which was supportive of the Jews, and he was fighting against another anti-Semitic trend inside British politics, and in fact that anti-Semitic trend was to come out on top in a very short time.
That shows that Lord Balfour was quite sincere in his support for the Jews. In fact, he suffered career wise for this support.
The Wikipedia writer can have none of this. People cannot have sincere feelings of support for the Jews. It is a kind of moral relativism. It is affected by the writer probably being a supporter of the “Palestinian” myth and full of hatred for Israel in the present such as the war in Gaza.
When one looks further at the extract above and if one focuses on these words
[Begin extract from words above here]
…culminated in the Balfour Declaration, 1917, with Britain promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. These broad delineations of territory and goals for both the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Arab self determination was approved in the San Remo conference
[End extract here]
The first question that arises from the above is whether it was a Jewish national home IN Palestine or whether Palestine was to be set aside as THE Jewish National Home.
The partisan intent of the Wikipedia writer is shown in that this question is not faced up to, but is cunningly glossed over.
But if that is cunning the other salient point from above is downright evil. This is the reverence of the Wikipedia writer to “Arab self determination”.
A clear reading of the Balfour Declaration is thus necessary for truth. Where in the Balfour Declaration is there any reference whatsoever to that term?
This issue is of such gigantic importance in the present, where Israel is coming under sustained attack from the Obama regime, previously also the Bush outfit, to give up its homeland area of JUDEA to accommodate a “Palestine” state that it is necessary to return to it again and again.
We on 4international from our reading of history say that Palestine was to be the Homeland of the Jews and that the action of the British Government in splitting off the huge area of Transjordan, fully 78 per cent, was illegal. Carried out actually by Churchill! That was later to form the independent Arab state of Jordan, sitting on as far as we can see the original homeland area for the Jews.
So was Palestine to be for the Jews of the world to settle on and to make their state where they could be secure from anti-Semitism?
In this series of articles on 4international we will show
- That in 1917 there were no Arab people who called themselves “Palestinians”. The term then did not exist as applied to Arabs.
- That out of the downfall of the Islamist ottoman Empire a series of Arab states were set up with the help of US and British/French Imperialism, totally believ e it or not 21 states, and the state striven for by Obama and Bush along with Blair and Cameron is NUMBER TWENTY TWO
Not bad going eh!
We on 4international realize that the above statement (inside the 2 bullet points) are really just assertions.
So since this is the internet and anybody can say anything (and they do!) it is necessary to back this up with some precision. We will of course do that.
4international 