Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.


*****
Intro to the Revised Edition (pp. xi – xxii)

Question 1

Does the sole page with any writing between the Table of Contents and the Intro to the Revised Edition say simply – “Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed – Buenaventura Durruti”???

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Does this suggest that Mark Bray thinks “fascism” is whatever Mark Bray says it is following which, without a fair trial of Bray’s opinion, victims should be assassinated???

[Ref. Q-24 of the First Short Quiz.]

Answer 2

So it would appear.

Question 3

Is the Intro to the Revised Edition written by an unidentified Joshua Clover, presumably an English Prof. at U/Cal-Davis, who passed away 4/26/2025???

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Accordingly, is his Intro any more valuable than a Book Review???

Answer 4

Absolutely not.


*****
Original Intro (pp. xxiii – xxxvi)

Question 5

Was the Original Intro written by Mark Bray so that he can be held responsible for its contents???

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Does his first paragraph list examples of alleged “fascism” by President Trump as including (A) “chants of ‘Build That Wall’” by middle schoolers in Michigan while ignoring that illegal immigration was condemned by every Democrat President until Pres. Biden, and (B) zillions of alleged examples of anti-Semitism by Pres. Trump even though he is widely recognized by Israelis and their Prime Minister as the best friend Israel ever had in the White House???

Answer 6

Amazingly yes!!!

Question 7

Indeed, aren’t Pres. Trump’s own daughter Ivanka and her children (Trump’s grandchildren) Jewish???

Answer 7

Ivanka converted to Judaism when she married Jared Kushner in 2009 (long before the 2017 publication of The Antifa Handbook) so their three children are also Jewish.

Question 8

Does Mark Bray say (p. xxiv) – “This book…..is an unabashedly call to arms …..to contextualize opposition to Trump…..”???

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Does he say further on p. xxiv – “Antifa…..argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that…..has become especially menacing in recent years”???? Does Mark Bray even listen to himself – “militant” is “reasonable”???

Answer 9

Yes, he does say that.

And no, he apparently does NOT listen to himself.

Question 10

Does Mark Bray (pp. xxv-xxvi) claim to use Columbia U. Prof. Robert Paxton’s definition of “fascism” as --

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Does Mark Bray spend the rest of his Intro describing how Pres. Trump, in Bray’s non-humble opinion, satisfies this definition???

Answer 11

Incredibly!!!

Question 12

BTW, do Mark Bray and Prof. Paxton seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church for 17 centuries preached its “Doctrine of Blood Guilt” that every Jew alive at any point in time is guilty of the “murder” of Christ and should be executed with no further ado???

Answer 12

Yes they do seem ignorant.

The Doctrine of Blood Guilt was promulgated by St. Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD). It holds that every Jew alive at any time including the present, is guilty of the “murder” of Christ. St. Augustine’s Doctrine of Blood Guilt was based on the Christian Bible account of Christ’s trial before Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (Matthew Ch. 27) in which the Jews in attendance allegedly proclaimed when Pilate tried to release Christ – “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

Augustine was not bothered by such niceties as what percentage of the Jewish population actually attended the trial AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT RIGHT ANYONE HAS TO CURSE THEIR OFFSPRING THROUGHOUT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF GENERATIONS.

Augustine’s Doctrine of Blood Guilt NOT revoked by the Roman Catholic Church until Vatican II in 1965.

Augustine’s Doctrine of Blood Guilt has NOT been revoked by the Orthodox Church of the Eastern Roman Empire or, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, by any of its resulting fragments (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc., etc.). Apparently each fragment has quietly filed Augustine's Doctrine of Blood Guilt in a "Do Not Open" File!!!

Augustine’s Doctrine of Blood Guilt has caused two millennia of pogroms including Hitler’s pogrom (aka Holocaust).

There a good historical account of Augustine’s Doctrine of Blood Guilt and its unfortunate ramifications in the famous book "The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism" by Fr. Edward Flannery in 1965, published shortly before the promulgation of Nostra Aetate, aka the RCC Revocation of the Doctrine of Blood Guilt (also in 1965).

This book is famous because Fr. Flannery (1912-1998) was, inter alia, the FIRST director of Catholic-Jewish Relations for the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, a position he held from 1967 to 1976. With that appointment, the U.S. RCC Bishops were serving penance, however inadequate.

Question 13

And ignorant of the fact that the RCC did not repeal its Doctrine of Blood Guilt until Vatican II in 1965 – too late to avoid 17 centuries of pogroms including Hitler’s pogrom (aka Holocaust)???

Answer 13

Yes.


*****
Chapter 1– ¡No Pasardn! Anti-Fascism Through 1945

Question 14

Does ¡No Pasardn! mean “They shall not pass”???

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Did the “Doctrine of Blood Guilt” Roman Catholics in fact pass in Germany 1933-1945???

Answer 15

Yes.

Question 16

Does Mark Bray further display in Chapter 1 his ignorance of Hitler and Nazism simply being nothing more than following the Roman Catholic “Doctrine of Blood Guilt” in yet another pogrom???

Answer 16

Yes, and the rest of Ch. 1 is a long slog.


*****
Chapter 2 – “Never Again”: The Development of Modern Antifa., 1945-2003

Question 17

Does Mark Bray say (p. 40) – “The Allied victory in World War II was thought to have marked the definitive end of fascism in history, but…..”???

(A) Do this and other remarks demonstrate that Mark Bray is NOT (as proclaimed in his Intro – please see Q-10) using Robert Paxton’s definition of fascism – but instead focuses solely on Anti-Semitism???

(B) Is Mark Bray’s p. 40 sentence betraying once more his ignorance of the Roman Catholic “Doctrine of Blood Guilt” which was not repealed until Vatican II in 1965??? If he had NOT been ignorant, why would he have thought that “fascism” (per Mark Bray, Anti-Semitism which, unbeknownst to Bray was based on the 17 centuries of the Roman Catholic “Doctrine of Blood Guilt”) met its “definitive end” at the 1945 end of World War II rather than at Vatican II in 1965???

Answer 17

Yes and Yes.

Question 18

Was “The 43 Group” (so named because of the number of its original members) formed in England in March 1946 following which it, inter alia, conducted violence against Anti-Semitic groups and events???

Answer 18

Yes.

Question 19

Is there any reason to criticize the accuracy of the remainder of Chapter 2 which chronicles 1945-2003 many of the worldwide efforts to combat Anti-Semitism, much of the combat being violent – except its ignorance of the Roman Catholic “Doctrine of Blood Guilt” which was finally repealed at Vatican II in 1965???

Answer 19

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 20

If Mark Bray had not been so ignorant, would it have been interesting to compare and contrast Anti-Semitism and efforts to combat it – divided between 1945-1965 and 1965-2003 instead of all jumbled together???

Answer 20

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


*****
Chapter 3 – The Rise of “Pinstripe Nazis” and Anti-Fascism Today

Question 21

Does Chapter 3 open by suddenly jumping from Anti-Semitism 1945-2003 to German resistance 2013-2015 to immigration from Syria in the wake of outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011???

Answer 21

Yes.

Question 22

Is a sample of Mark Bray’s ignorance re his theme of “fascism,” his morphing from overt racism (viz., Anti-Semitism) into discrimination based on cultural differences??? Is a good example of his cultural-differences claim (p. 79), Britain’s leaving the European Union following a 2016 referendum???

Answer 22

Please read on.

Question 23

Have we already studied that --

(A) Britain did NOT join until 1973 the European Union because it entailed being forced to abandon its favorable trading relationships with members of the British Commonwealth (i.e., former British colonies);

(B) In the 6/23/2016 Brexit (contraction of British and Exit) Referendum, the British public voted to leave the EU;

(C) The primary reason was that following a limited outbreak of “Mad Cow Disease” in only a precious few British herds, the EU ordered the destruction of all British cattle – accompanied by rumors that the EU had done so at the behest of continental competitors; and

(D) A secondary reason (though the complete destruction of Britain’s prized cattle herds and its favorite national meal – Beef Wellington – would probably have been sufficient for the Brexit vote) was that EU membership meant citizens of other EU countries were able to immigrate to Britain without any restraints and there was a massive wave of Hungarians migrating to Britain for economic reasons AND UNDER-CUTTING THE WAGES OF NATIVE BRITS.

Answer 23

Absolutely!!!

BTW, Britain’s favorite national meal – Beef Wellington – is named after Arthur Wellesley, the First Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo 6/18/1815 to begin the CENTURY of Pax Britannica that ended with the assassination 6/28/1914 of the Archduke Ferdinand – Heir Apparent of the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire.

And yes, American politicians and propagandists didn’t want the American public to think we were fighting the Holy Roman Empire, so they insisted on calling it the Hapsburg Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

What is even more despicable is that the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Bosnian Serb and Russia’s Czar Nicholas II decided to defend a fellow-Slav by declaring war on the Holy Roman Empire for its efforts to obtain justice.

Unfortunately, Russia’s allies were Britain and France, so they were immediately dragged into World War I on the side of Russia against the Holy Roman Empire.

The allies of the Holy Roman Empire were Germany and the Ottoman Empire (the Ottoman Turks whose empire once stretched from the Atlantic across North Africa through the Middle East all the way to India, and who are now confined to modern-day Turkey courtesy of Lawrence of Arabia).

BTW, Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of WW-I and it was his idea (in addition to being known as the “Father of the Tank” for the army) for the British fleet to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war by using the element of surprise to, WIHOUT WARNING, SUDDENLY sail up the Dardanelles Strait and capture Istanbul (the Ottoman capital still known as Constantinople until 3/28/1930).

But Churchill’s plan was sabotaged by the local fleet commander who dithered for so long because of doubt (or, more probably, cowardice) that the Turks had plenty of time after the arrival of the British fleet while it languished at anchor, to put beaucoup artillery on the Gallipoli Heights overlooking the Dardanelles to doom Churchill’s brilliant plan.

But even though Churchill was not to blame for the ensuing debacle, he did NOT complain but simply resigned as First Lord and joined his old regiment on the front lines in France where he constantly exposed himself to enemy fire, obviously hoping to be killed.

American historians like to blame Germany for World War I because after Russian Czar Nicholas II threatened the Holy Roman Empire if it sought justice against the assassin, the Holy Roman Empire asked Germany whether it would support their effort to obtain justice despite Russian Czar Nicholas II’s threats by saying, in effect – “You Gotta Do What You Gotta Do.”

Which is ironic because it would be analogous to the American public learning that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated 11/22/1963 on orders from Fidel Castro following the American invasion of Cuba 4/17/1961 at The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.

The American public would have immediately demanded Castro be deposed by American military action.

But since Cuba was backed, wouldn’t you know, by Russia, you would think that America would, before invading Cuba, ask its NATO allies what their reaction would be if Russia entered a U.S.-Cuba War.

And as loyal allies, wouldn’t you expect NATO to say– “You Gotta Do What You Gotta Do.”???

BTW, if the American public learned today that Castro had ordered the assassination of President Kennedy, is there a substantial possibility/probably that it would demand a military invasion of Cuba even though Fidel Castro departed this earth 11/25/2016 -- since Cuba was then ruled until 2018 by Castro’s brother Raul and thereafter by Raul’s hand-picked successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel???

So is one entitled to be suspicious that the U.S. Gov has refused to release all of its Kennedy Assassination files despite a release of some (but definitely NOT all) of those files 10/26/2017 pursuant to a Trump Executive Order – and an additional release of some (but no word on whether this was now all) of those files 3/18/2025 pursuant to another Trump Executive Order – WITH THE MEDIA FRANTICALLY CLAIMING THAT NEITHER SET CONTAINS ANYTHING NEW???

*****
But back to Beef Wellington and Brexit.

Isn’t it understandable that the Brits would be particularly peeved at the European Union’s dictate that all British cattle be destroyed because of the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in a precious few herds which could have easily been contained???

After all, the First Duke Wellington had saved Europe from Napoleon -- aka the French Hitler since he had also invaded most of Europe and, like Hitler, got as far as Moscow where his defeat is commemorated by Tchaikovsky’s famous “1812 Overture” featuring real cannons if performed as scored.

And now the European Union had shown disrespect for the First Duke Wellington via attacking Beef Wellington.

*****
BTW, as previously mentioned, Pax Britannica lasted for a century from Waterloo until World War I.

And Pax Americana has only lasted for 80 years from the 1945 end of World War II.

So couldn’t the Brits, whose Pax depended on supporting whichever continental alliance was weakest at the moment and frequently changing sides, be excused for its failure to foresee the irrationality of Russian Czar Nicholas II ???

Even though realists knew that the Pax Britannica was employed to keep Europe peaceful so that the Brits and their military would be free to exploit its worldwide empire.

*****
Would it be wonderful for Pax Americana to last another 20 years to match the century of Pax Britannica???

After all, as we have studied many times, Pax America is NOT designed to enable America to exploit a worldwide empire.

But, au contraire, for the rest of the world to expoit America by exporting American jobs for many decades -- following the immediate post-World War II policy of putting Europe and Japan back on their economic feet by enabling them to manufacture their own cars/trucks which had the effect of decimating the American automobile industry which had not only loyally supplied during the war all of America’s tanks and jeeps BUT ALSO MOST OF ITS BOMBERS (which took off for the war from Ford Motor Company’s Willow Run Airport at the end of the Ford assembly lines).

Enough already about Pax Americana’s “America Last” policy.

Question 24

But can Mark Bray claim with a straight face that there were any significant “cultural differences” between Hungarians and Brits??? Or any evidence that he did so with a straight face???

Answer 24

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 25

Accordingly, although Mark Bray’s historical claims in Chapter 3 are interesting, would we as self-respecting historians have to verify each and every one of them independently???

Answer 25

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 26

In other words, when Mark Bray published his Antifa Handbook in 2017, when he was only a Dartmouth Lecturer in History with as his sole academic degree a B.A. in Philosophy from Wesleyan University – would Dartmouth have been justified in firing him for his gross ignorance (rather than for his “endorsement of violence” which was Dartmouth’s stated reason)???

Answer 26

So it would appear.