Ἐφ’ ἑκάστου τῶν προσπιπτόντων μέμνησο ἐπιστρέφων ἐπὶ σεαυτὸν ζητεῖν, τίνα δύναμιν ἔχεις πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτοῦ. ἐὰν καλὸν ἴδῃς ἢ καλήν, εὑρήσεις δύναμιν πρὸς ταῦτα ἐγκράτειαν· ἐὰν πόνος προσφέρηται, εὑρήσεις καρτερίαν· ἂν λοιδορία, εὑρήσεις ἀνεξικακίαν. καὶ οὕτως ἐθιζόμενόν σε οὐ συναρπάσουσιν αἱ φαντασίαι.
42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.”
by W. Stephen Gilbert
It’s more than time to try to unpick the shemozzl of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party 1. Self-harming is ever Labour’s favourite activity, and those MPs determined to keep the row going have lost sight of the danger that what they wish for will hurt them more, that unseating Jeremy Corbyn will cost some of them their own seats and condemn us to Tory rule for the foreseeable future. It is essential to get this thing back into perspective and to halt the misinformation over the issue both current and retrospective.
I love stories. They’re wonderful things, helping us to understand the world around us, navigate our way through life and deal with the challenges that it throws up.
Stories don’t only exist in the pages of books, we also use them to understand real life. When there are so many facts competing for our attention we use stories, or narratives, to explain what is really going on. When new facts come along we slot them into our pre-existing narrative, saving us from having to examine them too closely. If the story is good enough, with real drama and plausible heroes and villains, it may well continue long after the facts cease to convince
April 23, 2018 I enjoyed reading this article and have reflected on both it and the comments. I remember the Marc Wadsworth incident at the launch of the Chakrabarti report and have quietly observed the likes of Politics Home and Portland communications pouring on troubled waters where ever the opportunity suggested.
I was moved to comment on a post that appeared in my Twitter Feed it struck me that the target of the accusation of Anti Semitism seemed to me to be a victim of racism rather than being anti-semitic.
I put together a couple of Blogs as sketches and will be working up the episode as a chapter in my Satirical Novel The Conquest of Dough.
More #LabourAntisemitism Retweeted Jack Emsley
.@Hounslow_Labour could we have an answer? This candidate you are promoting is an antisemite, but, you appear to be doing nothing, despite him comparing “Zionists to Nazis” and saying “Zionists are committing a “holocaust” – both breaches of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.#LabourAntisemitism added,
Hi @Hounslow_Labour, this is your candidate in Hounslow Central. He claims the media is controlled by a Zionist conspiracy, that the Syria crisis is a false flag created by the Israelis, and conflates Israel-Palestine…
Show this thread
9 replies 141 retweets 164 likes
Reply 9 Retweet 141 Like 164 Direct message
Roger Glyndwr Lewis
Replying to @GnasherJew @BeccyBee03 @Hounslow_Labour
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred
toward Jews Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed
toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals &/or their property, toward Jewish
community institutions and religious facilities
4:58 PM – 21 Apr 2018
Drafts of Chapter 3 and 4 will be up on the Blog Later.
Zionism is Anti Semitism
In the following collage @GnasherJew claims that I am Anti Semetic others jump in and condem and follow on with his lead. No Context no mind paid to the tweets which I made stating the following.
@Gnasherjew goes on to play to his gallery of accolytes Thus. Compunding his already agregious lie. Now Mr Gnasher is mis representing knowlingly there is no mistake in his mendacity.
If anyone is wondering I consider that it is Mr Gnasher who should consider his position and stop digging , the hole he is in is quite deep enough.
What do we learn from Lies Damned lies and statistics,
Polling and rhetoric and voting logistics.
Perhaps that Mandates like beauty are
in the eye of the beholder. Who Whilst in Glass houses,
should Think twice before casting that Boulder.
Indeed one , should always be mindful
of the many known unknowns. And That politicians are rarely democrats even as they grow older.
The Tweets singled out by gnashers very selective method are surrounded by context on my Twitter and Facebook feeds but also on my Blog , whilst some of the linked to material would constitute Holocaust denial by most definitions I myself am not a Denier. It is impossible to provide context and discuss these matters without reading watching and considering all sides of a question, (that is unless we have a bunch of Conclusions looking for an Accused.)
I observe the need for historical context and would recommend anyone to read the excellent Gas Chambers of Sherlock Holmes by Cromwell or indeed Kollestroms book. or the excellent wikipedia article on the Nolte controversy to get some idea of what people get themselves so excercised over.
I have also been fascinated by the Irving v Lipstadt case and the Faurrison Affair. Noam Chomsky is an intellectual hero of mine and perhaps this form Chomskys explication of his writing a foreward in Faurrisons book is worth visiting at this juncture.
The Faurisson Affair
Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney
Recently, I have come across allegations concerning actions you took with respect to the Faurisson affair. Although I thought the issue was essentially settled, a new pamphlet, entitled “The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky” by one Werner Cohn has been making its way around. It claims to rebut your most recent public statement in “The Nation” on the subject, and contains some disturbing allegations.
1. Is it true that you stated that you saw “no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust”? Did you mean this in a purely formal sense? In any other way, it seems strange to me that you wouldn’t at least suspect the motives of someone who does seriously attempt to deny that event.
2. Is it true that you published the French version of “The Political Economy of Human Rights” with Faurisson’s publisher? Doesn’t this go beyond the scope of merely defending free speech to subsidizing anti-semitic speech?
3. What’s the story behind La Vielle Taupe [the publisher of Faurisson]? The pamphlet I mentioned paints it as a kind of Larouchite organization, with roots in the stalinist [sic] left but now with an idiosyncratic right wing ideology.
Dear Mr. Kolodney,
The issue of the Faurisson affair is very far from settled, in two respects. First, the actual issue has not yet even been addressed. Recall the facts. A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for “falsification of History,” and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies. So, the issue has not been settled, or even addressed.
Second, as to the minor matter of my role, that has also not been addressed, though it has been the subject of a flood of lies and deceit on the part of those who want to disguise their own commitments, and on the part of groups like Americans for Safe Israel (ASI), which have their own agendas, namely, to defame and discredit anyone who does not meet their standards of support for Israeli militancy. ASI, which published the ludicrous pamphlet to which you refer, has a long record of attacking Americans and Israelis who depart from their right-wing extremism, with scandalous lies and fabrications, a record that is well-known. ASI was also the sponsor of Rabbi Kahane, the advocate of the Nuremberg laws who was denounced as an outright Nazi by Israeli supreme court justices and Israeli scholars, and barred from the Israeli political system as an outspoken Nazi, which indeed he was. People who choose to pay attention to pamphlets published by pro-Nazi organizations of course have a right to do so. I believe in freedom of speech. But it is hard to take them seriously.
It really about Freedom of Speech that is my interest in the Chabloz and Nazi Pug cases and the malicous communications act. Locking people up for even mistaken views is just silly, Sir Richard Evans the expert in the lipstadt case agrees with that view he makes it here in theis Oxford Union Debate.