Mr Hairball, I visited the Belsen Concentration camp as an eight-year-old I am no Holocaust denier. I am now 53 years old and remember as clearly today what I saw there. Anti Semitism is flat out wrong, free speech even being outlawed will do nothing to prevent ignorance and hate
Verdict First said the Queen in our re told story of @Gnasherjew in Tattensvolk(sic) land. https://twitter.com/alexrubner is @Gnasherjew he is a virulent anti semite a rascist and sock pupeteer for neo liberal zionist fascism Verdict First!!!!http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/04/who-is-gnasherjew-labour-anti-semitism.html
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.123
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."
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.
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.
9th April 2017
by way of aside and breaking the fourth wall.-
"If you do not know what that picture is then perhaps you are one of Gnashers book burning crew, look it up."