The Last Days of Kenneth Williams and the SWP

In fact, it’s to be welcomed that they have shown their true faces

Yes, those decents and their commitment to democracy and universal rights. Shocking stuff.

1 For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures—freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion.

2 No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy—regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so.

3 Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context.

I believe the Decents also support apple pie (motherhood is up for debate at the next meeting, due to concerns about gender stereotyping).

Why is convincing someone not to believe in God cruel? I mean, if Larkin had been some kind of demonic Jack Chick tract figure, persuading Williams out of religion in order to condemn him to an eternity in hell, then that would’ve been v. v. bad – but surely convincing a friend to reject [what you see as] his fantastic delusions in favour of reality is a good thing to do for them…?

But did the newsreader crack up this week?

christian — I didn’t mean to imply that anyone should shut up. My observation (a bit unlike Daniel’s) is that the euston people are a bit obsessed with the SWP in particular — I can’t give chapter and verse but often when I read their hostility to the left, the only people I can think of who really fit their criteria are the SWP. On the other hand, although I’ve never been a fan of the SWP’s politics, the Respect adventure is an adventure too far.

john b — iowerth took the words out of my mouth. On the one hand you deprive someone of something that helps them to achieve some semblance of peace with the world and replace it with nothing. On the other you get rid of (what seems to you to be) a false belief. This is no kindness.

Harry b–

What if someone’s last years were tormented by fears of judgement and damnation? Would convincing them of the non-existence of God be doing them a kindness then?

Gilad Atzmon, anyone?

bert, it’s the BBC. Making a program on a radical left group, as part of a series on ’68 (I believe). Of course they’re going to play up the “knackered old Spart” angle. (I haven’t heard the program, so who knows – maybe “knackered old spart” for you means “person who hasn’t repudiated his or her radical views.”)

And matt, what else do you want me to condemn? It’s a bit rich to quote an outright racist website like Engage in order to blast a violation of “no platform.”

This Gilad Atzmon sounds like a decent fella, actually. A bit too polemical, but how can you blame him, considering. It really is maddening, after all.

Well, I rather disagree that Engage are racists at all, or that Atzmon isn’t blatant about it. Calling Jews, “Christ Killer,” isn’t subtle – even when one merely intends to bait.

And when it comes to the “Decents” or the people they criticized, such as the SWP, that’s what I don’t get. It isn’t that someone might fail to condemn Atzmon (though I do think most of the commentors here would argue that public racism ought generally to be challenged?), but the SWP openly embraced him and defended him from critics, even critics like Tony Greenstein.

The argument seems to routinely go that an opposition to antisemitism or some other ugliness can be taken for granted. There is indeed a problem (as a Jew in New York, I wouldn’t be surprised if my judgments on what is significant in UK politics are a bit odd, but still) when such an argument is used to actively deny, in such an obviously ridiculous way, that such ugliness is present.

I read one of his interviews. He says that he is against Zionism and Jewish ethnic supremacism and that he is not antisemitic. I didn’t find any reason to doubt it. Yes, there’s a lot of nonsense there too, but so what. I didn’t get the impression that the guy is a racist. He is not.

Now, this was written when The Passion Of The Christ was about to come out, a huge, gigantic controversy – remember?

I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew. But then two questions should be asked:

1. How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago?[…]

2. Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus? I wouldn’t ask the Italians to apologise on behalf of the Romans for their part in Christ’s killing simply because Italians do not feel remotely offended when Romans are blamed for it. I merely suggest that if a Jew feels offended when accused, this reveals attachment to the perpetrators. It might be the right time for the Jewish state to ask for forgiveness on behalf of the Jewish people for their immoral behaviour.

What – is there something terrible he is saying here – or just slightly adolescent? You are trying to demonize the guy for this? Why?

they all had it in for him
I now expect further Carry On references as a regular event.

Still disagree with that, ejh. (Would you hold to this sort of view of racism?) I would go more for Chris’s focus on the comments (more so for Harry’s Place, which barely or doesn’t moderate comments, than Engage).

But even this conversation confirms for me that there was something the Eustonites were addressing that really did (does still) need to be addressed. And something about the SWP and others that got downplayed too much.

Yeah, why don’t you just address that thing you feel needs to be addressed, Matt? Spit it out.

Well, that’s a model of clarity.

Ah, I see jsf’s Mark Elf saying that this Atzmon guy (of whom I never heard before reading this thread) is indeed an antisemite, so it’s probably true. Sorry about that, although I still feel that automatic assumption that whoever these Engage fellas and their ilk accuse of antisemitism is not an antisemite is a good rule of thumb. One of those exceptions confirming the rule, I guess…

Not really, no. Indeed if I read #21 properly, it certainly is not.

Excuse me. You’re right, Christian. They didn’t embrace him. Merely provided him with a platform repeatedly while defending his most outrageous behavior against perfectly accurate attacks with some small print.

As for bizarre and twisted accusations of racism, well..

This is like a weird parallel universe version of Commentisfree, where instead of the thread regressing to “you’re a Zionist conspiracy and I need hospital treatment for my paranoid delusions”, it regresses to “you’re an antisemitic conspiracy…” etc. Careful, or we’ll be up for the Yglesias award for most demented loonies infesting the comment section of a sensible post.

[oh, and Matt, fuck right off you despicable bigot]

Sometimes intemperate, perhaps, but a despicable bigot, john? I guess it must have something to do with this comedian above.

I’ve generally found that the view that Zionism is racism among Westerners is an exaggerated display of antiracism to make up for an impoverished understanding of what antiracism is or ought to be. That despite the roots of the claim in Stalinist propaganda. Indeed, that’s what made it good propaganda. Anti-racist movements have dealt with conflicting agendas of different worthy groups, and this is not the way to do it. Indeed, anti-racist allies, even without conflicts of interest or competing oppressed groups, found all sorts of problems inherent in putting themselves at the front of anti-racist movements, and one might think the SWP could learn from such mistakes. Instead, you seem perfectly content to recreate systems of privilege and oppression within the SWP.

The claim that Engage is a bunch of racists is nothing but a way to ignore the voices of the Jewish community, and anyone ought to be ashamed to relegate Jews as Jews to the sidelines like that. (Of course, you will point out a few Jews you like.) It’s one thing to disagree with Zionism, but you go quite a few steps further, Christian. Perhaps, ironically, I could suggest Said’s Orientalism.

And I’m sure you see no contradiction, either, in claiming that SWP fights antisemitism “vigorously” while noting that “Martin Smith (chair of the SWP) has an unfortunate blind spot.” (You didn’t seem willing to acknowledge that the SWP really did further claim Atzom is neither a racist nor fascist.) Yes, you oppose antisemitism vigorously when it can be used as a weapon against fascist, anarchists, Fabians or political opponents. I think any “radical” organization ought be able to go a bit further than that.

Zionism that exists in Matt’s head may very well be a quite benign (or, I suppose, even admirable) phenomenon, but in real life actually existing Zionism is undeniably racist, colonialist and a total disgrace all around.

And the apologetics are so strong, so vicious and so grotesque that it drives people crazy. That’s how you get Gilad Atzmon. What goes around comes around.

Yes, abb1, antisemitism is an understandable reaction to those awful Jews. Indeed.

Classical redneck-antisemitism has little to do with Zionism; in fact Zionism probably reduces it somewhat.

But Atzmon-antisemitism – the guy apparently feels that for Zionism to exist and to be so vigorously defended there must be something seriously wrong with Jewish identity itself – this sort of antisemitism certainly is a reaction to Zionism.

You know, I’d met people in Israel who hate Germans – all Germans, no exception. Would never travel to Germany, would never talk to a German, something’s wrong with being German. Do you think these people are inexplicably evil or it might be a reaction to something?

I’ve generally found that the view that Zionism is racism among Westerners is an exaggerated display of antiracism to make up for an impoverished understanding of what antiracism is or ought to be.

Here, Matt.