Harrit sues paper for defamation

[Josarhus]

Anti semitismen within the Danish truth movement can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/mtpro.michael?fref=ts

Exsamples:

https://www.facebook.com/mtpro.michael/posts/1523441327925583

https://www.facebook.com/mtpro.michael/posts/1526687307600985

He posts all the usual silly conspiracy theory stuff and adds his own remarks, always telling the viewer that what he has just posted is the truth and that you will not se this in mainstream media.

Michael Thomsen (Michael G. Jensen) is one of the persons who is organising the Open Mind Conference in Denmark. Harrit spoke at the conference in 2012, and if I am not mistaken he has attended in other years.

http://www.openmindconference.com/speakers/archive-speakers-2012

Michael is also one of the oldest members of the danish truth movement and joined before Grumme and Harrit got involved.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks Josarhus and KD for those tidbits - interesting!

FWIW Pernille Grumme appears to have taken the story of the Dark Side of the Moon^WP mockumentary as gospel

I adore that film! I would marry it if I could!

...she cosigned a letter from Harrit to DR, complaining that 9/11 truthers had been compared to holocaust deniers.

What is DR?

 

[Josarhus]

What is DR?

National Danish television, somewhat lige ZDF and ARD in Germany.

 

[Georgio]

@Oystein - You've been so patient with me in the past that I had a suspicion that something might be amiss. I can well understand that after listening to speeches from Auschwitz the last thing you'd be able to do is discuss anti-Semitism with detachment. Hope you're feeling better.

 

[DGM]

Hope you're feeling better.

I've stayed out of this because I don't even bring myself to acknowledge antisemitic behavior.

I've got to know, what does comment mean? Has he come to terms with his disdain of someone that even broaches antisemitism? Is there an acceptable level?

Where is the "feel better"?

 

[JSanderO]

As wrong as Truthers are... and as ill informed as truthers are... it's not really fair to assume because there are anti semites among them (and for sure there are) that all or most of them are anti semitic. Often interest groups unit around a common interest and this sweeps in all manner of people... and in this case anti semites. But there are plenty of anti semites among the non truthers as well.

It's telling about someone's character and intelligence perhaps... but let's not smear everyone with a broad brush.

 

[Georgio]

I don't even bring myself to acknowledge antisemitic behavior.

I think it's much more sensible to view anti-Semitism as a mental illness rather than a political idea, so I think it should be acknowledged (as a mental illness) and once you've done that it makes more sense to discuss it calmly and to try to help the people suffering from it to see that they are suffering from an illness rather than thinking logically about a group of people, namely Jewish people. I would also apply this to race-hate.

Where is the "feel better"?

As I said, to the extent that he would be able to discuss anti-Semitism in a detached way without flying into a useless rage.

 

[Spanx]

Because it isn't my burden of proof, as I've said. I'm not making any claims about this person. I am not claiming that she is anti-Semitic. I am not claiming that she is not anti-Semitic, and indeed I have stated that the re-posting of the first image in the list particularly points in that direction.

I am totally at a loss to understand why my request to post more of her anti-Semitism as further proof against her would be met with such resistance.

If you have an interest in finding out about pru ? Why not find out for yourself, this way you can find out for yourself rather than disagreeing with what people say without having the evidence you are looking for.

As far as Harrit goes, my opinion is that he has issues. Anyone who thinks they are providing evidence on 911 at a TV licence evasion case is clearly not stable.

This is not an insult to Harrit and is a fact that shows he is deluded. I suspect he has been led down the garden path on more than one occasion especially with his views on 911.

 

[Oystein]

As wrong as Truthers are... and as ill informed as truthers are... it's not really fair to assume because there are anti semites among them (and for sure there are) that all or most of them are anti semitic. Often interest groups unit around a common interest and this sweeps in all manner of people... and in this case anti semites.

This is certainly true - not every 9/11 CTist is at the same time an antisemite. Some speak up against it (I will try to provide an example next time I see one). But there are reasons why antisemites are drawn to 9/11 CTs - their being there is far from a chance event, and therefore...

But there are plenty of anti semites among the non truthers as well.

... this equivocation is essentially false. You make it appear like there is no significant difference, but there is: Antisemites are very probably much more numerous inside 9/11 Truth (that's a guess; statistics difficult to generate), definitely much more vocal (this may in part be due to the subject matter that involves the participation of Middle Easterners and subsequent wars in the region), and, perhaps most importantly, much more accepted than outside 9/11 Truth - just browse any truth forum, FB page, groub etc.

Again some Truthers oppose antisemitism, a few groups probably have policies against it, but there is a strong tenor within the movement that blaming the Jews is very much ok. And before some replies that way: No, blaming "Zionism" is not different from hating Jews.

Also, I reject the notion that it's a mental illness, as that would imply that those suffering from it have diminished reponsibility for their hate speech.

 

[Georgio]

If you have an interest in finding out about pru ? Why not find out for yourself, this way you can find out for yourself rather than disagreeing with what people say without having the evidence you are looking for.

I didn't disagree with anybody - I asked for more evidence to support a claim, which does not represent a tacit disagreement with the claim.

Also, I reject the notion that it's a mental illness, as that would imply that those suffering from it have diminished reponsibility for their hate speech.

I see no other terms in which to understand a position that creates a fictional cabal of and assigns evil characteristics to an enormous group of completely unrelated people.

The question of diminished responsibility is a tricky one. I'm imagining a person who has been successfully treated for this paranoid delusional state. Once they had been treated and were presented with the impossibilty of their ideas then they would certainly have a responsibility to actively refute them, given that the people they will have been blaming for all the evil in the world actually exist rather than being fictional. There's a big difference between doing that and saying, 'It wasn't me, it was the illness.'

I feel contempt for anti-Semitic ideas but only pity for the people who believe they represent the truth.

 

[Spanx]

I didn't disagree with anybody - I asked for more evidence to support a claim, which does not represent a tacit disagreement with the claim

You are not really in a position to agree or disagree without seeing what is on pru's facebook. As I have suggested sign up and find out. When you do, post it here so I can see.

My request is no more unreasonable than yours.

 

[Georgio]

You are not really in a position to agree or disagree without seeing what is on pru's facebook.

Agreed.

As I have suggested sign up and find out. When you do, post it here so I can see.

It's not down to me to prove anything as I have made no claim about her. I'm not sure if you have made a claim about her either, but if not then it isn't your responsibility to prove anything either. It is the responsibility of those claiming she is anti-Semitic to provide a proper case that it is so. This would be equally true for someone claiming she is not anti-Semitic.

If I'd have said, 'She isn't anti-Semitic', then it would be my responsibility to show that. I have offered my opinion on the pictures that Oystein was talking about and by themselves I don't believe they represent a strong enough case for anti-Semitism even though one of the pictures is certainly anti-Semitic. A case for thoughtlessness, perhaps. The other images do not need to be interpreted as anti-Semitic.

I do not think the case has been made out that she is anti-Semitic - that's my claim. And that is quite a different statement to, 'She is not anti-Semitic'. At the moment I think the evidence points towards her being comfortable with reproducing 1 political cartoon that is anti-Semitic, but this could be because of her poor command of English.

My request is no more unreasonable than yours.

It is unreasonable, because I haven't made a claim about her.

 

[Oystein]

...At the moment I think the evidence points towards her being comfortable with reproducing 1 political cartoon that is anti-Semitic, but this could be because of her poor command of English.


It is unreasonable, because I haven't made a claim about her.

The highlighted part is a claim about her

Do you think that my command of English is poor? Are you aware I am not a native speaker?
You base your assessment on a video clip. It shows that she is not extremely fluent in spoken Engish, but you can't conclude from that that she doesn't understand very well written speech.
I sometimes get comments on my written English saying I sometimes write with such subtlety and clarity and use words that even many native speakers might never use actively, that it is hard to believe it's a foreign language to me. And yet, if someone caught me on the street and made an interview with me in English, I'd probably stutter somewhat, search for words, and be less than grammatical, at least during the first 10 minutes, while my brain tunes into the other language. Perhaps you'd then claim "poor command of English" in my case.

 

[carlitos]

I didn't disagree with anybody - I asked for more evidence to support a claim, which does not represent a tacit disagreement with the claim.



I see no other terms in which to understand a position that creates a fictional cabal of and assigns evil characteristics to an enormous group of completely unrelated people.

You just essentially argued that 9/11 truthers are mentally ill.

I do not think the case has been made out that she is anti-Semitic - that's my claim. And that is quite a different statement to, 'She is not anti-Semitic'. At the moment I think the evidence points towards her being comfortable with reproducing 1 political cartoon that is anti-Semitic, but this could be because of her poor command of English.

********. Why are you defending this person? I posted evidence, you said it wasn't enough. Now you are questioning her English skills as an excuse? It's a *********** cartoon. You don't need a Masters in English to get it; 9 out of 10 Danes speak English better than you or I.

 

[Georgio]

You base your assessment on a video clip. It shows that she is not extremely fluent in spoken Engish, but you can't conclude from that that she doesn't understand very well written speech.

Agreed. Lucky I only said 'could be'.

By 'not made a claim about her' I meant I have not made a claim about whether she is or is not anti-Semitic.

 

[Spanx]

It is unreasonable, because I haven't made a claim about her.

Exactly, you have done pretty much nothing except ask others to show you what they can see. Just like me asking you to join facebook to gather information for me.

As far as my opinion on pru goes, I know she is Harrit's partner and I have seen her on YouTube, I personally think she is barking up the wrong tree and looking for attention just like Harrit. They are never going to change the world to think the way they do. I can only imagine how the world would be with them in charge.

 

[Georgio]

Why are you defending this person?

I am not defending anybody.

Now you are questioning her English skills as an excuse?

I am not making excuses for anybody. I said 'could be' which it could be.

It's a *********** cartoon. You don't need a Masters in English to get it; 9 out of 10 Danes speak English better than you or I.

Well, I didn't know what 'goyim' was.

 

[Georgio]

Exactly, you have done pretty much nothing except ask others to show you what they can see.

That's not nothing, or even pretty much nothing, it is asking for a proper case to be outlined for a very serious acussation from the people making that acussation.

It is nothing like you asking me to join facebook to get the information. You just wanted me to take issue with it so you could say, 'Ah! But that's what you're doing!'

 

[carlitos]

I am not defending anybody.



I am not making excuses for anybody. I said 'could be' which it could be.

What you are doing is transparent for all to see.

Well, I didn't know what 'goyim' was.

Yeah, let's focus on whether you know what a word means, rather than a photoshop collage with a bunch of stars of David superimposed on Jews, who have been posed in ways to show their sinister laughter and big noses. Typical truther idiocy.

 

[Spanx]

That's not nothing, or even pretty much nothing, it is asking for a proper case to be outlined for a very serious acussation from the people making that acussation.

It is nothing like you asking me to join facebook to get the information. You just wanted me to take issue with it so you could say, 'Ah! But that's what you're doing!'

Ok, so let's say one of the other posters here posted up what they said was written on facebook. Let's assume they made it up and painted a very bad picture of Per. Would you believe it ? Or would you check for yourself ?

I guess the answer would be no you wouldn't check because you won't join facebook.