Silverview - John le Carré Audiobook

This post has 20 comments with rating of 5/520

• 
  edbroadway
  October 14th, 2021
  

  

  Enjoy This upload, last work of one of my favorite writers, one THE BEST writers of both XX and XI Century! #leCarre

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  edbroadway
  October 14th, 2021
  

  XXI I ment , woops.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  Knightmare666
  October 14th, 2021
  

  

  Awesome ….. Many Thanks !!

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  fritzreg
  October 14th, 2021
  

  

  Brilliant! Many thanks!

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  caesar963
  October 14th, 2021
  

  

  He would likely have been the best espionage exponent in the 11th century as well, ed. He’d lay bare all the cloak ‘n dagger shenanigans behind Bill the Bastard’s Normal Invasion.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  cabbagedoll
  October 14th, 2021
  

  

  Thanks! Look forward to reading this. :)

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  sunildas
  October 14th, 2021
  

  can you upload all his books in good quality?

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  edbroadway
  October 14th, 2021
  

  @caesar963 LMAOO, I Im sure he would’ve been! an apt man is apt no matter in what century he’s placed, Like Duke of Wellington said, when asked who was the most ablest of men and the greatest general of his age. Wellington replied, “in this age…in past ages, in ANY age: Napoleon. Geography, epoch, nor caste would suffice to impede men born of such impetus for greatness or the remarkable” Bill ! there’s a Bill in every generation, of every nation!

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  edbroadway
  October 14th, 2021
  

  @Sunildas There’s probably 2 Im missing. I’ll upload them on his birthday (Oct 19th) lol I was going to do the same for this one but I know his fan base, and Know they would’ve appreciated it sooner than later, it being his final work. Im going to be uploading some Graham Greene too although his birthday was Oct 2nd Lol Mine was Oct 11, So I’m uploading books by Libra authors I like…To prove the greatest writers are born under that most noble and gifted of astrological sigil. lol

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  sunildas
  October 14th, 2021
  

  👍

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  chrisusjest
  October 14th, 2021
  

  OMG, I didn’t know he passed away. Definitely one of the best authors, and that George Smiley, what a great fictional character.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  marcodiluce
  October 14th, 2021
  

  The Spy who was never contended with having managed on one single masterpiece!

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  Webby1948
  October 14th, 2021
  

  I always loved to read Le Carre. His Absolute Friends was a brilliant expose of entrapment and official lies. He was a writer who well knew of the machinations of governments and the use of deception and propaganda to manipulate public opinion.Which is why I felt disappointed and bemused when he signed an open letter against Labour during the evidently fabricated anti-semitism row, along with those supporters of the downtrodden and underprivileged Frederick Forsyth and Joanna Lumley.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  caesar963
  October 15th, 2021
  

  Many Jewish people (& others) were extremely offended at Corbyn’s support of a vile, anti-Semitic mural, which was like something torn from the pages of Julius Streicher’s ‘Der Stürmer’ publication, at the height of National Socialism.

  Then there was the investigation and bullying of Labour MPs (who happened also to be Jewish) when they complained of inveterate anti-Semitism. The substance of their serious complaints was of secondary (or no) importance.

  Also, Ken Livingstone’s repeated comments (likening a Jewish journalist to a Nazi concentration camp guard; & “Hitler was a Zionist!”) - & his slippery prevarications - one instance might be dismissed as a mistake.

  And the Corbynite deputy leader, whom Starmer had to fire, Rebecca Long-Bailey, thought that George Floyd’s killing was - by the usual absurd, circuitous, conspiracy route - the fault of the Jews.

  All of this, and much more, with the full knowledge of history before us. Toxic ideologues do not change. Le Carré knew this history.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  Webby1948
  October 15th, 2021
  

  I am offended by antisemitism. Most people are. It is stupidity to portray an entire race as being of one mind and attitude. Norman Finkelstein and Bernie Sanders, both Jewish, have been accused of AS because they have criticised the extremes of capitalism. Anybody who criticises Israel is accused of antisemitism, and likewise those who criticise bankers.Who’s doing that?
  The painting by Mear One, at first, second and maybe even third look was critical of the minority of elitist and super rich who profit on the backs of the poor, in particular in the case of that painting if I remember correctly, black people. It was intended as an attack on predatory capitalism and that’s how Corbyn perceived it, until it was pointed out to him that some of the bankers depicted had Jewish features. I didn’t see that either till it was pointed out to me,and even then it seemed to me there were as many depictions of bankers with no stereotyped Jewish features as there were of those who had. Corbyn was agreeing with its premise, that the poor are exploited by the rich, not by ‘the jews’. And he made the comment in 2012, well before the 2019 election.

  The trouble with arguing this stuff is it takes one off the point. The point is that Le Carre, a great and revered writer, most likely never voted Labour in his life. Freddie Forsyth and Joanna Lumley certainly never did. When Labour came within 3,000 votes of winning the 2017 election it shocked the establishment on both sides, Conservative and Labour. And something had to be done. The ball was set rolling by the digging up of Corbyn’s support for the Mear One painting, and kicked further along by the press and by those in his own party who despised his socialist principles.
  When you read of inveterate Tories declaring that so long as Corbyn is leader they won’t be voting Labour you know there’s a political motive behind it. Le Carre knew the real motive was to derail Labour’s chances in that election - what else could it be? - and yet he played along with it because he was a member of the club. I don’t think he allowed himself to be misled.
  As for you, C963,you support your contention by conflating the Israeli Police and Jews. While it is likely but not certain all Israeli Police are Jews, not all Jews are Israeli Police.
  Rebecca Long-Bailey did not by any route blame ‘the Jews’ for the killing of George Floyd. She did, however, suggest the killers of Floyd used the same techniques as those employed by the Israeli police force..And by all accounts, she was right.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  caesar963
  October 15th, 2021
  

  The point is identified, obvious anti-Semitism.
  None of the distraction explains or justifies the disturbing, persistent pattern of anti-Semitism within the party & its activists. It merely piles con theory upon con theory, until we have an accretion of con. Their enemies couldn’t say anything if Labour didn’t give them the material and the script. This isn’t the fault of the Jews, Israel, or any secret cabal.

  Another con theory: “Tories declaring that so long as Corbyn is leader they won’t be voting Labour” - the greatest gift to the tories was Corbyn’s leadership. It mobilised their support, and unaffiliated voters, and made their task so much easier. The longer you can associate a Corbyn or a Trump with their respective parties, the more you have an electoral gift that keeps on giving.

  And isn’t that just another toxic stereotype, identifying Jewish people with “the extremes of capitalism” as you say?

  Rebecca Long-Bailey was fired because the new Labour leader wanted to take a zero tolerance approach to anti-semitism. Because, as Starmer said: “My primary focus is on rebuilding trust with the Jewish communities.”
  Also: “The sharing of that article was wrong because the article contained anti-semitic conspiracy theories and I have therefore stood Rebecca Long-Bailey down from the shadow cabinet.”

  The anti-Semitic article had claimed “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
  A spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, stating that ‘there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway.’ And the original poster admitted their falsehood, that they “didn’t know anything about American Police training & its sources.”

  So, how then can this be the case: “Rebecca Long-Bailey did not by any route blame ‘the Jews’ for the killing of George Floyd. She did, however, suggest the killers of Floyd used the same techniques as those employed by the Israeli police force..And by all accounts, she was right.” By all accounts? “tactics…learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.” A clear anti-Semitic falsehood fully endorsed by Rebecca Long-Bailey?

  “As for you, C963,you support your contention by conflating the Israeli Police and Jews. While it is likely but not certain all Israeli Police are Jews, not all Jews are Israeli Police.” (???) Truly bizarre. This fails to make any coherent sense at all. Now I’m responsible for Rebecca Long-Bailey’s confirmedly anti-Semitic retweet?

  Corbyn was criticised for his association with cleric Raed Salah, who was arrested in 2011. Salah promoted the ‘blood libel’ & had said after the 9/11 attacks, that 4000 “Jewish clerks” had been absent on the day of the attacks. He was convicted & sentenced to 8 months in prison. Corbyn said that Salah was someone “that needs to be heard” & said he was looking forward to inviting the cleric to “tea on the Hse of Commons terrace, because you deserve it.”

  British rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the Utd Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, have accused Corbyn of antisemitism in relation to past associations & comments as well as his handling of allegations within the party. Corbyn attended meetings organised by a group founded by Paul Eisen, who has denied the Holocaust. Eisen had written an essay on his website in 2008 entitled “My life as a Holocaust denier.”

  Corbyn was criticised by Jewish leaders for supporting a mural (Corbyn eventually admitted that it was antisemitic) that manifestly demonstrated the age-old anti-Semitic caricatures, brought to its nadir & weaponised by the National Socialists. In 2020, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) revealed that an antisemitism complaint had been made against Corbyn in Apr 2018 over his defence of the mural, & members of Corbyn’s office “directly interfered in the decision not to investigate the case,” an example of political interference the EHRC concluded was “unlawful”.

  Corbyn was condemned for a 2013 speech in which he made remarks which were criticised for appearing to perpetuate the antisemitic canard that Jews fail or refuse to integrate into wider society.
  Jonathan Sacks, a former Chief Rabbi, described the remark as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech.”

  In 2019, Corbyn was criticised for a foreword he wrote in 2011 for “Imperialism: A Study” by John A. Hobson which contains the antisemitic assertion that finance was controlled “by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience” who “are in a unique position to control the policy of nations”. In his foreword, he called the book a “great tome” and “brilliant, and very controversial at the time.”

  In July 2018, Labour MP Margaret Hodge in the Commons informed Corbyn that she believed he was “an antisemitic racist” because of his reluctance to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in full.
  Indeed, also in July 2018, Labour, with Corbyn’s support, agreed a code of conduct which excluded or amended some of the examples from the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers jointly called a Corbyn-led government an “existential threat to Jewish life” in Britain.

  A September 2018 poll carried out by polling firm Survation, on behalf of the Jewish Chronicle, found that 86% of British Jews and 39% of the British public believed Corbyn to be anti-Semitic.

  Corbyn was reported to have raised the question in internal debates of whether there was a risk of giving the Jewish community ’special treatment.’

  In October 2020, the EHRC announced that its investigation had found that the Labour Party had breached the Equality Act 2010 in a number of ways, incl: unlawful harassment by agents of the party; namely a councillor, Pam Bromley, and Ken Livingstone in his defence of Naz Shah (calling for “forcible transportation” of Jews), and 23 instances of “inappropriate involvement” by Corbyn’s staff in antisemitism complaints. One of the complaints had been against Corbyn personally, regarding his response to the removal of the mural.

  And remember, this hardly scratches the surface. Toxic ideologues do not change.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  Webby1948
  October 16th, 2021
  

  ‘As for you, C963,you support your contention by conflating the Israeli Police and Jews. While it is likely but not certain all Israeli Police are Jews, not all Jews are Israeli Police.” If you can’t understand that try reading it again, bearing in mind that though Israel, its police force and its military are likely all controlled by Jewish individuals, criticism of their actions and policies is not a de facto instance of antisemitism. To claim otherwise is to attempt to stifle outrage by impugning false motives to those who seek genuine change - or at least would like to debate the notion.
  Quote: And isn’t that just another toxic stereotype, identifying Jewish people with “the extremes of capitalism” as you say?
  Now that’s bizarre.
  It would be a toxic stereotype and I would be antisemitic if I claimed to identify ALL Jewish people with the extremes of capitalism. But I’m not. Neither was Mear One, nor was Corbyn.Nor would anybody with a grain of sense.
  Equating Israeli police with all Jews is antisemitic. Equating the extremes of capitalism with all Jews is the same. Nobody but real antisemites do that. Corbyn is not, nor ever was antisemitic. He laid himself open to criticism by engaging in dialogue with the opponents of Israeli violence in the occupied territories. And the media seized the chance to vilify him by claiming antisemitism.
  The survey you quote is quite interesting. It seems to show 61% of British voters did not think Corbyn antisemitic.That’s higher than i would have expected, knowing how easily people swallow what they’re fed.
  Tories declaring that so long as Corbyn is leader they won’t be voting Labour” is no conspiracy theory. And it was given maximum publicity by a press who. like Le Carre, must have seen the irony of lifelong Tories hanging their inveterate antipathy towards Labour on such a slender thread and so publicly. After all, nothing, not an adequately funded NHS, not a refusal to enter into wars in the Middle East, not an end to austerity or an increase in social care and mental health provision would encourage such Tories ever to vote Labour.
  And again, Naz Shah retweeted an image that implied Israel was the 51st state of America, a comment often made about Britain, and the subject of a song by New Model Army. The difference is that any criticism of Israel by anybody is automatically labelled antisemitic.
  Historically, and despite the rhetoric of those with other agendas to pursue,there has long been a strong affinity between Jewish people and Labour. Only the punitive treatment of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli government and rapidly increasing settlement of occupied territory has endangered that.
  I certainly would not consider defending an antisemite which is why I have no difficulty defending Corbyn. The accusations of Labour antisemitism were purely political, designed to deflect attention from the matters that should engage the British electorate. Equating Corbyn with Hitler was pure farcical propaganda. And Le Carre knew that.
  Your last but one paragraph is lifted from the Wiki universe. where Truth goes for a toxic makeover. It’s not worth answering. I presume you are supporting the rest of your diatribe from similar sources and accord them the same
  respect.
  And remember. Toxic plagiarists do not change either.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  caesar963
  October 16th, 2021
  

  “accused of AS because they have criticised the extremes of capitalism” - “It would be a toxic stereotype and I would be antisemitic if I claimed to identify ALL Jewish people with the extremes of capitalism. But I’m not.Nor would anybody with a grain of sense.” You really do need to read those again. How are Jewish people & “the extremes of capitalism” in any way synonymous? Why would you write, or even think, that?

  ‘As for you, C963,you support your contention by conflating the Israeli Police and Jews. While it is likely but not certain all Israeli Police are Jews, not all Jews are Israeli Police.” If you can’t understand that try reading it again, bearing in mind that though Israel, its police force and its military are likely all controlled by Jewish individuals, criticism of their actions and policies is not a de facto instance of antisemitism. To claim otherwise is to attempt to stifle outrage by impugning false motives to those who seek genuine change” - the tweet, as the Labour leader stated (& echoed by virtually everyone else - including the vast majority of Jewish people) - “The article contained anti-semitic conspiracy theories” - not any rational criticism of “actions and policies.”

  Therefore: anti-Semitism & vile abuse, both de facto & de jure.
  And the original poster even admitted its falsehood - that they “didn’t know anything about American Police training & its sources.” So a manifest lie, as well.

  That 86% of British Jews and 39% of the British public believed Corbyn to be definitively anti-Semitic - anti-Semitism being an extreme prejudice - you’re honestly trying to frame that as a positive?! Those are truly disturbing figures. The overwhelming majority of Jewish people, who are certainly in a position to know anti-Semitism (unless you think they’re gullible as well?) believed absolutely that the opposition leader hated Jews. And that’s your positive…
  Other people are always gullible, but not us.

  “Tories declaring that so long as Corbyn is leader they won’t be voting Labour” - why would tories not vote tory? Is that a bit of a non-issue?
  Corbyn continued to be a significant asset - for the tory party.

  Naz Shah called for the “forcible transportation” of Jews, and Ken Livingstone, another anti-Semite, “surprisingly” supported what she said. Do you know what “forcible transportation” refers to?

  Corbyn et all provided the script & all the quotes. All established; no changing that, unfortunately. And I appreciate that you reject the inconvenient Equality & Human Rights Commission report & judgment. All “Fake Nooze” apparently - anything that goes against your cherished prejudices.
  And you might want to consult the definition of “plagiarism” - it doesn’t encompass quoting from relevant reports, interviews, articles, etc.

  He supports a promoter of the “blood libel’ & a Jew-hating 9/11 con theorist - an individual who was convicted & sentenced to 8 months in prison for this (& another upstanding individual - a Holocaust denier), yet Corbyn believes such a character is one “that needs to be heard” & should have “tea on the Hse of Commons terrace, because you deserve it” - yet he cannot be an anti-Semite?

  In his foreword to a blatantly anti-Semitic book, he declares it to be a “great tome” and “brilliant” - but this is all the fault of the media, apparently.

  Jonathan Sacks, a former Chief Rabbi, describes Corbyn’s remarks as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech.”
  Surely we must condition ourselves to believe that this is all the Fakest of Fake Nooze?

  The former Chief Rabbi, Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers, the Equality & Human Rights Commission, and 86% of British Jews must all be absolutely wrong - or even part of an anti-Corbyn conspiracy. That’s by far the most likely & reasonable conclusion here. Yeah…

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  Webby1948
  October 17th, 2021
  

  It’s plagiarism if you quote others verbatim and do not make that clear. Had you attributed the quote instead of implying it was your own work, it would not have been plagiarism. A subtle difference. But an important one.
  Why would Tories not vote Tory? My point entirely. Which is why Tories giving any other reason for not doing what they are ideologically and pathologically inclined not to do anyway, is transparently duplicitous. And hypocritical. When you see such a reason hoovering up all the media coverage without that obvious point being made,you should understand it is political propaganda dressed up as principle and compassion. Tories are good at that.
  Quote:“accused of AS because they have criticised the extremes of capitalism” - “It would be a toxic stereotype and I would be antisemitic if I claimed to identify ALL Jewish people with the extremes of capitalism. But I’m not.Nor would anybody with a grain of sense.” You really do need to read those again. How are Jewish people & “the extremes of capitalism” in any way synonymous? Why would you write, or even think, that?” Unquote.
  Is that the inference you drew? Do you think you can utilise wilful misunderstanding in order to make a point? That says far more about you than any comment I have made.
  For the record: Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, once had to apologise for synonymising the words ‘bankers’ and ‘Jews’. Anybody who blamed ‘Bankers’ for the 2008 crash was actually blaming ‘Jews’,Pollard insisted. By way of excuse he said he blamed Corbyn. He felt so strongly that Corbyn was antisemitic he perceived anything Corbyn said in that light, even when Corbyn blamed the banks for the crash.
  The equation has been out there a long time. I never subscribed to it and do not now. But you, C963, normally so shy of attributing to their rightful originators the words you imply are yours, have no compunction in attributing to me ideas expressed by others and to which my only reference was in refuting them.
  From what I remember - and I’m not going to look back and check - I had mentioned the antisemitic
  interpretation placed on the Mear One mural which I perceived at first glance to be a condemnation of the financial exploitation of the poor by those with power and money. Then some people perceived caricatured Jewish features and the kind of political cartoon done by others many times before, became singled out as a vile antisemitic daub. I had not seen it that way, and it seemed, neither had Corbyn.
  You cite opinions in support of your assertion as though they come from unimpeachable sources. I see nothing antisemitic in the following excerpt from Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion:The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
  Jonathan Sacks did. He called Dawkins antisemitic because by singling out the Old Testament god, his description explicitly excluded the New Testament, Christian God. Dawkins, by that criterion, is an antisemite, and irredemiably so.
  Going by that level of reasoning, I would not attach too much credibility to the late Jonathan Sacks’ opinion on Corbyn.
  Just because 86% of Jews say Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite, don’t make it true, either. It just shows how easily manipulated public opinion can be. Over half of Jews believe they are the chosen people. And while I have no quarrel with that, it must be opined that such a belief implies the inferiority of other races. It’s racist, in other words. And if you quote that, attribute it.
  Having said all that, I’ll add this: I have gathered from reading other comments of yours that you are always determined to have the last word. Have at it, I shall no longer reply on this subject.
  John Le Carre knew the letter he signed was entirely motivated by political gain. It’s a pity he signed it, because now I can’t read anything of his. Which might be a good basis for a future argument, on how to separate the artist from his work. But not now.

  Silverview - John le Carré
• 
  caesar963
  October 17th, 2021
  

  Quotations, me ole china - “” - and so forth. Be on the look out. That, and readers normally have the intelligence to realise that neither you or I are the Equality & Human Rights Commission. And all the anti-Semites are named & quoted.

  That the Tory voting thing was a redundant point - this is known. “Pathologically” inclined? Voting is a medical condition?
  And all politicians are hypocritical - that is also redundant.

  As I said: How are Jewish people & “the extremes of capitalism” in any way synonymous? Why would you write, or even think, that? Yet you did write it - not I - so how is it not something you think? Illogical. And the issue is the casually anti-Semitic point you made, not pivoting away to this Pollard chap, and blaming him.
  “Attributing to me ideas expressed by others and to which my only reference was in refuting them.” = Gobbledygook upon stilts, you said it, now own it.

  “From what I remember - and I’m not going to look back and check” - Yeah, your diligent research is stunning to behold.
  “Some people perceived caricatured Jewish features and the kind of political cartoon done by others many times before, became singled out as a vile antisemitic daub. I had not seen it that way, and it seemed, neither had Corbyn.” - More nonsense; Corbyn himself eventually had to admit that it was anti-Semitic. QED.
  All the points still stand, in this regard.

  The problem with that is that Richard Dawkins has form in this area, as we know. In an interview with Newsweek’s Lisa Miller, he delivered himself of the enlightened 1930’s view that “The Jewish lobby monopolise American foreign policy - as far as many people can see.” So, it’s also a shadow “lobby” of Jews, in his generous opinion.
  So why shouldn’t he also attack & abuse Jewish people’s sacred Tanakh?
  In actual fact, the National Socialists did precisely the same thing.

  The British used to carp in the same manner about “the powerful Irish lobby” - merely because people didn’t like seeing peaceful Irish civil rights campaigners being summarily executed in the streets. There’ll always be an England, wot wot!

  “You cite opinions in support of your assertion as though they come from unimpeachable sources.” - A fatuous assertion in itself, what’s the problem with quoting the anti-Semites in their own foaming words? They were foolish enough to supply them in the first inst.

  “Just because 86% of Jews say Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite, don’t make it true, either. It just shows how easily manipulated public opinion can be.” So, again, “86% of Jews” can be easily manipulated, but not you. Priceless. And the former Chief Rabbi can’t be believed - on anything?! He’s singled out, and totally discredited? Bizarre.

  “the chosen people.” Oh, here we go. No gloss necessary there.

  “I shall no longer reply on this subject.” - Finally, something perceptive.

  Won’t read him? Now that is a shame, because Le Carre is one of the true greats.

  Silverview - John le Carré

Add a comment