Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: US-information warfare & KLA




On 14 Apr 1999, Nico MYOWNA wrote:

> 
> Friedmann is a left publicist and living in Germany. Excuse me, but how  
> could you think that neo-liberal or left jews have necesary to do with the  
> "fascist" jewish community of Israel?

Because here in the states they are one and the same.  The american jewish
lobby +is+ the Israel lobby (I'm not lying) and the american jewish lobby
is very much the liberal core group as far as domestic politics goes.  I
didn't say it had to make sense, I just had the bad taste to comment on
it.

But I thought you were talking about our Friedman.  Who is this chap you
mention? 

> There are a few jews in Europe who condemn the state of Israel and the  
> politic of the inheritors of the fascist faction inside the zionist move-  
> ment.

There are very few anti-Israel jewish people in the U$.  I am, of course,
using the wird "jewish" to describe the religous practitioners.  


> Okay, but Friedmann's words on the "Konkret" (a left publication in Ger- 
> many) panel discussion wasn't a definition of the term 'Holocaust'. It was  
> a direct historical comparison between the serbian state, the ethnic clean- 
> sing and the 3. Reich and the industrial annihilation of milliones of vic-  
> tims.

Man, nico, what you are doing is called aguring "rhetoric."  When the
U$/NATO does something you claim it is the shrill equivalent of hystorical
genocide, imperialism, and general power-mongering and warlust.  This is
called hyperbole.

Yet in defense of your position you argue that there are degrees of
differnce in what happens over hystery and what is happening in Kosovo,
these horrific things committed by Milosevic and his lackies, isn't all
that bad because the actions don't meet some strict definition of a wird.

You can't have it both ways.

> Only, if you use the term "holocaust" similar to the term "genocide". I  
> think, that your example show that every historical situation is in fact  
> unique and that therefore every genocide is diffrent from other former  
> genocides.

Yes, I'll grant this.  "Holocaust" is a rhetorical allusion to a horrible
crime.

> > "Human rights" exist only in storybooks.  "Human rights" are whatever the
> > states say they are, and absent the state they are whatever the guy with
> > the biggest guns say.
> 
> Where have you been in the last 350 years of fights and revolts for demo- 
> cracy and human rights? If the state leaders acept today a little the  
> "Human rights" and try to give reason for their war of aggression with  
> their fight for "Human rights" than make this plain the aims and triumphs  
> of our ancestors who fight for this "Human rights" and the intellectual  
> emanzipation of the people behind to be no longer only subjekt to the  
> state.

Um, that's what I said.  If the state has the power, it determines what is
a humyn right.  If the people have the power then they determine what is a
humyn right.  If they don't have the power, no right."

> Many left, democratic and revolutionary movements around the world fight  
> with, under reference to and with a claim for "Human rights". And no po- 
> litical refugee could have a chance to leave a country with a "Worldpass-  
> port", who based on "Human rights" only, if the "Human rights" exist in  
> storybooks only. These is part of an intellectual evolution and could be a  
> base for our agitation for anarchy.

Oh.  Capitalism will allow anarchy tp "EVOLVE?"

nico?  Are you for real?

> The absent of state doesn't mean that "Human rights" or human dignity are  
> whatever the guy with the biggest guns say. Your statement seems to show  
> that you doesn't beliefe that anarchy is possible and that you beliefe,  
> that the man is other man's wulf.

A baby is born.  A baby has no "rights."  The baby needs food, warmth, and
a dry ass.  Yet if the baby is left alone these things will not come to
pass.  They must be supplied.  If you have a "right" to something it means
it is there for you, no questions asked.  This is not the case in infancy
or adulthood.

We have no "right" to food.  We should have, but we don't.  We can have
food as long as we can get it, but when we can't, we can't.  If we had a
"right" to food it would be there for us always.  It is only there whan we
can take it.  

Same-same shelter.  Yes, we should have a "right" to shelter, but we
don't.  We only have "shelter" when we provide it for ourselves.  We can
make an agreement in a community that everyone has some kind of "right" to
shelter, but in reality that is only an agreement, not some inalienable
"right." The same community can declare no one has a "right" to shelter,
but yet we all can provide shelter for ourselves if we are able.  

There isn't any difference that I can see between the two positions.  In
the first the community decides what a "right" is, and in the second the
community decides what a "right" isn't.  If the community gives it can
take away.

"Right" implies access to something is inalienable.  This willl never be
the case.  This doesn't mean that people can't establish agreements to
protect and provide for necessities, but to call them "rights" or "humyn
rights" implies that these things are natural.  No.  "Rights" are made by
people; they never were natural and never will be.


carp