If states have rights to exist:
The Kim regime in North Korea has a right to exist,
The House of Saud state has a right to exist,
The Confederate States of America had a right to exist,
The Großdeutsches Reich had a right to exist. And a future one would also have one.
"States rights" as articulated by the neo-Confederate racist scum of the United States must be entertained to be legitimate
and I will never, if I live to be see the decay of every last proton pretend they ever did.
The concept of states having rights is ridiculous and the senile seniors of the Eschaton play-group are the biggest bunch of idiots asserting that they're geniuses on the play-left.
ISIS must have had a right to exist.
ReplyDeleteIt's a consequence of atheism, maybe, pretty much all of the early Zionists were anti-religious atheists, this confusion about "rights". If there is no Creator who confers rights then either they're entirely imaginary and not real or they have to have some material definition. One of the eejits of Eschaton, in a statement that was so stupid I had to go look when I was told about it, claimed I was making some declaration of the divine rights of Kings because I said that God conferred rights, that is how limited and stupid such atheists are. As I've pointed out, if rights are no more than human constructs, the product of human choice then any society that wants to not "grant" rights to atheists to hold office (as John Jay wanted to not allow Catholics to hold office, perhaps not to vote either). I can see no way for that common pudding-headed claim of atheists to absolutely define a situation in which it wasn't OK for Jackson to kill and expel the Indians to steal their land or Hitler to do the same to Jews and Poles, etc. if he got a majority of the population to go along with it.
DeleteI haven't thought through to test the idea but I think this phenomenon is related to some of the more immediate and idiotic results of utilitarianism in which something they call "happiness" is the ultimate value because they can't find anything else to base an ersatz replacement for morality on if they don't like God. Which always seems to end up in the utilitarians drawing up lists of who it's OK to kill or deprive of their rights. I recall in that old Brit mini-series, The Glittering Prizes there was a line about Bertrand Russel saying that if it would lead to universal happiness it would be justifiable to kill every last Jew, though I've never found the quote from Russel to support the line in the script. Though I might be not remembering it on the one time I heard it. But that's a perfectly logical conclusion of that atheist attempt to replace God given morality and under any such atheist, materialist, scientistic scheme of that kind, such ideas are possible.
Simps betrays that, as in all things, he is totally ignorant of the history and theory of Zionism. He seems to think it didn't exist before 1942