My Last Word On This For The Year

If countries have a "right to exist" then all of those awful countries I named have a "right to exist" the  Großdeutsches Reich would have to have had a "right to exist" and my parents as well as all of the other millions who fought to destroy it were committing an immoral act.  And if Simps doesn't want to admit what they did was right he can fuck himself into the flames of hell with his own head which he doesn't seem to have much of a need of, in any case.  And that goes for his tag team buddies, too. 

States can have legitimacy, based on the just consent of the governed, states cannot have rights.  The government, the ruler of a state doesn't have a right to hold an office, they have the privilege to serve as  public servants.  And it's too dangerous to even consider it a privilege, it should be considered a temporary obligation based on honorable performance of their chosen obligations.  We'd all be safer if that was the language that was used instead of the misapplication and misunderstanding of the language of "rights".  I will note, in a quick review of the concept of "states right to exist" the use of the term is pretty dodgy, vague and very popular with some pretty shady characters. 

Israel is just another country, it's not in any way a special entity.  It has been a country under the increasingly strong hold of fascism since about 1977, as the Jewish scholars in that open letter warning of just such a thing predicted in 1948.  They were right.  Something I came to see with the assassination of the last decent PM they had Yitzhak Rabin.  I will never, ever say that the Likud state has any right to exist anymore than I would say the Kim regime or the Saudi state has a right to exist.   I don't even hold that the United States holds such rights, The People hold rights and, as it says in the founding document of my country, the United States, 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 

Governments are artificial entites created by people, they are not created by God, people have the ability to lend legitimacy to a government of, by and for, THE PEOPLE, The People do not have the power to create rights.  That is clear in the argument because it notes that The People have the right to dissolve a state and form a new one.  

The People have the rights, the state does not.  There are problems with some of the text but that is something they got absolutely right.  

Update:  "Post-modernism" is another such term that is inapt.  Post-modernism is a development of the secular-scientistic modernism I'm talking about and it was, as well, anticipated in many respects by Nietzsche, who I despise but who understood as just about no one else did the consequences of buying the ideas of the enlightenment, which produce such darkness.   I'm talking about scrapping the things that led to those. 

Update 2:  Stupy tried to make a syllogistic argument, the results are hilarious.  I'd post it but I don't want to add to the level of ignorance and irrationality, the world is overburdened with those.