Rights & Roots
About Universal Human Rights, conciliated
with duties bound to roots
(after reading Israel Shamir, Joh Domingo,
Jonathan Cook and Norman Finkelstein)
By Maria Poumier[1],
9-10 January 2007
The very idea of "human rights" is a hostile
assault on "collective rights" entertained by the neo-liberals
against the underprivileged. It is time to give up an attempt of
fitting into liberal paradigm
(Israel Shamir)
Israel Shamir is uncomfortable for the left,
because he looks for the points of agreement between leftist and
right-wing thought. But the great thinkers are always those who
break ideological barriers, breach and bridge, and therefore are
able to lift up huge popular movements. For our times, his
thought is necessary in order to put an end to the state of
USurpaZion, and enter a new age. Surprisingly, in the search of
unity and reconciliation, it seems Shamir does not care at all
for any of the new rights that Western countries invent and
promote all over the world. We are so used to the modern claim
of rights and the right to invent new rights, that we miss this
dimension in his writings. The left is proud of its ability to
recognize the collective rights of any group that can argue
about its oppression, so we need some articulation between
Shamir's brave antizionism and our claim for universal
generosity.
At present, the French representative of the
Zionist Masters of Discourse, Alain Finkelkraut, is being sued
and also heavily opposed on the internet by some important Black
figures and writers [1] because he adopts the right-wing claim
for "national identity" against "barbarian immigrants", as Bush
builds walls against Mexicans, and Tel Aviv against Palestine.
In the 1930s, Jews were still uncomfortable immigrants from the
East. So the arrogance of our judaized elites against Blacks
(supposed to be the most uncivilized people in the world) is
unbearable for anyone who remembers that the disturbing low
class strangers in our countries are just the followers of
native "dangerous classes" of the XIXth century, the ones who
gave birth to the huge Marxist revolutions we are proud about,
and Shamir, as a Soviet Russian, is also proud about. Doudou
Dične, special rapporteur on Human Rights at UN, reminds us that
racism against Blacks is becoming the connection between the
extreme right and the mainstream representatives, not only in
the West, but also in the Arabic world [2].
I New Rights
Whoever declares a new right supposes that
this new right will apply to him. In order to obtain agreement
for it, he must say his struggle is about "universal" rights, or
"human" rights. He never expects that other people may use his
logics against him. Democracy – meaning the summit of a society
where rights rule and flourish, works only within a small
community, against the wild wide world outside, and against some
enslaved ones inside. But democracy, as it claims it is
universal, must expand itself, must create more rights for more
people. It is a trap, and this trap is the same for monarchy, as
monarchy claims to represent universal will of God, and
fatherhood for all the country's children.
In white societies, the black struggle always
started from recognizing the established rights, and then asked
the ruling class to apply that rule to Blacks the same as for
Whites; this is what happened in the times of slavery, and
produced abolition all over America, and the same logic,
strategy and tactics are still working, now at a world wide
level. In the times of legal slavery great bloody clashes
occurred, because Blacks were not supposed to be concerned by
rights, only by duties.
At the Durban UN international conference
about racism, in 2001, Blacks recognized the new legal concept
of « crime against humanity », created by Jews for Jews;
immediately, the white delegations from USA, Israel, England,
France (the French delegation was led by Patrick Gaubert, the
boss of LICRA), left and shouted it was anti-Semitism to declare
"crime against humanity" a universal concept, able to describe
other mass murders than H. A few months before, in France,
Blacks indeed had succeeded to impose to the government a law
that recognizes transatlantic deportation and colonial slavery
is « crime against humanity »; obviously, it lasted more than
Jewish-Nazi H (as James Petras calls it [2]) , and made a lot of
millions more victims.
Durban's resolution at UN in August 2001 has
four meanings :
a) a victory over J exceptionalism,
b) a victory for ethics, for good old Kantian
categorical imperative
c) a victory for Blacks.
d) a victory for collective sense of
rights, not individual ones.
In 1945, with the universalization of the
legal concept of "crime against humanity", the sense of
collective rights won, against the sense of individual rights.
In 2001, the entire ruling world wide caste
–not only Jews, reacted with a racial automatism: invocating
individual rights against collective rights; they
screamed: "a single grandson of a slave has no right for any
compensation about what a big enslaved population suffered, so
no compensation at all for anyone of you, outsiders who are
trying to invade our private democracy!"
In this case, they used individual right
for them, and were unable to accept that Descendants of Slaves
were asking for some collective reparation, not for
individual compensations. But, as a matter of fact, Jews know
they cannot get back some compensations from WWII if they use
only the sense of individual right, so the whole ruling white
caste that support Reparations for Jews is trapped in its own
lack of logic.
The danger is so big for the elite, with the
question of Reparations for Africans and Descendants of
Africans, that now, even some mainstream historians in France
are asking for the abolition of any law based on the concept of
"crime against humanity", including the one that protects the H
narrative ( the Fabius-Gayssot law).
If these historians succeed in their
abolitionist project, not only the laws that censor some
narratives about the past may fall, but also the International
Criminal Court of The Hague, for recent and forthcoming mass
murders, would be questioned; the USA never recognized it, nor
the Jewish State.
But no people who want to judge some of their
local mass criminals will ever agree to dismiss the legal
concept of "crime against humanity". Who can imagine the
Palestinian would leave their dream of suing Sharon, Olmert and
the next ones, for nothing?
It is impossible to go back to some narrow
national legislation in such political matters. Shamir may be
the first Israeli citizen sued in France just for what he writes
in Israel, but if he is condemned, there will be plenty of so
called evil thinkers sued far from their countries afterwards.
No doubt Africans are able to catch and imprison Finkelkraut in
some southern country to get him sued at any time… as David
Irving was kidnapped in Austria, far from his country of
England.
New Duties
Roger Garaudy has a good idea to stop the
inflation of human rights, mentioned in his last book called
Western Terrorism (Le Terrorisme occidental, Paris,
Ed.. Al Qalam, 2005); he says we should write a Universal
Declaration of Duties.
What should be those duties? It would be a
super secularized and transnational version of Kantian
imperatives, or pan-religious imperatives.
First: you will not kill, steal, swindle, as
individual duties changed into collective duties; as all the UN
international and collective implementations of these duties;
this means the end of mass murders and collective exploitation,
the necessity of Reparation for collective harms.
Reparation must appear as the opposite of Revenge, and
the only ethical proceeding for collective crimes.
Second: the secularization of the biblical
commandment : "honor your father and mother". It means honor the
single, incarnated sexual duality of male and female;
the idea of fatherhood, "Patria" from
"patres" (the vertical standing towards an ideal goal, making
mankind be more than human)
the idea of motherhood, "Matria" from
"matres", our duty with our local birth place, earth and nature
(in shamirian terms, the Holy Virgin, the concrete ground where
our feet look for roots, the horizontal line)
the need to unite Patria and Matria, because
it is the only way to reproduce mankind, as any living being,
and to create anything (in African, Christian and other
traditional religions, the ultimate sense of the Cross).
Here we have the logic of tradition and local
common sense reconciled with the logic of secular, open
societies; modern thought must be able to recognize and make
real our duty about our land, our local, individual and
collective "property" , that should rather be called: the
native context we must serve, feeling we belong to it.
So, collective, national, local, ground
duties can balance universal rights, and undo the evil hybris at
work about them. All the same, religious traditional sense of
charity as a duty in the traditional thought balanced the old,
primary right of autochthonous people to "own" and rule in their
country, and enslave other dwellers.
Alas, returning to small local units is not
possible anymore, nor is it possible to go backwards about
collective rights. "Defense of national identity" is a wrong
name: the scale changes, the ethnic identity too, the claims of
national will change also; but the duty with our local context
remains.
For example, not one woman who once gets free
from the danger of being raped, murdered, repudiated and beaten
in a traditional society would resign her human rights, and go
back to the old slavery of marriage, as the law established by
males in order to control the production of new human beings.
But any woman is able to learn and accept that her duty with her
national home, or homeland, is to keep it clean and flourished
as her family house, and full of sane children able to respect
their fathers. Feminism was considered as a big danger once upon
a time, but civil rights for women didn't make western societies
collapse, because feminism has its natural limit in the great
majority of women because they will never use their modern
rights just to make a world full of useless inflatable dolls,
terrorists, lonesome lesbians, or whores open to all men; they
still look for one single ideal husband, they still strive to
make sane minded children, and vote for strong long-lasting
institutions.
For Blacks and all kind of immigrants, it is
the same : their right to a full human condition must be
respected, even when it means some sacrifices for the natives,
and at the same time they must pay allegiance to the place and
the tradition where they live in : they must get deeply rooted
in the local landscape. Double nationality, that allows so many
people to be unfair with the place where they live, should be
abolished. At present, it is mostly a world privilege for Jews
and wealthy people.
We can understand the H narrative as an
excess of implementation of the sense of Human rights recently
given to Jews in European history, because Jews still appear to
feel and react as if they were the untouchables, outcast
of European societies, as it was once upon a time; so, as
nouveaux riches, they made an abuse of the new toy they were
good at playing with, namely citizenship.
Jews found access to full human rights by two
means; their own struggle and will on the one side, and the
French Revolution and Napoleon's interest on the other, because
both the Revolution and Bonaparte needed the French Jews not to
betray them, as any ambitious power need his bankers help
loyally.
Anyone is allowed to dream about turning back
to village scale societies, but it doesn't help much on real
ground, where nobody will agree to resign any universal human
right. Probably in some way, there is not much to be invented,
we can just enforce duties, because duty makes sense only as
local concrete action, starting from the place where we live and
vote.
Ernest Partridge [3] wrote in 1990 about the
rights of the future generations, following Feinberg's defense
of The rights of animals and unborn generations, and in
David Thoreau's line. Obviously, it is inhuman not to sacrifice
our individual present comfort for the collective future. When
Africans ask for a whole rehabilitation of the global African
first civilization, revision of their colonial history and
reparation about the past, they are taking us back to another
very religious point : duties with our ancestors, all of them,
for all of us.
Shamir, as the brightest writer of our times,
knows how to take back into the solid traditional experience our
taste for inventing new concepts. He is disturbing because he
points out the Jewishness in any sophistic and cynical modern
discourse. He has the right to do so because he belongs to a
very strong Jewish culture; recently he paid tribute to our
genuine and generous philosemitism, accepting that "Jews don't
have the copyright on nastiness". We have the duty to listen to
him because we Western people all belong to Judeo-Christianity.
But for any former colonized, there is no substantial difference
between Judaism and Christianity, they are just an ideological
double-face mask of western non-right of conquest and
oppression. With this outlook, we should use Shamir's method,
rediscover the need of pan-religious traditional duties, and
make them effective against the sophistics of unlimited new
rights in modern secularized world without fear of the "dark
others".
[1] Claude Ribbe (www.clauderibbe.com
), COFFAD, MNH, ARMADA; after Doudou Dične, now the Caribbean
writer Raphael Confiant (from Martinique) is being attacked in
the main stream press as "anti-Semite"; not surprisingly, he is
absolutely antizionist, as all honest Blacks are.
[2] http://www.continentpremier.info/
[3] Upstream / Downstream : Issues in
Environmental Ethics, ed. D. Scherer, Temple University Press,
1990
Maria Poumier is a retired University
professor and translator and a member of Tlaxcala, the network
fro translators for linguistic diversity. She is active with the
Association Entre la Plume et l'Enclume (Between the Feather and
the Anvil) against censorship (the name of the Association is a
joke basing on he expression Entre l'enclume et le marteau,
Between the anvil and the hammer =
between the devil and
the deep blue sea). Please see
http://www.plmenclume.net
__._,_.___
[1] Here is a
very important, fundamental essay by our friend Maria
Poumier, one of the deep thinkers of modern France. She
prepared it to be published by a leftist group called
Tlaxcala, and it was advertised as an event due to cause
a great debate. Our friend Fausto Guidice felt its value
when he wrote to us:
From Fausto:
Dear Friends ! I send you an
article by Maria Poumier, which should open - or reopen
- a huge debate. I would like to ask you to write a
reply. When we got your replies, we will publish the
entire debate on the Tlaxcala site and propose it to
other sites, first of all Axis of Logic. It could also
be published on your own sites and disseminated in the
discussion groups you are members of. I must add that
this debate would even be translated in different
languages by Tlaxcala.
But Fausto was immediately slapped
by a local overseer, Manuel Talens:
Manuel to Fausto:
Your proposition to involve a
range of authors would not be a problem if not for the
matter that the subject of the paper is Shamir and one
of the commenters invited was Shamir. As you well know
the policy in vigour on Tlaxcala is that due to the
result of an internal vote, we have decided that we do
not treat texts by or about him. At the very least,
involving first Tlaxcala's Board of Directors with the
initiative is mandatory. Of course, either you or Maria
could do it on your own, but not under Tlaxcala's tag.
Manuel Talens observes and imposes
the Judaic Herem (boycott and excommunication) ruling
under which an escapee from Judaism who proclaims Christ
should be hunted down and his name should be blotted
out, never to be mentioned for good or bad. And Maria's
essay indeed mentions Shamir's name. Before I embraced
Christ, Manuel translated my writing, now he persecutes
me, but this was to be expected. But on this list, we
are free from Judaic gag orders, and we may debate the
interesting essay of Maria Poumier without Manuel's
consent.
|