Byron wrote:

The death of the Jews is
> terrible but their co-opting this tragedy as if it was the only
> destruction of non-military humankind and nobody else's, is
deceptive
> at best.

dave writes:

After reading this and re-reading it, and looking at Byron's response
to my challenge to him on it, for myself at least I must conclude
that Byron's remarks are as a result of a pervasive antisemitism that
exists in pockets on the left, that some people on the left
apparently think is OK simply becuase they are leftists.

Not OK.

dave searles

>
> --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "bddanel" <bddanel@> wrote:
> >
> > David:
> >
> > About a year ago there was a poster on the WSM that claimed that
> the Holocaust was generally understood to be not only 5 to 6
million
> murdered Jews, but included "the others"--the others actually being
> at least 5 maybe 9 million. I pointed out that most of the general
> population has no knowledge of the extent of non-Jewish slaughter.
A
> number just as egregious as the murder of the Jews! The extant
> opinion is that Hitler only concentrated on murdering Jews! The
> focus on Jewish slaughter leaves one with the impression that the
> real reason for the rise of Nazism was anti-Semitism which
> overshadows all other reasons for its inauguration. As Gregory
> Meyerson and Michael Joseph Roberto noted in a recent issue of
> Monthly Review, fascism is a moving target, i.e., don't expect the
> same trappings that installed fascism in the 30's to be the same as
> today. I would add that Bush and Co. seem quite comfortable
> installing blacks in their cabinet and the Supreme Court--something
> that past fascists would be aghast to do.
> >
> > I too would shed no tears about a theoretical silencing of the
> Holocaust deniers, but I also realize that this would open up the
> possibility of declaring socialism as a false philosophy and lead
to
> our own demise. My reference of deception is the relative silence
> about all of he non-Jews that Hitler also killed--a posture
> constantly promoted by the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S.
> legislature. A brief review of the Internet seems to corroborate
my
> stance in this matter. From "Five Million Forgotten"
> http://www.remember.org/forgotten/ we have:
> >
> > "It was only after I moved to the Los Angeles area several years
> ago that I realized that many people were not aware that millions
of
> victims of the Holocaust were not Jewish. Outside the Polish
> community, I heard very little mention about the five million non-
> Jewish victims -- usually referred to as 'the others.'
> >
> > "Whenever I would say that my parents were survivors of the
> Holocaust, people would look at me oddly and say, "Oh, I didn't
know
> you were Jewish?" The impression I got was that people were not
aware
> of any other Holocaust victims except Jews.
> >
> > Byron
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Searles
> > To: worldincommon@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:46 PM
> > Subject: [worldincommon] Re: Defending the Right to Deny the
> Holocaust?
> >
> >
> > Byron - This thread started with the question as posed by Robin
I
> > believe, asking what our position is or should be towards
states
> that
> > outlaw holocaust denial, what we should do do defend the
denier's
> > supposed right to free speech. I have been very clear that my
> > position is that there is no such right to deny the holocaust,
> that
> > there is no such right to free speech, that the so called right
> to
> > vote is illusory, and beyond that, if some state locked up
every
> > holocaust denier except for the certifiably crazy it wouldn't
> bother
> > me one bit.
> >
> > Byron also wrote:
> >
> > The death of the Jews is terrible but their co-opting this
> tragedy as
> > if it was the only destruction of non-military humankind and
> nobody
> > else's, is deceptive at best.
> >
> > dave answers - those co-optive deceiving at best Jews - boy do
> they
> > have everyone fooled.
> >
> > Byron, perhaps you could cite specific examples of
> this "deceptive at
> > best" behaviour.
> >
> > I was just reading the remarks of Harvey Meyerhoff, Chairman of
> the
> > United States Holocaust Memorial Council at the dedication of
the
> > holocaust museum. He was really being "deceptive at best"
wasn't
> he
> > Byron!!!
> >
> > ***************
> > This building tells the story of events that human eyes should
> never
> > have seen even once; but having been seen, must never be
> forgotten.
> > Through this Museum, our eyes will always see; our hearts will
> always
> > feel.
> >
> > But it is not sufficient to remember the past, we must learn
from
> it.
> >
> > The story of the Holocaust is not simply a story about the evil
> > people did to people: the unspeakable acts perpetrated by the
> Nazis
> > upon six million Jews, and millions of others -- Poles,
Gypsies,
> > Soviet prisoners of war, homosexuals, the handicapped and
> political
> > and religious dissidents.
> > ****************
> >
> > dave searles
> >
> > --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "bddanel" <bddanel@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > David:
> > >
> > > But under capitalism how do you insure that people cannot
deny
> the
> > holocaust? By allowing a dishonest state to issue the
punishment?
> > >
> > > The holocaust caused the deaths of 4.5 million to 6 million
> Jews.
> > Usually unmentioned, but of equal importance, are the 9 million
> non-
> > jews (also enemies of Nazism) that Hitler also murdered. I am
not
> > referring to military causalities here. The death of the Jews
is
> > terrible but their co-opting this tragedy as if it was the only
> > destruction of non-military humankind and nobody else's, is
> deceptive
> > at best.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, in Canada it is unlawful to deny the Holocaust.
I
> am
> > surprised that Trevor didn't mention this.
> > >
> > > Byron
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: David Searles
> > > To: worldincommon@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:35 AM
> > > Subject: [worldincommon] Re: Defending the Right to Deny the
> > Holocaust?
> > >
> > >
> > > Legislation grants the franchise to vote in elections for
> certain
> > > offices in the political government. In a few limited cases
> > > legislation also extends that franchise to elections directly
> > upon
> > > certain questions. And for example the franchise is
> automatically
> > > withdrawn for life in practically all instances upon simple
> > > conviction of a felony.
> > >
> > > I have no rights here. I am perhaps afforded a degree of
> freedom
> > of
> > > movement within capitalism but I am a slave.
> > >
> > > Freedom of speech? Freedom to elect? Workers have a say?
> Workers
> > > decide?
> > >
> > > No, comrade, not where I live.
> > >
> > > In the 30s and 40s Nazi capitalism/colonialism simply
murdered
> 2
> > out
> > > of 3 Jews living in Europe and left practically all of the
> > survivors
> > > homeless and uprooted from centuries of settlement. And some
> > people
> > > want to DENY that happened.
> > >
> > > And somehow by some construct you want me to believe that
> somehow
> > the
> > > lot of workers my would be improved if I agree that they
should
> > be
> > > able to deny that happened?
> > >
> > > And if the state for some reason decides to throw them in
jail
> > for
> > > their denial, I should complain about it?
> > >
> > > No. I will not complain, except I will work to overthrow the
> > > capitalism that breads Nazism and engenders state, but in NO
> way
> > will
> > > I agree that anyone may deny that the Nazi holocaust did
occur.
> > >
> > > Dave Searles
> > >
> > > --- In worldincommon@yahoogroups.com, "robbo203" <RRobincox@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dave
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >It is a terrible piece of work and not even
> > > > > > well written, and it certainly preaches hatred, but I
> > defied
> > > the
> > > > > >law to
> > > > > > decide for myself. All persons should have such a right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I see such "right" as only a bourgeois construct,
> the
> > > > workers
> > > > > have no have no rights here.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is all getting a little confusing. It depends
on
> > what
> > > > you mean by a "right". There are different ways of
> > interpereting
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > For example if I said to you that workers have the right to
> > vote in
> > > a
> > > > country like the US or the UK, would you deny it? Surely
not.
> > So
> > > > there is such a thing as a "right to vote" and it is not
just
> a
> > > > bourgeois construct (by which I take you mean it only
exists
> in
> > > the
> > > > ideological thought processes of the bourgeois partisans)
but
> > is
> > > > actually an indisputable institutional reality in these
parts
> > of
> > > the
> > > > world
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, if I said that the people of Darfur have
> the
> > > right
> > > > to live in peace and not be terrorised by roving gangs of
> armed
> > > > killers you might respond that the only dictum that
> capitalism
> > > > recognises is that might is right; any other notion of
right
> is
> > > mere
> > > > waffle. While it might well be the case that under
capitalism
> > > might
> > > > is right I dont think it follows that it is meaningless to
> talk
> > of
> > > > the rights of those who lack might - the disempowered.
Rights
> > in
> > > > this sense is a coded moral statement. It is about what
ought
> > to
> > > be
> > > > happening but isnt it
> > > >
> > > > I think the confusion over the word "rights" arises when
> people
> > > > conflate the capacity or ability do do something (as in "we
> > have
> > > the
> > > > right to vote") with the moral assertion that we should be
> able
> > to
> > > do
> > > > something but are denied this (as in "we have the right to
> live
> > in
> > > > peace"). The former is a legalistic paradigm of rights
which
> > > purports
> > > > to define "rights" as they actually exist. When you try to
> > > generalise
> > > > this paradigm and apply it to all aspects of social reality
> > then
> > > the
> > > > temptation is to conclude, on discovering that people are
> still
> > > > terrorised despite their "right" to live in peace, that all
> > this
> > > talk
> > > > of rights is just meaningless - or a bourgeois construct
> > > >
> > > > But it is not a bourgeois construct - or should I say it is
> not
> > > just
> > > > a bourgeois construct? But that does mean we need to be
> careful
> > > > about how we define the word right and in what sense we are
> > using it
> > > >
> > > > Robin
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>