Tuesday, September 29, 2009

"Human rights" against national rights

Our "old friend" Richard Goldstone has caused a lot of controversy with his latest "human rights" report about the Middle East. The Governement of Israel, as well as ordinary Israelis and Jews were first shocked and then livid, to say the least. Had they been paying attention to what has been going on in the world in the past decades, they wouldn't have been either. Goldstone and his report are just a logical consequence of the ideological shift that has been going on in our civilization, one that threatens it's very existence. Melanie Phillips provides a good explanation on what the "human rights" ideology has turned into:

...‘human rights’ has become an Orwellian synonym for an attack on human rights. It has become a judicial wrecking ball which is being deployed to shatter the fundamental principles of both western civilisation and national identity.

This is almost wholly obscured by the fact that it was western civilisation which produced the concept of human rights in the first place -- the sacredness of human life, the equality of all people, the seminal importance of freedom, law and justice – and declared these to be universal principles. That’s why ‘human rights’ lawyers protest that their doctrine cannot possibly constitute an attack on western civilisation, because it is rooted in that civilisation’s own foundational principles.

The crucial point, however, is that these were not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally. They derived from a particular set of religious ethics which gave rise to western civilisation -- principles promoted through Christianity but deriving from the Hebrew Bible. Without that Biblical moral underpinning, there can be no basis for freedom or equality or respect for life.

Phillips' claim that these are "culturally particular principles to be applied universally" is rather dubious, in my opinion, since they were never called as such. The UN has adopted "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in which it claims human rights stated within it as universal. It could have been that the authors had something different in mind, something aching to Phillips' assertion, and which would be far more sensible, but the wording of the declaration does not support that. Rather, it vindicates the position of Goldstone and his ilk. By formulating "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as such, we have sown the seeds of our destruction and we are now reaping it, as Melanie Phillips herself shows:

Arising from the contemporary cult of individuality which repudiates all external authority as unjustified constraints on self-actualisation, ‘human rights’ culture claimed that these ‘rights’ were indeed universal – principles that transcended all cultures and therefore laid claim to superseding them. It took the principle of ‘universality’ and radically dislocated it from the unique Biblical tradition from which such ethics had sprung. ‘Human rights’ thus became free-floating axioms, deriving from no higher authority than the vagaries of judicial assumptions, prejudices and whims.

In wrapping itself in the mantle of universality, ‘human rights’ culture became an explicit attack on the very notion of the particular. Religious tradition therefore was directly in its sights – particularly Christianity and the Hebrew Bible upon which it drew, even though these were the foundation of those rights. That’s why, for example, Christians are no longer allowed to uphold their belief that same–sex relationships are sinful; if they protest against same-sex adoptions, for example, on the grounds that a child has the right to a mother and a father figure, they are vilified as bigots and lose their professional position.

The rights of Christians count for nothing. As the beliefs of a particular, discrete tradition they are trumped by ‘universal rights’. And these are whatever 'human rights' lawyers deem them to be, through institutions such as' human rights' law or supra-national courts – such as the International Criminal Tribunals of which Judge Goldstone was such an ornament. This ‘transnational progressivism’ holds that the nation and the culture that made that nation must yield to the diktats of ‘universal’ principles – which are not universal at all but spring from the minds of western ‘human rights’ lawyers intent on promoting a secular agenda which kicks away all those tiresome Biblical constraints, to be replaced by their own formulae for controlling human behaviour.

Moreover, because ‘human rights’ is the legal engine of self-actualisation, it is also the legal engine of moral and cultural relativism – the doctrine that values are all subjective, that there can therefore be no hierarchy of values and that no culture can have superiority over any other culture. This turned ‘human rights’ into a battering ram against the very idea of a majority culture.

And if I may add, this, by extension, also turns the "human rights" ideology into a tool of the destruction of nation-states, national cultures and national and state rights as such since "majority culture" is but a product of the aforementioned concepts.

Melanie Phillips, however, does not offer a solution to this problem. Perhaps because it is much easier to state it then to actually do it. Let me start with the former: one must either reform or abolish altogether the UN human rights declaration.

And now, for the hard part...I'm sure that the very proposal might raise quite a few eyebrows. Non-western countries will propably dismiss this out of hand because on the surface it might look as if someone would try to remove the legal obstacle for conquest and re-colonization. However, if they look closely into recent history, they will find out that the Declaration, or some of it's stated principles, has, in fact, quite often been used as a pretext for an invasion of a sovereign country by the powers governed by the universalist transnational-progressivist ideology, all in the name of "universal human rights". Which brings me to my next point...

A far greater obstacle to the Declaration's reform will be, in fact, in the ruling establishment in the West. Not only were entire political and other careers forged around the so-called "human rights" industry in the US and Europe, but transnational progressivism has over the years, in fact, cleverly supplanted traditional societies there, leaving the impression that they always were the true representatives of the West. It will not give up it's position easily.

The conditio sine qua non of any Declaration reform is that such ideology as well as all of it's off-shoots in the form of "nation-building" and "spreading of democracy" are curtailed and marginalized and that their proponents are exposed and ostracized. Europe and America must do that for their own sake first. Only this can open the door to a Declaration more in the mould of Melanie Phillips' claim, one that will be applicable only to countries and peoples that wish to belong to a certain civilizational circle but which will simultaniousely forgo any universalist claims or pretends of expanding beyond it's realm or imposing itself on those who reject it. This will, in turn, create a much healthier and more sincere foundation in international relations, something that is sorely needed in these times.

"If we ever want to leave..."

Freelance columnist and reporter Diana West was present at a symposium discussing the war in Afganistan and how should America win it. Present there were the usual suspects, the nation-and -democracy-buliders, the conquerors of hearts and minds and the discussion was basicaly revolved around these cliches. Unsuprissingly, the participants were either ignorant or dismissive about the history an present day reality of Afganistan, avoided mentioning the "I" word like the plague and simultaniousely completely entrenched in their belief that "every human beings desire for freedom and democracy" overcomes all obstacles. Yet, even such tedious gatherings produce something for the ages, such as this assertion from John Nagl, co-author of the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual and fellow of the Center for a New American Security:

"If we ever want to leave, we have to build an Afghan government that can accomplish those goals (of good government) on its own."

There was a joke about the late Yugoslav leader Tito that went like this:

Q:"How does Tito's last will and testament begin?"
A:"If I ever die..."

Reality is at times more comical then jokes, or in the case of US involvement in Afganistan, tragicomical.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

It's not about rights, it never was

Thankfully, Serbia has been spared the so-called "gay pride" event. All the brainwashing coming from the NGO sector, the media and governement officials had the opposite effect on the public, already vastly opposed to the gay agenda. Not only football fans and memebers of patriotic organizations but also ordinary people were in fact galvanized into opposition to this shameful occurence.

However, a golden opportunity was missed to expose the gay agenda, it's goals and the people who stood behind the "gay rights" organizations in Serbia, an opportunity that might not present itself again.

The phrase "gay rights" is highly misleading in the first place. Nobody ever asked them what rights guaranteed by the consitution of Serbia were they denied exactly. Political rights? They have the right to vote and be voted into office. A right to life, to have free sexual relations with whom they please? Again, nobody denies them that. Their right to work, right to legal protection, right to health-care(Serbian constitution gurantees that right, whether health-care is a "right" or not, is another story) are all protected. They claim they can not get married. They can, but with the person of opposite sex. They also complain that they are not allowed to adopt children. Well, I have news for them: adoption is not a constitutional right but a privilege. And finally, they claim they can not express their sexual orientation freely. So which governement organ or agency is impeding them from doing that? None whatsoever.

So what is this all about? Well gay activists themselves are letting the cat out of the bag as soon as any serious discussion about what really bothers them gains some momentum. Very soon they begin to complain and whinge how they have to deal with scornful remarks on the streets and mockery, how "gay" is still a dirty word etc. They pretty much start resembling children complaining about the teasing they get in the schoolyard during the break. They claim it is tormenting them and they want it to stop.

But gays' own chief argument about homosexuality being a choice in fact vindicate those who scorn them. We can all agree that animosity towards someone because of something one can not choose, such as race and ethnicity, is reprehensible. But if belonging to a certain group is a matter of choice then it is concievable that many people, as well as the society as a whole will not approve of such a choice and that they might voice such disapproval in one way or the other. It is a natural right. But gay activists want such vocal dissaproval to stop, one way or the other and are ready to go as far as destroying the traditional society of a nation in order to achieve this. So who is in fact curtailng whose rights here?

In the case of Serbia, there is an additional factor to weigh in. Gay activists in Serbia, whether consciously or not, found themselves on the same task of destroying the traditional Serbian society that transnational progresivist governements and institutions have been trying to accomplish in the past 9 years. Thus the opposition to "gay pride" got an additional dimension in the defense of nationhood. There is no better evidence of that then various EU institutions and ambassadors of EU countries expressing their disappointment that the gay manifestation did not take place.

"Gay pride" was a litmus-test of how far the annihilation of the remains of the traditional Serbian society has gone. Had it succeeded, additional demands for the introduction of other post-modernist multi-culti measures aimed at dismantling of everything that makes Serbs Serbs would have followed suit. Fortunately, it turned out there is still a healthy core in the nation ready and unashamed to express their will to defend their heritage. I doubt, however, it will be tha last time they will be called upon to do that.

Friday, September 18, 2009

It's not as if the blogosphere does not have it's fair share

Gray Falcon explained why, in spite of his writing prowess, never went into journalistic business. And the example he provided is just the pick of the bunch.

However, the realm of superficiality, ignorance and pure, downright malice is not contained within the fields of mainstream journalism. The blogosphere has it's pearls of wisdom as well, like the opening of this piece that goes like this:

In 1939, Hitler sold out Poland.

You have to stop reading right there, if you have any decency and common sense, really.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Well, so much for the post-racial era..

Over the years the word "racist" has been misused to the point where it has been reduced to a mere label against anyone who opposes the liberal-progressive agenda. And just when you think it is consigned to the dustheap of over-used canards, somebody manages to retrieve it.

Lately, it is the unhinged Obamaniacs who, in absence of sound arguments, pulled the race card from their sleeve. Apparently, it is now enough to simply say that somebody is lying and it's open season on you declared by a variety of race-hustlers and demagogues with aid and comfort given to them by the sycophantic mainstream media.

Far from ushering a "post-racial" world, the election of Obama has brought in a revival of racially charged political rhetoric in the USA not seen or heard since George Wallace. And it is coming from Obama supporters, which was expected in a way, because deep down even they are aware of the lack of substance that is the Obama administration. So to compensate, and/or keep the focus away from that fact, they resort to heated, emotional ethno-racially charged accusations.

Sound familiar? I thought so. Let's hope that the saying that history only repeats itself as a farce is true.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Are you quite sure it was off the record?

Kanye West's outburst caught attention of the Obamessiah himself, as he, allegedly off-the-record, remarked that West behaved like a "jackass".

Let us disregard for a moment that Obama was chanelling Captain Obvious there and the banality of the President of the USA commenting on what is a celebrity incident and ask whether he really meant the remark to be private. After the fiasco of the "Gates affair" where he managed to allianate not only every cop in the country regardless of race(who said Obama is not a uniter) but also a large portion of people who voted for him, Obama needed something to patch up the image of someone who transcends race and the Kanye West incident was a tailor-made occasion(pun unintentional): a black artists steals the stage from a white one in order to support a fellow black, gets widely condemned and in comes the Annointed One to offer his perspective, this time siding with the white girl to show everyone just how righteous he is. I wonder if there are going to be any beer summits over this on the White House lawn any time soon?

American economy may be tanking, unemployment is on a record level, hundreds of thousands are protesting in Washington, Afganistan is a mess but Obama has his priorities in order, as we can see. What was that about the people having the leader they deserve? It sure does apply to America which propably has irretrievably sunk into triviality and shallowness. Then again, I'm not sure I'm the one who should offer lessons on that.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

We are all dispensable to them

Lawrence Auster from the blog View from the Right gives us a column from Mark Steyn in which the latter gives the lowlights of the sycophancy-fest that was the coverage of Ted Kennedy's death and funeral. Some of the things written there are just beyond belief. At least nazi and communist propagandists had the good taste to hide and deny the darker aspects of their rule.

And it wasn't just Mary Jo Kopechne that was dispensable, we all are...Anything for their imagined "greater good" to be achieved.