The Human Rights Fraud

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 12:55.

by Dr Tom Sunic

No verbal construct is so powerful and disarms so fully its critics as the expression “human rights.” Ever since the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, not a single government on Earth and not a single freedom loving academic has ever shunned this expression when raving about world improvement, or when wishing to improve his own lot. And yet, since the adoption of this human rights clause there has been a blatant increase in the violation of human rights.

The answer to that is simple and does not represent a contradiction in terms. The lexical construct “human rights” is the most expedient tool for covering up abuses against specific rights of people. Today it has become a badge of honor for liberal plutocracy and its left-leaning scribes in search of a moral alibi for their military adventures or for their media mendacity. Upon closer grammatical scrutiny the lexical acrobatics of the “human rights” expression denote an abstract legal field that lends itself to a myriad of different definitions. Its generic nature precludes concrete rights of a given people, a nation, a race, a tribe, or a social group. The expression “human rights” is custom-designed for an uprooted and nameless individual or a dumbed-down consumer with no historical memory, and oblivious of his race and culture. It is a self-serving expression with different meanings in different social and historical contexts. For a Palestinian fellah living in a refugee camp on the West Bank, human rights have a different meaning from that of a neighboring Jewish-American settler whose long-distant cousins disappeared in Europe during World War II. For a Serb peasant human rights have one meaning; for a neighboring Albanian farmer yet another. For a DC pundit or a politician, human rights have a different resonance than for a poor white Oklahoma farmer who has been downsized, outsourced, or who has lost his job to illegal immigrants.

The ideology of human rights is particularly well embedded in American legal practice. Its French replica les droits de l’homme (the “rights of man”) would, if it were to be used now in the USA, render many feminists and bi-sexuals delirious. The American founding father Thomas Paine would likely be sued today for his work The Rights of Man, as his noun “man” smacks of a macho all-white society. Thus, this time around, Paine’s “man” would be castrated from his virile significance and replaced by the sexless if not transvestite adjective “human.” The Germans seem to be luckier as their compound noun “Menschenrechte” comes closer to the English human rights expression. Or, at least, so it was meant after the process of denazification, which was largely spurred by the Jewish-American Frankfurt School re-educators in post-war Germany.

Many authors have argued that human rights are basically of that Biblical origin whose secular offshoots make up the cornerstone of modern liberal democracy. When examined closer, the ideology of human rights appears to be the most racist and the most exclusive belief, causing countless disasters and immeasurable disappointments. By its very nature the ideology of human rights posits that all people are equal—and therefore expendable. Its message conveys the illusion that every human being on Earth can and must be rich and handsome, and that he can change his social roles at will. Alas, a furtive look shows that people are not born equal - neither in their physique, nor in their genetic make-up! Somebody carries criminal chromosomes, which makes him a prime case for a future serial killer. Somebody is born with dolichocephalic face and a round shaped occiput, as is the case with many Europeans; somebody has a sloped forehead on his quasi Neanderthal skull. Somebody’s IQ shoots up to 150; somebody is a half-wit, more of a liability to his society than an asset to it. When put to practice in a multicultural society the dogma of human rights inevitably leads to social polarization, tensions and consequently to civil wars.

Particularly barbaric is the dogma of human right during the state of war. Why? Let us pose a rhetorical question. What happens to individuals and people who are declared outside the category of “human beings”, as was the case with German civilians during World War II? No need for wild guesses. Labeled monsters and beasts by the Allies, Germans could do enter into the safe zone of human rights. Beasts and monsters must be obliterated, their cities phosphorized, their cultural heritage from Monte Cassino to Berlin museums must be targeted as an ultimate symbol of evil.

On the academic level the same exclusionary schema applies. An academic or a free thinker showing doubts about the paradigm of human rights is immediately declared a “right-winger,” and by analogy a crank, a kook, a weirdo - a pathological case not worthy of any human rights. He is an alien who needs a psychiatric asylum at worst, or be submitted to “ethnic sensitivity training” at best. How on earth can a “Nazi” and, by lexical extension, his cousin “anti-Semite,” be viewed as a human being? He must be shut up for good.

The flip-side of “human rights” is another lexical barbarism, notably the new expression “hate speech”, whose semantic elasticity makes a criminal of whosoever dares to challenge modern liberal mythology. The constant proliferation of such meaningless normative locutions serves as a shield for the liberal system, which similar to the ex-Soviet Union, carefully hides its totalitarian character. Eventually it will be destroyed by the very same masters of discourse who initiated this lexical and legal palaver.

Dr Tom Sunic is an author and translator. His latest book, prefaced by Kevin Mac Donald, is Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by calvin on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:34 | #

Human rights is a system that awards privileges according to status (Human) irespective of behaviour. In essence extending legal privileges on the basis of humanity is in no way different than extending legal priviliges on the basis of affluence, race, or any other status marker. Human Rights places limitations on response in a situation in which there are no limitations on behaviour.

Human Rights is an example of “labelling theory”. The common law of England already protects Human Rights, however, by calling a sweeping alteration of the national code “Human Rights”, unelected internationalists are able to suggest that the English common law is failing. This is simply a covert attack on the British legal system.

No fair person can accept a legal system that limits punishment on the basis of status.

Posted by zusammen on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:13 | #

Modern society social policy intentionally denies the significance of distinctiveness between individuals, groups and cultures. The clear result is unending conflicts between individuals, groups and cultures. These conflicts are attributed to the theory of Social Darwinism, a process by which the most popular or wealthy individual, group or culture justifies its merit. With deceit and theft readily available, virtue is unnecessary for popularity and wealth to grow. Thus, the illusion of whom we judge are best among us may very well be in reality the worst our species has to offer.

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:19 | #

Calvin;

“Human Rights places limitations on response in a situtation in which there are not limitations on behaviour.”

Of course this runs contrary to English common law. Such as defense of territory, defense of person.

The “unelected-internationalists” have deceitfully attempted to render us defenceless by abrogating our basic rights, set down over centuries of struggle and enshrined in English common law.

There is no other conclusion to be made, the “Human Rights” of the UN is outside of the common law, hence; ‘Ubotamadr,(ON.) Permanent Outlawry.
So those that uphold the UN “Human Rights”, should be considered lawless and in a state of Permanent Outlawry.

Posted by Old Raven on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:02 | #

torgrim; agreed! “outside of common law, hence Ubotamadr….in a state of Permanent Oulawry”. So ... what do we do with (to?) them? The courts themselves are owned and operated by the same group/s. What recourse do you suggest?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:00 | #

“What recourse do you suggest?” (—Old Raven)

First, to become aware. As more and more become aware the rest will fall into place in due course. Oh and, uhhh ... remember. Our oppressors know who they are. Let us remember their names. Let that scare them.

Posted by A.N.Onymous on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:32 | #

Dumb as shit.

What part of “all men are born equal” don’t you understand, fuckwit?

Germans were treated as non-humans by Allies. Sure, go ahead and tell that to the millions of Jews who were killed by nice, organized, disciplined Nazi Germans.

Oh, but you probably don’t believe in the Holocaust, I suppose? Stupid Fuck.

OK, go tell that to the thousands of people who were killed in Coventry in 1940.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:05 | #

“What part of ‘all men are born equal’ don’t you understand, fuckwit?” (—A.N. Onymous aka “Big Mouth”)

The whole thing. It’s an unintelligible sentence, frankly.

In regard to the ©Holocau$t®™, if it’s well-documented and certain, why do they put people in jail for asking questions about it? Why is it the new Gessler’s hat?

On the other hand, three XXth-Century Eurosphere holocausts are well-documented: the Holodomor of 1932-3, the massacres/enslavements en masse of the surrendered, disarmed German army together with the pre-planned genocidal civilian Prussian-German land clearances of 1945-7 and beyond, and the genocidal Eurospherewide forced race-replacement project currently underway which began in the post-war period.

Jews were/are the prime movers of all three.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16 | #

Oops! Make that four (left out the Armenian holocaust).

And ditto.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:29 | #

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=944

If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look to more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political errors. The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is that “all men are born free and equal.” [Quoted from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.—BRT] I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be entrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.

Taking the proposition literally (it is in that sense it is understood), there is not a word of truth in it. It begins with “all men are born,” which is utterly untrue. Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men. And concludes with asserting that they are born “free and equal,” which is not less false. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom, being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents and remain so among all people, savage and civilized until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves. They grow to all the freedom of which the condition in which they were born permits, by growing to be men. Nor is it less false that they are born “equal.” They are not so in any sense in which it can be regarded; and thus, as I have asserted, there is not a word of truth in the whole proposition, as expressed and generally understood.

If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition (that “all men are born free and equal”) differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that “all men are created equal.” The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal.

- John Caldwell Calhoun, 1848

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:57 | #

John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis: two of the greatest men and greatest political thinkers the United States has ever produced. The all-around greatest American who ever lived was Gen. Robert E. Lee, followed closely by his kinsman-by-marriage, George Washington.

Posted by torgrim on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:10 | #

Old Raven;

“what course do you suggest?”

Just becoming aware, as Fred suggests, is a major part of our problem.

We are in this mess, because our laws have been abrogated.
With the disasters of the 20th Century, the genocide, the kin wars, most can be traced to lawlessness.

With the genius of the Internet, (and we owe alot to those that developed it), the average person has a chance to learn, to educate, to be informed, like no other time in the past. The hope is we do not decend further into barbarism.

Posted by torgrim on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:16 | #

correction;

Ubotamadr-(ONW.) Old Norwegian
Decend -Descend

Posted by calvin on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:08 | #

“What part of “all men are born equal” don’t you understand, fuckwit?”

Yes! That’s a fair point, it’s what they choose to do after birth that makes them unequal, like, if someone has chosen to embark upon a career of serial rape, he doesn’t have the same rights as someone who is a plumber or a taxidriver, dumbfuck!

Posted by John on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:25 | #

Another piece of Orwellian globalist language that really pisses me off is the word “governance”. I believe they adopted this atrocious word because it doesn’t specify an agent or implies there exists none. “Government” is only partly abstract. The word points, ultimately, at least partly, to people. Appointed officials and judges. Elected representatives and executives. It is possible (at least in theory) to “throw the bums out”, to change the government. You can’t change governance. It is something that happens to you that the way they define it, you have no real choice over.

Posted by Danielle on Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:04 | #

Natural rights means that one is born with certain rights and no man, or government can say otherwise. The UN “human rights” is a joke. The UN is a collectivist organization that defines rights as what the man-made law is written. Thus they can decide what rights you ahve and they can take them away. Your peice here fails to distinguish between the written UN mandates of so-called human rights, and natural rights.

If we sit around and place people in groups all the time instead of evaluating them for being an individual, with unique characteristics and dynamics we will further seperate society and allow the state to take away more and more of our natural rights.

Posted by akela on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:51 | #

I’d be interested to see some substance here: let’s begin with how those promoting and endorsing ‘Human Rights’ define them as compared to how those claiming to suffer under the ‘Human Rights’ feel about same. Then let’s look at how they’re applied. Real world laws, policies, and specific effects and people please.

People who post at MR know they labour under the label ‘prejudiced’ so they ought to offer better than average levels of supporting evidence; offering none is ridiculous.

At present this thread is a ‘fraud’. It pretends to say something.

Posted by S&A on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:28 | #

Danielle wrote…
“Natural rights means that one is born
with certain rights and no man, or government
can say otherwise.”

There is one “natural” right that every living creature is born with.

The right to fight for survival.

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:13 | #

akela;

“Real world laws,policies, and specific effects and people please.”

How about the US immigration law for real world law? The ‘Human Rights’ people claim that it is their right to ignore US law. US law, in the matter of immigration stems from the right of US citizens to be secure in their homes, (nation).

Specific effects and people; how about 12 to 20 million + ,migrants affecting the indigenous people of the US?

Let me explain, highways that were not planned for this massive increase in traffic or the major water transfer systems, how about schools, hospitals? Getting the picture?

Policies, changed in the dark of night, at least they were never discussed publically, that are now Public Policy, designed by leftist professors and with help of the monopolistic media, never reviewed or discussed.

Mostly the ‘Human Rights’ public policies were enacted through statutory law and in my opinion and others, violates many of our Constitutional Rights. Such as, territory, personal safety, taxation without representation, to name a few.

Those that claim it is their right to cross a National Border and break law with the falacious argument that it is a ‘Human Right’ to be unimpeded to travel, whereever, is just that falacious!

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:22 | #

akela;

“at present this thread is a ‘fraud’. It pretends to say something.”

Either you have not been reading this blog very long or you are one of those that have benefited from the ‘Human Rights’ fraud and have not the perspective of one that has been dispossed of his homeland.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:18 | #

Friedrich Braun has published an excerpt from Prof. Sunic’s latest book, Homo Americanus. The excerpt Friedrich has selected makes incredibly good reading.

I’m ordering this book.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:33 | #

Don’t forget when ordering books to always do it by going to the Vdare.com home page, scrolling down the left-hand margin just a bit till you come to the Amazon.com link (a little yellow-and-orange rectangular box that says, amazon.com Books!), and entering Amazon through that link. Books ordered through that link will result in a small percentage going to Vdare.com at absolutely no additional cost to you.

Posted by sambob on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:46 | #

if found suspected of fraud do i have rights to know all the investigation process??

Posted by Dave on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:17 | #

‘Rights’ were fabricated to give the illusion people were getting something and that it would protect them. But as the article mentions, rights are taken from people all the time.

What people really have is ‘free will’ to do as they please until tyranny decides otherwise.