“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” ~ George Orwell
Generally, they who regard themselves the bravest of iconoclasts for breaking taboos break only those taboos which are most fashionably broken. But I herein take aim at a hallowed taboo of the taboo-breakers.
Here in Coeur d’Alene there is a term which frequents the headlines; its seemingly benign arrangement and its unanimously positive invocation by media, academia, and government imbues it with an air of legitimacy and moral authority. That term is “human rights.”
We even have our very own institute and a militaristically labeled “task force” dedicated to the esteemed concept. These social engineering entities exert no small influence upon our community and beyond by means of foundation money, quietly appropriated tax dollars, and sundry partisan sources, not least of which is the United Nations.
And though few ever actually read the articles of the universal declaration of human rights point for point, the social engineers have painstakingly woven its vernacular into the curricula of the government schools and government-accredited schools, which now catechize children from preschool to grad school with what the declaration itself describes as a new “faith” in the internationalist creed. But, as we’ve said, few ever garner any forensic knowledge thereof.
All of this raises the question — what precisely are human rights? And how do they differ from common law, constitutional, and God-given rights?
Well, among its more comical aspects, the preamble to the declaration describes “freedom from fear and want” as a fundamental and inalienable human right. And article 22 describes self-“realization” and “development of [one’s] personality” as human rights as well. How these can be conceived as political rights, the framers of the declaration do not disclose. Neither do they reveal any means by which such “rights” may be secured. And the reason is, of course, that it is all a lie. And a laughable lie at that. There are no such rights. For anyone. But as comical as it may be, it is also an ominous fact that in its promise of reprieve from fear and want, it speaks of things found only beyond the grave, and the promise of realization and personality are metaphysical matters subject to the jurisdictions of the Almighty alone.
Aside from such comedic digressions, however, the declaration also capitalizes on the vague, spinning a web of the most nebulous terms imaginable without any attempt at definition nor justification — terms like “social progress,” “better standards,” “larger freedom,” etc. which are left to the interpretive appetites of all supposedly aggrieved parties the world over. This is junk law with a vengeance.
But the central ethos, at least, is clear: it is a demand of absolute equality, that insidious principle which, from the French Revolution (otherwise known as the Reign of Terror) to the Bolshevik Revolution and beyond, has spawned more tumult and carnage than any other solitary concept. It is the modern Procrustean bed for which the short are stretched and the legs of the tall are amputated in order to achieve a uniform fit for all. The more consistently implemented, the fewer survive the austere ideal.
Amongst its more nefarious provisions, we read in article 2 that acknowledgement of “distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other social status,” is totally prohibited; meanwhile, contrary to the common law right of trial by jury of one’s peers, article 10 conjures a right of trial by unelected tribunal for “the determination of [one’s] rights,” and both articles 14 and 29 state plainly that discrimination is in fact perfectly legal when directed against those who are found politically, ethically or religiously “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” — which is to say that the declaration hypocritically lays aside its own first principle (that all human beings possess inalienable human rights) by denying human rights to those with whom its framers disagree politically, ethically, and religiously. Essentially, constitutionalists, Christians, patriots, and other traditionalists all lack any human rights. And since the declaration stipulates that all humans have human rights, this leads us to believe that its framers regard their aforementioned ideological opponents as less than human.
Beyond this, we must consider the implications of article 2 itself. Understand, if acknowledgement of “distinctions of any kind” is contrary to human rights, national citizenship is then rendered a crime against humanity. So is church membership. As would be the family and every other limited identity and association. All of this forbids what Americans have always taken to be the God-given right of free association. And more directly, its prohibition of “national or social origin, property, birth or other social status” actually seems to unabashedly outlaw the existence of Americans as such, and thereby, any notion of a sovereign American nation.
Article 12 prohibits not slander (the spreading of lies or unfounded rumors), but the disclosure of factual information which might tarnish the “honour or reputation” of another. That is to say, it is a prohibition against uncomfortable truths. Here before us is an early codification of political correctness in which the truth is deemed no defense, but a crime itself. In a word, outrageous.
And while article 21 states that “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” such an unqualified resolution would preclude traditional Christians and constitutionalists from taking part in the American government which they founded (or any government for that matter); while acknowledging the authority of government as mediated by “the will of the people,” we have ever maintained that it is ultimately justified by the triune God of nature. The human rights charter is then an open announcement of taxation without representation for all traditional Americans.
But, of course, article 1 starts from the beginning: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” These sentiments were forged in the fires of the French revolution: “liberte, egalite, and fraternite” was the battle cry of the Rousseauean revolt against civilization.
Here it is imperative that we recall the primary lesson drawn by Edmund Burke from the revolution in France — that equality destroys both liberty and fraternity. The three cannot coexist. Any attempt to implement them side by side necessarily leads to the blackest manifestations of tyranny and societal chaos.
The declaration goes on to effectively outlaw border control, grant illegal immigrants, felons, and children the vote, saddle all employers with a responsibility of paid holidays for all employees (think of paying your babysitter to go on vacation), resolves ostensibly to hold all children as serfs of the state, and declares government education compulsory. In article 26, it even defines the character of that compulsory education:
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations.
As noted at the beginning of this essay, the government-education complex teaches a witless subservience to human rights terminology — to every salivating dog, a bell — for the stated purpose of imbuing the populace with a reflexive faith in internationalism and world-government. For the U.S. to do otherwise is, according to the declaration, a crime against humanity.
And just in case they weren’t plain enough in article 26, article 28 is more elaborate:
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realized.
Isn’t that nice of them to inform us that all people have the right to live under their internationalist one-world government and that no one has any right not to?
All said and done, however, we find the universal declaration of human rights riddled with such grievous self-contradictions that we are compelled to take it as intentional on the part of its framers. They apparently organized the treatise so as to reserve to themselves the latitude to bring the most jack-booted measures against their ideological opponents on the flimsiest of contrivances, while granting absolute immunity to their fellow travelers when accused of the most heinous crimes. In short, it is a complete and utter sham. That’s why the last article of the document reads thus:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
…which is to say that we are forbidden the right to even object to the declaration or its provisions based upon any particular of their own internal inconsistencies, or logical and moral shortcomings, whether internal or external. The doctrine of human rights then amounts to a sophistic system of convoluted, arbitrary, and corrupt rule by international elites, and is, according to their own charter, inalterable and unquestionable. This is the nature of the new world order to which the American government, as a member state of the U.N., has pledged us: an absolutist world-wide tyranny.
The misanthropic concept of human rights has no rightful place in Coeur d’Alene, America, nor even the world. Human rights are inhuman.
Leftists, observe: that’s how to break a taboo.