Blowback in the Human Rights Racket

Seldom in history has a subject been more abused than the human rights issue. A recent interview with a self-proclaimed human rights lawyer lays bare the extent of this racket. Needless to say that the subject of this post is not human rights, but their abuse by postmodern activist lawyers.

Wherever the terminally self-righteous find a cause to champion, first stop in the modus operandi is the establishment of a foundation. These institutes are funded by a global conglomerate of NGOs, which are in turn funded by Western tax payers. The established foundation hires self as a lawyer to take on the case in question.

The plaintiffs may or may not be aware of the proceedings going on their behalf. That they might have chosen to forget the trauma as soon as possible, is no consideration for the human rights zealots, who're smelling long-term secure remuneration, an ethically fool-proof repution and an outstanding international career. The victims are reduced to pawns and abused as tools.

The arsenal of the postmodern dialectic provides the most important weapons in this battle: the victims are always an unequal minority group in the role of the oppressed; the perpetrators invariably European or American white males representing the 'power structure', the oppressors, the aggressors.

The narrative is sanitized of any actions the victims might have taken to bring the alleged atrocity upon themselves; the actions of the alleged perpetrators on the other hand are stretched to the limit. This fundamental dishonesty is legitimized by the mechanism of the dialectic, the social justice - indeed, the moral duty - to compensate unequal 'groups' in equal proportion to their perceived inequality (please don't ask).

The violence tolerance level is reduced to zero, notwithstanding the ethical argument of the Responsibility to Protect. Any act of violence is condemned. Acts in self-defense or in the defense of others, retaliation or preemptive measures are no validations. UN peace keepers were sent into Bosnia with one white painted tank between them, so as "not to provoke the enemy".

The irrational madness of the mindset of the rights racketeers is underscored with present lawyer complaining about acts of war not being covered by insurance companies, part of their war on reality.

The next goal in the postmodern rights intifada is the production of jurisprudence on animal rights, targeted at the evil 'bio industry', and asylum seekers' rights, aimed at ending the immoral borders and national sovereignty.

- Caption: Fireworks in Nuremberg on June 4, 1650 Celebrating the Settlement of the Implementation of the Treaty of Westphalia in the Year 1648 (1650) -

Also on the program are war crimes committed by standing armies and UN blue helmets at the International Criminal Court. And don't think for a moment that they care a hoot that through their actions the cost of UN peace keeping operations, in terms of men and money, will rise to prohibitive levels, and may even come to a halt.

As far as that utter hypocrisy is concerned we may be in for a bit of lucky blow-back: it's peace keeping operations that are at the root of the UN's growing amorality and abandonment of the Westphalian principle of national sovereignty.

Related posts and articles

- "Richard Lamm on Multiculturalism"
- "May Day, Mayday! They're Deleting the Borders!"

Related dossiers

- "The Dialectics"
- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"
- "Transnational Bankruptcy"

The Newest World Order

Steven Martinovic on Enter Stage Right reviews Robert Kagan's latest book, "The Return of History and the End of Dreams;" the cover like "Of Paradise and Power" a work of art, the title a wink at Francis Fukuyama's new world order bestseller from a decade ago, "The End of History and the Last Man."

"Kagan argues that the short-lived era of nations competing with each other economically has once again given way to the old game of geopolitics – back to a world of clashing national interests. Instead of communism, liberal democracies have to deal with the threat of autocratic regimes – Russia and China primarily – who view the expansion of an international liberal order as aggression. Concern for democracy and human rights, the autocrats believe, threatens the old notion of Westphalian sovereignty. And while they don't export an ideology per se, autocracies export their example of strong central government combined with limitations of freedom – all to preserve "order" and continuation of power – to their client states."

Indeed, the retreat from Kantian teleological notions does not mean a farewell to Hegelianism in international affairs. The current cohort cannot be expected to be very responsive to calls to let go of the post-democratic ideals of world government.

Steven Groves on Spero News outlines U.N. plans to force autonomous nations (notably the U.S.) to go along with international interventionism, opposed to the principles of Westphalian sovereignty (or what's left of that). Just how far these post-democratic initiatives go is proved by the R2P pressure group made up of 'private citizens,' a supposedly grassroots movement but actually manned by an international intellectual elite. Let's put it this way: it's highly unlikely you'll find your grocer to be a card-carrying member. Read Groves and shiver over the banality of Byzantian intrigue in the corriders of global power at the expense of democratic principles!

In the neo-conservative context, which views the spread of democracy as the best answer to evil empires, Martinovic notes: "So how does the West deal with a new pragmatic autocracy – one which has kept the lid on political aspirations while still bringing a measure of material wealth – which doesn't fear organizations like NATO for its military power, as Kagan argued in a recent Washington Post essay – but rather the spread of democracy it represents?"

"Kagan's 21st Century agenda for democracies is one that largely draws from the Cold War years. He proposes an alliance of democracies like Canada, the U.S., Japan and India, among others, which would complement NATO and the United Nations. He argues that liberal nations need to continue promoting democracy for nations like Russia and China and to intervene to promote the same in the Middle East, even if that means assisting in the overthrow of regimes friendly to the United States."

"Critics will likely either praise or dismiss "The Return of History and the End of Dreams" as a "new" or more "realistic" neoconservatism, perhaps demonstrating that they never fully understood what that conservative strain's founders were really arguing. Regardless, what Kagan's latest truly represents is a clarion call to those who believe that it is possible to peacefully coexist with autocracies, that negotiation and trade are the only tools necessary to bring autocracies into the fold of democracy."

"If Kagan isn't convincing enough, perhaps the words of Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, will be. In an essay last year he argued that, "[F]or the first time in many years, a real competitive environment has emerged on the market of ideas for the future world order that are compatible with the present stage of global development" one that sees competition between different "value systems and development models." They don't sound like the words of someone open to accepting liberal democracy and human rights."

Lavrov's words give pause for thought and enquiry: what precisely is the value system and the development model prevailing in Russia today? Who knows is kindly requested to elaborate. On a scale of subjective totalitarianism we might rate it a post-Communist dysfunctional empire with a bent for personality worship, less virulent than Milosevic's fascistoid nationalism - but certainly not shades removed from post-democratic transnational progressivism.

Update:

Pajamas Media: "The Glenn and Helen Show: Robert Kagan" (audio file)

- Filed on Articles in "Transnational Progressivism" -