Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Whenever I attack the concept of human rights, I always feel a bit lonely intellectually. Because as far as I know, no one else in the Counterjihad movement does this. Indeed, many Counterjihad activists, such as the EDL, SION, SIOE, explicitly describe themselves as human rights activists.

So, as I was working my way through Guillaume Faye's book "Why We Fight", I was pleased to discover that he had already reached the same conclusion long before. (The book is mostly arranged in alphabetical order like a glossary.) Here's his definition of "Human Rights".
The cornerstone of the modern ideology of progress and individualistic egalitarianism — and the basis upon which the thought police have been set up to destroy the people’s rights to exist as a people.

As a synthesis of Eighteenth-century political philosophy (often badly understood), human rights is the inescapable horizon of the dominant ideology. With anti-racism, it becomes the central reference point for all collective forms of mental conditioning, for ready-made thought, and for the paralysis of all revolt. Profoundly hypocritical, human rights ideology accommodates every form of social misery and justifies every form of oppression. It functions as a veritable secular religion. The ‘human’ in human rights is nothing but an abstraction, a consumer-client, an atom. It says everything that human rights ideology originated with the Conventionnels of the French Revolution, in imitation of American Puritans.

Human rights ideology has succeeded in legitimating itself on the basis of two historical impostures: that of charity and philanthropy — and that of freedom.

‘Humans’ (already a vague notion) possess no fixed or universal rights, only those bequeathed by their civilisation, by their tradition. Against human rights, it’s necessary to oppose two key ideas: that of the rights of a people to an identity and that of justice (which varies according to culture and presumes that all individuals are not equally praiseworthy). These two notions do not rest on the presumption of an abstract universal man, but rather on actual men, localised within their specific culture.

To criticise the secular religion of human rights is obviously no apology for savage behaviour, though on numerous occasions human rights have been used to justify barbarism and oppression (the genocidal repression of the Vendée during the French Revolution or the extermination of Amerindians). Human rights ideology has often been the pretext for persecutions: in the name of the ‘Good’. It no more protects the rights of individuals than did Communism. Just the opposite, for it has imposed a new system of oppression, based on purely formalistic freedoms.

Under its auspices and in contempt of all democracy, it legitimises the Third World’s colonisation of Europe, tolerating freedom-killing delinquencies, supporting wars of aggression carried out in the name of humanitarianism, and refusing to deport illegal immigrants; this ideology never speaks out against the environmental pollution it causes or the social savagery of its globalised economy.

The ideology of human rights is above all strategically used to disarm European peoples, by making them feel guilty about almost everything. It thus authorises their disarmament and paralysis. It’s a sort of corruption of Christian charity and its egalitarian dogma that all individuals should be valued equally before God and Man.

The ideology of human rights is the principal weapon being used today to destroy Europe’s identity and to advance the interests of her alien colonisers.

7 comments:

isntlam said...

This is one book I won't be reading.

"To criticise the secular religion of human rights is obviously no apology for savage behaviour, though on numerous occasions human rights have been used to justify barbarism and oppression (the genocidal repression of the Vendée during the French Revolution or the extermination of Amerindians)."

That's quite a bold claim to make with no explanation whatsoever. And as far as I'm aware no one used the idea of human rights against America Indians, and no one exterminated them. But that claim is typical of intellectuals who need to believe in an evil America.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

It's true that it requires some explanation. Probably a book in the form of glossary definitions isn't the best place to provide it. Perhaps there is an explanation in some of his other works.

I don't see how you can deny that American aboriginals were exterminated, however. Something I've noticed, mostly in books by American authors, is that when the oppression of the natives is being discussed, the perpetrators are often described as "Europeans", as if to displace the guilt on to people who hadn't quite become American yet.

Faye doesn't believe in an evil America. He believes in an America that vigorously and ruthlessly pursues its own interests - as all countries should - and that those interests are not identical with Europe's.

isntlam said...

"I don't see how you can deny that American aboriginals were exterminated, however."

For one thing, they're still here.

'exterminate, v.t.,to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally; extirpate: to exterminate an enemy; to exterminate insects.'

I have investigated the charge that there was campaign of genocide against the Indians, and there is no evidence for it. But that doesn't keep leftists from repeating it. And interestingly, many of these tribes are wealthy today thanks to the casinos on their reservations.

There were wars between Indians and Americans, but the Indians died mostly because of infections they didn't have immunity against. So, I don't see how you CAN say American aboriginals were exterminated.

"Something I've noticed, mostly in books by American authors, is that when the oppression of the natives is being discussed, the perpetrators are often described as "Europeans", as if to displace the guilt on to people who hadn't quite become American yet. "

Nothin' I can do about that. There is a tendency with some academics to demonize all whites as "Europeans". In fact, ALL European culture is demonized by some. But I don't know what you're reading.

"Faye doesn't believe in an evil America. He believes in an America that vigorously and ruthlessly pursues its own interests - as all countries should - and that those interests are not identical with Europe's."

He's mistaken in that also, unless what he means by "its own interests" is the interests of political parties and special interest groups and lobbyists.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Subunits of the aboriginal population were exterminated, their homelands taken away from them, their original culture destroyed. It's trivialising to say that no extermination took place because some Indians still exist. It's like saying that no insect exterminator ever did his job properly because insects still exist.

Undoubtedly there was also murderous intent in the campaigns against the Indians. It's dishonest to pretend it was something that "just happened".

isntlam said...

I'll have disagree with you. There were wars with the Indians, but no campaign to "exterminate" them.

isntlam said...

Putting that aside...Brigitte Gabriel's group has done a very good study of American textbooks and the distortions and falsehoods in them regarding Islam. Has anyone done that where you are? Are your textbooks full of pro-Islam, anti-Christian messages?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Yes, there are a few posts about that here. See here and here for example.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews