Thursday, 9 August 2012
Do we have a rational-ethical right to kick out the Muslims, Deep Thought? Hurry with your answer. Not much time left!
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope
I wasn't going to respond to Enza Ferreri's latest witterings about human rights on her new blog, mainly because I thought they were so shallow and weakly argued that they didn't deserve a response. Since they've now been published on GOV, though, I suppose I should rouse myself to make the effort.

Defenders of human rights within the Counterjihad movement generally begin by conceding a large part of my critique of them. They concede that 'rights inflation' has made the concept (as currently implemented) ridiculous and that human rights machinery is being used successfully by Marxoids to advance, by undemocratic means, a leftist agenda that is damaging to the well-being of Europe.

But this is exactly what the world understands by “human rights”. Almost all the countries of the world have signed up to human rights treaties which are serviced by vast international bureaucracies accompanied by a parasitic ecosystem of often state-funded NGOs.

If you don’t believe in all that, what is the utility of using the term “human rights”? It would be as if I went around describing myself as a “fascist”, then patiently explained that I rejected the models of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and had some alternative vision of fascism. What would be the point? I would face a continuous burden of either misunderstanding or explanation. Would it not be easier just to find a new, less loaded term to describe my political agenda? Moreover, what if there were plenty of real fascists kicking around, i.e. people who really did admire the models of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco and wanted to re-instate them? By using the term myself, am I not simply adding lustre to the “fascism” brand?

But let’s move on to the specifics. Ferreri says my criticism that the ambiguity and contradictory nature of human rights necessitates their interpretation by unelected people is inapt because this description applies equally to all laws.
Even a summary knowledge of the law will show you that laws constantly contradict other laws, so a balancing act is always required.
This just isn’t true. Legal systems generally operate on the principle that anything is permitted except what is specifically prohibited. If someone steals another person’s property, or a man rapes a woman, there are no laws or rights that need to be balanced or interpreted. The robber has no right to rob. The rapist has no right to rape. It is in no way comparable to the operation of a human rights bureaucracy. And even if it was, changing an ordinary law would be a simple matter. Changing human rights codes is almost impossible.
But I think that we cannot do without the principle of rights.

You can see why we need the concept of human rights when you think of free speech. Presumably all counterjihadists support free speech, but what does that mean if not the “right to” free speech? It’s impossible even to formulate the idea without a reference to rights or some very similar principle.
The term “right” has been used since time immemorial to state moral claims. Ferreri is trying to appropriate the word “right” to herself so that every moral claim that has ever been made is reinterpreted as an affirmation of the modern doctrine of human rights! This, of course, is preposterous. Indeed, this is the type of juvenile argumentation I would expect to find in a sixth-former’s essay. Two of the posts she links to (here and here) even elaborate on the distinction between the concept of human rights and the deeper notion of ‘natural rights’. Bizarrely, Ferreri cites these as if they supported her case even though each of the articles attacks and demolishes the concept of human rights! It seems she is now trying to edge away from her defence of “human rights” to a simple defence of “rights” (much easier, Enza) but all the while insisting they are essentially the same. Laughable. This is like beating up a kitten.

Since Enza Ferreri no longer seems quite clear about what human rights are, let me help her out. Among other things, the concept of “human rights” implies universalism and equality. Plenty of moral claims have been advanced without any pretensions to universalism or equality. When the English parliament passed the Petition of Right in 1628, it did so without any implication that the rights claimed should apply equally to everyone everywhere. The claims were advanced on behalf of a specific people rooted in a specific legal and moral tradition.
Anti-jihad people (in the comments section of the linked post) who say they only believe in democracy, narrowly defined as majority rule, and nationalism will find it impossible to derive the case for free speech from those two beliefs alone: if a nation’s majority decided to abolish free speech, they would have nothing to oppose this undesirable result.
Ludicrous. First of all, free speech is part of my definition of democracy. If people are victimised by the state for advocating certain ideas, then it’s not an authentic democracy. Leaving that aside, it’s clear that a majority, or at least the representatives of the majority, have abolished free speech in almost every European country. Moreover, I acknowledge that, unlike mass immigration, these measures might actually enjoy genuine majority support. Ferreri says I have “nothing to oppose this” with. Well, actually I do. I oppose it using evidence and argumentation, the same way I oppose anything else. I point out that the gang rape of British children by Pakis was an open secret for about ten years before it emerged into the public domain in a way that could no longer be denied. Nick Griffin mentioned it (in a private speech) years before this happened and was prosecuted for his pains. I would say to people that this is the kind of thing that will happen when you criminalise free expression and, using this and similar arguments, I hope that I would eventually be able to persuade them to support my point of view and bring about a change in the law that would restore free speech.
Throughout this debate on human rights, I have encountered many references to “gut instincts” and similar, as bases for making political decisions. I believe that it’s dangerous to leave everything to that, for a simple motive. As individuals, we all have “instincts”, feelings, emotions which are entirely subjective and not shared by anyone else. What we have in common is reason, which is universal.
You tend to find that gut instincts are widely shared within a community. That’s what makes it a community. And this really is where the notion of human rights goes hand in hand with the notion of genocide. Because the concept of human rights implicitly rejects the notion of a moral community, a people, rooted in a particular place, weathering the adversities of time together, with an evolving sense of right and wrong shaped by their distinctive experiences.

Ferreri conjures up a fantasy image in which people “derive” their moral claims, not from an instinctive sense of right and wrong, but from some kind of “rationality engine”. They are like rocket scientists plotting take-off trajectories. They go to the mysterious great computer – picture it like Deep Thought in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – feed in their data and equations and wait for it to crunch the numbers and come out with the answer. (It’s 42, by the way.) Of course this is preposterous. Only an infinitessimally small segment of the world’s population (namely people who have done philosophy courses at university and only a tiny minority even of them) derives its moral claims in such a manner. The rest of us do what we feel is right, based on our perceptions shaped by experience in a particular community.

Ferreri implies that "reason" is the power that lends human rights their wings. If so, how did all those judges making human rights decisions you don't agree with arrive at their faulty conclusions, Enza? Was the rationality machine on the blink? But of course, this is nonsense. As Lynn Hunt makes clear in her book, Inventing Human Rights, the driving force behind the concept is not reason at all, but emotion. It was the extension of empathy through fictional representations and, in the modern age, international reportage that fuelled the human rights agenda which is, above all, obsessed with interference in other people's countries.
Once we do away with a rational ethical foundation, which the rights’ view provides, we can no longer be sure of what other people in the same movement really want, what are their motives behind what superficially may appear the same aspirations: different people may be for democracy for all the wrong reasons, for example, as the Muslim Brotherhood clearly shows.
What we want is very simple: we want the islamisation of our countries to stop. We want the islamisation of all countries to stop. We want the Islamic evil maximally contained. We don’t need to tie ourselves up in intellectual abstractions to agree on that. There are no advantages associated with it and there are many disadvantages.

Moreover, Ferreri has already conceded that her interpretation of human rights differs radically from the interpretation currently in vogue among the corridors of power. So agreement on a “rational ethical foundation” would appear to give no assurances about what another party wants anyway, would it, Enza?

Through multiple posts, convoluted threads, and many pointed questions, Enza Ferreri has refused to set out what her vision of human rights is other than to say she doesn’t agree with the one currently being implemented by the powers that be. So let me try again. Does she support new human rights codes or the existing ones? If new, what are they? Does she believe in a human rights legal machinery that will have enforcement powers over the codes? If so, how would it work?

It’s good that Enza Ferreri has realised that the islamisation of Europe is occurring, is a bad thing, and that she is now working to oppose it. She’s made a few good posts, here and on other sites. If she stopped trying to reach beyond her intellectual grasp, I’m sure she could make some worthwhile contribution to the movement. What’s tragic, though, is that she hasn’t yet understood that it is ideas exactly like hers, and people exactly like her, that are responsible for the phenomenon occurring in the first place. Our elites are so mesmerised by their half-baked intellectual abstractions that they are unable to take the most obvious practical measures to defend themselves, their lands and their offspring from a looming foreign threat.

Tonight I invented a new abstract intellectual ideology. I’m not sure if it qualifies as “rational-ethical” or not. Perhaps Enza, or Deep Thought, can tell us. I’m going to call it Radical Counterjihad Pragmatism. According to the tenets of my ideology, we should do whatever it takes – I repeat, whatever it takes – to eliminate the threat, and the presence, of Mohammedanism in our lands; and we should disregard every intellectual abstraction, every moral precept, every tradition and every institution that gets in the way of our freeing ourselves from this scourge.


Anonymous said...


"it’s clear that a majority, or at least the representatives of the majority, have abolished free speech in almost every European country."

Not only that, non-elected individuals like José Manuel Barroso have been put in important supranational positions. How many others in the same system are not democratically elected?

Ask any man in the streets of Europe who Barroso is, and you will probably get a questionmark as the answer

If free speech is abolished, and the top leaders are not elected by the people, where, then, is democracy in all that?

What is democracy in Europe in 2012?

sheik yer'mami said...

Sorry, I haven't got time to fisk this, but here's what we need to expand on:

We are dealing with Invented Human Rights, counterfeit human rights, rights that give some people rights to enslave others, the obsession with redistribution; and then you got the non existent yuman rites under the sharia, which are either ignored or regarded like 'all religions are equally bad" or something....

It is very true that the driving force behind the concept is not reason at all, but emotion, and emotion is what should be kept out of it.

It is false that the representatives of the majority have abolished free speech.

A tiny minority is responsible for that.

Unelected, progressive utopians, communists, Maoists (Barroso & Herman van Rumpoy) Marxists (Cohn Bendit) have been put in supranational positions with undue powers which are exploited to the max in who's service and to what end exactly?

Therein lies the dilemma.

The confiscation of all weapons in private hands, the complicit, in most cases state run media, the squandering of the savings of 3 post-war generations and beyond; the importation, or rather invasion by tens of millions of hostile, unqualified Mohammedan welfare seekers, is no accident.

The 'human rights' fraud is just one of many scams to bring about a total collapse of society as we know it, and thereafter comes dictatorship.

The socialist progressives believe they can use the mohammedan stormtroopers to bring this about; others have tried to ride this tiger before and failed.

I agree with Cheradenine: the only chance we have is 'whatever it takes'-- we have enemies who proudly proclaim that they will kill and die for their belief, and to withstand that one has to be prepared to do more than to engage in internet discussions or waxing lyrical.

Sorry, gotta go!

Anonymous said...

I too agree with Cheradenine and am willing to do whatever it takes. I have a feeling in another 15-20 years things will become increasingly desperate so people ought to make plans now in order to deal with this threat to our very existence.

With regards to human rights, there should only be one human right, the right to freedom from interference, whether it be from the state or from individuals. That right should act as an umbrella underneath which are the implied freedoms of not being robbed, cheated, forced to servitude, etc.

Speech should be completely free, even if it's distasteful like saying nigger or kike.

Democracy is just a joke, the more people there are then the more devalued democracy becomes. How can one "elected representative" believe he represents his 100,000+ constituents (more in some countries eg the US)?

The good thing about royalty, back in the day, is that they believed the country belonged to them and so they took good care of it. MPs have no such compulsion and are easily bought at a dime a dozen.

alas said...

Very good piece CZ. I for one am a subscriber to RCP.

Anonymous said...

DP111 wrote..

we should do whatever it takes – I repeat, whatever it takes – to eliminate the threat, and the presence, of Mohammedanism in our lands; and we should disregard every intellectual abstraction, every moral precept, every tradition and every institution that gets in the way of our freeing ourselves from this scourge.

Agreed. Now the question is how to achieve it.

If the anti-Jihad movement tried to accomplish its goals in a direct manner, it will fail.

What one has to do is to use the tools available to us. One of them is the Human Rights code. One step at a time. Each small step will evoke a coarse response from Muslims, and that will evoke a counter response. Step by small step, the the heat will be turned on. That is the way most large changes occur.

alas said...

Yes DP111 this is a good strategy. Even though banning burqas is not a large step, as we can see it is provoking a response. If the police keep at it, then who knows, one day a large brawl splashed across the news? Riots or civil unrest. Cameras in the Muslim-occupied parts of our most historic cities unknown to most Europeans. This is what I think Wilders knows will happen deep down when he suggests banning the Burqa, the Quran and Mosques. Damned good idea.

daithikent said...

.. yeah; step by small step. In Belfast they still have 'peace walls' and are still building the likes in Public parks. Who knows maybe riots or civil unrest from the occupied parts of our cities will see the construction of walls to contain the threat.

Anonymous said...

DP111 wrote

A CAMPAIGN group opposing halal slaughter at a Skegness abattoir has gathered almost 100 members in a matter of days.

The ‘Say NO to halal slaughter in Skegness’ facebook group was set up after it was announced a business practising the religious methods was preparing to move into the town’s Heath Road abattoir.

Founding member Tess Turner, of Alford, claims the practices of slaughtering animals without stunning them first are inhumane and illegal if sold for consumption by those who are not Jewish or Muslim. She has also stressed that her motivations are purely based on animal welfare issues and in no way condones racism or religious intolerance.

Commendable, but this is a step too far for the times.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews