More human righteousness

So far as I can tell, “human rights” has become another name for compulsory PC managerial liberalism, with horror stories mixed in to stir the emotions and show how bad opponents are. I’ve commented recently on the ACLU view that “civil liberties” mean forcing a printer to suport a cause he finds appalling, and the Human Rights Watch view that human rights abuses include failure to propagandize a technological attitude toward sex. Now Amnesty International announces their concerns in their Annual Report for 2004, which

“reports on areas of work being prioritized and developed by Amnesty International—such as violence against women; economic, social and cultural rights; and justice for refugees and migrants—and celebrates the achievements of activists in these and other areas.”

Like other human rights organizations, they particularly emphasize things related to the reconstruction of gender:

“Violence against women is the greatest human rights scandal of our times. From birth to death, in times of peace as well as war, women face discrimination and violence at the hands of the state, the community and the family.”

If you compare numbers of dead bodies violence against men is a much bigger problem, so it appears that their real concern is something other than violence. Be that as it may, there’s an obvious radical change from AI’s original focus as a special-purpose organization concerned with “prisoners of conscience.” POCs never included those who favor “hate” (that is, who accept human distinctions like sex, ethnicity and religion that support principles of social organization other than money and bureaucracy). At least though AI stood for a distinct concern that could bring together a variety of political perspectives in opposition to a definite evil. That doesn’t seem to be true any more. They’re in favor of “human rights” generally, which has become a slogan for radical reconstruction of all human life everywhere on rational-bureaucratic and secular-hedonistic lines.

Which is too bad, since it would indeed be a good thing if even those who differ could agree on common standards, that are not just a matter of political posturing, on things like the treatment of prisoners and noncombatants. After the Second World War the idea got around that people could agree on concrete rules for social life while differing wildly on ultimate concerns. I think history has shown that’s wrong. The view is still with us, though, and it’s now a doctrine under cover of which the project of suppressing ultimate concerns in the interests of the PC managerial reconstruction of human existence makes its way. We need to get past the propaganda and see what’s going on.

5 thoughts on “More human righteousness”

  1. It isn’t too difficult to
    It isn’t too difficult to see what is going on, Jim … at least, not in Britain.

    At the best of times a certain dissonance between ruler and ruled is likely to obtain. But our cultural elite thinks it is re-making modern man. So, there must arrive an absolutely fundamental point at which the poor sap is conditioned to his new station in life. Said dissonance needs must be eroded away by the perfections of an equal society. Its continuance would mean that the Great Plan ain’t working, and the elite just doesn’t have a fall-back position from which to analyse that. There is no reverse gear in a revolution.

    So what do we see after three decades of non-stop culture war? Is whitey bowing to the politically correct? Yes, it’s better than jail. Does he mean it? Stupid question.

    What we see, Jim, is the failure of cultural warfare to deliver what class warfare couldn’t in over half a century of trying. Marxism does not work. Marxism will never work. Indomitable, ineradicable human nature will always win out in the end.

    Now, I’m not saying there is a definite correlation in longevity between the two forms of marxism. But if one assumes that the first is some guide to the second, and dates the latter (ie culture war in the west) from the beginning of the Long March in about 1970 we ought to see its collapse in, say, 2020 to 2025.

    The big question is: what will it leave in its wake? Well, again, what do we see going on? Immigration, multiculturalism and social liberalism. Two more decades of that will bequeath us a nation no less different from our own today as that differs from the world before Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. If one was talented enough it might be possible to draw a precise line into the future and find there more of everything that so concerns the conservative mind. I can’t stretch to that. But I do expect the worst, and that means grave choices for a white population routinely contemplating a future of minority in its own homeland and even familiar with the rumour of its own impending extinction.

    In such an unstable world what we see going on today may seem like a golden age of peace!

  2. “…If you compare numbers
    “…If you compare numbers of dead bodies violence against men is a much bigger problem.”

    Do you actually have numbers to back up such an assertion? Source?

  3. Here are couple of items
    Here are couple of items from the first 20 google results for “‘murder rates’ male female”:

    1. US murder rates by sex of victims:

    2. A discussion of murders in Ciudad Juarez, which apparently has drawn special attention because an increasing number of women have been murdered (but still many fewer women than men):

    So if you look at the figures it seems that disproportionately more men than women are murdered.

    Private killings of course are swamped in number by state-sponsored killings. Those are mostly killings of men too. Almost all combat soldiers are men, so almost all combat deaths are deaths of men and not women. Intentional political murder is also mostly murder of men—one of the ways Robert Conquest came up with his estimate of 20,000,000 dead in Stalin’s purges was to look at the really startling deficit of men in the generation old enough to remember pre-revolutionary times (and so under suspicion) and too old to fight in WWII. The figures are in the Appendix to The Great Terror if you’re interested.

    The Nazis and enterprises like the Ukraine famine or for that matter the massacres of the Tutsi of course killed very large numbers of women as well as of men. Also, recent wars in the third world have often been messy with lots of noncombatant deaths that also bring women into the picture. The first few google results for “‘war deaths’ male female” turned up a reference at to a WHO report that says that currently only twice as many men as women are dying violently. Still, twice is pretty substantial so it still seems to me that even right now as well as historically violent death of men is much the bigger problem. And if “violence against women” is intended to raise the issue of violence targeted against people who were chosen for an individualized reason (i.e., something different from the Tutsi case) then it seems the disproportion is considerably greater.

  4. Someone is sure to chime in
    Someone is sure to chime in with the observation that all this violence committed against men is also committed by men. Allow me to preempt that with a comment by the very sharp Daniel Amneus: “…like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females— or rather by single females.”
    [The Garbage Generation, 1990, p.3; online at ]

    Let’s not leave out that other pile of smaller bones. R.J. Rummell estimated there were 169,000,000 state-sanctioned murders in the 20th century. The number of abortions has to exceed that figure by a great deal. Most were voluntary. However, if China and India are any indication, the number of female victims of this crime surpasses that of males.

  5. The riveting opening
    The riveting opening paragraph of the article cited by Mr. Caesar deserves to be quoted in its entirety:


    ” ‘Women,’ wrote Ramsey Clark in l970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, ‘are not a threat to the public.’ But he also wrote, in discussing the male juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, that ‘three-fourths came from broken homes.’ That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the socialization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation. This socialization, in fact, is the ‘root cause of crime’ which Clark wrote his book to explore. He had found the explanation he’d sought and he didn’t know it. It was concealed by the generation-long time-lag between cause and effect and by the sex-switch between generations: like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females—or rather, by single females.”

    ( )

    That there is apparently something very wrong with women’s morals was mentioned only by what were considered misogynists before about thirty years ago, the point in history—unprecedented since Sodom and Gomorrah—when women began forcing completely unrestricted abortion on society [including the unspeakable butchery of “partial-birth abortion” of perfectly healthy babies at term who pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to the mother’s health but are murdered purely on a last-minute whim ( * )]; began forcing divorce-as-caprice or even better, rejection of marriage entirely, on society; began forcing the societywide switch en masse from legitimate status to illegitimate status for women’s babies along with a drive on all fronts for the normalization of illegitimate status for children; began forcing *literally* the substitution of government bureaucracies for actual real-life, flesh-and-blood dads in young childrens’ lives; began totally rejecting men even unto the maleness of their own male children based on openly lesbian rationales so drenched in the most transparent psychopathology that only a someone completely out of contact with reality or completely evil could ever take them seriously; began forcing society to undertake an attempt at re-educating girls and young women away from millions of years of female modesty toward outright flagrant sexual promiscuity; etc., etc., etc. In the forefront of the last thirty years’ drive for all this perversion have been … yes, women. Who would’ve BELIEVED thirty and forty years ago that not only would this stuff come about, but that it would be WOMEN FORCING IT ON SOCIETY?

    ( * ) By the way, did everyone see what happened to Nick Berg in Iraq when the terrorists got hold of him? Well, let’s imagine that instead of cutting off his head with a knife while he was alive and fully conscious, the terrorists had decided to kill him by punching a hole in his head (while he was alive and fully conscious), sticking the end of a vacuum cleaner into the hole (while he was alive and fully conscious), and vacuuming his brains out (while he was, at first anyway, alive and fully conscious…). And let’s imagine the sound on your television set was broken so you couldn’t hear his screams (babies just on the verge of being born can’t scream quite yet, because they don’t yet have air in their lungs—haven’t taken their first breath, and are still oxygenated by the mother’s blood through the umbilical cord—but everything else—their experience of pain and so on—is identical to a newborn; they just can’t scream yet because they have no air to pass over their vocal cords). That unspeakable ghastliness is exactly what’s done in this country to perfectly healthy little babies at term who are all ready to get born: suddenly, far from proceeding to get born, they instead get a hole punched through their skull, a vacuum cleaner stuck through the hole, and their brains vacuumed out, all while they are alive and fully conscious (but they can’t scream—so, imagine Nick Berg screaming but the sound on your TV is broken so you can’t hear it)—and it’s done about two thousand three hundred times each year thanks to … guess who?… thanks to women… who fight tooth-and-nail, fight like savages, for its continuation every time someone tries to put a stop to it. Back in the sixties when I was a boy, who would’ve thought women would do this?

    NOBODY, that’s who…


Leave a Comment