Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 23rd, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default 'Human Rights'

['Human rights' is basically a western communist idea created and fostered by jews that aids them legally in asserting the rights of outside aliens against White citizens.]

Quote:
As a result of human rights legislation, foreign rapists are permitted to stay in Britain, paedophiles allowed to use their local school gym, prisoners on heroin compensated for being deprived of their drugs behind bars, police are prevented from revealing the identity of escaped convicts, and terror suspects can neither be deported nor detained.

This is the Britain that has been created by human rights legislation, and the likes of Lord Lester have profited greatly from the profound damage they have done to our ancient legal system.

There are 1,000 British lawyers specialising in human rights, and between them they grab a huge share of the £2billion legal aid budget.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-stimulus.html
 
Old December 24th, 2011 #2
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Quote:
['Human rights' is basically a western communist idea created and fostered by jews
And here I was thinking all this time that Lafayette was a goy.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old January 6th, 2012 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Benoist traces the development of modern “human rights” ideology and explores how the concept of “rights” has changed throughout history. In the classical world, “rights” were conceived of as being relative to an individual’s relationship to a particular community. Someone possessed “rights” because they were a citizen of a specific political entity or some other institutional context. The notion of abstract “rights” in a quasi-metaphysical sense was non-existent. Benoist considers the ideology of human rights to be an outgrowth of Christian universalism. Christianity introduced the concept of an individual soul that is eternal, transcendent, and independent of one’s specific social identity. Out of the Christian notion of the transcendent soul emerged the Enlightenment doctrine of “natural rights.” These rights are assumed to be universal and immutable.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main...-human-rights/
 
Old January 6th, 2012 #4
Fenria
Self imposed ban
 
Fenria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The redwood forest
Posts: 787
Fenria
Default

Ah, human "rights", a lawyer's wet dream. It's obvious that the function of this manufactured privilege is to take from whites who have amassed wealth through hard work and entrepreneurialism and hand it to non whites who have not. To chip away at white civilization by creating a false platform upon which non successful non whites can stand to artificially be at our level. A purely merit based society would see most non whites still stuck in the stone age.
__________________
Hell really is other people.
 
Old January 6th, 2012 #5
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

The Enlightenment was solely a product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity.

Thanks, Christards.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #6
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Human rights in today's context really means taking away legitimate rights from someone else - the right for a restaurant owner not to serve someone in his restaurant. The right for an employer to hire anyone he or she wants to, and so on.
__________________
Itís time to stop being Americans. Itís time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #7
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
keifer
Default

Rights are not of individual ownership, they are either given or taken by someone else,...at best the privilage of an individual is on loan to them. Rites are externally granted, externally revoked. If there is no one to contest your rites, there is no reason for rites to exist to begin with.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #8
ray bateson
baппed
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: A:\
Posts: 3,367
ray bateson
Default

Precisely. Rights are human concepts, or, as a wise man said, "should-isms," when at the end of the day the animal called man has only those rights he's won within the universal law of Might, for all life and history shows that idealism never existed in nature.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
The Enlightenment was solely a product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity.
Hubris more than stupidity, in my view. These cunts know, on some level, they're wrong. But they have to have a global system, a one-size-fits-all. Anything less is not up to their ambitions. They don't care about reality, just their head dreams.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray bateson View Post
Precisely. Rights are human concepts, or, as a wise man said, "should-isms," when at the end of the day the animal called man has only those rights he's won within the universal law of Might, for all life and history shows that idealism never existed in nature.
Rights are claims within a specific system; to assert them as having absolute meaning or existence is not just wrong, but fruity.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #11
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
keifer
Default

Rights attempt to define an action, but no where do they exist in noun form.
 
Old January 7th, 2012 #12
John S. Hunter
Fuck you kike.
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 22
John S. Hunter
Default

Human rights= Tool used by jews to destroy White men.
 
Old January 13th, 2012 #13
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

I used to scoff at all this as so much self-serving silliness. Superficially, the Cold War was a global competition between two rival conceptions of human rights: roughly, political equality vs. economic equality. You can imagine how little real people cared about either such abstraction. As it turned out, the US won the competition in most non-contiguous places (like Egypt) simply by virtue of having more money to throw around at local potentates, who understandably rejected both conceptions of human rights.

Later on, I read an article that tried to justify human rights in realist terms. It argued that full Wilsonian self-determination for all who want it is too destabilizing of the existing order; for strategic and economic reasons, many states want or need to incorporate minority populations. At the same time, aggrieved minorities have themselves sometimes been destabilizing forces, generating conflicts with neighboring states. Examples include Russia as protector of the Slavs prior to WWI and the Sudeten Germans prior to WWII. Using international institutions to force states to grant minorities full human rights in the form of strict equality, so the argument goes, eliminates the grievances and thereby the pretext for other states to intervene individually.

Putting aside the merits of that argument, the question that troubles me is why theseóself-determination extremism and human rights extremismóare the only two alternatives under consideration by serious Western thinkers. The Muslim world offers up a third option in the form of dhimmitude. Notwithstanding religious universalism, they manage to keep distinct minorities around without treating them identically to the majority, or feeling guilty about that. Christianity doesnít seem to have evolved such a reasonable approach. Except for the singular case of the codependent jews, when the Christian looks around at people he sees only Christians and potential Christians. Thatís bound to blur otherwise perfectly defensible lines between groups. Another failure of logos, Iím afraid.
 
Old January 13th, 2012 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
Putting aside the merits of that argument, the question that troubles me is why these—self-determination extremism and human rights extremism—are the only two alternatives under consideration by serious Western thinkers.
Those aren't alternatives, they're different classes of items. Or maybe better put, everything that creepeth on earth gets human rights. Self-determination is human rights for peoples. Or human rights at the people's level. Or so it seems. It's taken for granted by people who use these terms that these individual peoples have the right to exist, rather than be classed as, say, Exterminables! (as if they were, a multinational corp's lunchmeat or Ovenworthies! if they were wrapped in bread and vaguely dagoistical). Of course, they have many slippery ways of getting their own genocidal impulses in there crookforwardly. They can turn a race into a class, and call that class 'profiteers' or 'exploiters' if they're commies, or 'racists' or 'trash' if they're democrats. Whatever verbal tricks they need to turn to feel good about themselves and demonize their enemy, they'll do. What could be more immoral than genociding an entire people? On the other hand, what could be salubriouser than taking out the trash? Itz all in how you look at it, and how your lawyers and tonguesters do it up and dish it out.

Quote:
The Muslim world offers up a third option in the form of dhimmitude. Notwithstanding religious universalism, they manage to keep distinct minorities around without treating them identically to the majority, or feeling guilty about that. Christianity doesn’t seem to have evolved such a reasonable approach. Except for the singular case of the codependent jews, when the Christian looks around at people he sees only Christians and potential Christians. That’s bound to blur otherwise perfectly defensible lines between groups. Another failure of logos, I’m afraid.
Well...I don't know, but I'm not sure there's that much of a distinction. I'm pretty sure muslims want and expect all people to 'submit' to the religion of 'peace' over time. It does appear that altho both religions tolerate other groups among them, muslims go a lot farther in discriminating against them.

I think the reason we have only two views, which I would say is really only one plus...is the origins of our intellectual institutions as christian seminaries, very soon taken over by a particularly pernicious strain of Protestanism. The Enlightenmentarianism that promotes concepts such as 'human rights' is simply the secular-humanist evolution of christian universalism. And of course it fits very nicely with hymie-come-lately's ideas about equality (as a tool for him to lever open the west).

I think the way to understand 'human rights' -- and this tool works for any new or unfamiliar concept -- is to figure out what it was designed against. 'Human rights' thus represents at least one generalization - from rights of this specific people to all men. And guess which party isn't being respected? And guess who it intends to exercise its rights on? What are mere 'rights of Englishmen' or 'rights of American citizens' next to human rights. To that mind, it blows those paltry things out of the water. Human rights, man. He died for everybody's sins. I think he was a mexican or something dude. Bend and stoop! Bend and stoop! Just like jebus used to do in the strawberry fields.

People who can't spell common words, and who hate details like cats hate water, are exactly the kind grandiosities like 'human rights' are designed to fell. Think of the human carp at a professional wrestling show, or a Tammy Faye Bakker taping. These are folks easily wowed by something so obviously important as Human Rights. For the intellectuals, it's just the simple pleasure in forcing the world to comply with their deeply stupid scheme.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 13th, 2012 at 10:54 AM.
 
Old January 13th, 2012 #15
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Today's rights come at the expense of yesterday's. The statists stole the notion of rights. Earlier rights meant private property, free speech, bill of rights stuff, starting with Magna Carta. These are called negative rights, and acted against muggers, including the state.

Modern positive rights are "rights" to others' property. These are legislated/fantasy rights, giving right to the state and away from individuals. (The French Revolution was an early adopter of positive rights through statism).

One side favors private property, the other side wants it abolished (communist manifesto).

The two views of rights are diametric opposites.
 
Old February 21st, 2012 #16
Bob Turner
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 84
Bob Turner
Default rights become a society's suicide pact

This is a deep subject, because it is our modern concept of rights that prevents WNs from seriously approaching the ethnic cleansing that would be necessary to establish any WN state, currently more unmentionable fantasy than politically acceptable discussion.

An example of begrudged rights is the practice of essentially unsupervised welfare because of the notion that a person gives up no rights to receive public aid. Another one is the idea that requiring sterilization in return for public child support is morally unacceptable. All of these sorts of things are slippery slopes to be sure, but blind allegiance to the idea of personal rights for all individuals is a suicide pact for an entire society.

One of the most regrettable situations is having so many voters who are not qualified to select candidates or have any voice in government. There simply are individuals in society who require some form of parenting on a permanent basis. How to manage it all is the ultimate challenge, but what will ever change without some noble attempt?
 
Old April 28th, 2013 #17
SUNOFSPARTA
MIA
 
SUNOFSPARTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Off the reservation
Posts: 2,639
SUNOFSPARTA
Default

Another dent is the UNCivil Rights laws- disaster

Court may limit use of race in college admission decisions



http://news.yahoo.com/court-may-limi...133238785.html
 
Old May 13th, 2019 #18
schultz
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 8
schultz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Rights are not of individual ownership, they are either given or taken by someone else,...at best the privilage of an individual is on loan to them. Rites are externally granted, externally revoked. If there is no one to contest your rites, there is no reason for rites to exist to begin with.
Rights assume acceptance from an authority figure are needed. Like, people say- I have the right of/to free speech. I don't need a right for that. I can just say what ever I want,because I can. Because I feel like it.
 
Reply

Tags
human rights

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.
Page generated in 0.17480 seconds.