|
December 23rd, 2011 | #1 | |
Administrator
|
'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:
|
|
December 24th, 2011 | #2 | |
Hath not a Goy eyes?
|
Quote:
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him. |
|
January 6th, 2012 | #3 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
January 6th, 2012 | #4 |
Self imposed ban
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The redwood forest
Posts: 787
|
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. |
January 7th, 2012 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
|
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.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood |
January 7th, 2012 | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
|
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.
|
January 7th, 2012 | #8 |
baппed
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: A:\
Posts: 3,367
|
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.
|
January 7th, 2012 | #9 |
Administrator
|
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.
|
January 7th, 2012 | #10 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
January 7th, 2012 | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
|
Rights attempt to define an action, but no where do they exist in noun form.
|
January 7th, 2012 | #12 |
Fuck you kike.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 22
|
Human rights= Tool used by jews to destroy White men.
|
January 13th, 2012 | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
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 these—self-determination extremism and human rights extremism—are 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 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. |
January 13th, 2012 | #14 | ||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 11:54 AM. |
||
January 13th, 2012 | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
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. |
February 21st, 2012 | #16 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 84
|
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? |
April 28th, 2013 | #17 |
MIA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Off the reservation
Posts: 2,639
|
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 |
May 13th, 2019 | #18 | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
human rights |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|