Refuting the Enlightenment (Volume III)
Introduction
With the federal protection of abortions removed with the recent overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States, we have seen in the past week a breakdown of the emotionally sensitive individuals calling upon riots, violence and protest. Those who have once answered the challenge of a good old debate have now resorted to the framing of the termination of a child as a “human right”.
Welcome to the third installment of Refuting the Enlightenment. If you didn’t infer, I will be taking you down the rabbit hole of “human rights”.
This sort of delusion about “human rights” originated within the Enlightenment, and ultimately saw the conception of “natural rights.” This principle today will be the focus of this article.
Roots and Individuals
Human rights today seem to be the foundation of the legitimacy of modern liberal democracies in the West, further enticing as recognizable universal good of international law. But before we get into that, what needs to be established is: What’s a “human right”? and what is the purpose of it.
The majority preposition is that a “human right” is a liberty that all humans are born fundamentally with; and strangely as a consequence of being born human these “rights” are universal and applied equally to everyone regardless of nation’s ethnicity wealth or any other status.
Now it would be foolish to argue against a “right” of man. They pre-date the Enlightenment however with the concept of a “human right.” It is that it is atoned to liberal interpretation and an individual who was infamous for it, is none other than John Locke, the father of liberalism.
We saw in my last piece that John Locke argued that man and nature had natural rights in society, which the state and government were created to protect, since people gave authority to a government, and, in principle, are ruled only by a government they consent to. Conceptualising, he argued, those natural rights were life, liberty and property of the governed.
These “natural rights” eventually developed into the “universal human rights” with such ideas being egalitarian. This took the form of when the French poster boy of the enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argued against Republicanism (removal of the monarchy, not the GOP ). The push for democracy and the removal of the old vanguard aristocracy, as previously mentioned in Volume II, was all because men was all born equally with the same “rights”, thus destruction was necessary to all things “traditional” .
This precedent directly influenced the American and French Revolution, cultivating with the Declaration of Rights of Man in France and the Bill of Rights in the USA. These documents exemplified the natural rights of man not only in the jurisdiction of their own but rather in a global tone. These rights declared valid in all societies in any given moment.
This setup the globalist nature of “humans rights” as after the Second World War, due to its brutality in fairness, the United Nations Promulgated the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948. However, the point being is that the original fundamental ideas to stop the assertions that kicked off World War II extended the coverage of “human rights “into territory which was began anti-culture, such as the declaration of minority only rights, female rights, and, more recently, sexual LGBT rights.
The Shining Problem
To simply put it? Who enforces this set of liberal human rights? Who determines what a right is and which are not rights? No matter what conceptual “right,” we espouse and claim we have the matter is determined not by us but by power, The concept of human rights does not understand the nature of power; all of us are commanded by people in power, and power vets and veto's rights.
John Locke contended that natural rights of life, liberty and property precede the social contract and that it’s solely reasonable if those are maintained. Correlating back to Power, these rights exclusively exist only if you can defend them by force. Locke himself spouted that if a government disregarded “natural rights”(life, liberty, property) then the govern(the people) were within their right to dismiss the government.
Well, this is only achievable if you have the standards of doing so by force. Otherwise, the government continues to rule by power. (Subsequently, the US Second Amendment puts a “strong” case to bear arms against an “overbearing state”; usage of “valid” violence against government impingement of its rights.
The second point at hand recognising rights cannot work in an universal broad sense for all humans but rather better as an accord between a state, a collective and the individual. The wider society must acknowledge that expressed rights exist and that they’re to be granted to members of the society. This is so they can only exist within a national circumstance because that’s the only way they can be upheld to have rights. The masses must share a culture which values said rights, additionally; there must be a power structure dedicated to upholding the rights, as this forms the context in which rights can exist.
Universal human rights, unlike in a national sense, logically can’t exist due to the actuality that they maintain no justification and can be interpreted to push an agenda. Thus, the rights of a citizen must be agreed upon in a national, cultural, and religious context and can only be enforced through power. Abstraction cannot create a universal set of human rights because there’s nothing to back it up and the entire concept is completely arbitrary.
With such a “universal” system, mind you, with no system to uphold these “rights”, with no common ground with a demanding UN, this has ultimately given us a secularized concept of human rights, which ultimately came into a state of being because this concept is established on completely nothing. This is the truth of the modern conception of human rights. They are absolutely baseless, meaning whoever has power can claim what they mean. These baseless abstractions can also be used to justify tyranny — because “human rights,” take the French Revolution as a key example.
This is where I say humorously that human rights only “works” when God is at the top of the hierarchy. If your culture and the rulers both don’t believe in God, it doesn’t work. God fills the vacuum of the ruled people’s lack of physical power to remove the government. The government needs to have someone to answer to and since the people don’t have that power, God needs to be there for them to answer to.
Conclusion
It needs to be emphasized the idea of rights only stems from a cohesive society with a culture and tradition which acknowledges their presence and a hierarchy committed to defending these “local” rights and that they cannot be uncustomary to the nation because no matter what baseless doctrine is on a piece of paper, good or bad. For the right to be authorized, if it has power, it will be enforced.
Ever since the main declaration of human rights, the basis of civilization has been uprooted and superseded by a universalist and unclear conception of privileges, but what these human rights are is completely at the discretion of those in power; and who is in power today decides what human rights and human rights violations are (see: international bodies like the UN and the EU). Subsequently, they do not represent the agenda of the basic traditionalist Catholic man.
As a result of this globalism and the destruction of the West, the human rights they contend to be upholding will merely be utilised as a tool to justify their agenda, so it doesn’t matter what it says in any human rights document or in any national constitution in Europe today because there will consistently be analysed via the lens of the progressive powers of leadership.
