The Universal Declaration of Western Wrongs

I mean, if you look at the universal declaration of human rights, there's a a few people who commented on my disapproval of the universal declaration of human rights, missing the point that the the the issue that I was bringing up in that interview was the audacity of taking it upon yourselves to decide for all of humanity what their rights were. Your rights are endowed by your creator. Even the constitution says that, the American constitution. But now the rights you decided are not endowed by the creator, but endowed by the United Nations, by Eleanor Roosevelt. The audacity of that, that you think that you have the authority to decide that for all people, for all time, for everywhere, and all circumstances.

That was the point that I was making there. But I mean, if you look at the at the rights, at the various articles in the universal declaration of human rights, It reads like if you put it if you if you if you're looking at it in the context of history, the Universal Declaration of Rights reads like a misbehaving student who is writing on the chalkboard is performative penance for all of the things that he did, that he's supposed to list all of the things that he did and that he promises everyone he's never gonna do again. That's what it looks like. Because when you go down the list of all of the rights they're saying that they guaranteed to people and that people are supposed to have, you're basically talking about all of the things that you have denied people historically. That the West has denied people historically.

The rights of human beings that you have denied and violated historically for ages. And now you're promising we're not gonna do it again because now we are we're telling the world, we recognize that these are rights and it was wrong for us to violate them all these years. But then, of course, you continue doing it anyway because it is also a list. If you look at if you look at it historically from prior to what 1948 when they made it, then it reads like they're making toba, they're making penance for all of their crimes and we're listing them out. Like the punishment was list all of the crimes that you've committed and, you know, tell the teacher that you know what you did wrong.

So that's what the universal declaration of human rights looks like when you're looking at it in the context of history prior to its enactment. If you look at history following the universal declaration of human rights, then it reads like all of the rights that we are going to continuously violate for the next fifty, sixty, seventy years and and on. Because they're violating everything. Every article in there is being violated on a regular basis. But it turns out that you weren't repentant.

You this wasn't your penance. This wasn't actually the purpose of this wasn't so that you are acknowledging to the world that you know everything that you did wrong and you're promising to never never do it again. It actually just becomes an instrument for you to be able to accuse everyone else of doing the things that you've always done and never applying it to you. You made that list so that then you can accuse everyone else of doing those things, of violating those rights, and you never apply it to yourselves. When's the last time you saw a European country being accused of violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

When's the last time you saw America being accused of violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights except by a fringe lawyer, you know, who can't even get any press coverage and whose complaint gets thrown out immediately. But you violate them all the time. The West violates them all the time. But it became a document of coercion. It became an instrument of coercion for the global South, for the Muslim world, for Asia, for Latin America, for Africa.

It just became an instrument of coercion to try to subvert and subjugate nations in the global South, subjugate and subordinate their and usurp their sovereignty. It became a an implicit accusation that we understand human rights and you don't. I mean, like, for example, take Malaysia. They have human rights groups. They have their own domestic human rights organizations.

They understand what human rights are. Why do you think that people in New York, why do you think that Eleanor Roosevelt cares more about the human rights of Malaysians than Malaysians? Why do you think that they don't understand what their rights are and they have to be told by you in the West what their rights are? And if they don't know when their rights are being violated, you have to tell them. Because actually, what's being violated is their obedience to you, their deference to you.

What they're losing is your approval for one reason or another, which is usually because they're exercising some degree of sovereignty in their country. And they're defining for themselves what their rights are. The audacity of them that they can decide for themselves what the rights of their people should be. Because you are there's there's an implicit accusation and allegation against every country and every government in the global south that they don't care about their people. That they don't care about human rights.

Because if you don't follow the declaration of human rights, the universal declaration of human rights, so you don't submit to that, not just to that, but to your particular interpretation of what those rights actually include. Because, for example, the universal declaration of human rights says nothing about sexual orientation, but you're putting it in there now through interpretation and saying that now you're deciding retroactively that it includes gender identity and sexual orientation. It's not in there, but according to your interpretation, it's in there. And no country that is even that's even a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights has a right to argue or dispute your interpretation. This is why there's a problem with that.

But again, this is why also the entire universal declaration of human rights is based on that aspirational, idealistic, utopian concept of values. Not on real life, not on the real world.