Human rights — another banner of cultural genocide

Until now, the so-called "human rights" in countries belonging to the "golden billion" of humanity and form the core of the Euro-Atlantic civilization, their representatives have always categorically served under the guise of universal, that is, to put it mildly, not exactly.

Meanwhile, the generally accepted definition of the term "human rights", which became the Western world conceptual sacred cow, international law is absent. He's not in the national law of any of the states, and the content of his contradictory. Particularly acute this was felt by the international community after the events of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington.

Political analysts have started talking loudly about the clash between civilizations. And there are some grounds.

Therefore, many experts in the field of international law consider that only the above is enough to once and for all close the question of the so-called universal human rights, as it can not be right that is not defined. According to the UN, only 7% of the population are aware of the existence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in Paris in 1948.

1. The history of birth of the myth of universal human rights.

The first mention of human rights appear in the U.S. Constitution (1775) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man (France, 1789).

The myth of universal human rights was first introduced in 1945 in the UN Charter on the initiative of Great Britain, the United States and certain other countries. It reflected, in fact, social and state structure of these countries that they, by right of conquest, would be transferred to the post-war international relations. Although World War II participated and won not only them, but the anti-Hitler coalition, which was part of the Soviet Union, which made a decisive contribution to the defeat of fascism in the Great Patriotic War and the whole World.

The winner is always dictate its terms to the vanquished. It is usually kept from the Stone Age to the present day. Similarly, in the United Nations Charter could be written views on society and the state of the peoples of Africa or Asia, if they were the victors of the Second World War.

Where the Constitution speaks of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man, we have in mind is not at all the rights and views of life that exist on Earth, but only those that formed the nations of Western Europe and the United States in the course of their historical development. So in the Charter of the United Nations was based on the principle of cultural assimilation of other "indigenous" peoples of the world.

In accordance with article 55, paragraph "c" of the UN Charter, in terms of the goals of this organization is to maintain the overall "respect and satisfaction of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." Maintain and distribute to all the peoples of one culture — is to ignore and suppress other cultures. It's the same as if the UN has put the problem spread across the world of Islam or Christianity and etc. The words in the Constitution, "without distinction of race, sex, language or religion" deliberately misleading, because no human culture does not occur in a vacuum, if there is no race, no sex, language or religion.

All the history and development of the United Nations shows that its western "founding fathers" are used to refer to the concept of "human rights" as if it is their private property, and not the collective property of the United Nations.

On the part of the Soviet Union, as a member of the coalition, and its post-war allies were attempts to point out the fundamental differences in terms of "human rights." For example, the resolution of the Political Consultative Committee of the Members of the Warsaw Pact in 1978 stated that "the banner of human rights — the banner of socialism." As the embodiment of this thesis was over in life at this turn of historical development — known.

It is appropriate to make the fundamental remark that, as in the former Soviet Union, historically inherited the foundations of Orthodox Eastern Slavic civilization as well as in other eastern civilizations of human rights and freedoms are, in contrast to Western, not the individual, and weight. In the West, it just do not understand, just as the same do not understand the fundamental difference in the East. However, some people still understand it. Let us recall the famous replica of one of the outstanding British colonizer: "The West is West and East is East. And do not be with them! "So if the former colonizers or modern (globalizers) even realize you still stick to their line. They are trying to push through at all costs their point of view, consists in the fact that human rights in the face of the bourgeois individual with the concentration of his interests at the level of the navel and below the above human rights — a collectivist, not separating himself from his people and knowingly, voluntarily placing itself at the service of to him.

As said spokeswoman Dzh.Fitspatrik U.S. human rights organizations at the workshop of the Moscow Helsinki Group, in February 1991 in Moscow, the United States, unlike the Soviet Union, has never been one of human rights at the international level. On the contrary, her country had always believed that it is possible and necessary to uphold the traditions and cultural rights of the people only, and not someone else's. As it is practically carried the U.S. was demonstrated by the wars waged by the U.S. against Iraq and Yugoslavia. These examples have shown that the lack of balance in international relations between the policies of individual human rights and the politics of the right of peoples lead to irreparable consequences.

Attempt to extend the Western concept of human rights under the guise of universal for the entire globe was unsuccessful. All Western "human rights" organizations outside their national territories, in fact, are aggressive information-psychological paramilitaries. And the aggressor should be treated accordingly. Before others realized this, and appropriate action is really used in modern independent Belarus.

For half a century in the world not only did not have such a general, eliminating conflicts between countries, the rights, but the question itself about the existence of such rights is now the subject of ideological confrontation, hot and cold wars between the nations themselves.

At the Washington meeting of the representatives of forty countries on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the military-political bloc of NATO in April 1999, adopted the doctrine that NATO used force to protect their rights in the UN Charter.

Thus, the function of the myth of universal human rights was and is a political socialization, or the assimilation of the conquered peoples in the war, and his creation of grafting a different political culture based on the cultural values of the winners. Human rights provisions in the Constitution have been recorded in West Germany, Japan and Italy. Political socialization of Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany, as we know, there was a different path — under the "banner of socialism."

After the destruction of the Soviet Union and an official denial of the social and political experience of the Soviet period began socialization (assimilation), Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics are based on supposedly universal human rights. Process involved and the former socialist countries in Europe. The basis for such socialization (assimilation) also served as the UN Charter and other related human rights treaties. The Constitution of the Russian Federation announced the human rights of the highest social and public values (art. 2). And in the Constitution refers to the inalienable and inviolable rights (Article 21). Would do well to clarify what: ordinary Ukrainians or euros already integrated "national elite."

Installation of Human Rights, adopted from other cultures, completely changes our national consciousness (mentality), forces to destroy their culture with their own hands, encourages abandon their civilization and become a psevdochelovecheskuyu mass of individuals with a split consciousness. What we are seeing with oshaleniem before the election — 2006.

November 16, 2000 a scientific — practical conference devoted to the prospects of Ukraine in the XXI century. At the conference "Formation of a new historical reality," delivered by the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma. The report was published only in officialdom — "Governmental Courier" and "President's messenger," and hardly even commented obsequious court press, but deserves much more attention from the public. Ukrainian President bitterly stated: "Unfortunately, we are increasingly convinced — and not just by example, that the IMF's policy is not always and not all is constructive. Built by far the best standard schemes, it does not take into account the specific characteristics of individual States … The real purpose of this policy is the desire to accommodate the peripheral zone to service the needs of the center. "

Then the President of Ukraine, in fact, acknowledged that the so-called "reforms" in Ukraine led to a deep economic and social crisis that they were carried out from the beginning "by anticivilizational vector."

Pay attention to the essential difference between the circumstances of the introduction of the ideology of human rights in a number of countries in Western Europe and Japan and the former Soviet Union.

In the first case acted external factor — the defeat in the war. Second, internal control errors society and the state in conjunction with external information and psychological aggression.

In the first case, the relative similarity in the present political and social development of the winners and losers in the second — a significant difference between the political and social culture of the countries of Europe and the United States on the one hand, and Russia, Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries — with another, passing in the opposite. Therefore, the rejection of the entire preceding the Soviet period of socialization in post-Soviet countries was uniformly seen as bloodless information and psychological victory for human rights in the Western sense of them, then — there is a culture — civilization assimilation.

Now it is clear that in the time to lay down a unipolar world, human rights, in fact, lost ascribed to them international value and become what they always were: a national culture of the United States and Great Britain, which has become the culture of the "golden billion" of humanity, which the former Soviet nations have now under the leadership of the Russian "fifth column" collaborators — evrotsivilizatorov and NATOprogressorov perceive as their own.

2. So what is this new culture for us?

In the documents of the UN Human Rights called universal, natural and inalienable. They are also referred to as the pre-state, nadpozitivnymi etc. etc.

The meaning of all these high-sounding definitions is to ensure that the identity of the person allegedly formed not in society, but by itself. God created man in his own image, and man only repeats the way of God. His will is absolutely free. No law for such a person does not have a pre-determined force. Authority of the society is reduced to a minimum, the primary role played by people in the community. Therefore, the nation, the classes also do not have the personality for determining value. The role of personality is global, collective, state serve it. This is the ideology of liberalism.

Domestic terms mean the primacy of human rights, supremacy status of the individual over society and the state, as well as unacceptable and hostile to any other order of society

In terms of the external state of human rights means the subjection of peoples to another type of ethical values and understanding of human rights through colonization, conquest of their territory, cultural assimilation to protect against the effects of these peoples to their cultural and ethical values of human rights.

It is now clear that the lack of position are set out in UN documents, is that it ignores the existence of individuals with different perspectives and cultures equal to them in which a person's position in society, his rights are also the natural and inherent attributes of culture.

In contrast to Western Christianity, for example, orthodoxy, based on the fact that God created the world and man settles it that the staff — it's still more than a single person, a person does not exist by itself, so the society and the state is more important.

It is clear that the Universal Declaration and human rights — these are two incompatible concepts as human rights in the Western sense does not refer to the whole of human culture, but to the west.

The Universal Declaration of the United Nations, if it is really universal, that is, for all, should reflect all existing points of view on the rights and culture, not just one, but all existing civilizations on earth, in which the declaration is actually not. Therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in fact, is not universal, and the western declaration imposed by all of humanity.

Another disadvantage of the Western human rights is that the primacy of the individual to the community in the West comes from the bottom up, from the all-powerful individual to society and the activities of the society and the state is limited in the interests of the individual relevant legislation. So talk about the rule of law, rule of law, securing the individual against the absolute power of the state. Being included in international agreements on human rights, the latter appear to Oriental civilizations in an entirely different direction, the other functions — from the top down, then — there from the obligations assumed by the government, down to their fellow citizens, are exactly the opposite way than in the West then — there is distorted, not acting as an element of culture, but as a means of assimilation. This explains why, even after 50 years of membership in the human rights remain only 7% of the population of Western civilization. All the rest of the population of the Earth is the prey of 7%.

If you look at the prevalence of human rights culture in the documents and UN organizations, the most widely used, it is in Western Europe, which is adjacent to the organizations and the United States. Incomparably less than in the Americas, much less in the form of the struggle against racism and colonialism — in Africa, and finally fading away in Asia.

Human rights is not only an expression of a specific culture, but some will. It is the will of the nations — the British, North Americans and the French, to whom this will is. The will, as you know, is the basis of power. The spread of human rights in post-war Europe and Japan, it was spread by their nations will dwell winners, losers when the will was broken by the force of arms.

The attempt to establish human rights since 1991, the former Soviet Union, particularly in Russia and Ukraine, in this case means:

· Suppression of the national will of the people, unwarranted humiliation of the dignity

· Conscious subordination of the government foreign (international) government, that is a national betrayal.

So the first thing you need to take it away from the constitutions of our independent states provocative position on the western human rights, falsely interpreted the national consciousness of the peoples of the Orthodox Slavic world.

Necessary, secondly, to move to the device of international relations on the principle of the world, that is to interrupt prolonged for more than 50 years, the state of the winners and losers. Western ideology of human rights is objectively violates the principle of equality of peoples and their cultures, peace on earth. The UN Charter and other international agreements to be processed is applicable to the existing reality of today. Proceed from the assumption that the post-war period of the UN ended with the formation of a unipolar world, and the organization is in a unipolar world can not serve as a counterweight to the United States and to keep the peace on Earth, and ensure international security.

Human rights in the current international situation is not only a means of political and cultural assimilation, but also institutionalized in the UN Charter pretext for military aggression. It showed us the events in Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan and the new war the U.S. and its allies in Iraq.

If the world really respect human rights, first of all, are to be implemented and maintained to all States the principle of equality of nations, the principle of national sovereignty of all states.

3. As human rights were in the UN Charter

Utopian concept of universal human rights, the United States and Britain put forward at the beginning of the war, was to try to separate any person from its national soil and to show that, fighting against Germany and its allies, it thus does not protect its values and the values the United States and England that is human rights. The basis of the supposedly universal human rights was already incorporated cultural expansion.

The Nazi concept of the superiority of the Aryan race was undoubtedly close to the concept of human rights, with the difference that it did not have the elements of universality, as explicitly stated in the final result: what kind of person and what should be the dominant race.

Soviet ideology was based on non-national, class interests of the workers. If the national character usually implies a certain national unity of the people, the Soviet ideology did not come from the unity of the nation and of the unity of the interests of workers of different nations, all nations. The concept of human rights in the Western sense it was organically alien.

At the conference, Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in Argenta, Newfoundland, held August 9-12, 1941, the participants adopted a declaration, known as the Atlantic Charter. This document stated that no country, except Britain and the United States will not be able to provide long-term resistance to German aggression. What these two countries united against aggression in the name of human rights, justice and life, and they offer to other countries to join their alliance. The text of the Charter with a cover letter was sent to Stalin.

The USSR in the war which began with Germany is committed to protect the national culture and national statehood of the Soviet people — Russian, Ukrainians, Belarusians and other nations from destruction, and not the protection of the western human rights.

September 24, 1941 at the International Conference of the USSR. United States and Britain in London Soviet ambassador read out the answer — the Soviet declaration in which nothing was said about human rights, and mentioned the sovereign rights of nations and states. While agreeing with the basic principles of the Atlantic Charter, the Soviet Union made significant reservation that their practical application "will inevitably conform to the circumstances and needs of the historical circumstances of this or that country."

January 1, 1942 in Washington, representatives of 26 countries, including the Soviet Union, signed the Declaration of the United Nations — a military alliance against German aggression, which signed up to the Atlantic Charter. As is evident from the statements of the participants of the agreements, each side defended the sovereign rights of the people: the United States and England — human rights, the Soviet Union — socialism.

"In the history of the world have not been previously existed coalitions that are our enemy, would consist of such heterogeneous elements with completely conflicting goals — Hitler said, speaking December 12, 1944 before the division commanders. — In the face of our enemies, we have before us the extreme opposites that all conceivable on earth today: on the one hand, the ultra-capitalist states and, on the other — an ultra Marxist … "

As a result of victories over Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote, "Soviet Russia has become a deadly threat to the free world", to defend human rights, and he demanded to "immediately set up a new front against the rapid advance of the Soviet Union." Official appeals to the Soviet leadership Winston Churchill, on the contrary, said that the victory of the Red Army over Germany "won boundless admiration of her allies and decided the fate of German militarism."

The U.S. government also was aware of the allies in the war to protect different values. The statement from the U.S. Department of State June 22, 1941, for example, stated: "We must consistently adhere to the line, according to which the fact that the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, does not mean that it protects, fights, or adheres to the principles of international relations, which we adhere to. "

At the conference, the USSR, USA and Great Britain in Dumbarton Okoye (1944), which prepared the UN Charter, adopted a draft in which there was no mention of human rights.

But after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt (12 April 1945) and the advent of Harry Truman, who spoke before the defeat of the USSR in the war, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States began to deteriorate rapidly. On the opened February 25, 1945 in San Francisco conference for the adoption of the UN Charter United States, Britain and France, without prior discussion with the Soviet Union made to the draft law of human rights. AA Gromyko, member of the Conference on the Soviet side, in his memoirs, shows that these countries have sought to occupy a dominant position in the post-war world politics. At the conference, there was divergence of views, but "all of the major difficulties have been overcome." The author does not indicate what difficulties are not overcome it. But in 1948 in Paris at the third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, to consider adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Soviet representative AJ Wyszynski criticized for human rights. As is known, the Soviet Union from voting for the Declaration abstained.

Even before the vote for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Winston Churchill in his famous speech delivered by him in the U.S. city of Fulton in 1946 and became the beginning of the "Cold War", it is revealed the true content of human rights as part of a planned campaign by Western countries against communism

Indeed, in the Atlantic Charter, the United States and England have only seen themselves as organizers of the struggle against Nazi Germany and the leaders of the post-war world, and the war against Germany, the Soviet Union was seen by them as an episode, however, as a result of the defeat of Germany, the Soviet Union became the leading power in Europe, which was not in the plans of the U.S. and England.

As the recently released British government archives, in early 1945, Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed a plan to start a war against the Soviet Union, which he was considered a hypothetical idea. The best option in the post-war world was a "cold war", which included a plan for dissemination of human rights in post-war Europe and the whole world.

Therefore, communism in Winston Churchill's Fulton speech should not be taken literally, not as a political power of the Bolsheviks. Winston Churchill was an enemy to, first of all, historically communal way of life in the Russian and Soviet society, opposite the Anglo-American culture of individualism, and declared them a campaign against Communism was an attempt to revise the results of the 2nd World War by rebuilding the social system of the USSR, not resorting to arms.

If stated in the Atlantic Charter of Human Rights opposed by the German ideology of the highest German race, the Charter of the United Nations, they are opposed to all non-Western societies as a world ideology. Through the UN Charter and other documents in the consciousness of non-Western peoples that make up the exception of Western 7%, all of humanity, the programs of their assimilation.

At the turn of the 40-50s. in search of a way out of the situation in the USSR was playing on the contradictions between Britain and the United States, when the United States did not want to participate in human rights treaties, as the latter, in their opinion, is not well guarded and protected private interests, private property and private enterprise.

In the post-Stalin era, after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, "the process has begun." According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, by 1989, the Soviet Union signed and ratified 27 conventions on human rights, England -21, -6 United States. In 1990 the Decree of the President of the USSR on the rehabilitation, pressure formed over decades of internal "fifth column", using the already adopted human rights agreements to modify the Soviet social system, the Soviet government announced criminal. The following year, in the Bialowieza Forest trio of Presidents — Jude from communism and the Soviet government announced that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

But the struggle between two civilizations — the Euro-Atlantic individualist and collectivist Orthodox Slavic continues at a new stage of history. The peculiarity of this universal opposition in the new millennium is that before the collectivist civilizations are Sino-Confucian and Islamic. Do they make a coalition or alliance of civilizations — collectivists in this universal opposition of good (us) and evil (I)? Each of us is willing or unwilling participant in this historic confrontation. That this should not think twice once to those who stubbornly seeks to "recover" the Ukraine (ie your hands … put in the occupation and do what has not been possible to Hitler and his clique) in Europe. And is not this what shows the current so-called Orange Revolution dramatically split the November — December 2004 Ukraine and as a result of which the President of Ukraine was seized by the Supreme Court of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko puppet of Western civilization?

Solomatins Yuri Petrovich, People's Deputy of Ukraine

December 10, 2005

See also NS Troubetzkoy, "Human Values" — the banner of cultural genocide

Like this post? Please share to your friends: