Traditionalist Conservatism Forum
    > Human Rights
        > Human rights in the NWO
New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
(12/4/01 4:42 pm)
Human rights in the NWO
Any comments on the human rights aspects of the current war?

It seems to me that we in America would not be in this war but for our attempt to create a universal liberal order, manifested in (1) military involvement throughout the world, including specifically the Islamic world, (2) the eagerness of our ruling classes to promote such expressions of "diversity" as establishment of large Muslim communities within our borders, and (3) our attack on all local particularisms everywhere, through our development and export of a cosmopolitan consumer culture and our support for the definition and universal enforcement of the advanced liberal understanding of human rights.

"Human rights" and "inclusiveness" are the moral justification of the new order. More than that, they make it morally compulsory - to fail to advance it is irresponsible isolationism most likely motivated by xenophobia etc. The problem is that those ideals attack the particularism of all actual human societies. Their necessary effect therefore is likely to be the militarization of life at home, as informal moral connections among the people decline, and abroad bombing, massacres, executions by secret tribunals, and eternal war.

Jim Kalb and

Registered User
(12/15/01 7:16 pm)
Re: Human rights in the NWO
Any developments can't help religion very much since the Taliban is touted as a reason why we should'nt let religion enter the politcal arena. But it all depends on which groups win what political battles. Neocons want war to put its ever expanding hegemony on better strategic footing. Some leftists want an continually expanding war against "religious extremism" internationally or otherwise. More extreme leftists want to politically cash in on current public anxieties to bring various internal security organs to bear on domestic "right-wing extremists and hate-groups" (Ellen Ratner and Sen. Feinstein fall into this category).

I think the net political effect will be a build up of internal security forces and more or less continuous war internationally. With that there will be attempts to contain certain religious sectors with rather vague accusations of "talibanism" in public life. For the most part this is already happening here in the US. The Falwell/Robertson affair is an example. The .50 caliber rifle ban is another if you've seen reasons cited for its support. Continuous war is a given on account of how agressive liberalism is as an ideology. Naturally the Middle Easterns will not be amused by it and more than a few will kill a lot of Americans in bombings and what not.

What I fear is this. Eventually the international dimension to the Grand War Against Terrorism will end. Given the political climate what's to stop the "Directorate of Homeland (read: Internal) Security" from bringing any number of groups with a violent wing under its auspices? The pro-life movement? Firearm owners? The Third Way? People who disagree with homosexuality? Now the DHS probably won't turn into the next NVKD, but it has enormous potential to be misused.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- Traditionalist Conservatism Forum - Human Rights - On to Restoration! -

Upgrade your account to ezSupporter......and never see another ad or pop-up again

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3u
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.