When you observe the political scene in the media and especially in the internet, you can see hundreds of organizations – governmental and non-governmental – foundations, agendas, institutes and what not, affiliated with the United Nations or the United States or the European Union, all of which are intent on imposing, spreading, defending human rights and are obsessed with combating discrimination because of – and here we have the mantra of race, religion, nationality and sex or – in modern parlance – gender. Here are some questions that I would gladly like someone to answer.
ONE. Why are those activists not satisfied with the rule of law? The rule of law protects anybody against being mugged, accosted, assaulted, robbed, cheated and the like. Why do they need to have all that mantra of a crime being committed because of race, religion, nationality and gender? This string of words is repeated in each website of the mentioned organizations so frequently that it makes you puke all over yourself. Why the heck should it matter whether I accost someone because of his skin colour or because of her looks or his clothes or her tattoos? It is the act of accosting, mugging, cheating, assaulting that should be judged and punished not the motivation, not the feelings, for goodness sake! Should I be punished less severely if I mug a victim because of his tattoos and more severely when I mug him because of his religion? I just don’t get it.
Imagine I accost a woman in the street for which by law I deserve to be punished. Why should it interest the judge whether I accosted the woman because she was black or yellow, or because she was a Muslim or an atheist? I just don’t get it, do you? It is our human right or – still better – biological, psychological nature that we do not like some people because of their behaviour or looks or convictions. You can do nothing about it so long as you deal with normal human beings. You can only restrict their actions, not feelings, opinions, convictions.
TWO. Why this insistence on anti-discrimination laws when it comes to employment, membership, immigration and the like? Why should anybody want to impose himself on a group of people where he is not liked? Where do these people who want to impose themselves on others have their dignity? Why should I want to demand that I be accepted by people whose set of values, beliefs, opinions, mode of behaviour is drastically opposed to those of mine? Why should I even think of reeducating people in a country to which I immigrate with my extended family, why should I have the cheek to force myself upon them and accuse them of inhospitality if they do not accept me? Once again, where is my dignity, uh? I just don’t get it, really.
Imagine me as a teen-aged boy who would like to play with his peers but my peers do not want to accept me in their team because – maybe – I am bad at sports and they do not want to have a weakling among them, because I am fat or skinny and they do not like it, because I am a catholic and they are protestants or atheists, because my parents are communists and they hate leftist ideas – all sorts of because. It is their – human! – right, free will, whatever you want to call it, not to want to mingle with me. I may not like it, I may even shed tears if I am a sissy boy, but then why should I want to go to my teacher or parent and demand that my guardians do something about it and make the boys accept me? How would I feel being “accepted” in such a way? While eventually enforced on the team, would I then closely observe the expression of their faces, meticulously write down their words addressed to me and then duly report to the teacher or any other authority that the boys pursue microaggressions? Would I then again demand that something be done about it? Should the teacher punish them for their unfriendly attitude – feelings – towards me? Why would I think that such behaviour of mine would dispose them in a positive way to me rather than the other way round?
THREE. Why does it all work in one direction only? Why am I branded as evil for expressing my dislike towards people who invade my country whereas those who invade my country are not supposed to feel at least ill at ease that they come, uninvited? Do what you would be done by – does anybody remember that golden rule? They certainly would not like their countries to be flooded by us: why do they expect us to like it? Where is simple reciprocity in human relations? Why should I accept tattooed people, people with misshaped earlobes or with safety-pins in their eyelids, why should I be forced to accept all those things that go counter to my deep-held ideas of decency, aesthetics, good-looks and good manners, and why should they – those tattooed, those with misshaped earlobes – not be forced to dress and look and behave the way that is not offensive to me? Do you – champions of human rights – at least grasp what I am talking about? A tattooed person with a misshaped earlobe knows full well what unfavourable impression it makes on the likes of me. Why should such a person torment me with his looks and I should have my mouth gagged or else?
FOUR. Why do the champions of human rights and all those anti-discrimination policies – broken down by the categories from the usual list repeated nauseatingly – think that they have the monopoly on truth? Why do they unashamedly proclaim for all the world to hear that they are after each country and nation and will hunt them down till they force the governments and individuals to accept the said policies? Why this “holy” crusade in a world that has seemingly long parted from recognizing any idea as holy? Does this attitude not fit the definition of religion? Do the champions of this religion not fit the definition of religious fundamentalists? A scientific attitude is this not. Science recognizes phenomena and tries to explain rather than deny them. If people the world over hold beliefs and attitudes that the human rights activists dismiss as prejudice, they hold these beliefs and attitudes for a reason. Failure to understand it produces ever more saviours of humanity – Kalvin, Robespierre, Marx, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot – all of whom irrevocably and miserably lead millions of people through the earthly inferno packaged as paradise of equality, wellbeing, freedom and fraternity. Why do ever-newer saviours arise and – which is even more interesting – why do they always find new followers?
I just don’t get it. Help me understand, please. Is there a psychologist or – still better – a psychiatrist reading this?
One comment on “I just don’t get it. Could you help?”
The elements described above are part of a larger problem:
In the Netherlands and most other countries in the world, citizens are ruled by citizens. That is an abject situation. Citizens must be ruled by someone who is above the citizens. That can only be a monarch. At some point you even get a political party, which deals with the ingredients of an egg cake (probably already happening). Likewise in the judiciary.
The Oranges have always worked for the Dutch people. Stadholder Maurits tried to turn the tide in the Golden Age, but the citizens knew better. This Golden Age soon came to an end.
Return to the monarchy is not an option in these turbulent times, but an absolute necessity.
For substantiation of the above thesis I would like to refer to the work of the German economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe, since 1986 he is professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).
In 2001, his book Democracy: The God that Failed was published, which not only criticized democracy as a form of government, in which Hoppe suggested that even a free market under a hereditary monarch is better than any democratic form of government, but also that the constant struggle between freedom of the individual and the state within liberalism is a lost cause for the freedom of the individual. According to Hoppe, it is best to abolish the state as a ‘mandatory institution’ altogether.