‘Human Rights’ Are a Scam
‘Human Rights’ Are a Scam
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 4/8/2023
I have asked all sorts of people to define what human rights are and where they come from. The common person has never yet answered either part of the question. No one has answered where they come from nor what they actually are. The closest I have ever gotten to an answer is the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. This is odd because the UN’s UDHR provides no one with any right whatsoever in the first place because of the way they are written and then there is article 29 which throws the entire concept of rights out the window. It is an important question because so-called human right’s advocates like Human Rights Watch help craft policy for nations. The reason why these policies are so repugnant is because human rights have always been and always will be a scam.
The United Nations claims that it was Cyrus who first declared human rights are applicable to human beings in 539BC. They also claim that the UDHR incorporates the recorded events of Cyrus’ in the first four articles of the UDHR. The United Nations next example is their hijacking of the Magna Carta. The next major event is the development of the UDHR itself. In the 1990’s and moving forward all sorts of previously unknown rights came to the attention of the likes of the International Labor Organization to make sure that if there is even the slightest chance there is reason to believe someone will be fired against their will it constitutes modern slavery. The website then goes on to mention John Ruggie and his principles, and the article ends with a display of multi-colored Marxist fists. Fitting.
It’s fitting because human rights are based on the ethics of mankind. It has, in the past (and for some in the present), been seen as ethical to forcibly remove women from their homes to sterilize them, to burn alive on a pyre the widow of the deceased, and to conduct grotesque eugenics experiments which are still not publicly acknowledged. These are no longer in vogue and the ethics utilized by man now, generally, condemn those activities. Today it is seen as ethical to demand that people go broke to serve the greater good in the face of disease, people can be forced sterilized, and the food supply can be tainted with ‘meat’ grown from cultured tumor cells. Ethics are merely a justification for any person willing to do evil to justify their actions.
The UN makes this pointedly clear in article 29 of the Declaration of Human Rights:
“1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
“2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
“3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The ethics of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights in article 29 says clearly that rights are communal not individual, laws can take those rights away at the behest of the majority, and the UN is the sole and final arbiter of all rights and their acknowledgment. Their ‘peacekeeping’ forces have been permitted to commit horrendous acts of serial mass rape, their Rights of the Child is intended to completely dissolve the basic building block of society – the family, and their small arms trade treaty seeks to destroy the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess any means of defense from enemies foreign and/or domestic. This article also destroys all of the other rights in the document because they become arbitrarily dependent on the judgment of an unelected global body which wants to destroy every nation on earth and subjugate every man woman and child to their tyranny. This is especially problamatic when reflecting on the idea that the UN can override any right included in the DHC, including the first four they claim to have lifted from Cyrus:
“Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
“Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
“Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
“Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”
There is no dignity in shooting newborns full of poisons for diseases they cannot contract or immediately registering them to a state. Discrimination, the same human ability which allows us to determine whether a particular mushroom is poisonous or not, is deemed to no longer be needed when making associations. I’m sure the peacekeepers engaging in rape are thinking about how they are violating the third tenet here. The UN certainly has no desire to ever allow Bible believing Christians nor Jews the ‘rights’ listed in article 3. The UN, with it’s demands and promotion of dissolving national borders and efforts to create hundreds of million of economic refugees is, in many facets, the largest slave trafficker on the face of the planet – they buy them with Walmart-gift cards, make sure they get to where the UN wants them to be, and sells them to the highest bidder.
Included in the UDHR are ‘rights’ which clearly do not exist. The right to enter foreign countries (Article 14(2)), a right to social security (22), a right to work (23), the right to join a union (23(4)), the right to rest (24), the right to a standard of living whether they work or not (25), and the right to compulsory education (26) are some of the more inflammatory examples. Of course, all of these can be taken away too because of Article 29 but they are really concerned with destroying the first four articles. Once the first four are gone, all the rest follow.
The USSR used the idea of human rights violations to push Communism around the world. They would make these claims which, whether true or not, serve to denigrate the ethical standing of Western nations. While the USSR was using these propaganda campaigns in the human rights arena, they were sending millions to the gulag, holding mass executions, and digging holes in the ground where they would stuff the new inmates, fill the hole with dirt to prevent any movement, expose their head to the elements, and let them stay there for three or four days with just enough water to survive. Human rights would dictate that this should never have occurred – the United Nations has never condemned these actions – instead they have celebrated the men who committed these crimes; Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev in the USSR and dictators around the world.
There are some human rights organizations which actually serve an important purpose based on truth, facts, and a rejection of the human right defined by the United Nations. They are very few and far between and are not the acceptable non-governmental human rights organizations governments and the United Nation’s pay attention to. It is groups like Human Rights Watch which matter because the NGO promotes an ethical framework which leads to humanity’s annihilation.
Human Rights Watch was founded in New York City in 1978. They have never been anything but an espionage group working on the behalf of global government. “We investigated massacres and even genocides, along with government take-overs of media and the baseless arrests of activists and political opposition figures. At the same time, we expanded our work to address abuses against those likely to face discrimination, including women, LGBT people, and people with disabilities. When families victimized by war crimes found no justice at home, we championed international justice and international courts. While we rely on in-person interviews, our research methods have also changed with the times, and today we use satellite imagery to track the destruction of villages and city blocks, and we mine big data for patterns in arrest rates or the deportation of immigrants. Everything we do circles back to our commitment to justice, dignity, compassion, and equality.”
They are silent on January 6 protesters, the fact that a cabal of six anti-human organizations control something like 94% of all US media, and they still endorse the ‘mitigation’ efforts used during the coronavirus plandemic. It’s only the events they have decided are bad based on politics. They seek to legitimize and demand legislated acceptance of every reprobate lifestyle ever known to mankind. They subvert the legal system of the United States and other nations to lend credence to the International Criminal Court. The use AI and illegally obtained surveillance data. They seek injustice and promote it as justice, denigrate human dignity, use science-based data to inform their compassion-less decisions, and promote equality of outcome. If the NGO has any merit it is to serve as an example of the evil human rights present to human beings.
A former Human Rights Watch director, Ken Roth, is quoted, “Together, we can use our influence – from advocating with world leaders to sharing the truth of what’s happening on the ground – to help stop repression around the world.” The problem with this is they have no intention to share the truth – they shape the truth through their own bias. And their version of repression is highly subjective. That is why they produce repugnant stories about events around the world.
Human Rights Watch was celebrating the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (a tentacle of the UN-inspired African Union) passage of a resolution to affirm intersex people’s ‘rights.’ ““Intersex” refers to the estimated 1.7 percent of people born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, or genitals, that differ from social expectations of female or male.” This is the first step towards creating the progressive dream of transsexualism and is an overall push towards transhumanism. The NGO notes that surgeries to make these individuals one sex or the other are on par with genital mutilation and are nonconsensual. Then they demand that males participate in female sports. They also celebrate any legislative effort to affirm the trans community especially when that affirmation comes at a cost to individual freedom.
Another article passing as a human right abuse according to Human Rights Watch covered the expulsion of two thugs given suits, voted into office by their fellow thugs, and then actually conducting an insurrection in the Tennessee capitol last week. Three ‘legislators’ marched, bullhorn in hand, to the microphone on the floor of the Tennessee House while it was in session. The white woman, also a thug who has acted violently in the past, went to the podium but did not speak. The two first-term black thugs demanded further insurrectionist activities from non-peaceful protesters outside the floor. They were ejected from the House and their seats vacated. The white woman missed the same fate by one vote. The black thugs are playing the victimhood card, the race card, and the anti-democracy card. According to Human Right’s Watch the two expelled should have been given extra rights to protect their hideous actions. They also claimed, “Yesterday’s actions in Tennessee are blatant reminders of the harm to democracy that comes from a failure in the United States to prevent overt racism and to dismantle structural racism.” Their ethics inform their decisions and their ethics are, obviously, completely reprobate.
When it comes to actual human rights violations, Human Rights Watch supports them and demands more occur. They have a produced a vomitous piece noting the COVID-19 mitigation efforts which have violated human rights in their eyes. They demand that the pandemic is still ongoing and suggest the United States’ response was not adequate. Schoolchildren’s privacy was the issue, not the closed school buildings. Vaccines were not freely distributed around the world they claimed – ignoring the deadly side-effects they cause. Economic inequality is a bigger problem because outcomes are less equal. The Universal Basic Income demonstration for those economically destroyed by the mitigation efforts were just fine. Older people not being able to access online services was the major problem in that demographic, not so much the visitor bans – the ultimate solution is to shut nursing homes down. The pandemic isn’t the reason domestic violence rates surged as much as government responses and laws cause it. They tell the complete lie about Asian-hate crimes spiking solely due to the plandemic. Not giving immigrants and refugees the same exact care that citizens received was a human rights violation. The last four paragraphs are an advertisement for the anti-human, anti-science, and anti-medicine WHO Pandemic Treaty.
The word ‘speech’ does not appear a single time in the article. They completely ignored the millions of us that were silenced, fined, and arrested. The word ‘arrest’ appeared once in reference to Syrian refugees in Lebanon fearing that if they registered for the gene therapy they may be arrested. It’s about refugee ‘rights’ – not the arrests that occurred for violating curfews anywhere else in the world, saying the wrong thing online, taking a walk on a beach alone without a mask. Masks being mandated to be worn with fines and jail time being offered for non-compliance wasn’t the issue, not sending masks around the world to materially assist actual fascists and their mandates was the problem.
Everyone has a set of ethics. Those ethics change over time, situationally, and are dependent on the whims of the evil which lurks in man’s hearts. The UN has theirs and so did Hitler, Mao, and Lenin. Reagan had ethics, Mandela had ethics, and so did Genghis Khan. Those relying on ethics to form their world view pick and choose from all of the ethical frameworks ever developed. Hitler’s ideas weren’t bad, some claim, but we should get rid of the gas-chambers and use of the word eugenics and focus on murdering babies in the womb and sterilizing them as soon as we can if they are born and calling it reproductive health rights and gender-affirming surgeries. The only reason to even attempt to do this is to destroy the family and to destroy the future of humanity. It’s okay for the Joe Biden to hold political prisoners in jail for 2 years and torture them – no attention is given to those people – Free Vietnam’s Political Prisoners! Never mind that Ukraine waged a continuous war against any Russian speaking person for 8 years and allowed NATO and the EU to do whatever they wanted in the country – it’s all Russia’s fault.
Human rights are completely informed by man-made ethics. This is the problem with human rights. The idea that the UN wants to credit Cyrus with the first four of their ethics-based rights in the UDHR is ridiculous. But it shows something important. Nothing set in stone is acceptable for the UN to adopt. Everything must be rooted in subjective ethical determinations so they can move the goal posts as their needs and desires change. This is why they noted Cyrus in relation to the Cyrus Cylinder and not the Bible. The Bible can be used to reference ethics but what it really contains are morals. Morals are not subject to the whims of mankind – they are set by God, immutable, and unchanging. The UDHR first four Articles come from the Bible. Unlike the Bible; however, the UN has determined that if it is not in their interest, those four human rights don’t apply (and neither do any of the other ones). God picked Cyrus. Human rights advocates hijacked God’s works through Cyrus to claim all of the rest of their perceived rights have morality to them when they have nothing of the sort. All the while the UN and human rights crowd deny the morality of the Bible and the existence of God.
Human rights are a sham, built on man-made ethical frameworks, and devoid of God’s laws. They don’t recognize the 613 laws of the Torah, the 10 Commandments, nor the summarization of both offered by Jesus Christ – Love God above all else with everything we have and treat others as we want to be treated. Not only do they not abide by any of that, they have weaponized it against believers. The reprobate is to be treated the same as the saint, the murderer the same as the healers, and the degenerate the same as the righteous under their ethics and the codification of the ‘rights’ stemming from it.
Why is there not a rejection of this reprobate set of ethics? It’s because we don’t know the morals of the Bible. Do you know the 10 Commandments? How about three of them. One of them? How about the 613 laws in the Torah describing how to set ourselves apart for God? Christians have been told since the late 300’s that they don’t need to pay heed to any of this because Jesus got rid of these laws.
He absolutely did not – he lived the Torah, commanded His followers to pray to His Father, and demanded He not be seen as good – only His Father is good. He told His followers to follow Him – i.e. to LIVE THE LAWS OF THE TORAH. Read the Bible and learn that for yourself. We don’t generally do this though and most do not arrive at the conclusion presented here. But it is because there is such a lack of Biblical literacy and so many who have rejected the teachings of the Bible in favor of their own relative ethics that the UN stands on the precipice of effecting a global government. Based on a scam. Rooted in man-made ethics. To serve their own evil hearts.
Take it to God in prayer.
Bless God and God bless.