Whatever your age and whatever
the culture in which you were raised, you do not need to be reminded that if
you live in a clan of human beings, you abide by the rules of a hierarchy that restricts
some of the things you do, but leaves you free to act as you wish in all other
matters.
You know instinctively that
all this is true because it is written in our genetic code, and is so mandated
by it. In fact, long before we became human, existing organisms as primitive as
insects, and organisms as advanced as chimpanzees, had arranged themselves into
hierarchical societies that made it possible for them to survive the challenges
of the elements and those of predators who would have annihilated them.
Consequently, we recognize
that the freedom to act as we wish––as long as we obey the rules guaranteeing
the survival of the species––is a trait that's indigenous to us as real as the
material that makes-up our genetic code. This is what renders the term “Human
Rights” a misnomer, given that it is something we share with non-human
organisms.
Why then, is there such a fuss
around the globe about the application and enforcement of Human Rights? To
answer this question, we first need to know something about the
“abuse-revulsion” dichotomy. In the same way that we separated ourselves from
the other species by becoming makers of physical tools we use to do chores we
cannot do otherwise, we learned to make moral tools of our impulses –– be they
positive or negative –– even weaponize them and use them to score moral
victories over our opponents.
When this kind of destructive
behavior became ingrained in some cultures, human beings began to develop an
antidote to the habit. It is the empathy that we have acquired for the weak
among us when their rights are trampled on by the more powerful. But given that
we are complicated creatures, it happens that sick individuals among us pretend
to fake empathy, and use it as a weapon to go after the people who do nothing
worse than enforce the legitimate restrictions imposed by the clan’s hierarchy.
And this is how the sick individuals exploit the situation to benefit
themselves.
And so, every time that
questions arise as to whether or not abuse of human rights is taking place in a
given situation, the matter is complicated by questions as to whether or not
the revulsions expressed by some people are real or they are made-up to exploit
the melee, thus advance these people’s hidden agenda.
This is what comes to mind
every time that we encounter an article such as the one that came under the
title: “Mike Pompeo's fight for unalienable rights,” and the subtitle: “The
human rights establishment wants him out of the marketplace of ideas.” It was
written by Clifford D. May, and published on July 21, 2020 in The Washington
Times.
Clifford May tells the story
of a new publication that discusses Human Rights, a publication that sparked a
great deal of controversy. That's because, according to Clifford May, Mike
Pompeo, who ordered the State Department to prepare and issue the publication,
was criticized for its content by all those who pronounced themselves. But just
as everyone in America has apparently rejected the Pompeo conclusions, the
publication itself seems to denounce every institution in the world that has
“Human Rights” attached to its name. It is a situation in which everyone is
firing at everyone else.
So, where does that leave us?
Well, you could say that if the Pompeo publication were a pig, Clifford May has
rubbed a ton of lipstick on it. And the question to ask is this: Has this made
the pig look any better? Well, I leave it to you to judge, dear reader.
Meanwhile, here is a relevant passage you can look at:
“Anyone who reads the report
will find it far from extreme. Nor does it attempt to gloss over America's
human rights failures. Two examples: (1) Respect for unalienable rights
requires acknowledgment of where the United States has fallen short of its
principles with special recognition of the sin of slavery and our nation's
deepest violation of unalienable rights. (2) Progress toward the securing of
rights for all has been slow and was interrupted by periods of backsliding. In
addition, the report emphasizes the nation's unfinished work in overcoming the
evil effects of its long history of racial injustice”.
What this says, is that
America is acknowledging it was one of the worst violators of Human Rights, if
not the absolute worst violator. It also advises that it has repented for past
sins, yet admits that it continues to commit them; at times even backslides
toward an earlier revolting era. Try to figure that one out.
But trust us, says Mike Pompeo
to the world, and goes on to add something that runs like this: We have the
moral authority to tell you how to live the principled life … which is nothing
like we are living at this time, or will live at any time in the near future,
or as far away as we can see. But we know we are good, and you may not be as
good as us. And so, we lead and you must follow.