Are human rights a psyop?

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I do think that the past few decades has had an unhealthy obsession for rights, the desire for everything under the sun to have rights and be considered a human right to posses.
All this talk of rights, you hear nothing about your duties and obligations to uphold these rights, and this idea is inconceivable to the modern person who would argue that duty ends where their rights begin, and that they have the right to find someone to do it for them as they engage in their alleged right to become slave to their own vices.

They do tell you your duty and obligation to uphold those rights, and that's by being a good little NPC who votes for the media-approved party, spams social media with the media narrative, and above all, punches "Nazis."

No they aren't though. Bismark created the first welfare state under the German empire which, as you already know, didn't have any so-called "human rights." Germany had living conditions comparable to Britain until the Great War. Austria-Hungary, while less developed, also had no conception of human rights and still had a stable society. You might disagree with that, but I do contend that the Austrian empire was stable and prosperous. For more information you can read the book "The Habsburg Empire, A New History."

These Christian monarchies operated under the ten commandments and faith in God. Human rights are meant to supplant the ten commandments with new ideological liberal dogma.

North Korea, Iran, and China have all signed and ratified the UN's declaration of human rights. Do you think the Chinese aren't slaves because of this UN charter? Whether a country believes in these mythical human rights, which have no intellectual basis, doesn't matter.

If human rights didn't exist you still wouldn't be able to kill because of the 10 commandments. We live in a Christian society. Maybe you're a muslim immigrant so you don't know that

LMAO no it wasn't. Only Austria, the Czech lands, parts of Hungary, and the largest cities elsewhere had any prosperity. The rest of the empire was mostly rich landlords exploiting their peasants with lots of ethnic violence on the side. The best part was Galicia which was Africa-tier, featuring daily race wars between Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians (modern Ukraine was created by these violent race-warring Galicians) and constant famines. Nobody but a minority faction of Hungarians and Austrians ever tried to restore the Habsburgs after they collapsed. Their empire was just as anachronistic as the Ottoman Empire or Qing Dynasty by the 20th century.

BTW the German Empire was also more or less a democracy where the Reichstag (which was 1/3 socialist in the years leading up to and during WWI) could interfere with the Kaiser and his appointed chancellor's programs. The situation wasn't too much different than Britain and how powerful the unelected House of Lords used to be.

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

The only issue I have is that human rights aren't a universal. Everyone seems to have their own idea about what human rights are, with it literally differing from place to place and even person to person. Using the term human rights just mucks up the conversation as most people would accept that there are certain right that everyone should have but everyone disagree about the exact rights. Rarely though does any discussion of human rights go past just saying 'human rights' and actually go into the details of what those rights are and then you just end up with everyone thinking you mean their idea of human rights and in the end people just talk past one another.

The UN has human rights, the EU has human rights, Canada has their own list of human rights, South Africa has human rights too and if I cared enough I could find a few more. They have some basic ideas that overlap but then they also have several things that don't or aren't exactly the same. So it seems a bit pointless to discuss human rights as an abstract universal concept because it simply isn't.

 

[Linako 2.0]

They do tell you your duty and obligation to uphold those rights, and that's by being a good little NPC who votes for the media-approved party, spams social media with the media narrative, and above all, punches "Nazis."

They don't really. sure you got twitter people said Vote Blue No matter Who and a few ANTIFAs who said to punch your local Nazi, but that was never really brought up when I went to school, hell I don't think taxes or the draft was brought up, I knew about them but didn't learn it form school.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

LMAO no it wasn't. Only Austria, the Czech lands, parts of Hungary, and the largest cities elsewhere had any prosperity. The rest of the empire was mostly rich landlords exploiting their peasants with lots of ethnic violence on the side. The best part was Galicia which was Africa-tier, featuring daily race wars between Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians (modern Ukraine was created by these violent race-warring Galicians) and constant famines. Nobody but a minority faction of Hungarians and Austrians ever tried to restore the Habsburgs after they collapsed. Their empire was just as anachronistic as the Ottoman Empire or Qing Dynasty by the 20th century.

Yes, some parts were still developing. That's how industrialization happened. IN a few decades, the rest of the empire would've caught up. Before WW1, Austria had the second largest railway network in Europe. Przemysl is a great example of a half Ukrainian, half Polish city quickly developing to first world standards. You may say Galicia was bad, but what about the Irish potato famine? There were plenty of famines in the 19th century. There's nothing so spectacular about Galicia. But it's good to note that even in spite of the massive suffering in Galicia, the Poles were still loyal to Franz Joseph.

The reason there weren't attempts to restore the crown was because of a concerted effort to "de-Habsburgize" Austria and Hungary. There was a propaganda campaign equivalent to de-nazisation in Austria after WW1.

BTW the German Empire was also more or less a democracy where the Reichstag (which was 1/3 socialist in the years leading up to and during WWI) could interfere with the Kaiser and his appointed chancellor's programs. The situation wasn't too much different than Britain and how powerful the unelected House of Lords used to be.

If that's true then I'd like to see some examples of the reichstag interfering with Bethman-Hollweg or Bernhard von Bulow. The naval program and the following naval race only happened because the Kaiser wanted it to happen. The reason it ended is because Wilhelm II was a little crazy and had an episode of manic depression in 1908. It didn't end because reichstag wanted it to. The foreign office was directed by the chancellors and the chancellors were appointed by the Kaiser. The reason German foreign policy was so disastrous is because chancellors kept getting fired so for 2 decades the German empire didn't have a coherent foreign policy. If the reichstag governed foreign policy, you would expect the opposite to happen.