For the right movement, the rhetoric of human rights is indisputably extremely beneficial and even strange that we have to talk about this separately. National republics, mass migration, a new mosque or the refusal of a census on religious grounds - that's the list of accusations of human rights violations.
But the protection of human rights has its own characteristics ... like positive discrimination and, accordingly, total bias.
As one of the main arguments, the authors referred to the success of minority rights advocacy. SPLC and other extreme left societies are really successful, but was there any point in mentioning them at all? The protection of the rights of "oppressed" minorities is based not only on large money and the skilled work of think tanks.
A key aspect of the protection of human rights is its bias. Nobody canceled the arrow. Muslims, blacks, Middle Asians - are in the position of the oppressed. Their rights are protected, they demand your sympathy, wherever there are harassment and whether they are real. Progressive humanity owes them.
The whites, especially the Slavs, and especially the Russians, in the left political thought are groups that do not deserve sympathy, but only condemnation. There can be no colonialists in this paradigm for the protection of the rights of Russians in Turkestan or the Boers in South Africa. There can be no protection of the rights of Russians in the national republics - this is not their land. There can be no protection of the rights of whites in Europe - they are privileged. The protection of rights is always directed only at those who are the object of a cult of repentance or simply not a part of Europe or a Christian.
There is no conspiracy in this, just a modern ideological landscape that has been built for centuries. From the reactionary essence of the Slavic peoples from the left authors and to the great cult of repentance and self-hatred from the whole of Europe. And human rights are not for reactionary peoples.
The example of Afrikaner here is most obvious, in my opinion, since they are really active and healthy human rights activities. AfriForum, a human rights organization of white South Africa, traveled half the world in search of allies to defend their rights, persuaded Americans to Fox and Russians to Radio.Sputnik. At the same time, the leftists of all levels continuously accuse them of racism and deny the fact of oppression (!).
The first thing that Russian human rights activists will hear in their address from the choir of the leftists (and they have heard for a long time, in fact) - YOU LIE, WITH RUSSIAN ALL WELL AND WELL ALWAYS WELL. Whether the Bolsheviks, other countries, post-Soviet national minorities or post-Soviet states - liberals and leftists always, always take their side, whatever the above forces do and whatever facts of crime you bring. When you bring them to a dead end, they will accuse you of fascism and start a new one. In analogy with South Africa, talking about the rights of whites immediately leads to accusing you of supporting conspiracy theories about a "white genocide".
Nesterov and Karlin preach the view that the Left was defeated by "smart Jews" and anyone in their place with their resources could as well. "Make an organization like SPLC, with money like SPLC, and the world will start giving you money to fight Russophobia." Do not start. You will remain the same "Great Russian chauvinist" or "white Suprematist", as you were, regardless of your rhetoric.
But no, I do not want to say at all that the rhetoric of human rights is bad, but it can only clothe your ideas in a civilized form for an already predisposed audience. Here and about Israel it's time to remember. "The rights of the Jewish people = a Jewish national state with apartheid and genocide."
At first, I wanted to cover the other side of the question, but I'll leave it in the details for later ... This is a conversation about the change of epochs. First of all, we need an acute sense of the moment, "The Feeling of the Age," or rather, its change.
Why play under the rules of globalists and mimic the rights of human rights defenders, when Trump destroys the foundations of the universe in the US President's chair, Salvini leads a nationalistic crusade in Europe, and in the meantime Orban discusses the illiberal democracy with his friend the Zionist in Israel? It is possible that the day after tomorrow rhetoric - "We must seize N to protect the borders of the Christian Empire from non-Russians" will be more urgent than "in N oppress the rights of such and they need protection."
It must be remembered that the courtyard is a majestic 21 century, and this is not an age of progress and tolerance.