For the right-wing movement, the rhetoric of human rights is undoubtedly extremely profitable and it is even strange that one has to speak about this separately. National republics, mass migration, a new mosque, or the refusal of a religious census - this is your list of allegations 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 human rights activities. SPLC and other far-left societies are really successful, but was there any point in mentioning them at all? Protecting the rights of “oppressed” minorities is based not only on big money and skilled labor of think tanks.
A key aspect of the protection of human rights is its bias. Arrow has not been canceled. Muslims, black, Central Asians - are in the position of the oppressed. Their rights are protected, they demand your sympathy, wherever oppression takes place and whether they are real. Progressive humanity owes them.
Whites, especially the Slavs, and especially the Russians, in the left political thought are groups that do not deserve sympathy, but only condemnation. It can not be in this paradigm of the protection of the rights of Russians in Turkestan or the Boers in South Africa, they are colonialists. 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. Protection of rights is always directed only at those who are the object of the cult of repentance or are simply not 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 Afrikaners here is the most obvious, in my opinion, since they are conducting really active and healthy advocacy activities. AfriForum, a white South African human rights organization, traveled half the world in search of allies to assert its rights, persuaded Americans to Fox and Russians on Radio.Sputnik. At the same time, the left 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 already heard for a long time, in fact) - YOU LIE, WITH RUSSIAN EVERYTHING IS GOOD AND ALWAYS WERE GOOD. Whether it is the Bolsheviks, other countries, post-Soviet national minorities or the post-Soviet states, the liberals and the left will always always stand on 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 a South African analogy, talking about whites' rights immediately leads to a charge of supporting the theories of the “white genocide” conspiracy.
Nesterov and Carlin preach the point of view that the left won thanks to “clever Jews” and anyone in their place with their resources could also. “Make an organization like that of SPLC, with money like that of SPLC, and the world will start giving you money to fight Russophobia.” Will not start. You will remain the same “Great Russian chauvinist” or “white suprematist” as they were, regardless of your rhetoric.
But no, I don’t 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 audience already inclined to them. 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 by the rules of the globalists and mimic under human rights activists when Trump destroys the foundations of the universe in the chair of the US president, Salvini leads a nationalist crusade in Europe, and in the meantime Orban discusses illiberal democracy with his friend Zionist in Israel? It is not excluded that the day after tomorrow the rhetoric - “We must capture N to protect the borders of the Christian empire from foreigners” will be more relevant than “they oppress the rights of such-and-such people 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.