Don’t be fooled by human rights it’s colonialism

WARNING GRAPHIC AND VIDEO CONTENT

| by Nalin de Silva

The poor and helpless individuals have no human rights whatsoever as they cannot afford to go to courts seeking any protection from the state. The rich may be able to go to a court of law and challenge the state but the state still have the powers even to overrule the courts if necessary.

(October 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Colonel Gaddafi was killed by NATO as a consequence of western Christian colonialism. There may be pundits in Sri Lanka who pontificate on neocolonialism as if colonialism ended in the sixties of the last century. However, these are concepts constructed by western colonialist intellectuals in order to hide the fact that western Christian colonialism is still living and kicking in spite of the financial crisis spreading in USA and the other western countries. In fact one could argue that if NATO did not bomb a few important areas in Libya Colonel Gaddafi would be still living. NATO was not a passive observer, only helping the so called Martyrs from Benghazi. It, at least the western countries organized the "rebellion" and in the final analysis it was not the Benghazis who killed Gaddafi but NATO.

What would have happened if NATO and the western countries were not behind the Benghazi "rebels"? I know that an experiment cannot be carried out in order to answer that question and we have to depend on speculation and argument of course based on certain assumptions, however empiricist we may like to be. (In fact no experiment can be repeated with or without the "same" conditions though the western "scientists" assume that it can be done so. I will come back to this problem in my series "On so called scientific knowledge".) My assumption is that there would not have been a Benghazi "uprising" without NATO.

I am not talking of so-called human rights of Gaddafi as there was no need for human rights for him in the western sense. Human rights is a concept formulated by the western Christian society that emerged in the sixteenth century in Europe as a challenge to the then existing Catholic society with its western feudalism, and not in an Islamic society. In the western Christian society, the individual acquired importance more than the society. This was the essence of Martin Luther’s campaign against the Pope and the last five hundred years have seen how, in spite of triumph of Christianity over Catholicism, the individual has failed to stand up to the state (and the Church) that originally represented the society. The human rights of individuals have been formulated to protect the individual against the state but in the west up to date the state remains more powerful than the individual.

The poor and helpless individuals have no human rights whatsoever as they cannot afford to go to courts seeking any protection from the state. The rich may be able to go to a court of law and challenge the state but the state still have the powers even to overrule the courts if necessary. In the west the vast majority of people do not have any human rights not only because they cannot afford to go to a court of law but also since they have been brainwashed successfully by the western education given to them through schools, media, arts and universities to obey the state without questioning it. How many people in USA are against the killing of Gaddafi? Chomsky may come out with one of his usual customary statements to the non western world but he is hardly known among the ordinary people in the west and is not influential at all in the USA.

Obama has already claimed that it was USA that gave leadership to NATO in Libya and there must be millions of ordinary Americans, who are amongst the worst educated people in the world, who would be rejoicing that USA has been able to get rid of another monster. They must be happy that their country is ruling the world and in spite of the economic crisis the political leadership is with Obama as far as the so called global village is concerned. In fact Obama remains the village headman or ralahamy of the global village.

What the west has emphasized in the recent past to the leaders of the other countries is that they can rule their countries the way they like it even suppressing so-called human rights but they should not expect to challenge the west. Gaddafi may have flirted with the west intermittently but in general he followed a path that was hostile to the west. The west is in a process of Christianizing the whole world culturally for the last five hundred years or so and they would tolerate only those leaders in the non west who do not challenge their mega schemes of Christianization. The west that goes through a financial crisis is more interested in the process of elimination of anti west leaders also in order to satisfy the masses and to instill in their minds that the west is strong in spite of the crisis. During the last few years they have been successful in eliminating bin Laden, Sadam Hussein and Gaddafi and they are now turning their eyes to Syria and Iran. The latter is their ultimate aim and they would tolerate only those rulers such as the kings of Saudi Arabia who are not opposed to the Christianization process carried out by the west.

This is nothing but colonialism and Obama is behaving as the modern version of the Anglo Saxon kings of England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The west would interfere directly as they did in Libya only when necessary, and in what could be called normal times they are happy to allow the schools, media, arts and the universities to run the helpless countries in Asia and Africa through the western knowledge that is being bombarded day and night in those countries. Western science is the biggest culprit in this exercise and it is presented to us "wrapped" in a non existing objective realism and empiricism.

Gaddafi was the head of a state and in the western sense of human rights he had nothing to defend against the state. It is not different from discussing the human rights of Ms. Elizabeth Windsor also called the Queen of England and the head of the so called Commonwealth against the state of what they call UK. If one were to talk of human rights of Gaddafi then it is in that so called global village whose head is Obama. That kind of human rights against the "world order" is nothing but "human rights" vis –a- vis a "world government" which is another name for the "empire in which the sun did not set". Neither the empire nor the sun has changed in a conventional sense though they are all subject to anicca.

It is clear that Obama is not different from George III during whose time Sri Lanka was annexed to the empire and it is not a question of human rights in a western sense that is involved but the rights of nations and peoples against colonialism. Obama is an invader and all that he says is that he did not like Gaddafi’s policies and he (Obama) wants Libyans under his control. He and the other leaders of the west in the present as in the past have committed crimes against the humankind in general and all that has to done is to take him and his anti humankind friend to custody for not allowing other nations to select their leaders and way of life. However, the question is who has the power to take these thugs, in the words of Gaddafi, into custody. The thugs have the political power, even if they do not have the economic power and all that we can do at present is to wait for the downfall of the anti human western system, an event which does not belong to the distant future.