Now Politics: the Political Opinions of Thomas Sarebbenonnato

A Friend of the People Opposing Elites; Social and Political Commentary of Thomas Sarebbenonnato; Publishing and Contributing Editor, Jay V. Ruvolo [Copyright (c) Jay Ruvolo 2018]


leave a comment »

A woman has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and sole proprietorship over body. I’ve said this before; I am likely to say it again and again. Repetition in such a way becomes motif; herein let the motif of a woman’s rights be drawn.

The fore mentioned assertion about a woman’s unalienable rights remains true whether I say it or not, repeating it here is not in agreement with the counter assertion that if these rights are not articulated, not repeated, she loses them.  A woman’s unalienable rights exist whether the laws that govern her say so or not.

I cannot get to a place where I think I have said this enough times; human history has shown us that constancy is necessary, vigilance forever needed. I used to think  this constancy was the virtue Italians have understood it to be. Italians, particularly southern Italians, have given their girls the name Costanza; constance in faith, constance in knowledge, for and of God, for and of Truth, for and of light, yet mostly for and of her virtue, which was traditionally bound up in her sexuality and whether or not she remained a virgin, which is connected to the facts of animal husbandry that traditional marriage had been kept under, and continues to fall under. So much for constancy, then; let us try a different vigilance.

Human Rights need a kind of constancy,though, an organic constancy; this is something for which we need to be always faithful. Yes, we need to be constant in our faith for Human Rights, not fickle when legal or social complications and troubles arise. 

Human Rights are universal and transcendent––I hold this to be self-evident. But they do need our help to remain manifest forms in the world. Ideal rights and practical application of ideals are not one in the same thing. Our mistake has come from abandoning all notions of ideal rights for what we thought was a more practical application.  Humans rights in as much as they are universal rights are always everywhere the same; they are never contingent on culture or history or experience. They are absolute and true whether the person in question of his or her rights understands them or not, understands this argument herein expressed or not. They are true even if the person in question abdicates his or her dedication to their practical fulfillment.

Human Rights are always capitalized, socially and linguistically; upper case always. They must remain capital in our hearts and minds, though, in order for us to act accordingly.

A Jew did not cease to have human rights because he was in a concentration camp; I have said this before too. An African-American did not become less than human because the law decided to fractionalize him; this as well has been said. Remember, repetition is motif, and the motif herein is freedom. Slavery anywhere does not eliminate the slave’s humanity. In all efforts to dehumanize, we must recognize that the effort is not the effect; the physical effects are not in themselves metaphysical. The crux of this is humanity cannot be erased by another’s desire to dehumanize.

Torture, repression, oppression, totalitarian slaughter, gulags, concentration camps bring suffering, misery, unimaginable horror to their victims, but never do they succeed in erasing the metaphysical veracity of Human Rights. They do not eliminate the fact that each of these victims has Human Rights even at the moment they are most heinously violated. 

 Belief is everything. Humanity needs faith for Her rights to be protected. The Nazis did spend great energy in their efforts to dehumanize people. The mentality was clearly articulated and adhered to by many. In this, the heinous acts against human beings and against the idea of a humane humanity were very effective, almost too easy. But if the Nazis had won the war, if they had succeeded in spreading darkness, Human Rights would still be universal and absolute, transcendent and true. They would cease to be protected; people would lose faith, but their metaphysical veracity would remain in tact. The problems inherent in a society that no longer has faith for humanity, belief in transcendent values of humane living, of being human, what and where humanity is, is that we reduce freedom to a materialism in our minds and then we teach others to think this way and then the Will to Power rises and ruins us. 

I understand the practical arguments applied to human rights as if they were absent where they were not respected, protected, defended, but the practical arguments put forward are mostly directed against any assertion that Human Rights are absolute and transcendent. It is believed by some that where Human Rights are not protected, they do not exist. And it is this argument that is one of our biggest problems in protecting Human Rights. To believe this is to act accordingly, and thus in turn, to accept accordingly.

Written by jvr

November 13, 2019 at 10:22 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: