The concept of universal human rights is based on the belief that they are inalienable, fundamental rights to which all human beings everywhere are entitled from the moment they are born until the moment they die. Though human rights are generally considered to be inviolable, they are essentially a legal concept. As such, they can be suspended or taken away through various means - legal or otherwise - in response to due process or extraordinary circumstances.
Over the past year, the birdemic has been hysterically promoted as an example of an extraordinary circumstance requiring the suspension of many inalienable and fundamental human rights. The perceived extreme risk of the birdemic to human health and safety made the suspension of human rights a relatively easy affair for governments and corporations the world over. Most common people were only too willing to "temporarily" suspend their inalienable rights in an effort to protect their lives and the lives of others.
This willingness to sacrifice would not necessarily be a bad thing in and of itself if the societies in which we live and the powers that rule over us were aligned with good; more specifically, if they were honest, ethical, and moral; even more specifically, aligned with the primacy of the spiritual. Of course, if we lived in societies like that, the birdemic never would have developed in the manner that it has. Perhaps it wouldn't have appeared at all.
Unfortunately, the powers ruling over us are aligned with forces opposed to God, and the societies in which we live are demotivated, alienated, despairing, and severely maladaptive. Thus, the current suspension of our "inalienable and fundamental human rights" - regardless of their glaring insincerity and obviously "problematic" origin - will certainly become permanent. Whatever rights are permitted to re-enter common understanding from here forward will be termed "privileges" and "special benefits."
The real-time abolition of human rights we are experiencing stems from currently unfolding re-definitions and re-conceptualizations of what a human being actually is as well as what a human being is entitled to be and do. Although these new definitions are essentially being forced from the top, their success relies greatly on the consent and readiness of people to accept them at the bottom. If the birdemic has proved anything, it is this - modern people are ready to accept anything.
This readiness is most apparent in the aforementioned re-conceptualization of humanity. In the here and now, human beings are basically infectious bio-hazards - biological substances that pose a significant health risk to other biological substances. As such, they must be curtailed, contained, restricted, and neutralized. The only way to ensure the containment and neutralization of the threat these biological hazards pose is through a complex and intricate system of testing, tracking, and tracing leading to the establishment of safe environments, thereby offsetting the risk each bio-hazard potentially carries.
The paragraph above not only encapsulates the official re-definition of humanity, but also reflects the manner in which most individual human beings have redefined themselves. This re-definition renders all previous perceptions and declarations of human rights moot. Bio-hazards possess no inalienable, fundamental rights; at best, they can be granted privileges and special benefits.
Hence, mundane activities such as eating in a restaurant, attending a concert, or traveling to another country will no longer be listed as rights, but rather as privileges and special benefits. Bio-hazards that refuse to be neutralized, monitored, tracked, and traced, will be barred from most, if not all, privileges and benefits, which may eventually be expanded to include other seemingly mundane activities such as using public transportation, attending school, accessing public health services, and, yes, being employed.
People who agree to be neutralized, tracked, monitored, and traced are generally motivated by the hope that submitting to such measures will help everything return to normal. At the same time, the possibility that eager submission to the neutralization measures actually decreases the likelihood of a return to normal are rarely, if ever, considered.
But they should be. After all, submission amounts to confirmation. By agreeing to be neutralized, people are agreeing with their new classifications as bio-hazards. They are basically declaring that they need to be controlled, contained, tracked, traced and so forth. Sadly, all of this also paves the way for potential expansions in the definition of humans as hazards.
Today we are merely bio-hazards, but tomorrow we will identified as eco-hazards. The day after that, psycho-social hazards. Each expansion of the newly adopted hazard definition will, inevitably, necessitate further restrictions and curtailments, all in the cause of implementing safe environments.
As is the case now, rights will not enter into the equation, but the promise of privileges and special benefits will surely be offered to those who enthusiastically get with the program.
Note added: This post does not advocate for a return to the "normal" world of human rights, but is rather an attempt to draw an attention to the underlying spiritual implications of the current shift away from human rights.
Further note added: Just for the sake of clarity, I do not believe in the concept of universal human rights, neither the conventional ones enshrined in the fundamental documents of Western democracies, nor in the more contemporary ones that vociferously defend the various profane rights of perceived victim groups the Establishment champions.
Human rights have been an absolute disaster right from the start. Privileges and special benefits are merely extensions of that absolute disaster in a severely restricted form with the clear potential for even greater levels of disaster in the offing. All of it is evil abstraction.