A little more than a quarter of a century ago the Anglo-American dominated Senate of the current Rome decided to take away the Keys to the City from the 240 000 whites of a small Western outpost called Rhodesia, and hand them over to the Iron Age societies of the indigenous population. At that time Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, was the second richest country in Africa. Now it is competing with Haiti for the title of being the least able (populated) environment on the planet to sustain human life. Why?
Well, it's actually quite simple. Rome is not a right, it is a unique privilege.
The assumption that Rome is a universal 'right' has always been Rome's greatest strength, but also her greatest weakness. Rome is, and will always be, a moral creature. The old Muslim saying; "The West is at its most merciful when you cry out to her!" holds true now…as it did millennia ago. That is why the West ended slavery, and that is why white South Africans voluntarily handed over power to their Iron Age compatriots even though they had the wherewithal (e.g. nuclear weapons) to easily wipe them all out in a single straight-forward Darwinian struggle of the fittest. They, the 'evil' whites, did so simply because they never ceased being Romans in the first place, even when confronted by the barbaric excesses of some of the most primitive peoples on the planet. Do remember that there was not even a wheel or a written language - not even to speak of democracy or human rights - when Westerners came to these shores.
Be that as it may; fated to forever bleed through its Achilles' Heel (morality), Rome is far too mortal for Darwin's world. And it will therefore give up all its outposts, one by one (like Rhodesia, South Africa….then Israel, America in 2050…then Australia), and die again. Why? In Darwin's Zoo morality really doesn't play any important role. And this holds particularly true for Rome's assumption that its morality is an ahistorical universality. Remember, we willy-nilly assume/d that all the peoples on this planet want (and are able) to be Romans (i.e. the White Man's Burden)…even Mugabe's & Mandela's 'Noble Savage' Africans, or Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida.
Not only is this assumption as culturally arrogant as it gets but, more importantly, it fails dismally in recognizing the fact that morality per se is relative, if you believe Darwin. According to him the 'content' of the morality of the various grouping (tribes) are completely irrelevant when it comes to successful survival. Whether it is the murderous morality of the Vikings of old or the Taliban of late, or the let's-all-hold-hands morality of some or other Hippy commune spawned by Woodstock, it seriously doesn't matter…as long as the respective moralities of these groupings succeed in knitting together the individuals of the respective groupings into a single coherent social body with a clearly definable Weltanschauung.
Seriously, if we believe Darwin then we also have to accept the preaching of one of his supporters, Nietzsche. And if we do so, especially in our postmodern world, then we must try and understand that morality per se, being relative, is beyond good and evil. It is simply a question of survival. What is the difference between the 'evil' perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib and the torture& killing of American soldiers by Al Qaida? Both groupings are just trying to ensure their survival by protecting the integrity of their respective Weltanschauungs.
Now being a modern-day Roman you will immediately raise the issue of Human Rights as if it is the ultimate criteria that must (ought to) be used to judge the moral actions of (all) the above-mentioned groupings. But that is exactly where the problem comes in; for to use Human Rights as the final arbiter in all things moral, you are automatically assuming that your morality, as a Westerner, is universally applicable....as if cast in stone! And this in clear contradiction to what Darwin and Nietzsche are trying to tell us. All man-made morality is relative, and it's only the successful implementation of the will to power of the relevant conflicting groupings that, ultimately, determine what is 'good and evil' when the winner holds his/her hands aloft…for a while (e.g. America's rapidly-waning dominance of the UN).
As much as we would hate to do so, we have to start realizing that Human Rights are not stones! They are, like all man-made moral systems, completely abstract in nature and totally dependent on the assumptions that underpin them. The whole notion of Human Rights is nothing but the secular humanist 'replacement' of the ultimate Judeo-Christian moral imperative to "Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you!" Whereas the latter is couched in the knowledge that people will definitely not automatically 'be nice to their neighbors' (i.e. the doctrine of Original Sin)….and followed by the threat of punishment/pain by the 'Father'(i.e. Hell), the former is underpinned by the rather ridiculous notion that people are 'programmed' to 'hold the interests of their fellow man at heart'…and followed by some or other silly secular-humanist promise by the 'new Father' (the UN) of a 'de-traumatized' existence (e.g. a terrestrial Utopia).
Apart from the above illustrated, not all too uncommon, convergence of Christianity and Darwinism, even a cursory glance at humanity's violent history clearly shows that Human Rights are not very 'human' insofar as acknowledging the inevitable ills rooted in the crooked timber of humanity. The assumption that people automatically 'love' their neighbor is simply the feel-good secular-humanist derivative of the Christian idea of Universal Love. In other words, just like Christians believe that God's relationship with mankind is, fundamentally, one of love, so secular-humanists believe – in the absence (i.e. death) of God – that our relationship with our fellow man is also one of love.
It must be clear now from the abovementioned that we, as Romans, tend to assume too much. Or better - and to colloquialize Rome's fateful Achilles' Heel into the context of our time - we 'love' too much. Whether this is a good thing or not, only God can judge ...not the UN! But till such day, we would be well advised to 'bandage' our moral infirmity with pragmatism because we certainly are hemorrhaging at a fatal rate. And our death will come all the sooner if we simply hand over the keys to Rome to those who 'love too little'.
