“Sustained demographic superiority is the cornerstone of the modern state, of the UN itself.”
That’s just it… you cant’ legislate laws meant to ensure demographic superiority and be compliant with the UN’s current definition of “human rights”. Demographic control is implicitly discriminatory. It’s like saying no Jews allowed in Sweden. Only or mostly Swedes. The UN’s charter, signed by many nations, is in contradiction with what nations actually do to various degrees. Several billion hypocrites expect UN version of “human rights” when in someone elses homeland but flip-flop for their own.
The far-right demonize the UN as they see it as a threat to their identity but its not actually the UN that’s at the heart of the problem. It’s billions of hypocrites that are the problem. The UN Is just a manifestation of that hypocrisy. Even if the UN and all the human rights groups disappeared tomorrow. the giant hypocrisy going on would still be a source of global bickering and conflicts.
It makes a lot of sense to have institutions like the UN. We need definitions of human rights. We just need to fix these institutions by tweaking our definitions of “human rights” to match what nations are actually willing to commit to.
A prime example would be mass migration. How many nations want to commit national seppuku for millions of migrants? So instead of virtue singling over migrants into someone else’s country, change the “human rights” laws to unapologetically crackdown hard on illegal economic migrants globally. Create quotas that nations agree to support for any legitimate refugees. Don’t give those refugees citizenship but rather renewable work visas with the understanding they must return home when things calm down. . Streamline the deportation process globally. And so on. In other words moderation.
Instead what we have is “human rights” NGOs and UN “human rights’ council causing political chaos globally by trying to enforce mass migration policies no one wants to follow.