Late at night at the United Nations hotel
he had a strange thought in mind.
There wasn’t a more appropriate descriptive phrase.
And that concerned the Rights of Humanity.
Many of those who had heard this expression from him,
had perceived it as an idea
which was resembling a generalization of the Human Rights.
That in itself wasn’t wrong
but it was insufficient as a charactirization in regards to this innovation.
Because quite simply they didn’t have the following question in mind.
Were the Rights of Humanity, human?
Because if that was the case, then it would’ve been merely a subtotal of the human rights and not a generalization.
And if it was negative then they should’ve realized
that at least some of them, weren’t.
So what were they?
How could someone characterize them?
Barbarism had forbidden some of the rights of the humans
but it was simultaneously stated that in the past
they had access to them.
The Rights of Humanity, were of another type.
The people had no access to them
because they didn’t obtain the potential to utilize them.
Barbarism was able to ban a book to a human
but who could read a library
in order for it to ban it.
Barbarism could ban an article, a panting
but who could fill an entire museum
in order for it to ban it.
The Rights of Humanity were not humane but monstrous.
Because only the monsters had access to them when they were sacred.