“Human rights” is the mantra behind the civil society network that constitutes groups like George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Human rights, however,  is a very open-ended term that, without checks and balances, can easily turn into an excuse for endless war and interventions into other countries’ national sovereignty – this is what “liberventionism” is. And liberventionism is just what George Soros promotes.

Most of these civil societies groups, thus, act as simply legitimizers of imperial/state violence, first providing the human rights justification for intervention by compiling dossiers of “rights violations”; then by surveilling the target and destabilizing it; next, by funding insurgencies or revolutionary movements, thus creating the pretext for ongoing international interference and mediagenic confrontations; then, by covert assistance to the war, including propagation of disinformation, by providing fora for the distribution of pysops material as well as by assisting in the cover up of real atrocities committed by their parent country; then, the civil society group, under the guise of aid, allows the aggressor to continue to monitor the post-war situation and create the most advantageous situation for the aggressor’s cronies, both strategically and economically, by policing and by looting; finally, these outfits assist in pursuing rights litigation against the target nations, creating a convenient justification for the impoverishment of any remaining centers of local power or autonomy, and not unintentionally, setting up the region for more Balkanization and lucrative interventions in the future.

Thus one commenter writes in “Why Human Rights are Wrong”:

“A human right is an ethical construction used to justify a harmful act against another person, by claiming that undergoing the harmful act is an absolute moral entitlement, and that accordingly the harmful action can not be judged morally wrong. For instance, a man who wants to rape a woman would say, that women have a ‘right to sex’, and that his action was beyond moral judgment, because in raping the woman he was respecting a universal right. Rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the person who gets the rights, but to legitimise the actions of the person who declares them. In practice, it is not individuals but states which declare rights, and they are used to justify state policy………It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.

Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right. The ‘right not to be tortured’ is at first sight a classic claim right of torture victims. It appears to create en entitlement for the victim, the entitlement that the torture stops. But the present political reality is that it is interpreted as an entitlement to prevent torture. This entitlement is claimed to legitimise a wide variety of acts, usually hostile acts by one state against another state. In other words, although the ‘right not to be tortured’ appears to be a concession by states to individuals, in reality it is a power claim by states. It is the creation of an entitlement to make war and impose sanctions. The formal declaration may say “right not to be tortured”, but the Pentagon reads this as ‘”right to bomb torturers” – including a right to cause collateral damage.”