Universalism not only claims a universal truth of an underlying objective reality, but also proclaims general ethical and moral values based on it, such as those enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Who wouldn't sign phrases like, 'Human dignity is inviolable'?
 
 Universalism describes various approaches in philosophy, politics and society that aim at universality and universality. At its core, it is about the fact that certain principles, values, norms or rights apply to all people, regardless of individual characteristics such as origin, culture, religion or gender.
 
 Political universalism emphasizes the universality of human rights. This means that all people, regardless of their origin or situation, have the same basic rights.
 
 There's just one catch. The human rights proclaimed by the French Revolution are directly linked to a certain form of society, which in turn is linked to a certain form of economic activity, namely the capitalist one. The freedom of the individual to exchange his commodity labour-power on the market requires his individual freedom. In this respect, the concept of freedom is directly linked to the capitalist mode of production.
 
 Now one may ask what is wrong with that. First of all, nothing. But this excludes from the outset all other modes of production which are not based on the valorization of the commodity labour-power. Thus, the universalist idea does not apply per se to all human beings. Your claim in this regard is therefore wrong in principle.
 
 Or to put it another way, there may be forms of social and economic coexistence that define human freedom differently than through the isolation of the individual.
 
 Universalism is an expression of Western moral philosophy. The claim that it should apply to all people reflects the way of thinking that existed in colonialism and neo-colonialism and continues to exist today.
 
 The moral imperative is carried in front of it on a shield today, just as the dogmas of the Church were in the past, to justify the expansionist efforts to develop markets and resources. This is morally sanctioned when foreign countries and cultures have been and are being (neo-)colonized without consideration.
 
 The so-called Western values are always invoked when it comes to expanding economic and political influence and justifying aggressive means in the process.
 
 If we look only at the military and paramilitary interventions of the USA after 1945, it becomes clear that this is not about morality or the defense of Western values, but exclusively about economic interests. John F. Kennedy fell victim to these interests when he wanted to end the Vietnam War. By ending the war, he would have done too much damage to the military-industrial complex in the United States. Oliver Stone's film on the subject bears witness to this.
 
 At the beginning of the 20th century, cultural relativism was proclaimed as an alternative to universalism by anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski or Margaret Mead. It was difficult for them to hold his own against the prevailing universalist idea. The accusation that it can lead to tolerance of inhumane practices was contrived, because the principle of respect for other cultures does not include tolerating inhumane practices and does not exclude help for people affected by them.
 
 In the meantime, the universalist discussion of values has taken on dictatorial features. The greater the potential for social and political global conflict, the more vehemently these values are demanded, and their relativization is more rigorously sanctioned. It becomes curious when an attempt is made to deconstruct these values with recourse to them, the values are not to be questioned, but merely to be renewed. The gender debate is a prominent example of how small groups fight for the sovereignty of interpretation, how the mainstream gives in for fear of shitstorms, and thus results in a randomly controlled construction of values that is dependent on the most influential groups at the moment.
 
 Ultimately, universalism is based on an idealistic assumption that came into the world with the Enlightenment and, above all, with classical German philosophy. After that, there is an objective world that exists independently of man and contains the famous Kantian thing in itself, whether knowable or not. This creates an idealized world and uses the term cognition to create the impression that an ideal machine called man stands in opposition to it and that it would be a purely quantitative question to decipher it.
 
 This idea ascribes to man qualities that he does not and cannot have as a biological being. Rather, like any entity, we transform the world into a modality that suits us, which thus becomes a subjective one. In our case, it is a neuronal modal world that we do not recognize in the transcendental idealistic sense, but to which we are adapted in the course of evolution.
 
 Our values arise from the reality of our lives and from our understanding to live peacefully with other peoples and cultures.
 
 Epistemic relativity recognizes that there are many subjective realities that need to be respected. None may be preferred. Freedom of expression is thus not only on paper of interest-based calculations in connection with specific social and economic conditions, but is also independent of ideological ideas.
 
 In Germany, this kind of freedom of expression is currently miles away. Opinions and values are embedded in entrenched ideologies, the non-compliance with which can result in economic and social disadvantages for the individual. Today it feels as if we are living in a dictatorship of values, although their intrinsic value can hardly be lower.
You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society.
Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
What is freedom, equality and fraternity supposed to mean in a country where a person needs three jobs to avoid starvation, fraternity lives on handouts at best and there can be no talk of equality, where racial discrimination prevails and fascist ideas are spread?
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.
True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages. Universalist values are a means of power to an end.