Message of Profound Importance to UN.
Anthony Ravlich
Chairperson
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City,
New Zealand.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
Also, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin.
On 10 January 2015 I sent the following email on what I considered to be a matter of profound importance to Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but so far I have had no response.
As, in my view, it contains important human rights truths e.g. that Islamic terrorists should be informed that at the UN it was America with some Western support which opposed the secularization of the whole Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I considered it my duty to inform people.
Dear Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein,
My recent articles (see below) describe the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’, which involves the cultural cleansing of the world of individual self-determination, but which I also consider to be of profound importance.
In my view, 'of profound concern, it seeks, in my view, to actually destroy the universal human rights truth upon which the UDHR is based which would also mean, in my opinion, that it seeks to eliminate God, The Universal Truth and spirituality which I regard as also a creative force'.
Also, see my article which includes a spiritual dimension, “’Profound’ Arrogance at UN, Scoop New Zealand, 30 March 2014, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1403/S00405/profound-arrogance-at-un.htm
The UN High Commission for Human Rights seems captured by the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ as my requests to your predecessor, Navenetham Pillay, to inform the global mainstream of the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization, which includes all the human rights and removes the collectivist agenda, seems to have had fallen on deaf ears.
I also asked Helen Clark, Head of the UNDP, directly in front of a packed auditorium but she politically side-stepped the question on why the UN says nothing about the ethical human rights approach (see article cited in next paragraph).
I consider the ethical approach, although secular, is firmly based on universal human rights truth and so I consider is not profoundly arrogant (see article above) and virtually equates with the Golden Rule i.e. ‘do unto others…’, espoused by the major religions (see appendix, ‘Comments on Helen Clark’s refusal to discuss global ethical human rights’, Auckland Indymedia, 1 Sept 2013, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1266 )
Given its profound importance I am hoping you will decide to act on this matter and inform the global public of the ethical approach in the mainstream media.
In fact, the UN as well as the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House and US State Department have supported the ethical approach on the internet but will not inform the mainstream (see Anthony Ravlich Google+).
Even with my extremely limited means I managed to inform the public of the ethical approach in the public notices of two major newspapers.
As the UN High Commissioner and Under-Secretary General according to the General Assembly resolution A/RES/48/141 while you ‘under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General’ you are required to ‘Function within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…’(see 2(c), 3(a) and 4 of GA res 48/141, 20 December 1993, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r141.htm ).
Also, to my knowledge, the UN General Assembly has not been informed of the ethical approach and there would seem no reason why this profoundly important matter cannot be brought to the attention of the UN General Assembly. Article 14, Chapter IV, General Assembly, of the UN Charter states:
“……the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”.
I presently have another book contract with Lexington Books, Maryland, America, with the working title, ‘ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neoliberal absolutism’. It is due for completion in early March 2015.
Also, I am hoping you will respond to this letter as soon as possible so I can include your response as I may need to post this letter on the internet.
I consider the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ is virtually indisputable and clearly evidenced by the human rights omissions from international law by the UN General Assembly. The omitted rights can be quite easily verified by comparing the Universal Declaration with international human rights law.
In my view, the rights included in the Universal Declaration but omitted from international human rights law are: the right to individual self-determination (included in Art 22, UDHR); property (including intellectual) rights (Art 17(1), UDHR); duties to the community (Art 29(1), UDHR) ; and the State’s core minimum obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights (mostly Art 23 to 27, 29 UDHR).
In addition, the right to individual self-determination, which is in the Universal Declaration, is replaced by the right to collective self-determination, which is not in the Universal Declaration (see Articles 1(1) in the UN covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights which come under international law).
And from my observation, the same collectivist agenda, because it is a politically globalized world, certainly seems reflected in nearly all State Constitutions.
For example, The Constitute Project describes 192 world constitutions where the right to self-determination only exists in 38 States and where it is included it is only concerned with the collective right to self-determination with the possible exceptions of Kosovo and France which seem to also include individual self-determination (‘The Constitute Project’, Google, September 2013, www.constituteproject.org ).
The UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ apart from furthering the interests of collectivists e.g. secular, liberal collectivists and repressive States, is concerned to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination e.g. seeking of truth, ‘hopes and dreams’, dissent, reaching full potential, entrepreneurship, while, in my view, individual freedom of thought, conscience, expression, belief is replaced by collective thought, conscience, expression, belief. In my view, everyone is meant to think much the same and limited to mediocrity.
In addition, the above human rights omissions allows creative growth to be replaced by exploitation – so it is the capacity of the State to exploit its workforce rather than be creative which determines competitive advantage between countries which has resulted in a massive global redistribution of wealth from the West to other regions leading to huge inequalities in Western countries.
And my work shows this will result in a global slave economy which is permitted by omission under international law (see omission of the State’s core minimum obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights in the above omissions e.g. there is no socio-economic ‘bottom-line’).
So while the global redistribution of wealth may bring large numbers out of extreme poverty invariably they are destined to enter the global slave economy.
While the lack of creativity would very likely result in seriously slowing the development of human knowledge (indicated by nil growth in a number of developed States) which dangerously jeopardizes the survival of humankind as travel to other planets may be a necessity – in my view, humanity has a universe to discover and we need brave, positive leadership with faith in humanity’s ability to overcome great odds.
In my experience, the secular, liberal collectivists did almost everything conceivably possible to hide their hegemony and also there is little doubt in my mind that people were meant to live lives in darkness with no hope of non-violent escape from the slave economy in a world created in their image.
I consider the creation of global social mayhem only serves to justify the ‘near absolute’ control of the secular, liberal, collectivists under neoliberal absolutism.
In my view, of profound concern, the UN’s hidden collectivist agenda seeks to actually destroy the universal human rights truth upon which the UDHR is based which would also mean, in my opinion, that it seeks to eliminate God , The Universal Truth and spirituality which I regard as also a creative force.
This has also been my experience in about seven years promoting ethical human rights, development and globalization first outlined in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008), which was recommended on the UN website for about two years.
Despite the ethical approach being universal, based firmly on the Universal Declaration, having significant top support and promising much for the future of human rights and humanity I have been kept in often precarious circumstances in the margins of society, often operating under huge difficulties and virtually unknown to the great majority of the population – almost certainly unwanted.
I consider it would have made a huge difference if the mainstream media had reviewed my book but they refused to do this despite all my attempts including being involved in forming a new political party with an ethical human rights platform based on the book.
But I consider the reason ethical human rights is being very largely ignored by the global establishment is because it is based on universal human rights truth and I have been unable to inform the global mainstream of the ethical approach because, in my view, the leadership of the global establishment, including the leadership of the human rights establishment, is almost completely captured by the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ – an overwhelming global mass conformity of almost unbelievable proportions.
Also, chapter five of the above book covers the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008 on the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which my work shows led to the creation of neoliberal absolutism whereby the whole Universal Declaration has been collectivized whereas it is meant to emphasize individual rights.
It was America which stood firmly against the OP, with some support from the ‘American camp’, so it certainly appears, unknown to nearly all, we now live in a bi-polar world – the UN’s neoliberal absolutism led by repressive States and America’s neoliberalism with America likely to be joined by other Western States.
I should add that I spent many years almost alone in the community in New Zealand promoting economic, social and cultural rights and have lived in poverty, not infrequently extreme, since I began promoting human rights in 1991.
The adoption of the OP by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008 led, in my view, to a major global redistribution of ideological and economic power from the West to other regions almost certainly meaning a ‘permanent’ decline in individual freedoms because the West has historically been their major champions.
Also, in my view, the adoption of the OP would have been, in my view, the major cause of the global financial crisis in 2008 whose epicenter was the European Union (see my article, ‘West rebellion Justified: A global Ethical HR ‘Bottom-line’’, Scoop New Zealand, 1 Jan 2013, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1301/S00002/west-rebellion-justified-a-... ).
Also, I consider it has led to the rise of repressive States to higher positions at the United Nations (UN Watch, 23 April 2014, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=131... ).
And it has encouraged the United Nations Development Program’s active involvement in promoting the rule of law, police, security and criminal justice systems, so far in about half the world’s countries (see my article, ‘’Reason Lost at UN’, which crosses line to authoritarianism at its not working’, Auckland Indymedia, 28 Jan 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1956 ).
Because the rule of law is based on international human rights law it contains the ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ and it certainly appears that rather than impunity, equal rights for women, and extreme poverty it is primarily concerned to criminalize self-determining individuals e.g. seekers of truth, entrepreneurs, and the creative who often need to ‘go against the flow of society’.
From my observation the momentous and profound consequences of the adoption of the Optional Protocol have been almost completely hidden from the global public.
In my view, the Islamic terrorists should be informed that it was America, with some Western support, which opposed the secularization of the whole Universal Declaration which I have shown to involve the UN's hidden collectivist agenda.
Included in my forthcoming book is a chapter on Bangladesh which describes how the collectivization and secularization of the Universal Declaration is designed to create political and national unity (akin to an Asian harmony, suitable for a totalitarian one world government) which excludes Islamic political parties and groups which are strongly anti-secular i.e. don't fit in.
While there certainly appears to be significant cultural differences between Islamic and Western culture it seems to me that the central problem is the secular issue but my article on 'Discussing ethical human rights and change in Pakistan.....' (see below) shows that if secularism is firmly based on universal human rights truth then it should pose less of a problem for those who are anti-secular but also if based on universal human rights truth they would not subjected to exclusion i.e. I think the aim is to criminalize them.
I am concerned that it seems to be becoming Islam versus the West whereas I strongly suspect it stems from the UN's hidden collectivist agenda with the 'secular, liberal collectivists' as the major driving force..
While the members of the UN General Assembly have a right to their personal collectivist beliefs they have no right, in my view, to claim the authority of the Universal Declaration which emphasizes individual rights. If the UN is to go down I do not want it taking the Universal Declaration with it.
I am holding the UN to account for what I see as a global crime against humanity which is also of profound importance (in my opinion, the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ is EVIL but also an unnecessary EVIL given the ethical approach).
With respect to the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ Article 30 of the Universal Declaration prohibits any interpretation of the declaration which seeks to destroy human rights. Article 30 states:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”
In addition, article 29(3) states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
The purposes and principles are in the UN Charter which requires that the UN ‘promote’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 1(3), Art 55 (3) of the UN Charter) and assist ‘in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all…’. (Ch IV, Art 13(1), UN Charter).
I have on a number of occasions requested an open public debate on the ethical approach with leaders in the human rights establishment without success – but how else can the ordinary person judge authenticity!? We are talking about the future of human rights and humanity so it’s in almost everyone’s vital interests to understand the direction we are heading in.
The only academic who has had the courage to engage in a proper discussion of the ethical approach, although only on the internet, was a female Islamic Associate-Professor of law from Pakistan – she agrees with the ethical approach and I strongly suspect, like myself, dislikes profound arrogance.
I regard the ‘secular, liberal collectivists’ as largely a creation of the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’, are the globally dominant elite, including at the UN and EU, and are the major driving force of collectivism e.g. the NGO Coalition for the Optional Protocol while ESCR-Net, which coordinates the work of the Coalition, states 222 organizations and 48 individuals from 70 different countries form the General Assembly of ESCR-Net [i.e. I see the leadership of numerous human rights organizations as being the 'secular, liberal collectivists].
.
I see the secular, liberal, collectivists as class-centric, virtually only concerned with power and image and who just use human rights to further their class interests aiming to preside over a future totalitarian One World Government. I do not regard them as intelligent as it is not intelligence which ignores the lessons of history rather I consider they have a low cunning in their own interests.
I am quite prepared to confront the UN General Assembly myself although I consider a global televised debate involving myself, academics, UN professionals, human rights activists as well as yourself and others would be far better.
In my view, the leadership of the ‘secular, liberal collectivists’, in particular, by hiding so very many extremely important human rights truths is treating humanity and the Universal Declaration with contempt.
As is standing in the path of human rights development which the ethical approach represents – people should have a choice.
While, it also, in my view, makes any of their claims to believe in democracy disingenuous as voters need to be informed of important human rights truths. It’s as if, given the above human rights omissions, that they regard human rights as their intellectual property and they have no duty to inform people.
But, in my view, it was the profound arrogance of the leadership of the secular, liberal collectivists in regarding human rights universal truth as being virtually completely irrelevant when seeking to create a world in their own image.
This, I believe, led to God becoming involved so humanity is not in darkness and has a choice.
(Some other recent articles: ‘Discussing ethical human rights and change in Pakistan following reported Taliban deadly violence’, Auckland Indymedia, 1 Jan 2015 http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3389 ; 'Ethical human rights will not only turn America around but take it forward', San Francisco Bay Indymedia, 29 Dec 2014, https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/29/18766130.php ;
‘UN Cultural Cleansing of the World of Individual Self-Determination’, and ‘Its Done with Mirrors’, see Anthony Ravlich Google+; ‘UN’s Gross Deceit: ethical human rights needed’, Auckland Indymedia, 11 Oct 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3208 More of my articles can be found on Auckland Indymedia, Scoop New Zealand, San Francisco Bay Indymedia ).