My book proves that evil has taken over the world i.e. a new ideology, I call neoliberal absolutism, for a one-world government was created at the UN. I discovered it more by accident than design on 10 Dec 2008. The fake global media failed to report it. My work is verifiable with sources. If it was not for human rights I consider those responsible do not deserve a life on the planet. But it can be reversed by including all the omitted human rights but I need the support of people otherwise those responsible will take no notice. However people do not seem to want to know. I am more than willing to give a public talk but I doubt very many would turn up.

People were told to follow the money but I followed the truth. I am a human rights author (two books), activist and outsider (27 years) from Auckland, New Zealand. In my view, we are in a period of transition from domination by collectives, with many women including feminists and radical Maori aligned with left so-called liberals (fake liberals) to the more independently-minded chosen according to merit.

This requires some detachment from the United Nations which my recent book (see below) shows has supported the collectives globally to greater sovereignty among nations.

In my view, in today’s world independence of mind is truly hated. Societies are invariably dominated by collectives while the more independent people are oppressed. My recent book shows New Zealand is no different and, in my view, perhaps worse.

My book was written as an outsider so I had an independence of mind which is very rare in New Zealand and I was very much hated by the dominant elite, left so-called liberals, and collectives generally. It meant I have been persona non grata virtually since the time I began promoting human rights in 1991. Also I believe I have been subjected to financial sanctions throughout. In my view, the collectives as individuals invariably lack the courage of their convictions and avoid the more independently minded outside the establishment like the plague.

Although chapter one of my book contains UN decisions of truly momentous global importance which the global mainstream media refused to report the following is a general description of what the chapter on New Zealand is about (I exclude significant sections in the chapter on Maori tribalism perhaps requiring another article and the rebuilding of Christchurch following major earthquakes).

The human rights omissions at the UN (generally reflected in national constitutions – in NZ, the bill of rights act 1990) which I list in my book aim to rid the world of independent minds – all people are to be ideologically controlled under a one-world government. For a far more detailed account people will just have to read the book which after 2 ½ years has finally been accepted by New Zealand libraries.

I consider the dominant elite are a left social class of so-called liberals (fake liberals) who took over from the classical liberals in 1984 who promoted the independence of thought which, in my view, forged new paths into the future leading to the dominance of western civilization. The fake liberals were very different from a traditional NZ labor party but few New Zealanders realized how different. They can be likened to the social classes that exist in Britain where they are openly acknowledged but in the Anglo countries (New Zealand, America, Canada, Australia) social class is not talked about. Invariably people just thought the 1984 Labour Party was a continuation of traditional labor parties.

It is obvious from my book that the fake liberals in all countries are following a UN agenda which seeks the decline of western civilization and global freedom allowing for the rise of totalitarian, oppressive states and tribalism.

I was working in the NZ Justice Department in the early nineteen eighties and witnessed the selection of bureaucrats for the ‘deep state’ who would eventually play a very important role in crushing the potential of New Zealanders primarily by the purging of the ‘best and brightest’ and therefore any independence of thought.

The left so-called liberals are a social class who act as a collective so hate independence of thought. They also discriminate on the grounds of social class and, in my view, are utterly obsessed with control over all aspects of society to rid society of independent minds. I found that for the fake liberals truth was virtually irrelevant – all that really mattered was image i.e. looking good.

Apart from the very rare exception academics as well as the rest of the establishment are virtually all captured by neoliberalism and globalization (created by the UN human rights omissions). They are extremely restricted in the seeking of truth. On certain matters, they all have to think the same. While the bottom-line of the fake liberals is class loyalty they managed to gain the support of the great majority of States at the UN seemingly eager to see the decline of western culture by eliminating the independence of thought which totalitarian, repressive States and tribalism hate. The decline of the west would also result in a decline in global freedom allowing for the rise of totalitarian and repressive States.

While at the individual level these fake liberals generally got by with people but as a collective their effect on NZ was devastating. They permeate virtually all aspects of NZ society promoting the UN agenda. Illustrating New Zealand’s abject obedience to the UN agenda former NZ PM Helen Clark was third in charge of the UN for about eight years (2009 to 2017) in her position as head of the United Nations Development Program.

I show how the UN agenda was reflected in virtually all national constitutions – in NZ the bill of rights act 1990. In chapter one of my book I show how the UN wrongfully replaced individual self-determination with collective self-determination under international human rights law which led to societies dominated by collectives while the more independent people were oppressed.

Globally the money seems to have become a god for people but this is not new in history. Simon and Garfunkel sang The Sound of Silence – ‘And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc . It was first written by Paul Simon in 1964 in the aftermath of  1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. Where did Paul Simon’s vision come from? Without independence of mind surely no such genius would be possible.

I consider people, including New Zealanders, have been thoroughly indoctrinated (for example, I describe the divide and rule of the fake liberals in my book) into attributing their oppression to the one percent, the corporations and the banks, in fact, my book shows, in my view, conclusively that the huge gap between rich and poor can be explained by human rights which determine the ‘rules of the game’ i.e. neoliberalism and globalization. Although behind the scenes wealth would almost certainly enable particularly right-wing politics to exert enormous influence this is very difficult to prove. But what can be proved i.e. what can be seen, is the considerable majority of States at the UN voting to omit human rights creating neoliberalism and globalization to eradicate independence of thought globally. And, in my view, the latter is all that one really needs to know to explain the enormous gap between rich and poor.

In my book I stated that I considered it virtually indisputable that the bill of rights was hijacked ‘by and for’ a left minority of Members of Parliament (all labor MPs) and passed by only 36% of MPs.

The bill of rights was then driven by the bureaucrats i.e. those specially selected (see above), behind closed doors so if your human rights were omitted you were overlooked. Two most obvious examples were children’s rights and family rights which were excluded in the bill of rights so their rights were overlooked resulting in high levels of child poverty and domestic violence.

Individual self-determination was omitted so small entrepreneurs could not challenge bureaucratic red tape which suppressed small business (I describe the latter in three countries, New Zealand, America and Bangladesh) while the bill of rights permitted affirmative action (Section 19(2)) for those perceived as victims such as women and Maori who generally replaced the most intelligent. And following the UN agenda seeking the decline of western culture, the collectives targeted intelligent white males to be overlooked. I consider the latter severely dumbed down the population creating a less than mediocre professional class seemingly incapable of challenging their leadership. By contrast, the classical liberals prior to 1984 had ensured a meritocracy which enabled independence of mind and upward mobility. I see the next step of the fake liberals is to eliminate meritocracy from the independent sector to enable their complete control and completely eliminating independence of thought throughout New Zealand.

Social class discrimination was omitted in the bill of rights which permitted discrimination against the working class and also helped create the underclass while with the fake liberals taking over the mainstream media those perceived as a threat to their dominance were excluded from having a voice nullifying the right to freedom of expression (Section 14) in the bill of rights for many of those outside the establishment often the more independently minded. I describe in considerable detail the low cunning and gross deceit involved in the crushing of New Zealand’s potential.

Because someone has to be held to account for the gross human rights abuses involved (see below) I hold Sir Geoffrey Palmer (the PM and architect of the bill of rights) and Helen Clark (the deputy PM at the time) to account.

In June 2010 I appeared in the Auckland High Court after making a stand on principle. I described to the High Court Judge Lyn Stevens a New Zealand tragedy with a larger underclass created a consequence of social class discrimination. The Judge agreed with my account asking me why I had not informed New Zealand earlier although he was aware I was amongst those who had been so brutally oppressed and it took time for me to be able to properly articulate what had happened and how. I was convinced that no one was meant to be able to survive the ordeal with their sanity intact and able to articulate what had happened (I thank God I manage to survive to tell the story). In my view, apart from the underclass many ended up in the mental health and criminal justice systems. I spent years trying to tell New Zealanders what was happening ringing talkback up to five times a week writing numerous articles, writing a book, helping to start a new political party (the Human Rights Party, unregistered), but the fake media ensured I got no publicity in the mainstream media. The latter was also the case in 1991 when I made a stand on principle and threw a brick through the employment service in Christchurch protesting against the severe benefit cuts which I considered violated international human rights law (I was supported by the NZ Human Rights Commission and a lecturer in Constitutional Law at Canterbury University). In both my court appearances the fake media refused to explain the reasons for my actions. I was a voice in the wilderness and despite having two books published by reputable American publishers, I still am. By and large, people are only interested in money not human rights but by understanding the language of the elites I have shown how fraudulent they are and how problems such as neoliberalism and globalization can be corrected by including the omitted human rights in international and domestic human rights law i.e. the NZ bill of rights. In my book, I promote an ethical bill of rights which would include all the omitted human rights.

New Zealanders were severely dumbed down ensuring that there would be very little challenge to government policies. Enormous numbers of New Zealanders (brains and brawn) left the country. That many included our ‘best and brightest’ is clearly shown by the statistics of Kea New Zealand.

Kea New Zealand is a global network, which is largely government-funded, with a membership of half a million expat New Zealanders.

Kea Global Chief Executive, Craig Donaldson, said it was estimated that there are one million Kiwis [brains and brawn] living overseas. He added that ‘New Zealand has the highest proportion of highly skilled workers based offshore of any country in the OECD…’ (p153 of my book, see below).

That the ‘best and the brightest’ seemed to be the major target in New Zealand can be seen from the survey findings of Kea New Zealand ‘Every Kiwi Counts 2011’ and other authoritative surveys.

Kea New Zealand’s on-line survey of over 15,000 New Zealanders living offshore states: ‘Only 1% of overseas Kiwis say they have no formal qualifications, compared with nearly one quarter (24%) of New Zealand residents who say the same’ (p154).

Ethical Human Rights: Freedom’s Great Hope (American Academic Press, 2017), Ethical Human Rights My home phone is (0064) (09) 9409658; my mobile is 0226986063.

Why have nuclear war when we are all the same? Scoop New Zealand, 17 October 2019, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1910/S00110/why-have-nuclear-war-when-we-are-all-the-same.htm

Why have nuclear war when we are all the same?

At present the nuclear and nuclear umbrella States have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty of the United Nations however they could engage in discussions on ethical human rights which recognizes that all people are the same whereas ideology and religion often accentuate the differences making war more likely.

On April 23, 2018 ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) reported that 35 states are sabotaging the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. These include the nuclear States and nuclear umbrella States i.e. NATO countries, https://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/new-research-35-states-are-sabotaging-the-npt/.

Ethical human rights are firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes that all people are the same. Ethical human rights If adopted by the United Nations would include the many human rights omissions determined by the great majority of States which create ideology including globalization.

That States which failed to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty could find common agreement on universal human rights truth is not implausible as the UN regards the UDHR as its authority and the UN Charter requires all States to uphold the UDHR.

Ethical human rights ensure sovereignty which seems to be a major interest of those States which have refused to sign the treaty. Ethical human rights simply require that all people should have, at least, all the core minimums of the human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which nearly all countries should be able to ensure for their people. The latter is the primary duty of the State although, where possible, there are global duties e.g. to help those countries unable to ensure ethical human rights for their people.

In the chapter on Bangladesh in my recent book (see below) I show how universal human rights truth equates with the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) which all the major religions agree with so agreement with universal truth should be able to help them transcend their self-interests. In my personal view, the universal is the nature of the soul while universal human rights truth reflects God’s absolute universal truth.

If religions such as exists in India (Hindu) and Pakistan (Muslim) can agree on universal human rights truth and therefore that all people are the same there would seem little reason to engage in any war including nuclear war.

Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan speaking at the UN on the 17^th Sept 2019 warns of the possibility of nuclear war over the disputed Kashmir territory. He states: ‘When a nuclear country fights to the end it will have consequences far beyond its borders. This it is not a threat it is a fair worry’, ‘Analysis: Imran Khan: What will Modi [Narendra Modi is the Indian PM] do when Kashmir curfew is lifted?’  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GaMG7vhrxM.

While Modi expressed his concern over Islamic terrorism Khan expressed his concern that India is refusing to engage in dialogue. In my chapter on Bangladesh, I show how a violent jihad can be replaced by a peaceful jihad by permitting religions a greater voice in the mainstream which could, for example, greatly alleviate tensions between India and Pakistan which both suffer high levels of terrorism. If agreement can be found on universal human rights truth both could engage in a rational, secular discussion.

As with religious differences, where there are ideological differences. If nuclear States can agree on universal human rights truth it would enable them to rise above self-interest and so decrease the likelihood of war.

For example, China can continue to emphasize economic, social and cultural rights (social justice) while America can continue to emphasize civil and political rights (freedom and democracy) as long as both agree to ensure the core minimum of both sets of rights (the UN Committee on Economic, social and cultural rights has determined what constitutes the core minimums of most economic, social and cultural rights).

Another reason why ethical human rights should be discussed as an alternative to nuclear war is because it seems unlikely that nuclear and nuclear umbrella States will ratify the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In my recent book I describe how on 10 December 2008 the United Nations created a new globally dominant ideology which I call neoliberal absolutism (an extreme totalitarianism). The existence of neoliberal absolutism, which certainly appears to be the ideology of a One World Government, was not reported by the global mainstream media.

Throughout the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008 neoliberal absolutism was opposed by America with some assistance from the America camp e.g. Canada, Britain, Australia and Japan. I show how neoliberal absolutism was created by the great majority of States in the UN General Assembly by omitting many human rights. I show how it resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest. Furthermore, the failure of neoliberal absolutism to prohibit exploitation meant that Corporations could relocate to counties with cheap labour without fear of exploitation being prohibited.

I show how the latter was the real cause of the global financial crisis of 2008. By far the major casualty of the GFC 2008 was the European Union i.e. the nuclear umbrella States of NATO. It also certainly seems that the GFC is very likely ongoing leading to the prospect of a further recession. Consequently, neoliberal absolutism targets the West for decline. The latter may be a reason why NATO States will not ratify the UN’s Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Similarly, reflecting its isolation at the UN America is facing global hostility and because the UN is promoting the rise of totalitarian and repressive States it seems unlikely America will ratify the UN’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

In my book I recommend that the West boycott the UN until the many human rights omissions are included. However, a major reason why this has not happened is likely because Western States America, Britain and France are permanent members of the UN Security Council and would not want to relinquish their power of veto.

However, Article 24(1) of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Given the enormity of the consequences of any nuclear war the Security Council should be able to encourage the discussion of ethical human rights amongst nuclear and nuclear umbrella States.  

The failure of the global mainstream media to report the creation of neoliberal absolutism or the existence of ethical human rights has, in my view, meant that there is exceedingly little interest amongst the global community to discuss ethical human rights despite the remarkable support it received on the internet by the US State Department, the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, even the United Nations itself as well as many others such as Save the Children (US) (see my article for a full list, ‘New idea for a Better World’, Scoop New Zealand).

My concern is that ideological control is so overwhelming that there may not be sufficient independence of mind to avert a nuclear war.

After 2 ½ years New Zealand libraries have finally accepted my book. Ethical human rights: Freedom’s Great Hope (American Academic Press, 2017), https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Human-Rights-ANTHONY-RAVLICH/dp/B01N0Y3TAN

Post on Bernie Sanders Activists: In my view, Bernie Sanders could take a lead in the Democratic Party. The economic, social and cultural rights he promotes together with the American constitution lend themselves to the ethical human rights I promote and the subject of my two books. Ethical human rights simply ensure that all people have the core minimums of all the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (higher levels of human rights are left for political parties to decide), The Democrats could then hold others, including Donald Trump, to account for violations of these core minimum human rights. Who would be greater victims of human rights abuse than the latter? And because ethical human rights are firmly based on universal human rights truth the Democrats would be listened to as right would be on their side. Also, in my view, as a matter of justice. those who have been deprived of their core minimum human rights including white/black males and women should be entitled, for a reasonable time, to affirmative action. However, unlike in the past affirmative action should not be used to undermine meritocracy. For example, I consider the poor should have a voice in the mainstream media so they can influence the democratic majority. Affirmative action can help pay for the latter. In my view, the Democrats, if they adopted ethical human rights, would be a world leader in human rights and would not be nearly as transitory as economic and military might.

My further comment on Professor Flynn’s banned book. Anthony Ravlich: In time New Zealanders will see just how brave Professor Flynn is. Globally there are other academics who have dissented from academia captured by ideology and become members of the Intellectual Dark Web. He is exercising a duty to the community which is contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but was one of a number of human rights excluded from international human rights law and therefore invariably excluded from national constitutions (in NZ excluded from the bill of rights). Although the right to expression is included in the NZ bill of rights the fake liberals control the mainstream media and being a social class discriminate against those outside the establishment on the grounds of social class. As a consequence, many voices outside the establishment which are not captured by ideology are excluded. In my view, all should exercise a duty to the community where it is within their capacity to do so, Jordan Peterson also describes the importance of individuals taking individual responsibility.

Suppressed Books: My comment on the Association of Sovereignz where James Flynn, Emeritus Professor of Political Studies, Otago University, describes his book defending free speech has been banned. Anthony Ravlich: Finding a publisher is just a part of the enormous difficulty Professor Flynn faces. My book was published in 2017 but it took 2 1/2 years before the NZ library would accept it. I checked today and there is a copy in the Birkenhead library which can be obtained by interloan. But the problem does not stop there. It is finding individuals brave enough to read it. New Zealanders are not the brave individuals who went to war to defend their way of life in the 2nd World war (of which my uncle was one who was killed and who I never met). Todays New Zealanders are wimps little better than their masters in the establishment. It took me 27 yrs to find the human rights truth and therefore the cause of many of the problems we face in today’s world. These problems can be corrected. When individuals summon up the courage to read it they will be truly amazed at what has been hidden from them by the United Nations and the NZ government which severely dumbed down society. I describe the low cunning and gross deceit of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Helen Clark who are sacred cows in NZ society. There is also a significant section on Maori tribalism who I show has been promoted by fake liberals on the left to destroy western culture. Intelligent individuals, often white males, from a western culture are targeted for exclusion with numerous numbers traveling overseas while those that remained often ended up in the mental health and criminal justice systems. I believe in universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so try as they might they cannot describe me as Alt right or conservative. I am unusual in today’s world because I am in touch with another dimension which I call God but I am not religious. I very much needed such special help to write my books. My blog is https://outsider.ethicalhumanrights.home.blog.

I have been asked for a biography in preparation for my talk to Washington lawyers on Sept 12, 430pm. It has been very many years since I have done a biography (I haven’t been seeking employment). I wrote a brief biography. If anyone is interested it can be found on my blog, https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog

Biography – in brief.

BELIEFS: while I am not an absolutist I am a strong believer in ethical human rights which is firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I also believe in God (or The Eternal Truth) although I am not religious. I believe I am protected.

BOOKS: I have written two books: Freedom from our Social Prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights (Lexington Books) which was recommended on the UN website for two years; Ethical Human Rights: Freedom’s Great Hope (American Academic Press late 2016). There is also a dissertation for my Dip Crim (Hons), a google book,

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS: MA (political science), BSc (statistics), Dip Crim (Hons).

I trained as a statistical researcher in the social sciences obtaining an additional two masters papers in statistics but I decided to follow my heart and pursue human rights. Apart from about 14 months when I worked as a clerk for the Statistics Department I have been on a State benefit since 1991. I believe I have been subjected to economic sanctions virtually throughout.

I began seeking truth in 1984 when New Zealand adopted neoliberalism and eventually adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as my belief system in 1991 which I later developed into a more realistic dream, ethical human rights. The latter simply requires that all should have, at least, all the core minimum of the human rights in the UDHR (the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has devised many or the core minimums for economic, social and cultural rights). Ethical human rights which is universal would replace ideology including globalization which my book shows are promoted by a left social class of so-called liberals for the benefit of the establishment and Corporations while oppressing the masses. From the beginning I adopted a duty to inform people of important human rights truths and continue to do so. I have been persona non grata in New Zealand and globally virtually since I began promoting human rights in 1991. I believe my very extreme isolation has been due to my prioritising truth.

SUPPORT: I am very grateful for the considerable support of Noam Chomsky in my early years and later much support from Bryan Gould who is regarded as one of New Zealand’s top intellectuals. Also, in recent years I have received frequent support from Kevin McCormack, Secretary of the New Zealand Council of Civil Liberties.

FINDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRUTH: I was obsessed with finding the human rights truth for very many years and did not slow until I strongly believe I found it. It is described in my latest book. Put simply it involves human rights omissions stemming from the UN and international human rights law and certainly appears to be generally reflected in national constitutions (in New Zealand the bill of rights Act 1990). It involves omitting individual self-determination i.e. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams sometimes depicted by the iconic American superhero. I consider this omission (together with social class discrimination) crushes the potential of nations excludes much genius and leaves backward populations very largely unable to hold leadership to account. It means extremely few are able to think for themselves in preparation for totalitarian controlh.

ETHICAL HUMAN RIGHTS: Both my books are concerned with ethical human rights which initially received some remarkable support on the internet e.g. the US State Department, Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, even the United Nations itself as well as many other organizations such as Save the Children (US). The mainstream media refused to report ethical human rights. A full list of support can be found in the article ‘New idea for a better world’ (Scoop New Zealand) on the internet.

DISCOVERING THE HIDDEN ‘evil’ NEOLIBERAL ABSOLUTISM: In my latest book, more by accident than design, I discovered truly momentous decisions made by the UN behind closed doors – the latter because the global mainstream media refused to report it. My book describes the creation of a new globally dominant ideology which I call Neoliberal Absolutism. I regard the latter as ‘evil’ because in my very long experience of being subjected to a form of totalitarianism people would not be able to think for themselves or even have a conscience of their own. I now see Neoliberal Absolutism as the ideology of a One World Government.

I show how Neoliberal Absolutism resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest as well as failing to prohibit exploitation which I consider was the real cause of the global financial crisis 2008 which I now see as ongoing.

America, with some help from the American camp e.g. Canada, Britain, Australia and Japan, was the major opposition to Neoliberal Absolutism throughout the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008. In my view, the UN, contrary to the original intentions of the UDHR, is promoting the rise of totalitarian and repressive States while determining the decline of global freedom including western civilization. In my view, in the West, often by giving affirmative action to those perceived as victims, intelligent males, in particular, from a western culture are targeted for exclusion to fulfil the UN agenda.

While the global mainstream media refused to report these momentous decisions of the UN they are described in detail in my book. My research findings are verifiable with sources provided.

DUTIES: The New Zealand mainstream media also refused to publish any of my hundreds of articles. As a consequence despite promoting human rights for about 27 years I am barely known in NZ. While as a seeker of truth I cannot seek money I believe it has been ensured that I have not benefited financially from my human rights.

I have written hundreds of articles and posts for social media which can be found on the internet. Many articles can be found on Scoop New Zealand, Auckland Indymedia and indymedia around the world. For many years I made frequent use of talk-back often about five times per week. I also hosted a human rights show on Planet Radio, Auckland University of Technology, for about 18 months interviewing people in the human rights and academic establishment. On the odd occasion I was engaged in casual employment but very largely I was engaged full time in human rights since 1991. For about one year I was chairperson of Psych survivors in Auckland and created the Human Rights Council (New Zealand) in 2001 of which I am the chairperson. I post regularly on Bernie Sanders Activists, a German website, the NZ Human Rights Commission and others. My recent posts can be found on my blog, https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog. I am on Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin posting articles on numerous human rights groups.

In addition to informing people of important human rights truths I adopted many other duties such as travelling to the Christchurch Earthquake Zone and speaking at the Occupy Movement. I helped form a political party, the Human Rights Party, and stood in two elections. I used the political platform to educate in human rights. I also made stands on principle which led to two court appearances which are described in my book. The mainstream media provided exceedingly little information to people about the Human Rights Party or my court appearances. In my view, the ideological control exercised over academia, the global and political establishment is overwhelming. I consider the state of intellectual freedom in the world is truly perilous.

In my view, while ideology and globalization offer people a slow death nuclear warfare is non-discriminatory involving elites and offers a quick death.

Civil liberties comment on my recent post on my scheduled talk to Washington lawyers on my nuclear peace proposal. Kevin McCormack is Secretary of New Zealand Civil Liberties (he is my only support in the establishment and it is very much appreciated). He states: “Well this does sound promising, and it certainly represents some progress. I hope that your address provides a constructive stimulus to those who are in the audience. As you have observed, progress is inordinately slow, but every individual who is awakened to the importance of universality is a net gain. So I wish you well in this endeavor.
I agree with your observation about prioritizing truth being an unwelcome proposition for most, but when that is ignored the individual’s head is metaphorically stuck in the sand. Worse, the individual is also unaware of their situation. Not only is it sad, but it is also difficult to alter”.

I sent the following post to the international criminal lawyer who requested I give a talk. In response she has requested that I do not mention her name and do not speak about anything except the nuclear peace proposal. I have complied with her request not to mention her name. My talk is scheduled for September 12, 430 pm Pacific time. I have made one small addition to my email to her which is enclosed within brackets [ ]. Despite being the author of two books on international human rights apart from friends it is the first time I have ever been asked to give a talk because, in my view, I prioritize the truth.

My post is as follows:

I have been asked to give a talk to lawyers in Washington state on my Nuclear Peace Proposal published in Scoop New Zealand, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00152/a-nuclear-peace-proposal.htm.

XXXXXX who is an international criminal lawyer, Florida, sent me the following email on the 30 Aug:

Thanks for touching base with me on linkedin. Appreciate it. I was wondering whether you would be able to do an information call on your nuclear proposal for peace. The audience intended to be lawyers in Washington state – so they are on pacific time, which is probably closer to your time zone anyways.

I was hoping you could discuss how you are using your background to be an activist in this area and then also talk about your nuclear peace proposal. I believe you posted this on linkedin. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00152/a-nuclear-peace-proposal.htm………………..

I sent the nuclear peace proposal to the embassies of nuclear states but received only one response from the Russian Embassy. The latter’s email stated: “On behalf of the Ambassador thank you for your email and your ideas on nuclear peace, they are of interest”, Sergei Glagolev Second Secretary Embassy of the Russian Federation in New Zealand.

According to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in their Case Study: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/mfat-annual-report-2017-2018/case-study-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/ ,  dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament has ….become widespread. Along with other members of the United Nations (UN), New Zealand voted in December 2016 to mandate negotiations for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. New Zealand was later appointed a Vice-President of these negotiations.

The Ministry stated: “Not all UN member states had attended the negotiations. The nine states who possess nuclear weapons did not participate in the negotiations, nor did any NATO members other than The Netherlands. New Zealand signed the Treaty on 20 September 2017, the first day it opened for signature, and initiated the domestic ratification process in May 2018”.

The Ministry added: “The new Treaty goes much further than any other existing agreements on nuclear weapons. It establishes a global prohibition on all nuclear weapon-related activities including their development, testing, transportation, use and threat of use” (It was reported that Pakistan recently threatened India with nuclear weapons).

It appears nuclear states are unlikely to accept being dictated to by an ideologically captured United Nations (including international human rights law) but may find the ethical approach to human rights I promote more acceptable because it is not ideological but rather firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [my Scoop article on the nuclear peace proposal describes ethical human rights as emphasizing sovereignty which may be preferred by nuclear States]. My recent book shows that ideology certainly favours a One World Government.

It would appear the next steps would be, because of New Zealand’s prominent role in nuclear deterrence, to try to get the New Zealand establishment to discuss the Nuclear Peace Proposal however this may not be easy because I have been persona non grata (not just in New Zealand but globally) virtually since I began promoting universal human rights truth in 1991. In my view, prioritizing truth is not welcomed anywhere. Also, I believe, I have been subjected to economic sanctions throughout so very limited in what I can do.

Also, I could seek a response to my nuclear peace plan from NATO countries as well as NGOs such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and hundreds of representatives of non-governmental organizations, principally coordinated by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This could tie in with my other plans (see my recent post below) as I would be interested in what the European Union think of my Nuclear Peace Proposal. However, I am limited to being out of the country for one year (I live in a Housing New Zealand apartment).

It would seem a very daunting prospect to have academia, the global establishment and sufficient numbers of people to rise above self-interest and make truth the priority by which I mean universal human rights truth. Surely nothing less than the truth is acceptable when faced with the possible destruction of civilization and the planet. But, at present, in my view, it seems more likely that this would be possible only after a nuclear catastrophe as was the case with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War with its nuclear explosions in Japan.

Apart from what I consider is most important at the personal level i.e. my own soul, I see the saving of civilization and the planet to be of profound importance, at the level of the soul and God.

As this is a new area of research for me I would appreciate any suggestions and ideas.

Other plans, a recent post:

White Supremacy

Soon I plan to travel to Europe to research White Supremacy which has some relevance to New Zealand given the recent terrorist attack at two Mosques in Christchurch by a White Supremacist. My suppressed book explains how intelligent, white males from western culture and no doubt including White Supremacists are being targeted for exclusion by a UN Agenda whose One World Government plan seeks the decline of global freedom including western civilization.I am very confident I can convince the White Supremacists that they are mistaken in blaming other minorities such as Muslims, Jews, or even Asians or Maori in New Zealand, rather they should be targeting their governments who are captured by the UN Agenda.I have been in contact with my publisher, American Academic Press, who has asked me to send the full manuscript for review when I have finished. However, given that my last book has been suppressed I am not sure whether I will write another. I may just inform the public using youtube videos.Also, I have been invited to go to Bangladesh by Dalit Rights Activist and lawyer Narayan Charmakar who also believes in the ethical human rights I promote. He wants to give classes in ethical human rights. It was at his request I wrote a chapter in my book on Bangladesh where I gained an understanding of Islamic terrorism. In my book, I describe how a major cause of the Islamic terrorism experienced in Bangladesh stems from decisions made at the United Nations. I also show how terrorists could pursue a peaceful jihad rather than a violent jihad by gaining a greater voice in the mainstream.I would have provided classes in New Zealand on ethical human rights, which is firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but exceeding few New Zealanders see the importance of universality and consequently how human rights omissions within the UN Agenda (reflected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990) have had such a devastating effect on society. In my view, more New Zealanders need to get in touch with their spiritual being which reflects universal truth rather than wealth and power. I consider New Zealanders need to see that all their political parties in parliament are captured by the UN Agenda and that only an outsider based on universal truth i.e. for all, can help them. But the latter is likely to take some time. Meanwhile, I will continue to go my own way.