My recent post: Here is why I believe America is worth fighting for. On 10 Dec 2008 America was by far the major opposition to an evil ideology created at the UN (I am posting sections of my free book on my blog, https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog). I promote ethical human rights (which contains both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights) but consider that American exceptionalism (America is only one of about six countries which has not ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights) is necessary because the great majority of States at the UN voted for the evil ideology (evil because I consider people would not be able to think for themselves or have a conscience of their own). American exceptionalism allow them to oppose the evil ideology. Humanity should be very grateful to America for opposing this evil ideology because it means that the global elites (including the Democrats in America) are subjecting America to enormous hate for its ‘disobedience’. It is a great shame that so many observe grovelling obedience to the evil ideology which is obviously for a One World Government. In my book I show the gross deceit of the UN which makes their desire to preside over a One World Government ludicrous.

Discrimination
Various forms of discrimination e.g. affirmative action (resulting in reverse
discrimination), discrimination on the grounds of social class, birth and intellectual
property, and caste discrimination seemed to be used to help fulfil the plan of the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to achieve the collective dominance of the liberal
collectivists, supported by middleclass, professional women and ethnic groups afforded
affirmative action.
Frequent claims of sexism and racism in the West justifies the affirmative action
afforded middleclass, professional collectives.
While, in my view, it also muzzles the truth with people reluctant to say anything
perceived as negative with respect to women and races for fear of being considered
racist or sexist.
Whereas I consider that affirmative action is really meant for those women and
members of ethnic groups who have suffered most from discrimination many of whom
28
are at the bottom of the social scale but who have been very largely overlooked giving
the impression of no improvement in race and gender relations.
Instead such affirmative action was applied to middleclass, professionals permitting
‘victims’ to replace the ‘best and the brightest’ which I consider resulted in the
establishment devolving into less than mediocrity.
While I consider the various forms of discrimination are used to culturally cleanse the
world of individual self-determination (see below) by crushing potential also targeted
many liberal individualists who promote individual self-determination.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, which aims to eliminate independent minds
seeking truth and reaching full potential, indicates that those who suffer most from
discrimination in today’s world are the ‘best and the brightest’ irrespective of sex and
race.
While I consider the ‘best and brightest’ and truth are the major target the same
discrimination also created underclasses although I consider many within the latter are
seen more as collateral damage by the liberal collectivists.
The socially responsible individualism of ethical human rights seemed also to have
existed at the time of American President, Franklin Roosevelt, and the New Deal.
Roosevelt proposed a second bill of rights for America which included economic,
social and cultural rights which was not adopted in America but was later included in
the Universal Declaration.
With the onset of political globalization much State sovereignty was usurped with
numerous countries following the human rights agenda of the UN e.g. States ratifying
both sets of rights under international law, with the latter allowing the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda (see New Zealand chapter), as well as permitting the
implementation of the IMF’s globalization policies (see below).
The human rights omissions of the UN’s collective agenda seem reflected in many
State constitutions (see below) while also permitting States to implement the IMF’s
globalization policies.
29
To avoid confusion the IMF is discussed separately below but essentially the IMF’s
increasing pursuit of globalization, largely in proportion to the number of States joining
the IMF, helped fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
Under IMF globalization the competitive advantage between States is very largely
determined by the capacity to exploit a vast workforce e.g. China and India, rather than
creativity, promoted by the West, which led to many domestic markets being flooded
with cheap imports.
Consequently, there are few opportunities for entrepreneurs in the West which helped
fulfil the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination.
I consider liberal totalitarian States will be created when countries ratify the above
Optional Protocol (see below) which will very largely result in ‘near absolute’
top-down control demanding compliance while allowing exploitation with very little
room for freedom, such as the seeking of truth and creativity.
As already stated the above described omissions from international law are often
reflected in State constitutions (see section below). One omission is the right to
individual self-determination which is included in Article 22 of the Universal
Declaration. It states: “Everyone, as a member of society.… is entitled to realization….
of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality”.
The Constitute Project describes 192 world constitutions where the right to
self-determination only exists in 38 States but which, however, are only concerned
with the collective right to self-determination except possibly Kosovo and France
which do seem to include individual self-determination (Constitute Project. (2013)).
Although, while not apparent in the Constitute Project’s descriptions of constitutions
there may be some other exceptions, for example, Article 34(1) in the Russian
constitution seems to permit individual self-determination. It states:
“Everyone shall have the right to a free use of his abilities and property for
entrepreneurial and economic activities not prohibited by law”.
30
Because the UN’s ‘hidden’ collective agenda seems invariably reflected in State
Constitutions it allows States to adopt the IMF’s globalization policies which strongly
privileges the professional, middle classes, the global free market and the Corporations
over the more independent people, small entrepreneur and the domestic free market
(see section on IMF below).
The above omissions allow States to cultural cleanse their societies of individual
self-determination by neglecting the small entrepreneur, small business and the
domestic free market.
The above described omissions from international law also, in my view, allow the
establishment to discriminate on the grounds of intellectual property to favour
Corporate intellectual property.
In my view, discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property also allows the
establishment to treat human rights as virtually their own intellectual property while,
another omission, duties to the community, means they have no duty to inform the
public of important human rights truths, even voters, who need to be informed, in a
democracy.
In addition, I consider discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property allows
employers, often expressing concern with confidentiality, to choose who they most
trust to share their human rights knowledge with which helped lead, in my view, to the
purging of the ‘best and brightest’ often seen as too independent and intelligent and
therefore unsafe (see chapter on New Zealand).
A further omission is the exclusion of the State’s core minimum obligations with
respect to economic, social and cultural rights which deals with social justice e.g. the
right to health, housing, education, welfare etc. which means that the worst violations
of the latter can be overlooked.
But when the most disadvantaged are ignored the covenant ceases to have any purpose.
Consequently, there would be little reason for the inclusion of economic, social and
cultural rights in neoliberal absolutism apart from enabling greater bureaucratic control
over the independent sector (see below).
31
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states: “If the Covenant
were to be read in such a way as not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it
would be largely deprived of its raison d’etre” (General Comment No. 3. (1990)).
The exclusion of the core minimum obligations means there would be no
socio-economic bottom-line thereby allowing exploitation, allowing the creation of
underclasses, while failing to protect the welfare State.
Core Minimum Obligations
While in the discussions at the UN America opposed the OP throughout the four years
seemingly wanting to retain the neoliberal status quo (see below) whereas my major
concern was that the State’s core minimum obligations with respect to economic, social
and cultural rights were overlooked by the OP as grounds for complaint.
Chapter five of my book describes how States were given a ‘broad margin of
appreciation’ as to how economic, social and cultural rights could be implemented and
I considered that excluding the State’s core minimum obligations as grounds for
complaint meant States could disingenuously simply focus on the economic, social and
cultural rights of collectives e.g. greater employment security for middleclass,
professionals, and disregard the most disadvantaged whom they are most meant for.
Unlike neoliberalism, in my view, neoliberal absolutism leads to greater State control
of the independent sector under the guise of economic, social and cultural rights
requiring greater social responsibility on behalf of the Corporations e.g. to address
climate change. However, the bureaucratic control involved would, in my view, create
a virtual liberal totalitarian society.
By contrast, an emphasis on ethical bottom-up development i.e. small/medium business,
rather than the Corporations could benefit climate change (see below) without
imposing enormous bureaucratic control over the independent sector.
Economic, social and cultural rights are meant to protect the welfare State, prevent
exploitation and the creation of under classes by ensuring a socio-economic
‘bottom-line’ which would have been a major reason why Soviet communism,
32
ideologically opposed to class exploitation, championed these rights during the Cold
War.
The exclusion of the State’s core minimum obligations as grounds for complaint meant
there would be no socio-economic bottom-line consequently when the OP was adopted
under international law it meant that exploitation was permitted by omission under
international law.
America’s neoliberalism excluded economic, social and cultural rights in its entirety so
there was no socio-economic bottom-line and exploitation was permitted.
Under the UN’s neoliberal absolutism, which includes economic, social and cultural
rights, exploitation was also permitted, but this time by omission under international
law because the OP was adopted under international law.
The latter allowed Corporations to relocate to countries with the cheapest labour
without any fear of exploitation being prohibited by, in my view, a proper
interpretation of economic, social and cultural rights. While investors would very likely
to have seen greater opportunities outside of the West.
It was the latter UN decisions, in my view, which resulted in the global financial crisis
2008/9.
I consider permitting exploitation under international law portends a global slave
economy and a greater redistribution of wealth from the West to the Rest (discussed
more fully below).
And I have little doubt, people were meant to live lives in darkness with no hope of
non-violent escape from the global slave economy. Any violence, in my view, would
just serve to justify the need for near absolute ‘top-down’ control.
A very rare academic dissent to the OP appeared about 18 months after its adoption
which described the seeking of consensus between States of greater concern than the
proper implementation of human rights.
33
Arne Vandenbogaerde (Human Rights Consultant) and Wouter Vandenhole (Professor
of Human Rights Law, UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights, University of Antwerp
Law Research School state in the abstract to their article:
“In this article it is submitted that the text of the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as finally adopted on 10 December
2008, is to be seen as the outcome of a drafting process that was dominated by
ideological prejudices rather than concerns with potential effectiveness of rights……
At times an absolutist search for consensus seems to have been the driving force
behind weakening the text” (Vandenbogaerde A. and Vandenhole W.(2010)).
America’s Dissent
Chapter 5 of my book (cited above) describes America’s opposition to the OP
throughout the four years of discussions. It gained some support from the American
camp which included Canada, Britain, Australia and Japan.
Because America is only one of six countries not to have ratified the covenant on
economic, social and cultural rights it means that America and neoliberalism has lost
its ideological dominance because neoliberal absolutism includes economic, social and
cultural rights (United Nations. (2015)).
By comparison countries such as China and Russia, both of whom seemed to support
neoliberal absolutism at the UN and whose constitutions include both economic, social
and cultural rights and civil and political rights, seem to be rising in global influence.
With the opposition of the American camp it means we now live in a bi-polar world i.e.
neoliberalism versus neoliberal absolutism, which could translate into the West versus
the Rest with the latter very likely to be led by more repressive States (see rise of
repressive States at the UN below).
However, from my observation the bi-polar world is still hidden behind the ‘global iron
curtain’ but the global rise of totalitarian and repressive States is becoming more
visible to people although, in my view, the major cause i.e. the UN decisions, remains
hidden from them.
34
It became obvious to me during the discussions on the OP that the global public were
not being informed of much of momentous human rights importance. Later I was to
describe this as a global iron curtain, with the global establishment, including
politicians and academics, and mainstream media complicit seemingly all captured by
the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
To my knowledge my previous book was the only significant public dissent to the OP
at the time while the global establishment, from my observation, has remained virtually
completely silent regarding America’s dissent even though it was perhaps the first time
the West has not dominated the UN General Assembly. I observed a global mainstream
media ‘blackout’ which continues to be the case.
As America still promotes neoliberalism it seems a ‘turn-around’ is planned by the US
Republicans which is a likely response to losing ideological dominance (see below).
Global Rebalance of Power
I consider the anticipated global slave economy will very likely further the
redistribution of the wealth from the West to the Rest as global exploitation
increasingly replaces creativity as a means of economic growth to the detriment of the
West while favouring the Rest.
In 2008 the IMF reported that since 1988, as many countries have ‘become more open
to global economic forces, the percentage of the developing world living in extreme
poverty – defined as living on less than $1 per day – has been cut in half” (IMF staff.
(2008)).
The IMF explains this amazing decline in extreme poverty during the period of
neoliberalism as being because global markets has helped to promote efficiency
through competition and the division of labour—the specialization that allows people
and economies to focus on what they do best (IMF. (2008)).
However, in my view, given the UN’s collectivist agenda and exploitation being
permitted it would have had far more to do with the capacity of developing countries to
35
exploit a vast workforce e.g. China and India seem to have been major beneficiaries,
and consequently gaining a competitive advantage over the West.
While neoliberalism’s exploitation may have effectively undermined the communist’s
attempts to protect their people from class exploitation perhaps contributing to the
collapse of communism in Eastern Europe neoliberalism it also undermined the welfare
systems of many Western States and permitted certain States to exploit a vast
workforce.
President Ronald Regan, who together with Britain’s Margaret Thatcher is said to have
initiated the implementation of neoliberalism, is often credited with the collapse of
communism in Eastern Europe but by permitting exploitation it later seems to have
helped lead to the rise of communist China and other countries able to exploit a vast
work (also see chapter on Bangladesh).
Under neoliberal absolutism it was the West which was the region most affected by the
global economic crisis of 2008, the epicentre of the crisis was in the European Union,
while Developing Asia was the least affected.
The effect on the West of the global financial crisis is described in my article, ‘West
rebellion justified: a global Ethical HR ‘Bottom-line’’ which states:
The Statistical Data from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook
Database, April 2012, starkly show that the crisis, while affecting all, strongly favoured
Developing Asia (including China) over the West:
The 2009 crash majorly affected the European Union, -4.2 Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), Major Advanced Economies (G7), -4.0 GDP, far more so than Developing
Asia (including China), +7.1 GDP (Pasquali V. (2013)).
In addition, when comparing the periods 2002-8 and 2009-12 the average GDP of the
European Union decreased by 106.8% from the former to the latter period, the Major
Advanced Economies (G7) decreased by 74.3% while Developing Asia only decreased
by 10.5%. So relatively speaking, Developing Asia was far less affected by the crash
than the West where it also signals a ‘virtually permanent’ drop in living standards [the
G7 is Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States]
36
(Ravlich A. (2013)).
And the effects of the global financial crisis continue to impact. In a special addition of
the International Labour Organization’s ‘Global Employment Trends’ report for 2013
following a ‘resurgence in the crisis [global financial crisis of 2009]’ describes
unemployment as increasing by 4 million in 2012 and that it was the West most
affected.
The Executive Summary of the report states: “The epicentre of the crisis have been the
advanced economies accounting for over half of the total increase in unemployment of
28 million since the onset of the crisis”.
The report adds that unemployment in the advanced economies ‘has had significant
spill over into the Labour markets of developing countries as well. A quarter of the
increase of 4 million in global unemployment in 2012 has been in the advanced
economies while three quarters has been in other regions, with marked effects in East
Asia, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa” (ILO. (2013)).
The United Nations Development Program states that since 1990, more than 1 billion
people have been lifted out of extreme poverty and that the proportion of
undernourished people in the developing regions has fallen by almost half (Millennium
Development Report. (2015)).
With the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) having taken effect in 2016 it can,
in my view, be expected that given that exploitation is permitted such redistribution of
wealth from the West to the Rest, with the latter having a considerable competitive
advantage, is the way to achieve these goals.
The top priorities of the SDGs are:
(1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere;
(2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture (UN Goals. (2015)).
37
The sustainable development goals continue from the Millennium Development Goals
in which Goal One aimed to ‘eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’. However, the
sustainable development goals require a much higher standard – to eradicate poverty in
its entirety not just extreme poverty and this would surely require a massive
redistribution of wealth from the West to the Rest.
I consider the sustainable development goals are likely to leave many in the West
impoverished but also with no way of improving themselves or regaining what has
been taken because of the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination (Ravlich
A. (2015)).
Ethical human rights require individuals to have both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help
rights’ while there are also duties, domestic and global.
The primary duty of the State is to ensure its own people have their ethical human
rights and, where it is within the capacity of the State, there is a duty to help those
States unable to ensure ethical human rights for their people.
Consequently, helping other countries ensure ethical human rights for their people
should not involve violating the ethical human rights of one’s own people.
Also, it should not just be left to the West to help ensure ethical human rights in other
countries rather it is the duty of all States, where it is within their capacity.
The West is often described as wealthy seemingly to justify the redistribution of the
wealth however the gap between rich and poor in the West indicates that it is only
those lower on the social scale who are having to share their wealth and consequently
resulting in the violation of ethical human rights of large numbers.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which
includes most of the European Union including Canada, America, Australia and Japan,
describes the gap between rich and poor as widening. It states: “In its 34 member states,
the richest 10% of the population earn 9.6 times the income of the poorest 10%”
(Reuben A. (2015)).
One of the factors that the OECD blames for growing inequality is the growth in what
it calls non-standard work, which includes temporary contracts and self-employment.
38
The OECD says that since the mid-1990s more than half of all job creation in its
member states has been in non-standard work. It says that house-holds dependent on
such work have higher poverty rates than other households and that this has led to
greater inequality.
Economic inequality is not a major area of concern under ethical human rights but
people are ensured their ethical human rights. And the latter requires that there should
be no growth in economic inequality until all people are ensured their ethical human
rights.
Furthermore, the latter requires no forms of discrimination which would help ensure
the poor have a voice of their own in the mainstream media so they can
influence/inform the democratic majority.
The latter is particularly important because often the voices of the rich can drown out
the voices of the poor who are also discriminated against by the mainstream media (see
chapter on New Zealand) and consequently those whose ethical human rights have
been violated can be hidden from the mainstream.
I consider globalization has meant that often the Western establishments place a greater
duty on helping other countries rather than their own so are prepared to sacrifice the
ethical human rights of many within the country (see below, comments by Donald
Trump, US Republican presidential candidate, that globalism should be replaced by
Americanism).
I consider in universal human rights truth the ends do not justify means. Therefore,
even to achieve an extremely worthy goal such as the eradication of poverty does not
justify the creation of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda with its promotion of
liberal totalitarianism, a global slave economy, violating the ethical human rights of
one’s own people, while also depriving people of reaching their potential. In my view,
food is not enough if it requires enslavement.
Consequently, generally, the ethical duty to help other countries would likely apply if a
country can help, not if it drags that country down and deprives many within the
country of their ethical human rights which certainly appears to be what is happening
in Western States.
39
Corporations
On the surface the Corporations seem likely to benefit considerably in terms of profit
from the UN’s failure to prohibit exploitation when dealing with the Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
As I have stated I consider the failure to prohibit exploitation would have removed a
major obstacle to big business relocating to countries with the cheapest labour which,
in my view, portends a global slave economy.
In any future global slave economy many of those who are lifted out of extreme
poverty would very likely be exploited in the slave economy perhaps often surviving
on not very much more than they had when living in extreme poverty (see chapter on
Bangladesh).
Such global exploitation would, in my view, negate the need for much creativity and
entrepreneurial activity and considerably further the task of the global cultural
cleansing of individual self-determination.
Furthermore, not only did economic, social and cultural rights fail to protect against
exploitation but, in my opinion, they are to enable greater bureaucratic control of the
independent sector under the guise of requiring greater social responsibility on the part
of the Corporations to address climate change, the decimation of habitat for the
wild-life etc. (see below).
In my view, increased control of the independent sector aims to complete the task of
the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination which began under neoliberalism
(see below).
For their compliance, middle class professionals could be rewarded with greater job
security provided under economic, social and cultural rights.
Greater bureaucratic control over the independent sector is indicated by the principles
with respect to human rights and business formulated at the UN as well as the
sustainable development goals.
40
The Special Representative of the Secretary General, John Ruggie, set out his Guiding
Principles on business and human rights to the UN Human Rights Council which
unanimously endorsed them in June 2011.
This was the first time that the UN stated authoritatively its expectations in the area of
business and human rights (Mares R. (2011)).
Ruggie’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework includes ‘the State duty to
protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises’
and ‘the corporate responsibility to respect human rights’ as well as ‘access by victims
to effective remedy’ (United Nations. (2011)).
That this would also include small/medium business and the small entrepreneur is
indicated by principle 14 which states:
“The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all
enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and
structure” (United Nations. (2011)).
Sustainable Development Goals including the ‘eradication of poverty and promotion of
health, education as well as economic and social development’ are to also include
environmental sustainability such as climate change (UN News. (2013)).
The thinking is indicated by a UN Working Group on 28 April 2015 which considered
there was a ‘minimum expectation that businesses will contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development goals in a way which is consistent with their corporate
responsibility to respect human rights’ (Human Rights Council. (2015)).
The Working Group also adds regarding ‘engaging small and medium-sized
enterprises’: “The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
could play an important role in supporting outreach to small and medium-sized
enterprises”.
I consider the prospect of greater Corporate profits in a global slave economy would
come at a huge price as I see a considerable decrease in Corporate political power
because of Corporations being subjected to greater bureaucratic control.
41
And this, in my view, is very likely to decrease the influence of right-wing politics
resulting in a greater political and national unity with the collective gaining much
dominance over individual self-determination.
Such unity is likely to be much less tolerant of dissent and with ‘mind control’ meaning
many important human rights truths withheld from voters so with a far more ignorant
population democracy becomes controlled much more from the ‘top-down’ rather than
the ‘bottom-up’.
Consequently, democracy, and, in my view, most likely religions, and freedom
generally, will become far more controlled from the top-down and would become
largely ceremonial with little authenticity.
In addition, ethical human rights, in accordance with Article 29(1) of the Universal
Declaration, requires that all have duties to the community not just the Corporations.
For example, I consider in addition to the Corporations having duties, both domestic
and global, bureaucratic elites should also have a duty not to exclude any human rights
and to inform the public of important human rights truths i.e. voters need to be
informed in a democracy.
Repressive States
I consider neoliberal absolutism, with its promotion of liberal totalitarianism,
eventually led to the rise of repressive States to virtually control the UN’s human rights
agenda.
UN Watch is a Geneva based NGO with consultative status at the United Nations. It
aims to hold the UN to account under the UN Charter including what it sees as the
disproportionate attention and unfair treatment applied by the UN toward Israel over
the years.
On 23 April 2014 UN Watch’s press release describes the rise of repressive States at the
UN. It states: ‘NGOs protest “Black Day for Human Rights”; ‘Iran sweeps coveted UN
rights posts’; ‘Also elected, Russia, China, genocidal Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Turkey,
42
slave-holding Mauritania’ (UN Watch. (2014)).
The article was headed: “GENEVA, April 23 – The United Nations today elected the
Islamic Republic of Iran and more than a dozen other repressive regimes to top
committees charged with protecting women’s rights and with overseeing the work of
human rights organizations, stated in an exclusive report by UN Watch, a
non-governmental Geneva-based human rights group”.
While the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) heads its article, ‘Civil
society loses as repressive States win election to regulate NGO access to UN’ (ISHR.
(2014)).
(Established in 1984 the International Service for Human Rights describes itself as a
non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights. [It
is also involved in] supporting human rights defenders, strengthening human rights
systems, and leading and participating in coalitions for human rights change).
Michelle Evans of the International Service for Human Rights stated: “The
membership of the Committee on NGOs, which already is dominated by member
States that are not supportive of civil society, is set to get worse in 2015”.
The report states that while very few democratic States stood for election ‘States newly
elected to the 19-member Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations include the
repressive regimes of Iran, Mauritania, and Azerbaijan’.
The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) describes the
United Nations Human Rights Council as ‘an inter-governmental body within the
United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and
protection of all human rights around the globe’ (OHCHR. (1996-2015)).
The global rebalance of power against America and the West also appears to have
impacted on America’s friend and ally, Israel, with condemnations at the UN.
It certainly appears the UN Human Rights Council is captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which would, in my view, target cultures such as American and
Jewish for whom truth and the promotion of individual self-determination is more of a
premium than many other cultures although in terms of ethical human rights both the
43
latter countries are lacking with respect to social responsibility.
The following certainly appears to be little more than blatant discrimination by the UN
Human Rights Committee targeting Israel:
On 25 June, 2015 UN Watch released evidence of systematic bias by the UN Human
Rights Council which ‘in its nine years of existence has condemned Israel more times
than the rest of the world combined’. UN Watch research findings showed that the total
UN Human Rights Council’s condemnations from 2006 to 2015 were 61 on Israel and
55 on the rest of the World combined.
Furthermore, UN Watch reported posts by the UNRAW [United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] of anti-Semitic cartoons
inciting murder of Jews.
A Newsweek article (via UN Watch) by Elliott Abrams, senior fellow for Middle
Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, is headed ‘Why are UN
employees spreading racial hatred’.
Abrams states: “In a new report, UN Watch has found a dozen UNRWA employees
spewing anti-Semitic hatred and celebrating violence and terrorism in Internet postings.
On Facebook pages where they identify themselves as UNRWA officials, these UN
employees laud killing and kidnapping of Jews and Israelis, and post vicious
anti-Semitic cartoons and drawings” (Abrams E. (2015)).
While on 16 October 2015 a UN Watch report was entitled “UN Officials Inciting
Murder of Jews, Call to “Stab Zionist Dogs” (UN Watch. (2015)). UN Watch describes
ten UN employees, mainly teachers, and their posts on Facebook. The latter posts
coincided with wave of stabbings of Jews by Palestinians in Jerusalem (Schartz M. and
Mullen J. (2015)).
On 20 September 2015 UN Watch reports ‘the appointment of Saudi Arabia as head of
a key UN Human Rights Council panel that selects top officials who shape
international human rights standards and report on violations world-wide…’
UN Watch executive director Hillel Neurer stated: “It is scandalous that the UN chose a
country that has beheaded more people this year than ISIS to be head of a key human
44
rights panel,” He added: “Saudi Arabia has arguably the worst record in the world
when it comes to religious freedom and women’s rights….” (UN Watch. (2015)).
Although it seems the Office of the UN Secretary-General appears to have interceded
and those responsible for inciting violence against Jews punished. The Jewish
Telegraphic Agency states:
“Several employees of the United Nations agency handling Palestinian refugees were
punished for disseminating content that promoted violence or anti-Semitism, a UN
official said.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency added: “The punishments, which included suspension
and loss of pay “in a number of cases so far,” were made public on Oct. 20 on the
website of the office of the spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon”
(UN. (2015)).
UN Watch when testifying before the US Congress on 17 May 2016 questioned
whether the UN Human Rights Council has turned into Frankenstein’s monster and
Hillel Neurer stated, “I believe the U.S. and fellow democracies can and must fight
back” (Neurer H. (2016)).
Brett D. Schaefer, who is author of the book, ‘The Limits of the United Nations and the
search for Alternatives” (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers 2009) describes a ‘critical
lack of meaningful membership standards’ for the Human Rights Council, which has
47 members:
“A critical reason for the council’s failure to fulfil its charge of “promoting universal
respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all” is the
absence of any meaningful membership criteria other than geographical representation.
The General Assembly resolution that created the HRC merely instructs member states
to ‘take into account’ a candidate’s human rights record when voting on candidates for
seats on the council, but it established no minimum standard” (Schaefer B. (2011)).
The global rise of totalitarianism and repressive States also seems indicated in the
findings of Freedom House 2015 which describe a decline in democracy.
Arch Puddington, Vice President for Research, in his article ‘Discarding Democracy: A
45
Return to the Iron Fist’ states: “For the ninth consecutive year, Freedom in the World,
Freedom House’s annual report on the condition of global political rights and civil
liberties, showed an overall decline. Indeed, acceptance of democracy as the world’s
dominant form of government—and of an international system built on democratic
ideals—is under greater threat than at any point in the last 25 years.
“Even after such a long period of mounting pressure on democracy, developments in
2014 were exceptionally grim. The report’s findings show that nearly twice as many
countries suffered declines as registered gains, 61 to 33, with the number of gains
hitting its lowest point since the nine-year erosion began” (Puddington A. (2015)).

I am trying to post my book so people can read it for free. But I can only do it a section at a time due to my lack of computer skills.

Chapter One The UN’s ‘Hidden’ Collectivist
Agenda
Although, from my observation, still hidden behind a ‘global iron curtain’, I consider
the United Nation’s creation of neoliberal absolutism, in my view, a ‘near absolute’
top-down control, on 10 December 2008 resulted in a major swing in the global
balance of ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest.
The Universal Declaration consists of two sets of human rights, each with a separate
covenant written in legal terminology and which come under international law so they
can be adopted by States in domestic human rights law.
The two sets of rights are: civil and political rights which deals with a number of
individual freedoms, democracy and fair trial etc. and economic, social and cultural
rights which deals with social justice such as the rights to employment, fair wages,
health, education etc. and is meant to establish a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ to
protect against exploitation and the creation of under classes as well as protect the
welfare State.
The UN’s neoliberal absolutism, which includes both civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights, replaced neoliberalism, which only includes civil
and political rights, as the globally dominant ideology.
America has never ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and, as
seems to be the case with other Western countries, still promotes neoliberalism so no
longer dominates ideologically although it is commonly seen as dominating militarily
and economically.
9
I discovered the existence of a UN ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which is indisputable
and can be seen from the human rights, although included in the Universal Declaration,
that are omitted by the UN General Assembly from the covenants on civil and political
rights and economic, social and cultural rights as well as an optional protocol all of
which come under international human rights law.
The omissions can be verified by seeing the human rights omissions in international
human rights law which is meant to reflect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Apart from very occasional mention in the academic literature of the exclusion of
property rights from international law (see below) to my knowledge the UN’s
collectivist ideological agenda has never been made public by anyone else.
The omitted rights in the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda are:
The right to individual self-determination (included in Art 22, UDHR); Property
(including intellectual property) 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 covering Art 23 to 27, 29 UDHR i.e. there
is no socio-economic bottom-line which permits extreme poverty and exploitation
instead the millennium development goals (MDGs) are meant to address extreme
poverty however the MDGs are not universal and focus only on the poorer regions).
The UN’s collectivist agenda is most clearly seen in Part 1, Article 1 in both the UN
covenants where individual self-determination, which is included in the declaration,
has been replaced by collective self-determination, which is not included in the
declaration.
Put simply so it can be better understood, collectivism can be loosely described as
where the group or collective is regarded as all important while the individual becomes
largely irrelevant often resulting in people feeling they do not count, even seeing
themselves as social outcasts.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda seeks to promote collectives, including
totalitarian States and repressive cultures while also seeking to cultural cleanse the
10
world of individual self-determination i.e. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams
sometimes depicted by the iconic American super-hero.
Until 10 December 2008 civil and political rights universal truth, also the focus of the
American constitution, took precedence but when coupled with a United Nation’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda created an ideology i.e. neoliberalism, which dominated
globally and which America promoted.
On 10 December, 2008 the UN gave the two sets of rights in the Universal Declaration
equal status giving the impression that humanity now had all the human rights in the
Universal Declaration.
However, when coupled with the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda it created yet
another ideology, neoliberal absolutism which replaced neoliberalism as the globally
dominant ideology.
Such ideologies can be described as ‘the rules of the game’ and while left and right
wing politics in the West differ in many respects both adhere to ‘the rules of the game’
i.e. neoliberalism.
Although I consider with the creation of neoliberal absolutism the West would be fully
justified in boycotting the UN until the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is removed
because the latter involves major violations of the Universal Declaration which States
are required to uphold under the UN Charter (see below).
In Western States the whole establishment is captured by neoliberalism which, in my
view, has led to the establishment versus the rest of society with the latter seemingly
becoming increasingly anti-establishment in the major Western countries of America
and Britain.
While neoliberalism permitted exploitation the new globally dominant ideology,
neoliberal absolutism, also permitted exploitation but this time under international law
(by omission) which, in my view, portends a global slave economy, and was the major
reason for the global financial crash in 2008/9 because it meant Corporations could
relocate to countries with the cheapest labour without fear that exploitation would be
prohibited (see below).
11
Exploitation as a means of growth has given countries such as China and India which
have a vast, cheap workforce a considerable competitive advantage while the West,
traditionally noted for its creativity, is the major loser.
And as exploitation increasingly replaces creativity as a means of growth in an
expected global slave economy a further massive redistribution of wealth from the
West to the Rest seems very likely as indicated by the UN’s sustainable development
goals, 2016, which aim to eliminate world poverty not just extreme poverty as in the
past.
In addition, I consider under neoliberal absolutism the inclusion of economic, social
and cultural rights requiring social responsibility will result in greater bureaucratic
control of the independent sector creating a ‘near absolute’ top-down control which can
be called a liberal totalitarianism.
Whereas authoritarian States such as China and North Korea, sometimes use direct
violence as a means of containing discontent liberal States, either dominated by liberal
collectivists or liberal individualists, typically omit human rights resulting in gross
neglect usually on a massive scale and with the cause, the human rights omissions,
very largely unseen.
However, human rights omissions, I consider, are certainly no less deadly than direct
violence while also creating very large numbers, their potential crushed, with lives
barely worth living.
Yet the liberal collectivists often project themselves as peaceful because they do not
use direct violence however the human rights omissions and consequent gross neglect
are rarely ever admitted to.
Neoliberal absolutism’s promotion of liberal totalitarianism has, in my view, resulted
in the rise of repressive States to virtually control the UN’s human rights agenda (see
below).
While only the example of Bangladesh is given in chapter three the UN’s neoliberal
absolutism by extending the domain of secularism to cover both sets of rights i.e. all
behaviour under the Universal Declaration, may well have contributed to an
12
extraordinary eruption of extreme violence in Bangladesh by Islamic groups which are
anti-secular.
The UN’s failure to prohibit exploitation means the latter replaces creativity as a means
of growth meaning less need for individual self-determination e.g. small entrepreneurs.
In what amounts to a war on truth I consider it is the ‘best and the brightest’, often the
self-determining individuals, which are most discriminated against because it certainly
appears that the leadership of the considerable majority of States do not want to be held
to account.
Therefore, in my view, they use human rights omissions and discrimination to crush
human potential and create victims who with affirmative action policies replace the
‘best and the brightest’ and I consider the establishment devolves into a ‘safe’
mediocrity.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, which requires human rights omissions, would
have been permitted by the great majority of States in the UN General Assembly and
appears to be unquestioningly accepted by all States as a ‘given’ despite the UN
claiming the Universal Declaration as its authority.
While I consider such a collectivist agenda may be the personal view of the
considerable majority of States they cannot claim the Universal Declaration as their
authority given the human rights omissions.
In my view, it certainly appears the considerable majority of States are using the
United Nations as a way of protecting their dominance out of the sight of their
population and voters.
Countries, particularly in the West, continue to promote innovation, creativity and
entrepreneurial activity despite that the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is very likely
to severely undermine success and result in high levels of failure which may also help
explain the low rates of growth being experienced particularly in Western countries
(see below).
Also, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda appears to be reflected in nearly all State
constitutions (see below) allowing States to implement the collectivist agenda
13
domestically. The latter’s human rights omissions also permit the implementation of
IMF globalization policies (see section on the IMF below).
In chapter two I give the example of New Zealand where I consider it indisputable that
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was hijacked ‘by and for’ a left-minority of
Members of Parliament, who I describe as liberal collectivists.
I consider the bill of rights was pursued with a ‘low cunning and gross deceit’. It was
passed by only 36 per cent of Parliament and, in my experience, the voting patterns of
MPs were very largely kept hidden from the public.
Helen Clark, presently in her second term as Head of the United Nations Development
Program and seen by many as likely to be the first woman UN Secretary General, was
New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the hijacking.
The New Zealand bill of rights act 1990, which I consider constitutes the ideology of
the State, permits, by human rights omissions, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
The latter, in my view, in addition to the gross neglect of many in the population led to
the mass exodus of one million out of a population of 4.6m particularly targeting the
‘best and the brightest’ as part of a virtual war on truth.
Hiding the human rights omissions and important human rights truths from people is,
in my view, a major means of control, and can often be deadly, because people not
knowing the cause of their discontent often either blame themselves i.e. see themselves
as the problem, or others e.g. minorities, not responsible for the human rights
malpractice.
People’s discontent can then be channelled by the State away from those responsible
for the human rights malpractice and instead often blame those forces which are most
opposed to the totalitarianism, such as Western countries, which is promoted by the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
The UN’s collectivist agenda promotes collective interests i.e. more broadly the
interests of the establishment, over individual rights enabling the dominance of
collectives, in partnership with the Corporations, over the independent people.
14
Collectivism can reflect the individual will of members but the exclusion of individual
self-determination from the covenants indicates that the Collective reflects the will of
the State, establishment and/or the dominant elites/collectives.
Consequently, in my view, the collective will take precedence over individual rights
which is contrary to the Universal Declaration which emphasizes individual rights.
I consider the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda involves major violations of the
Universal Declaration as well as the UN Charter and I regard the collectivist agenda as
a global crime against humanity (see discussion at the end of this chapter).
However, human rights truth seems irrelevant to the global establishment which, as
will be shown, fanatically pursues the implementation of the UN’s collectivist agenda
much as ideology was pursued during the Cold War by the West i.e. ‘freedom and
democracy’ and the Soviet bloc i.e. communism, but unlike the latter ideologies it is
hidden impacting on people as a virtual invisible force.
Both neoliberalism, which is still seen by almost all as the dominant global ideology,
and neoliberal absolutism, which remains hidden, are, in my view, both creations of the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
As previously stated neoliberalism only consists of civil and political rights e.g.
freedom and democracy, which is the focus of the US constitution, but with the
inclusion of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda creates an ideology i.e.
neoliberalism, rather than rule of law based on universal civil and political rights truth.
The Universal Declaration, including both civil and political rights and economic,
social and cultural rights, emphasizes individual rights which are considered to need
protection from the collective which often means the State and/or dominant
elites/collectives leading to the establishment versus the rest, more independent people.
On 10 December 2008 at the UN, although from my observation given exceedingly
little publicity, the two sets of rights were given ‘equal status’ which gives the
impression that humanity now has all the rights in the Universal Declaration i.e. rule of
law based on universal human rights truth, but because of the existence of the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda it created yet another ideology, neoliberal absolutism.
15
Typically, the West has always prioritized civil and political rights with America only
one of six countries not to have ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights.
Consequently, the creation of neoliberal absolutism resulted in a major rebalance of
global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest.
America may dominate militarily and economically but, in my view, no longer
dominates ideologically which means, in my view, its decline is inevitable unless
neoliberal absolutism is replaced.
By contrast I consider that China and Russia which include economic, social and
cultural rights as well as civil and political rights in their constitutions and as both,
unlike America, certainly appeared to support neoliberal absolutism at the UN, are
more favoured ideologically (State positions. (2008)).
While neoliberalism permitted worker exploitation I consider neoliberal absolutism
went further and permitted exploitation by omission under international law.
The latter meant Corporations could relocate to countries with the cheapest labour
without fear of exploitation being prohibited as, in my view, would have been the case
if economic, social and cultural rights had been interpreted properly.
While investors most likely saw greater opportunities outside of the West.
Consequently, in my view, neoliberal absolutism resulted in the global financial crisis
2008/9, with its epicentre in the European Union.
I consider neoliberal absolutism and its profound and far reaching consequences has
been hidden behind a global iron curtain, with the global establishment complicit, to,
for example, keep the people of the West, who might object to any massive
redistribution of wealth to the Rest, ignorant of what is happening.
I consider while left and right-wing politics may differ in many ways in the West they
both adhere to the ‘rules of the game’ i.e. neoliberalism. So, in my opinion, while the
global mass media may often be owned by the Corporations the latter allow the
16
prevailing dominant elite i.e. the liberal collectivists, to control the media and promote
neoliberalism including economic globalization.
In my view, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda really aims to create liberal
totalitarian States in preparation for a future one world government (I use the terms
totalitarian and repressive States to describe very extreme top-down control while I see
the former as more secular while the latter can involve a religious/spiritual authority).
I consider neoliberal absolutism was created on the 10 December 2008 when the UN
General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OHCHR. (2008)).
The OP is a complaints procedure whereby complaints of violations of economic,
social and cultural rights can be taken to the UN after attempts to find domestic
remedies have been exhausted.
After obtaining the required ten State ratifications the OP became international human
rights law on 5 May 2013.
The OP established for the first time under international law the ‘equal status’ of both
sets of rights with economic, social and cultural rights now having an equivalent
complaints procedure to civil and political rights which has had an OP since 23 March
1976.
Although from my observation little has been said about the creation of ‘equal status’
the following provides confirmation.
In their recent book, ‘The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Commentary’, human rights experts state that
the OP is ‘widely seen as historical recognition’ of the equal status of the two sets of
rights which promises ‘widespread influence in domestic and regional systems’
(Langford M. et al. (2014)).
While the United Nations describes the OP as a ‘key Protocol’ which ‘helps place all
human rights on an equal footing’.
17
The then UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated: “The Protocol
makes a strong and unequivocal statement about the equal value and importance of all
human rights and the need for strengthened legal protection of economic, social and
cultural rights in particular,”, (Pillay N. (2013)).
A seemingly influential left-wing blog in Britain, Left Foot Forward, states: “Today the
snappily named ‘Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights’ (ICESCR) opens for signature at the United Nations. 42 years after
a similar mechanism was adopted for civil and political rights, the equal status of those
suffering from deprivations of their economic, social and cultural rights has been
recognized (Wood L. (2009)).
The major ideological battle in the Cold War was between America, which promoted
civil and political rights e.g. ‘freedom and democracy’, and the communists of Eastern
Europe, which championed economic, social and cultural rights i.e. social justice.
Consequently, giving both sets of rights ‘equal status’ was bound to have far-reaching
consequences yet, from my observation, these were very largely hidden behind a global
iron curtain including, from my observation, a global mainstream media ‘blackout’.
The UN decision to adopt the OP was despite America’s dissent throughout the
discussions on the OP from 2004 to 2008 with the West marginalized, perhaps for the
first time in the general assembly.
It can now be called a bi-polar world with America, and other Western countries, still
promoting neoliberalism while the UN ‘secretly’ promotes neoliberal absolutism likely
to be led by repressive States which have risen to gain much dominance at the UN (see
below).
Both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism, in accordance with the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda, promote the dominance of collectives while also, as is evident in
the above described human rights omissions, seek to culturally cleanse the world of
individual self-determination e.g. seeking of truth, hopes and dreams.
Neoliberal absolutism also includes economic, social and cultural rights which I
consider is to require greater social responsibility on the part of the independent sector
18
leading to far greater bureaucratic control of the latter with greater compliance
furthering the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination began under
neoliberalism.
The virtual totalitarianism under neoliberal absolutism means, in my view, there will
be no place for genius, greatness or super-heroes (or whistle blowers) so would be, in
my view, a less than mediocre, faceless society.
The rationale of such cultural cleansing certainly appears to be, that if you crush human
potential, and create slave-like individuals, suffering arrested development, you can
achieve peaceful societies devoid of any threat to the State and its dominant elites.
In the extreme it can be likened to what has been achieved with the Dalits (sometimes
called untouchables but also the oppressed, broken or crushed) of South East Asia
whose dreams seem often limited to ‘street sweeping, manual scavenging and burying
the dead’ i.e. ‘safe’ dreams (see chapter on Bangladesh).
Or as explained by Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands, at the
UN: “For these men and women, it is impossible to escape grinding poverty because
the society they grew up in does not allow them to take their fate into their own hands
and improve themselves” (see section on Dalits in the chapter on Bangladesh).
For perhaps centuries the Dalits, their potential crushed by caste discrimination, have
been kept in virtual darkness almost surely without any hope of non-violent escape
from their misery. The latter, in my view, is the vision the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda has for much of humanity.
The cultural cleansing of individual self-determination took major effect at the outset
of neoliberalism in the late 1970s with globalization, which is both economic and
political and usurping much State sovereignty, requiring States to follow the UN’s
human rights agenda which permitted the ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to impact
globally.
In my view, neoliberal absolutism seeks to complete the cultural cleansing of
individual self-determination began under neoliberalism while greater social
19
responsibility, and therefore bureaucratic control, of the independent sector results in a
liberal totalitarianism requiring greater political and national unity averse to dissent.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is, in my view, largely responsible for the rise to
dominance of a ‘so-called left’, descent-based social class, secular liberal collectivists,
to drive the agenda at the domestic and global level.
In my experience, the liberal collectivists are a social class, which consists of many
bureaucrats and academics. The social class keeps its hegemony well-hidden and the
public is very largely unaware that it discriminates on the grounds of social class (see
chapter on New Zealand).
Social class is well-known and discussed in Britain probably because it is
well-entrenched and there is unlikely to be any significant change in the near future
however, in my view, in the Anglo countries of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and
America it is rarely talked about and very largely hidden (BBC News. (2013)).
In addition, in my view, the liberal collectivists are hidden by a ‘divide and rule’, both
domestically and globally (see below), which has enabled their rise to power, virtually
unseen and in the shadows of the Corporations.
The liberal collectivists, in my view, can often find common cause with totalitarian and
repressive States which share a totalitarian mind-set and fear new ideas and truth while
seeking a fanatical control over all human behaviour under the Universal Declaration.
From my experience, often the modern day middleclass, it being about 70 years since
the 2nd world war, have very little understanding of totalitarianism because they, while
often the beneficiaries of it, have very rarely been at the receiving end of it. In my
opinion, it seems to be largely an experience reserved for those lower on the social
scale (see the New Zealand chapter).
A major reason for the creation of the Universal Declaration and protection of
individual rights was because of the experience of totalitarianism with the mass
atrocities of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China.
20
I consider the liberal collectivists drive the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda gaining
the support of other collectives to ensure the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination.
I regard the liberal collectivists, whose political representatives are often called
left-neoliberals, as the major enemy of human rights in the world together with those
States which permitted the human rights omissions to create the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda.
However, the American camp at the UN, although very largely America, resisted the
creation of neoliberal absolutism. Consequently, it seems the liberal collectivists of
some countries may join in exercising American exceptionalism.
In my view, the liberal collectivists replaced the post-second world war liberal
individualists, who emphasized individual freedoms as well as individual
self-determination, as the globally dominant elite.
Whereas, for instance, the liberal individualists promote individual freedom of ‘thought,
conscience, expression and belief’, the class-based liberal collectivists promote
collective ‘thought, conscience, expression and belief’ which led, from my observation,
to a politically safe, overwhelming conformity in the establishment both domestically
and internationally.
Much of the politics of human rights in today’s world can be best understood as an
ideological war, with deadly consequences, between those who promote collective
self-determination e.g. the liberal collectivists, totalitarian, repressive States and often
tribal groups versus those that promote individual self-determination e.g. liberal
individualists, and socially responsible individualists (see the ethical approach below).
I see the liberal collectivists, which I regard as the dominant elite domestically and also
at the United Nations, as only using human rights to further their class interests and to
fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and being very largely only concerned with
self-interest are not suited for determining human rights which are meant to be
universal.
21
The creation of neoliberal absolutism could be regarded as the ‘end-game’ as far as
human rights is concerned because while the UN claims the Universal Declaration as
its authority neoliberal absolutism promotes collectives e.g. elites, over individual
rights almost completely contrary to the emphasis on individual rights by the
declaration.
In my article, ‘Profound Arrogance at the UN’, which has a spiritual dimension, I
describe the creation of neoliberal absolutism as an act of ‘profound arrogance’ by the
UN in their virtual complete disregard of the lessons of history i.e. people are not
numbers or expendable, by reinventing the whole UDHR, in its application, to
emphasize the collective rather than the individual (Ravlich A. (2014)).
During the ‘Cold War’ often people were aware of where they stood in terms of
ideology – it was America’s freedom or the communism of the Soviet bloc. However,
the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 allowed ideology to be hidden.
From my observation, within States under neoliberalism, and which is also likely to be
the case under neoliberal absolutism, while the courts may often uphold individual
rights in human rights law, at the level of public policy, bureaucratically-driven behind
closed doors the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda impacts i.e. the omitted rights result
in the gross neglect of huge numbers.
Such gross neglect has become very evident in the present American Presidential
elections where there is a very large number of discontented voters, of which there
seemed little previous awareness, giving their support to anti-establishment candidates
such as the liberal, Bernie Sanders, and the republican, Donald Trump.
While in the Brexit referendum in Britain, which has seen Britain leave the European
Union, it also seemed anti-establishment. And that gross neglect of many played a
major role is described in an article headed ‘Class war? Bitter social divide was a major
factor in vote for Brexit’.
The article gives the findings of a national attitude survey by the Nat Cen Social
Research which found an ‘entrenched pessimism’ in the working class about being able
to progress up the social ladder i.e. upward social mobility.
22
The Nat Cen states that of 4,300 people asked, over three-quarters thought the class
gulf was either “very” or “fairly” wide, while nearly three in four thought that it was
“fairly” or “very” hard to move up in class. The study says this is a rise of 65 percent
over the last 11 years (Sykes E. (2016)).
The bureaucratically driven UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda led to the dominance of
collectives in society helping to ensure collective thought, conscience and expression
and consequently mass conformity in the main stream who often seemed unaware of
the anger and suffering of a large number at the bottom of the social scale.
While the collectivists have differing interests they certainly appear to link forces,
together with the Corporations, to execute the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which
I consider seeks to purge society of independent minds seeking truth often ‘the best and
brightest’.
The latter led to a neoliberal establishment versus the more independent peoples which
I show many of whom were subjected to gross neglect because of human rights
omissions.
In my experience, neoliberalism impacts at the lower social levels as a form of
totalitarianism which is incredibly brutal and would most likely be the cause of many
social problems (see the New Zealand chapter).
While, also in my experience, the mainstream media failed to inform the public of
many social problems that were occurring at the bottom of the social scale (see chapter
on New Zealand) and consequently middleclass, professional collectives were largely
ignorant of the hardship experienced by many more independent New Zealanders
which is also likely to be the case in other Western countries.
Generally, in my experience, anyone in the mainstream who raised their head above the
parapet was quickly ‘shut out and shut down’, while important truths considered
politically unsafe were often left by the mainstream media to the internet where they
were very unlikely to reach the democratic majority.
23
And certainly, from my experience, those in the political establishment refused to
engage in open public debate preferring the safety of the establishment where the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda ensured discussions were ‘safe’.
The invisible ideology could also be described as a form of ‘mind control’ with
democracy a major loser because virtually all political leaders and the mainstream
media abide by ideology which is very rarely spoken about.
I consider the ‘invisible’ ideology prevented the discussion of many important human
rights truths so could trump the democratic majority which very likely increased
discontent (see referenda in the New Zealand chapter).
This book argues that neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism should be replaced by
ethical human rights, development and globalization which is firmly based on the
Universal Declaration and which would eliminate the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda.
Consequently, ethical human rights would see the demise of both neoliberal variants as
well as the decline of the liberal collectivists and the dominance of repressive States at
the UN (see below).
The ethical approach was outlined, to my knowledge for the first time, in my previous
book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural
rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) while chapter 5 covers the discussions on the Optional
Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
at the UN from 2004 to 2008.
The book was published about 5 months before the adoption of the OP by the general
assembly so the existence of the ethical approach was known before the creation of
neoliberal absolutism.
Ethical human rights ensure for all, at least, all the core minimum of all the human
rights in the Universal Declaration sufficient to permit individual self-determination.
The gifted and deserving must succeed, or, at least, be seen to succeed by allowing no
forms of discrimination (the ethical approach is more fully explained in chapter 4).
24
The ethical approach, as with liberal individualism, promotes individual
self-determination but, unlike liberal individualism, also includes duties, both domestic
and global, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
Consequently, ethical human rights can be described as socially responsible
individualism whereas liberal individualism was often criticized as being too
individualistic with women and ethnic groups often lacking sufficient core minimum
human rights needed for individuals to reach their full potential.
Under ethical human rights if individuals choose to further themselves higher levels of
human rights need to be earned.
Ethical development is based on individual self-determination and can forge new paths
into the future whereas collective self-determination usually enables collectives/elites
to perpetuate the status quo and ensure top-down compliance and resulting, I consider,
to a serious decline in the development of human knowledge and in the ultimate to a
‘dead culture’.
The cultural cleansing of individual self-determination could well explain the low
levels of GDP growth being experienced in the West (see below).
Ethical globalization means all States must ensure to all ethical core minimum human
rights i.e. there is an individual freedoms/socio-economic ‘bottom-line’, which means
fair competition without exploitation.
Imported goods made with child, slave labour or sweat shop conditions can be labelled
as such which I consider would deter such imports.
Such an individual freedom/socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ within States would enable
competitive advantage between States to be determined by creativity, which the West
has excelled in, rather than the capacity of a State to exploit a vast workforce, which
China and India seem to excel in (the ethical approach is described more fully in
chapter 5).
In a world dominated by human rights I regard the ethical approach as virtually
unbeatable because it is firmly based on the Universal Declaration with no human
rights omissions unlike both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism.
25
In my view, while neoliberal absolutism creates liberal totalitarian States in preparation
for a one world government, ethical human rights, which entails duties both domestic
and global, envisages a great world, consisting of great States which ensure ethical
human rights for all their people allowing individuals to be self-determining, even
aspiring to greatness.
Faced with the neoliberal variants ethical human rights as well as being seen as
freedom’s great hope can also be seen as freedom’s last hope because the declaration
has been politicized i.e. with human rights omissions, from the beginning because of
the Cold War as well as the existence of a United Nations ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
With the creation of neoliberal absolutism means the Universal Declaration appears to
have been politicized to its extreme limit.
The ethical approach has received some remarkable high profile support on the internet
including Save the Children (US), the United Nations itself, the US State Department
and the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House and The Hill (US congressional
newspaper). The following is how they appeared on the internet:
@SavetheChildren ethical human rights, development, globalization to replace neo
liberalism, anthony ravlich’s blog, guerilla media 13 Mar 12
@UN ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neo liberalism,
anthony ravlich, http://www.hrc2001.org.nz 13 Mar 12
@StateDept ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neo
liberalism, anthony ravlich, http://www.hrc2001.org.nz 13 Mar 12
@OpenGov ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neo
liberalism, anthony ravlich, http://www.hrc2001.org.nz 13 Mar 12
@thehill ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neo liberalism,
anthony ravlich, http://www.hrc2001.org.nz 13 Mar 12
Despite all my attempts I could not inform the democratic majority of the ethical
approach in the mainstream media which, in my view, is captured by the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
26
The mainstream media also refused to review my previous book, ‘Freedom from our
social prisons….’, or publish any of my numerous articles so despite being an activist
for 25 years I am very little known in New Zealand.
The above and further high profile support for the ethical approach can be found in my
article, ‘New Idea for a better world’ (Ravlich A. (2012)).
Also, further support can also be found in my numerous articles on Auckland
(Aotearoa) Indymedia which I regularly posted on about 30 to 40 human rights
organizations on linked in (social media for professionals). In my experience, there is
an enormous fear of speaking out, including in the human rights establishment, so often
the support was more indirect than direct.
I also took the opportunity to challenge Helen Clark, a former Prime Minister of New
Zealand now in her second term as Head of the UN Development Program and seen by
many as a future UN Secretary General.
In a packed auditorium at Auckland University Helen Clark politically side-stepped my
question why is the UN saying nothing about the ethical approach (Ravlich A. (2013)).
While it remains outside the scope of this book, the creation of neoliberal absolutism,
is likely to have contributed much to the Arab Spring in 2010, the apparent rise of
China and Russia, the rise of political Islam and the decline of the European Union.
While the secular liberal collectivists promote collectives that include certain Islamic
cultures the chapter on Bangladesh shows there is an exception – those Islamic groups
which are anti-secular.
The equal status of both sets of rights under neoliberal absolutism meant that the
domain of secularism was extended to encompass the whole Universal Declaration.
The Awami League government in Bangladesh seemingly following neoliberal
absolutism implemented a secular plan which certainly appeared to evoke an
extraordinary eruption of violence by Islamic extremists who are anti-secular.
In the chapter on Bangladesh I also provide what I consider should be an answer. In my
view, religious political parties could have ethical human rights as their ethical base.
27
Ethical human rights, although secular, is firmly based on universal human rights truth
which is vastly different from secularism based on politics.
Universal human rights truth can be regarded as reflective of God’s Universal Truth. In
support of the latter ethical human rights, although secular, seems to virtually equate
with the Golden Rule (‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) which is
espoused by all the major religions for perhaps over a thousand years (see end of the
chapter on Bangladesh).
In my view, the West, which has been the major champion of individual freedoms and
individual self-determination e.g. the iconic American superhero, is destined for
‘permanent’ decline unless neoliberal absolutism is replaced by the ethical approach.
Because the UN has determined that the West is to go into decline and because the
West has traditionally been the major champions of individual freedoms it heralds, in
my view, a severe global decline in individual freedoms.

I am trying to post my book for free but lack the necessary computer skills. I can only manage a section at a time:

Chapter Two Hijacking NZ Human Rights to
implement UN’s ‘hídden’ collectivist agenda
Introduction
I consider it is virtually indisputable that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was
hijacked ‘by and for’ a left-minority of Members in Parliament and passed by only 36
per cent of MPs.
In my opinion, the bill of rights was pursued with low cunning and gross deceit which
in another era, and if the public had been fully informed, may have led to a revolution.
The bill of rights, which omits more than half the human rights in the Universal
Declaration, and permits the United Nation’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda described in
chapter one, was passed under the Fourth Labor Government (the hijacking of the bill
of rights is described in detail in the next section).
In my view, the left-minority are liberal collectivists, a social class often including
academics and bureaucrats, whose existence is permitted by social class discrimination,
but whose rise to dominate left politics was largely due to the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which came into effect at the onset of political globalization.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, driven by the liberal collectivists, promotes the
interests of collectives and totalitarianism and seeks to culturally cleanse the world of
individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams, often
depicted by the iconic American superhero.
Put in simple terms as an aid to understanding, collectivism can be described as where
the collective is virtually everything and the individual very largely irrelevant.
91
The UN’s collectivist agenda also permits exploitation by omission under international
law portending a global slave economy and which allows creativity to be replaced by
exploitation as a means of growth.
The human rights omissions required to fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda
also permits the IMF’s globalization (called Rogernomics in New Zealand) which
strongly favors the Corporations so also meets with the approval of right wing politics.
Perversely the UN’s collectivist agenda seeks to destroy the universal human rights
truth upon which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the
individual, is based.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda amounts to a United Nations war on truth as
defined by the Universal Declaration which the UN claims as its authority.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, which requires human rights omissions, is
invariably reflected in State constitutions (see chapter one) as well as New Zealand’s
bill of rights act which is often regarded as constitutional.
I consider the bill of rights constitutes the ideology of the State which can more simply
be called ‘the rules of the game’ which all in the establishment must abide by (see
below).
Left and right-wing politics may differ in many ways but both agree on ‘the rules of the
game’ i.e. neoliberalism, resulting in a neoliberal establishment but also, it appears,
growing anti-establishment sentiment amongst the more independent people.
In my view, political globalization in 1984 saw the rise of the liberal collectivists to
become the dominant elite in New Zealand as well as in numerous other countries i.e. it
is the globally dominant elite.
I consider the liberal collectivists also rose to dominate the UN, the European Union
while also, in my view, the East Asia Community, including Australia and New
Zealand, which is presently being formed.
In my view, the major purpose of the bill of rights is to fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which seeks to replace individual self-determination, which is in the
92
Universal Declaration, with collective self-determination, which is not in the Universal
Declaration e.g. individual freedom of thought is replaced by collective thought.
The UN’s collectivist agenda rather than emphasizing individual rights as required by
the Universal Declaration seeks virtually the opposite by promoting the dominance of
collectives e.g. elites, the State, which includes the Corporations.
Affirmative action (see below) which enabled female and Maori professional
collectives to gain dominance also fulfilled the cultural cleansing of self-determination
with the latter ‘victims’ of discrimination replacing the ‘best and brightest’ making
upward mobility more in the nature of political appointments rather than gained by
personal effort which is virtually the only way a more independent person can progress.
Apart from the courts which generally seem to try to uphold the individual freedoms in
the bill of rights (see below), public policy permitted the human rights omissions
driven by the bureaucrats behind closed doors to result in the gross neglect of large
numbers including a significant number, who did not join the mass exodus overseas,
with lives barely worth living.
For example, children’s rights were omitted from the bill of rights which, in my view,
resulted in the gross neglect of many while the omission of the right to individual
self-determination meant that big business was strongly prioritized at the expense of
small entrepreneurs thereby favoring exploitation rather than creativity as a means of
growth.
Generally, collective self-determination, which reflects the interests of the State,
dominant elites, and the Corporations upholds and perpetuates the status quo and the
establishment, including politicians, the mainstream media, academia etc. who are all
captured by the collectivist ideology.
The collectives, the liberal collective, middleclass, professional women and
middleclass, professional Maori and the trade unions have a common cause to fulfil the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda otherwise they reflect their different political
interests.
In such a very politicized society reflecting collective self-interest there is very largely
93
only political truth with very little room for universal truth i.e. society degenerates into
a power game.
While there is a power game between the left and right wing politics both agree on ‘the
rules of the game’ i.e. neoliberalism, which I consider very largely means exploiting
the rest of society, often the more independent people.
I consider the dominance of the collectives meant individual ‘freedom of thought,
conscience, expression, belief’ was transformed into ‘collective thought, conscience,
expression and belief’.
The latter, in my view, created an overwhelming social conformity which was often
disconnected from the reality of the lives of many people outside the establishment
whose concerns were also often ignored by the mainstream media (see below).
The UN’s agenda seeks to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination i.e.
seeking of truth, hopes and dreams. That truth is not wanted in such an ideologically
controlled society is evidenced by the mass exodus from the country of the ‘best and
brightest’ (see below).
I consider the crushing of the potential of the nation is meant to create a peaceful
society devoid of any political conflict in the mainstream which may pose a threat to
the dominant collectives or the State.
For example, knowledge of the hijacking of human rights may have incited rebellion
during revolutionary times and this would very likely be initiated by the brightest New
Zealanders who more readily understand how distant causes such as constitutions can
have a devastating impact on society.
The latter may explain why the MP’s voting pattern concerning the adoption of the bill
of rights was, from my experience, very largely kept hidden (see the next section)
As described in the extreme example of the Dalits of South-East Asia (sometimes
called untouchables, also called the ‘crushed people’) in the preceding chapter of the
crushing of human potential and whose dreams often seem limited to ‘street cleaning,
manual scavenging and burying the dead’ yet have remained remarkably peaceful (see
Dalits in chapter on Bangladesh).
94
Unlike during revolutionary times e.g. the French and American revolutions of the 18th
Century, when constitutions and universal truth were of major concern these were not
revolutionary times in New Zealand and New Zealanders very largely seemed to
assume they had their human rights so their concerns revolved very largely around
commerce and money rather than any discrimination.
I consider the mainstream media hid the discontent many New Zealanders were feeling
at the bottom of society just as it did in America and Britain as evidenced by the
anti-establishment vote in the US Presidential elections and in Britain by Brexit which
also seemed to be an anti-establishment vote.
In my view, the modern day middleclass (in contrast to the post-second world war
middleclass) are very largely oblivious to totalitarianism because, while benefiting
from it, they have rarely ever experienced being on the receiving end of it while they
are themselves blinded by the ‘rock star middleclass economy’ image that New
Zealand likes to project of itself (see below).
Geoffrey Palmer, in his personal writings, when engaged in having the bill of rights
included in law, noted that he ‘found the proceedings profoundly depressing. It was
clear New Zealanders knew little how government worked and the ordinary New
Zealander did not seem to care much’ (Hiebert J. and Kelly J. (2015)).
Although this may not be surprising as there had been so very little by way of human
rights education (see below).
I consider the public were almost completely oblivious to the impact of political
globalization in the early 1980s, with its ‘hidden’ UN collectivist agenda, on the human
rights they thought they possessed.
In my view, the public were also deceived by a ‘divide and rule’ (see below) with social
discontent channeled towards the Corporations and the wealthy one percent whereas, in
my view, the real cause of the problem were those who determine ‘the rules of the
game’ as found in UN human rights instruments and the bill of rights.
In my view, ‘the rules of the game’ allow the activities of the Corporations so
discontent directed at the Corporations e.g. by the Occupation, simply addressed the
95
symptoms rather than the cause.
While I consider Corporations, which are highly privileged by the ‘rules of the game’
e.g. the global free market greatly prioritized over the domestic free market, were
largely accepting of their role as the target of discontent.
While the bill of rights seemed of little importance to New Zealanders this contrasted
with the importance attached to it by the State with Geoffrey Palmer being made Prime
Minister for about two years primarily to make constitutional changes, including
creating the bill of rights, while Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister.
The Universal Declaration consists of two sets of rights – civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights. New Zealand, like America, presently adheres to
neoliberalism which consists of only civil and political rights, as does the bill of rights,
however its many human rights omissions allow the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’.
Consequently, instead of the bill of rights being based on universal civil and political
rights truth the UN’s collectivist agenda creates a very largely collectivist ideology i.e.
neoliberalism, enabling the dominance of collectives, culturally cleansing society of
individual self-determination and permitting exploitation and the creation of
underclasses.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda also allows the IMF’s globalization policies and
by permitting exploitation it strongly favors those countries best able to exploit a vast
workforce, such as China and India, with the traditionally more creative West the major
loser.
The latter had the desired effect of the UN’s collectivist agenda to culturally cleanse
society of individual self-determination because exploitation meant there was far less
need for creativity, entrepreneurial activity and the ‘best and brightest’.
In a world at war with truth the major target is self-determining individuals e.g.
independent minds seeking truth, so the major target is the West which has been the
major champions of individual freedoms and individual self-determination.
The latter is unlike, in my view, the paranoid and fanatical control of totalitarian
countries which would make the seeking of truth virtually impossible.
96
In my view, while nearly all New Zealanders seemed very largely unaware I consider
the 1984 New Zealand Labor Party was taken over by liberal collectivists replacing the
previously dominant elite, the post-second world war, liberal individualists.
I consider globalization has both economic and political dimensions. The onset of
neoliberalism and globalization in New Zealand in 1984 led to States following IMF
globalization policies, called Rogernomics in New Zealand, resulting in the rise of the
Corporations i.e. economic globalization.
However, in the shadows of the Corporations and virtually unseen by the great majority
of people, it was paralleled by political globalization, whereby nearly all States
followed the UN human rights agenda including its hidden collectivist agenda.
The global rise of the liberal collectivists to dominate the UN can, in my view, be seen
with the rise of Helen Clark, now in her second term as head of the United Nations
Development Program and considered as a leading candidate to become the first,
female, UN Secretary-General (see below).
Both left and right-wing politics benefit from the UN’s collectivist agenda which, for
example, in addition to the omitted human rights strongly favoring left-collectives and
their war on truth, also permitted IMF globalization and exploitation which strongly
favour the Corporations and their profits.
I regard the liberal collectivists, although privileged in New Zealand by social class
discrimination, permitted by the bill of rights, as largely a creation of the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which took effect in many countries at the onset of globalization
and in 1984 in New Zealand they replaced the liberal individualists as the dominant
elite.
It meant, in my view, that virtually the whole establishment, including academia, the
mainstream media and politicians, are ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda driven by the liberal collectivists. In my view, the latter’s major
concern is to ensure obedience to ideology rather than the seeking of truth and success.
Typically, in practice, it meant helping the more dependent, lower functioning
individuals e.g. affirmative action in employment for ‘victims’, while ‘shutting out and
97
shutting down’ the more independent, higher functioning individual often the ‘best and
brightest’.
I consider for the liberal collectivists there is to be no place in society for genius,
greatness or super-heroes (or whistle blowers) especially as, from my observation, the
collectives themselves devolve into less than mediocrity with their most talented
marginalized within the collective, unable to exercise a voice and so hidden from the
public.
In my view, the liberal collectivists are extremely concerned to hide their hegemony so
image, ‘looking good’ and class interests are paramount while truth is very largely
irrelevant.
I consider the liberal collectivists, who, from my experience are a social class,
privileged by social class discrimination, consisting of many academics and
bureaucrats, including Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Helen Clark, who are the major drivers
of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda. The political representatives of the liberal
collectivists are often called left-neoliberals.
While, as stated, the right-wing e.g. the National Party, abide by the collectivist
ideology largely, it certainly seems, because the Corporations are highly favoured.
What has taken place in New Zealand since 1984 can be very largely understood as an
ideological war, with deadly consequences, between the liberal collectivists and liberal
individualists.
I consider the cultural cleansing by the liberal collectivists included removing many of
the formerly dominant liberal individualists.
In New Zealand there certainly seems to have been a fanatical pursuit of such cultural
cleansing resulting in a mass exodus from the country, including many of the ‘best and
brightest’, with an estimated one million New Zealanders now living outside the
country which has a population of about 4.6 million (see below).
I consider the mass exodus left few in the country who were sufficiently intelligent and
articulate enough to hold the government to account.
98
Consequently, mediocrity is all New Zealanders are permitted to see so they are
unaware of any enlightened leadership they could have. Such enlightened leadership
could involve the higher level of consciousness often attained when beliefs are based
on universal truth rather than ideology.
From my observation, leadership with strong character seems a rarity while affirmative
action has seen the rise of many ‘victims’ to leadership positions replacing the ‘best
and brightest’.
Whereas the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination shows that the most
discriminated against were ‘the best and brightest’ who left the country in huge
numbers (see below).
In my experience, many of the ‘best and brightest’ who remained in the country were
often isolated and their potential crushed with a significant number ending up in the
mental health and criminal justice systems, committing suicide or sometimes after
having been stigmatized living similar lifestyles to the underclass. Often, in my
experience, they felt New Zealand was no longer their home and they were essentially
social outcasts.
The liberal individualists believed that individuals through hard work and ability could
reach their full potential, and with opportunities available, including upward social
mobility, could gain their just desserts on merit.
However, this did not apply to all, with women and Maori often having insufficient
opportunities pre-1984 and the liberal individualists became to be regarded as too
individualistic i.e. lacking social responsibility.
Although the situation with respect to Maori is more complex with many adhering to a
tribal culture which I consider has not embraced modernity. For example, in my view,
it does not ‘pull its weight’ in the development of human knowledge as other modern
cultures. And the latter means much fewer employment opportunities available to
Maori (see below).
While the liberal individualists were concerned to promote individual freedom of
‘thought, conscience, expression and beliefs’ to enable ‘bottom-up’ development and
99
forge new paths into the future the liberal collectivists were concerned to promote
‘collective thought, conscience, expression and beliefs’ to enable ‘top-down’ control
and perpetuate the status quo.
In my view, many of the liberal collectivists in the left-establishment have a totalitarian
mind-set and really seek the far more extreme liberal totalitarianism which would be
created if neoliberal absolutism (see chapter one) is ever adopted.
As stated in chapter one collectivism as witnessed under Stalin, Hitler and Mao and
their mass atrocities was one of the major reasons for the creation of the Universal
Declaration with its emphasis on individual rights i.e. people are not ‘numbers’ or
expendable, and opposition to totalitarianism.
In addition, while liberals, whether collectivist or individualist, refrain from using
direct violence as a means of control they instead use gross neglect by omitting human
rights which, in my view, can often be just as deadly and involve far greater numbers
including many, with their potential crushed, living lives barely worth living.
Also, in my view, the devastating consequences of gross neglect are evidenced by the
terrible social statistics which correlate with the human rights omissions (see Appendix
One and below).
For example, more recently the high levels of domestic violence described in the
People’s Report by the Glenn Inquiry (see below) can, in my view, be largely attributed
to the omission of children’s and family rights in the bill of rights but this is rarely
spoken about yet if it involved, for example, discrimination against women and/or
Maori, the outcry would be almost deafening.
Furthermore, in my view, if it was not for the rebuilding required following the
Christchurch earthquakes New Zealand may even have achieved ‘nil’ growth a
seeming inevitable consequence, in my view, of the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination (see chapter one). The IMF states:
“The pace of New Zealand’s economic recovery is likely to remain modest. Output
growth should pick up somewhat to 2 percent in 2012 as earthquake reconstruction
spending gains pace, although the size and timing of this spending is still uncertain”
100
(IMF, 2012).
Given the seeming obsession of the considerable majority of States with economic
globalization and the Corporations while the new ideas of small entrepreneurs within
the domestic free market are minimized it may not be considered surprising that given
there are few new ideas that the West is exhibiting such low growth rates (described in
chapter one).
While under economic globalization, with exploitation permitted, it meant New
Zealand lost many jobs overseas so such globalization meant New Zealand exercised a
greater duty to help other countries instead of the prime duty of the State being to one’s
own people, as required under ethical human rights (described in chapter one, see
Donald Trump’s intention to replace globalism with Americanism).
Geoffrey Palmer is described by his biographer as ‘a believer in using the law for
social reform’ (Richards B. (2012)).
And it certainly appears that he saw the collectivist ideology requiring collective
thought and collective conscience etc. as a way to ‘socially reform’ independent
thinkers often perceived as too individualistic. In my experience, if you did not fit in
you were excluded.
From my experience the bill of rights is vastly underrated and very largely ignored by
New Zealanders who, in my view, have been led to believe, at least those that have
given it any thought at all, that it is a weak bill of rights which can be easily overridden
by a parliamentary majority although this happened only about once per year (see
below).
In fact, in my view, the bill of rights is really the ideology of the State which can be
loosely described as ‘the rules of the game’ which is in sync with many other counties
concerned to crush the potential of the nation by embarking on a war on truth and
creativity while claiming peace as being their goal.
Whereas, in my view, it is just governments and elites, having created a big gap
between the establishment and the rest, concerned to protect their dominance by
removing the threat that independent thinkers and the rest pose.
101
As described in the chapter on Bangladesh while many State leaderships may seek to
justify the removal of such threats using the draconian top-down control of neoliberal
absolutism because over the past decade and a half deaths related to terrorism had a
tenfold increase.
However, the Global Terrorism Index (2015) states that 78% of global terrorism related
deaths occurred in just five countries – Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.
While, in my view, at a massive social cost the peace objective in New Zealand seems
to have been achieved with the “Global Peace Index’ ranking New Zealand in 2010 as
the world’s most peaceful nation, for the second year running (World News. (2010)).
However, as described in chapter one, the Dalits (sometimes called the untouchables or
oppressed, crushed or broken people) of South East Asia, suffering arrested
development, have also been found to be remarkably peaceful (see chapter on
Bangladesh) but many seem to live a life barely worth living.
New Zealand has repeatedly been ranked as one of the Top 4 most peaceful countries in
the world by the Global Peace Index report published by Vision of Humanity which
compares 162 independent states and evaluates “the level of safety and security in
society, the extent of domestic or international conflict; and the degree of
militarization”.
In 2014, New Zealand was ranked the world’s fourth safest country after Iceland,
Denmark and Austria. In 2013 New Zealand was ranked third behind Iceland and
Denmark (NZEDGE. (2015)).
But rather than a peaceful society many New Zealanders (outside of the middleclass,
‘rock star’ economy, see below) are, from my observation, struggling, invariably in a
state of arrested development, with exceedingly little hope of improving themselves.
And while with many of New Zealand’s best thinkers joining the mass exodus there
may be little in the way of political violence much may have been suppressed to the
level of criminality, for example, manifesting itself in high levels of domestic violence
or angry people requiring to be subdued by high levels of medication.
Inability to reach their full potential may help explain the increasing use of
102
anti-depressants which were prescribed to 427,900 patients in the year to 30 June 2013,
representing more than a 20% increase in the last five years (Mental Health Foundation.
(2014)).
While the New Zealand Drug Foundation reports that ‘New Zealanders as a population
have some of the higher drug-use rates in the developed world, evidenced in the
2007/2008 New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey, which reports that one in six
(16.6%) New Zealanders aged 16–64 years had used drugs recreationally in the past
year’ (Drug Foundation. (2007/2008)).
It also seems the crushing of potential may also be a cause of high levels of mental
illness and the increasing number of invalids.
The Ministry of Health interviewed nearly 13,000 people for its in-depth Te Rau
Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey, released in September 2006. It
found that 46 per cent of New Zealanders will meet the criteria for having a mental
disorder at some time in their life. Some 20 per cent had a disorder in the last 12
months
Mental disorder is common in New Zealand: 46.6% of the population are predicted to
meet criteria for a disorder at some time in their lives, with 39.5% having already done
so and 20.7% having a disorder in the past 12 months. It found that 16% of New
Zealanders have thought seriously about suicide (Mental Health. (2006)).
New Zealand has 106, 910 more individuals are ‘too sick to work’ and in receipt of
sickness and invalids benefits since 1985 (‘Broken Welfare’, North & South magazine,
May 2000 reported the number was 31,090). The total number who are classed either
as sick or as invalids in June 2009 is 138,000.
In June 2009, there were about 54,000 people receiving a sickness benefit because they
were temporarily unable to work, and about 84,000 people receiving an invalid’s
benefit because they were permanently and severely restricted in their ability to work
(Social Development. (2009)).
During the Cold War people were often aware of where they stood ideologically i.e. it
was America’s freedom or Soviet communism.
103
However, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 enabled the creation
of the NZ bill of rights act in 1990 with the collectivist ideology able to be hidden,
bureaucratically-driven, behind closed doors, constituting public policy.
In my experience, people who bother to give the bill of rights any thought are usually
told, often by liberal collectivist academics, how weak it is legally because it can easily
be over-turned by a simple majority of MPs, and their focus is directed to its
effectiveness in the courts.
In my view, the creation of the bill of rights was far more about its omissions than the
rights included. While the courts may generally uphold the individual freedoms in the
bill of rights it was its cultural impact when driven by the bureaucracy where its
numerous omissions resulted in the gross neglect of many leaving the country almost
unrecognizable from the egalitarian country it once was.
For example, children’s rights were omitted resulting in very high levels of child abuse
and poverty (see below) while the exclusion of individual self-determination meant
there was little protection for entrepreneurs from bureaucratic control contributing to
the mass exodus from the country.
The promotion of a collectivist ideology behind closed doors could be described as a
means of mind control as human rights omissions, which are rarely ever admitted to,
constitute a virtual invisible force with New Zealanders unaware of the cause of their
oppression (as well as depression).
The dominance of the collectives helped ensure that individual freedom of thought,
conscience, expression and belief became collective thought, conscience etc. which,
from my observation, resulted in an overwhelming mass conformity in the
establishment. Anyone, in my view, who rose their head above the parapet was quickly
isolated.
The year 1984 can also be regarded as involving a ‘human rights trade-off’ with
perceived sexism and racism replaced by classism i.e. a class-based society, permitted
by social class discrimination while the latter together with affirmative action gave
much preference to the liberal collectivists, and professional, middleclass women and
Maori.
104
I consider the latter ‘victims’ replaced many of the ‘best and the brightest’.
This was, in part, foreseen in the late 1970s with New Zealand historian Professor
Keith Sinclair describing the view of the then New Zealand Prime Minister, Norman
Kirk, stating in his book ‘A History of New Zealand’: “Kirk saw clearly that while fear
of communism was a declining element in international politics, racism was becoming
a central issue” (Sinclair K. (1991)).
The communists of Eastern Europe, who were ideologically opposed to class
exploitation, had championed economic, social and cultural rights at the UN.
The latter rights provided a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ in these communist countries
which protected people against exploitation and helped ensure equality.
With the collapse of communism in 1989 economic, social and cultural rights and
consequently exploitation and equality became much less of a global concern.
Economic, social and cultural rights and equal rights were excluded from the bill of
rights and without a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ exploitation was permitted and an
underclass created which helped fulfil the task of the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination because creativity and entrepreneurship was in less demand.
In contrast to liberal collectivism and liberal individualism, the ethical approach to
human rights promoted in this book regards it as a duty to ensure all have, at least, all
the core minimum human rights in the Universal Declaration i.e. both individual
freedoms and individual economic, social and cultural rights, sufficient to enable
individual self-determination.
The latter enables the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams and being able to reach full
potential. If they wish, people can achieve higher levels of human rights which need to
be earned.
The ethical approach could be described as socially responsible individualism.
By contrast, the communists of Eastern Europe while providing economic, social and
cultural rights did not provide sufficient civil and political rights to enable individual
self-determination and, for example, it is well-known that dissent often led to
105
incarceration in gulags.
I consider the ethical approach, which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration, if
included in the bill of rights would eliminate the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
And if the ethical approach was reflected in international law it would lead to the
collapse of both America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism as well as
the dominance of the liberal collectivists and repressive States in the UN.
Both neoliberal variants, in my view, would have very little answer to the moral force
of the universal human rights truth upon which the ethical human rights are based.
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission came close to designating New Zealand
a ‘secular society’ but because of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda this would have
strongly favored collective interests over the more independent New Zealanders i.e. it
would have been a secularism based on politics rather than universal human rights
truth.
In my view, the UN’s collectivist agenda reflects the interests of the considerable
majority of State representatives, concerned to retain power, in the UN General
Assembly as well as, in my view, the UN bureaucracy but the Universal Declaration is
meant to guard against such opportunism especially relevant in today’s world where
totalitarianism is increasing regarded as the best means of control.
The ethical approach is secular but is firmly based on universal human rights truth so
can be regarded as reflective of the interests of all as well as, in my personal view,
reflecting God’s Universal Truth.
Ethical human rights, while secular, is often recognized as equating with the Golden
Rule (‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) espoused by the major
religions so religious political parties could have ethical human rights as their ethical
base and so help remove the separation of Church and State.
Furthermore, I consider it self-evident that human beings are not perfect e.g. no one is
God, and that this is also the case with their laws. An important reason for believing in
God’s Universal Truth is when there is ‘no appeal on earth’ and is described by John
Locke (1689), regarded as the father of liberal rights.
106
John Locke states that when the ‘rule of reason’ i.e. the social contract, has collapsed
and there is no ‘appeal on earth’ then you can only ‘appeal to heaven’ and exercise the
‘right of resisting’ such tyranny (Locke J. (1965)).
A New Zealand Herald report described it as an ‘astonishing concession’ under
pressure from the Catholic Church that the New Zealand Human Rights Commission
agreed to remove language from a 2004 draft report that stated that New Zealand is a
secular state and that religion was only for the “private sphere.” (Turley J. (2010)).
New Zealand bishops considered that, since the Universal Declaration protects freedom
of religion, “[t]o suggest that matters of religion and belief belong only in the private
sphere undermines the right of churches to seek to influence public opinion and
political decision making.” The bishops were supported by the evangelical Vision
Network which insisted “no major religion sees itself as a privatized matter.” (Turley J.
(2010)).
Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres promised to revise the language, including
the description of New Zealand as a “secular state.” (Turley J. (2010)).
It would seem likely that some of those ‘best and brightest’ whose lives have been very
seriously damaged may seek accountability and compensation when and if the
opportunity arises and, in my view, it is very largely those responsible for the hijacking,
such as Geoffrey Palmer and Helen Clark, who should be held to account.

My tweet. Trump concedes. US will support NWO and turn back on God. Suggest Trump forms a shadow govt. uphold constitution under God. Ethical human rights, which emphasizes sovereignty, will replace NWO and ensure individual sovereignty.

My tweet: America must save its soul which is its constitution. Such universal truth is more important than democracy – you can have a sick population!

My post on The War Against Communism in Spiritual Renaissance NZ: I like to keep things simple. I see communism as collectivism. In my book I show how the UN wrongly (because the UDHR emphasizes the individual not the collective) replaces individual self-determination e.g individual freedom of thought, conscience and expression with collective self-determination e.g. collective thought, conscience and expression (e.g. the fake media is their collective voice). You can see how in society the collectives dominate oppressing the more independent people i.e. the stupid exploit the intelligent!!! Generally speaking people join collectives to focus on making money leaving the arduous task of thinking to the leaders. This all backfires when the leaders decide to work in their own self-interest rather than those they are meant to represent. The latter situation is what exists in today’ world. We need to hold the UN and the human rights establishment to account.

Posted on ‘Life, Death And All Between’ (World Freedom Alliance, Switzerland): I am not confused. I am very clear on what the problem is and what needs to be done. I just posted the following: I found the truth – why am I being ignored!!!??? Look it is becoming increasingly obvious that our problems stem from the UN e.g. Agendas 21 and 30 while as with the latter the Great Reset requires a One world Government. My book show that the ideology of the latter is neoliberal absolutism, created on 10 Dec 2008, which requires many human rights omissions. All that needs to be done is to include the omitted human rights. The ethical human rights I promote is firmly based on the UDHR, includes all the human rights, and would replace neoliberal absolutism. The human rights omissions explain virtually all our problem e.g. neoliberalism and globalization require human rights omissions and they distort capitalism creating a huge gap between rich and poor. What needs to be done is to target the UN and human rights organizations and demand that the omitted human rights are included. Once this has been achieved we have solved most of our problems. Also the human rights omissions allow exploitation under international human rights law – the major beneficiary being China. I show how the human rights omissions were also the real cause of the GFC 2008 which impacted by far the worse on the EU. If the EU adopted ethical human rights the EU could hold States to account for violations of core minimum human rights i.e. extreme violence and extreme poverty. It would leave States with considerable sovereignty to determine higher levels of human rights. I have written two books on the subject – see my blog, you can access a free book,

My service provider (Slingshot) cut me off the internet for nearly two days for making a late payment (11 days). In today’s world this can jeopardize people’s health e.g. as in my case rather than direct mail a hospital emails their patients. It encouraged me to make the following post which exposes the fraudulent human rights of their masters.

Control versus Freedom. My book is free or you can buy it (see pdf files below). You have a choice – a One World Government (OWG) for globalists and those who want virtual total control (totalitarianism) or Ethical human rights which emphasizes sovereignty and being master of one’s own destiny.People are aware of the UN Agendas 21 and 30 as well as the Great Reset (World Economic Forum) which require a OWG.

The book exposes the gross human rights malpractice at the United Nations as well as within two case-studies, New Zealand and Bangladesh which reflect the UN agenda. Ethical human rights which have no human rights omissions promises to replace a OWG (or New World Order) which requires many human rights omissions creating an ‘evil’ ideology, neoliberal absolutism, which permits the establishment made up of collectives to oppress the independent people i.e. the stupid exploit the intelligent! I show that Independent minds which take society forward and hold leadership to account are the most hated in today’s societies which demand obedience to the ‘evil’ ideology. It can be described as a spiritual war between good and evil.

To be compatible with the UN’s claimed authority, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Charter, omitted human rights in international and domestic human rights law need to be included. Innovative minds can determine how best this can be achieved. A free copy of my book, ‘Ethical Human Rights: Freedom’s Great Hope’ (American Academic Press 2017) can be found in the pdf file below. In another pdf file American Academic Press provides a list of book sellers e.g. Amazon and Google Books, for those who wish to buy a copy.Ethical Human Rights, the book: file:///C:/Users/Anthony/Downloads/Ethical%20Book%20new%20%20_12.30.2016_(2)(1).pdfAmerican Academic Press A Guide to search on-line in some media: Ethical Human Rights: file:///C:/Users/Anthony/Downloads/ANTHONY%20RAVLICH-9781631818141-English%20Version.pdf The pdf files were provided by ‘Life, Death And All Between’ (World Freedom Alliance, Switzerland) who have shown an interest in my work.Further articles can be found on my blog, ‘https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog.

Anthony Ravlich MA, BSc, Dip Crim (Hons),Human Rights author (two books), activist and outsider (29years), Chairperson, Human Rights Council (New Zealand)10D/15 City Rd.,Auckland City.Ph: (09) 9409658.

For those who are interested. I managed to locate the introduction to my book, ‘Ethical Human Rights: Freedom’s Great Hope’ (American Academic Press, 2017): This book could easily be regarded as a conspiracy theory because the existence of such momentous changes being made by the United Nations hidden from people behind a global iron curtain is so extraordinarily hard to believe but my work is based on verifiable facts and I challenge anyone to prove my major findings wrong. In this book, I am holding the United Nations and State leaderships (includes case studies on New Zealand and Bangladesh) to account in terms of the universal human rights truth upon which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based. Primarily, and which would further human rights development, I am presenting a new human rights plan for the world, an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization which is firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration. The latter plan has received some remarkable high profile support on the internet but the mainstream media refuse to inform the democratic majority necessitating my writing a further book. The ethical approach would replace both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism. The latter, I consider, was created at the United Nations on 10 December 2008 as the new globally dominant ideology. I think this book will be of considerable value to the discontented and most particularly the young, who are suffering global mass discrimination, as it describes the kind of world they will have to confront. The dream is to have ethical human rights, which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reflected in domestic and international human rights law. 2 In my view, it is ideas that rule (in my personal view, ultimately God’s Universal Truth) rather than wealth or military might. My previous book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) outlined the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization, to my knowledge, for the first time. Ethical human rights have received high profile support e.g. Save the children (US), the United Nations itself, the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, the US State Department, and the Congressional Newspaper as well as others however only on the internet. Despite all my attempts I have not been able to get it into the mainstream media where it could reach the democratic majority. In what would be a peaceful revolution the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization would replace neoliberalism and, in my view, the recently created new globally dominant ideology, neoliberal absolutism. The latter is, in my view, a near absolute top-down control and is still hidden from people. This book, perhaps for the first time, describes the existence of a UN ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which promotes collectivism, totalitarian States and repressive cultures as well as aiming to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes, dreams, sometimes depicted by the iconic American super-hero. This often translates into purging the ‘best and brightest’ by replacing them, often using affirmative action, with those seen as ‘victims’ of discrimination. The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda can be verified by seeing the human rights omissions in international human rights law which is meant to reflect the Universal Declaration. 3 Both ideologies, neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism, are based on the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and subject very large numbers to gross neglect and many with lives barely worth living. I see little difference between an authoritarian State using direct violence or a liberal State using human rights omissions or gross neglect as a means of control because both kill, often in large numbers. I consider that the source of many problems people experience is due to human rights omissions which are invariably kept hidden from people. Consequently people, not knowing the source of their problems, often either blame themselves or others who are not responsible for the human rights malpractice. Chapter 5 of my previous book follows 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 is a complaints procedure whereby if a person cannot get justice for violations of economic, social and cultural rights in their own country they can take a complaint to the United Nations. However, as I was to discover the adoption of the OP by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008, with America the major opposition, was to have profound and momentous consequences but which were hidden behind a global iron curtain. The OP established the equal status of the two sets of rights in the Universal Declaration, civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, but when coupled with the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda created yet another ideology, neoliberal absolutism, in my view, a near-absolute top-down control (which I personally regard as ‘evil’). However, America is only one of six countries not to have ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. America, although with some support from the American camp at the UN e.g. Canada, Britain, Australia and Japan, was the major opposition to neoliberal absolutism. 4 I consider neoliberal absolutism resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest. I observed a global media ‘blackout’ with virtually no mention of the new globally dominant ideology, neoliberal absolutism, America’s dissent or that Western States had been marginalized in the UN General Assembly perhaps for the first time. Because the West has been the major champion of individual freedoms and individual self-determination it is the West, and therefore global freedom, which is targeted for ‘permanent’ decline. Neoliberal absolutism also, in my view, permitted exploitation by omission under international law which meant Corporations were free to relocate to countries with the cheapest labour without fear that exploitation would be prohibited. I consider the latter, a UN decision on 10 December 2008, was the major cause of the global financial crisis 2008/9 with its epicentre in the European Union. In addition, I consider neoliberal absolutism led to the rise of repressive States at the UN to virtually control the human rights agenda. Chapter 4 of the present book describes ethical human rights, development and globalization more fully. Some readers might like to read chapter 4 first. Ethical human rights require that all should have, at the very least, the core minimums of all the rights in the Universal Declaration sufficient to permit individual self-determination. Ethical development is based on individual self-determination and emphasizes the small entrepreneur, small and medium business rather than the present emphasis on the Corporations. Being based on individual self-determination means ethical development requires a ‘turn around’ from an emphasis on big business to an emphasis on the small entrepreneur which will very likely help give youth opportunities as well as encourage new ideas to forge new paths into the future. 5 Ethical globalization requires all States to have ethical human rights as their bottom-line and consequently would result in fair trade without exploitation. This means that competitive advantage between States will be determined by creativity rather than the capacity to exploit a vast work force which appears to be the case with China and India. Freedom requires both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ sufficient to enable individual self-determination however it is a socially responsible freedom because all must have such freedom which enables the individual, State and world to reach its full potential. Being socially responsible means there are ethical duties, domestic and global, with the prime duty of the State to ensure all of their own population have their ethical human rights and, where it is within the capacity of the State, there is a duty to help other countries unable to ensure ethical human rights for their population. In chapter 2 on New Zealand I show how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was hijacked ‘by and for’ a left-minority and only passed by 36 per cent of MPs in parliament. I describe the left-minority as liberal collectivists and, in my opinion, the hijacking was pursued by its leadership with a ‘low cunning and gross deceit’. Sir Geoffrey Palmer was the Prime Minster at the time and regarded as the architect of the bill of rights. Helen Clark, in her second term as head of the United Nations Development Program and a candidate to become the first female UN Secretary-General, was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the hijacking. The hijacking was, in my view, mainly to permit the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to be implemented which resulted in a mass exodus of about one million New Zealanders (out of a population of 4.6 million) which included very many of New Zealand’s ‘best and brightest’. Those who remained in the country were not infrequently treated as social outcasts with perhaps significant numbers ending up in the mental health and criminal justice systems. 6 In my view, the exodus left few in the country who were sufficiently articulate to challenge Government policies. Nearly all other State constitutions also seem to permit the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda. The liberal collectivists whose rise to become the domestic and globally dominant elite was, in my view, very largely due to the UN’s collectivist agenda which impacted globally at the onset of political globalization. I consider the liberal collectivists, who drive the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, are very largely class-based and replaced the post-second world war liberal individualists who promote individual self-determination. The politics of human rights can very largely be described as an ideological war, with deadly consequences, between these two groups. The adoption of ethical human rights, which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would not only eliminate neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism but remove the dominance of the liberal collectivists whose class interests, in my view, make them unsuitable for determining human rights which are meant to be universal. I consider the activities of the liberal collectivists have been traitorous in terms of the Universal Declaration with their promotion of totalitarianism and repressive cultures which is seeing the decline of the West and global freedom and they need to be exposed e.g. by requiring human rights transparency on their part. While in chapter 3 on Bangladesh I show how under neoliberal absolutism extending the domain of secularism to cover all behaviour under the Universal Declaration seems to have led to an extraordinary eruption of violence by Islamic extremists who are anti-secular. I provide what I see as a solution whereby if religious political parties adopt ethical human rights, which is based in universal human rights truth rather than politics, as their ethical base it can help overcome the secular/religious divide and allow religious 7 political parties to play a greater role in the public domain. It could be called a peaceful jihad. I consider the UN’s collectivist agenda involves very serious violations of the Universal Declaration and the UN Charter and I regard it as constituting a global crime against humanity. And, in my view, especially given the creation of neoliberal absolutism, the West would be justified in boycotting the UN until the collectivist agenda is removed. Reaching a similar conclusion, UN Watch, a Geneva based NGO with consultative status at the UN, when testifying before the US Congress on 17 May 2016 after describing the rise of repressive States at the UN questioned whether the UN Human Rights Council had turned into a ‘Frankenstein’ and stated that ‘the U.S. and fellow democracies can and must fight back’. It seems apparent from the human rights omissions, which disable dissent, the great majority of States are using the United Nations as a means of consolidating and expanding their power which is out of the sight of their own populations and voters. In my view, while neoliberal absolutism creates virtual totalitarian States, albeit liberal, in preparation for a one world government, ethical human rights, which entails duties, both domestic and global, envisages a great world, consisting of great States which ensure ethical human rights for all their people allowing individuals to be self-determining, even aspiring to greatness.