The War on Truth

Describes profound and world shaking decisions made by the United Nations behind a global iron curtain which has determined that America, the West and individual freedoms should go into decline - and it is happening.But I believe there is an answer.

The War on Truth

Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Author and Activist (25 years)
Chairperson
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658

The following is chapter one of my book, ‘The War on Truth’, which is almost completed but circumstances i.e. Bernie Sanders in the Presidential race, persuaded me to publish it before completion on the internet. Including a bibliography would have made it far too long but it will be included when the book is published (hopefully).
I am a human rights author and activist (25 years) from Auckland, New Zealand. I have sought human rights truth from the start and have been an outsider.
I hope the following, which I am posting on Bernie Sanders Revolutionaries can be forwarded to the super delegates, so they can see Bernie Sanders is needed by the world not just America as he will be leader of the Free World.

Chapter One

Although, from my observation, still hidden behind a ‘global iron curtain’, I consider the United Nation’s creation of neoliberal absolutism 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 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 still promotes neoliberalism so no longer dominates ideologically.
Neoliberal absolutism also permitted exploitation by omission under international law which, in my view, portends a global slave economy, and was the major reason for the global financial crash in 2008/9.
And a further massive redistribution of wealth from the West to the Rest is very likely as indicated by the UN’s sustainable development goals, 2016, which aim to eliminate world poverty.
I consider neoliberal absolutism, which involves a ‘near absolute’ top-down control, has resulted in the rise of repressive States to virtually control the UN’s human rights agenda.

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, the creation of under classes and protect the welfare State.

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, both of which come under international human rights law.
Apart from very occasional mention in the academic literature of the exclusion of property rights from international law 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 exploitation).

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.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda would have been permitted by the great majority of States in the UN General Assembly and appears to be unquestioningly accepted as the prevailing reality by all States.
Consequently, countries, particularly 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.

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 domestically, which also permits 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.
It was passed by only 36 per cent of Parliament and the voting patterns of MPs was very largely kept hidden from the public.
The bill of rights permits, by omission, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which, in my view, in addition to gross neglect of a large number of the population led to the mass exodus of one million out of a population of 4.6m targeting, in particular, the ‘best and the brightest’ as part of the War on Truth.
The UN’s collective agenda promotes collective interests over individual rights enabling the dominance of collectives over the independent people.
In addition, the collectivist agenda seeks to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams, e.g. the iconic American superhero, resulting in the crushing of human potential which would eliminate dissent as well as creativity as an alternative to exploitation.
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 and/or the dominant elites within the State.
Consequently, in my view, the collective will takes precedence over individual rights which is contrary to the Universal Declaration which emphasizes individual rights.
I consider the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda constitutes a major violation of the Universal Declaration as well as the UN Charter and I regard the collectivist agenda as a global crime against humanity (see 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 within the global establishment 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 is unseen.
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.
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.
Generally speaking, the Universal Declaration, including both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, emphasizes individual rights which are seen as needing protection from the collective which often means the State and/or dominant elites.
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.
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 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 are more favored ideologically.
I consider neoliberal absolutism, which permitted exploitation by omission under international law, resulted in the global financial crisis 2008/9, with its epicenter in the European Union.
It certainly appears as if the creation of neoliberal absolutism and its profound and far reaching consequences has been hidden behind a global iron curtain, with the global establishment complicit, to keep the people of the West, who might object to any massive redistribution of wealth to the Rest, ignorant of what is happening.
In my view, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda really aims to create liberal totalitarian States (see below) 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 culture).

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: Dec 2008)

The OP is a complaints procedure whereby complaints of violations of economic, social and cultural rights can be taken to the UN after domestic remedies have been exhausted.

After obtaining the required ten State ratifications the OP entered into international law on 5 May 2013.

Although from my observation little has been said 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.

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 et al: 2014)

While the United Nations describes the OP as a ‘key Protocol’ which ‘helps place all human rights on an equal footing’ (Pillay: 6 Feb 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: Sept 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.

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 still promoting neoliberalism while the UN promotes neoliberal absolutism.

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.
I consider under neoliberal absolutism there will be no place for genius, greatness or super-heroes so would be, in my view, a 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.
It is similar to what has been achieved with the Dalits (sometimes called untouchables but also the ‘çrushed people’) of South East Asia whose dreams are often limited ‘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 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.
In my view, neoliberal absolutism, with economic, social and cultural rights requiring social responsibility and consequently greater bureaucratic control over the independent sector, seeks to complete the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination began under neoliberalism.
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.

The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is, in my view, largely responsible for the creation 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 above social class, which consists of many bureaucrats and academics, keeps its hegemony well-hidden and the public is generally unaware of its existence and that they discriminate on the grounds of social class (see chapter on New Zealand).

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 behavior under the Universal Declaration.
From my experience, often the modern day middleclass have very little understanding of totalitarianism because while often the beneficiaries of it have very rarely been at the receiving end of it.
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.
The liberal collectivists drive the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda gaining the support of other collectives while ensuring 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.

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 liberal collectivists promote collective ‘thought, conscience, expression and belief’ which led, from my observation, to a politically safe, overwhelming conformity 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).
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.
I see the liberal collectivists as only using human rights to further their class interests and to fulfill the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and being very largely only concerned with self-interest are not suitable for determining human rights which are meant to be universal.
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: 30 March 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 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 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.

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.
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.
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 have to abide by ideology which is very rarely spoken about.
Consequently, in my view, the invisible ideology prevented the discussion of many important human rights truths so was able to trump the democratic majority which very likely increased discontent.
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.
And consequently ethical human rights would see the demise of both neoliberal variants as well as the decline in 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 ensures 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).
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 ultimately, in my view, leading to a serious decline in the development of human knowledge i.e. a ‘dead culture’.

Ethical globalization means all States must ensure to all ethical core minimum human rights i.e. there is an individual freedom/socio-economic ‘bottom-line’, which means fair competition without exploitation.
Imported goods made with child, slave labor 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 human rights world 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.

Ethical human rights can 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 the Universal Declaration appears to have been politicized to its extreme limit.
The ethical approach has received some high profile support on the internet including the United Nations itself, the US State Department and the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House. The following is how they appeared on the internet:

@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

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.
The mainstream media also refused to review my previous book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons….’, or publish my articles so despite being an activist for 25 years I am 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: 25 July 2012 ).
Also, further support can also be found in my numerous articles on Auckland (Aotearoa) Indymedia which I regularly posted on many human rights organizations on linkedin. In my experience there is an enormous fear of speaking out 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 is saying nothing publicly about the ethical approach (Ravlich: 20 Aug 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 rise in global dominance of China, the rise of political Islam and the decline of the European Union.

However, the equal status of both sets of rights meant that the domain of secularism extended to encompass the whole Universal Declaration which may be a major cause of the Islamic extremism witnessed in today’s world.

Although regarding the latter I only deal with the case of Bangladesh in chapter three where the Awami League government implemented a secular plan which certainly appears to have evoked a violent response from Islamic extremists.

I also provide what I consider could be an answer. In my view, religious political parties could have ethical human rights as their ethical base. 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 could be seen as reflective of God’s Universal Truth. In support of the latter ethical human rights can be seen as equating with the Golden Rule (‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) which is espoused by all the major religions.

I cannot see how this would not be acceptable to religions as in my personal experience by trying my best not to compromise my universal beliefs I have retained contact with God or the Eternal and others who adopt ethical human rights might experience the same.

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.

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.

Under ethical human rights a State can retain its sovereignty whereas under a one world government States are likely to have to forgo much, perhaps all, sovereignty to the United Nations, the European Union, or the emerging East Asia Community, which includes New Zealand and Australia.

Collectivist Agenda
Various forms of discrimination e.g. affirmative action, discrimination on the grounds of social class, birth and intellectual property, and caste discrimination are used to help fulfill the plan of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to achieve the collective dominance of the liberal collectivists, middleclass, professional women and ethnic groups afforded affirmative action.
Frequent claims of sexism and racism in the West helps to fulfil collective dominance amongst those 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 seen as racist or sexist.
For example, it should be said that affirmative action is really meant for those women and members of ethnic groups who have suffered most from discrimination many of whom are at the bottom of the social scale but who are very largely overlooked.

While I consider various forms of discrimination also helped to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination (see below) which would have included many liberal individualists.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda 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 is the major target the same discrimination also created underclasses although many within the latter were seen more as collateral damage.

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, and 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.

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 fulfill 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 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.

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: Sept 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”.

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 allows 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 favor 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.

Also 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 led, 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.

Consequently when the most disadvantaged are ignored the covenant ceases to have any purpose. So 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).
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: 14 Dec 1990)
The exclusion of the core minimum obligations means there would be no socio-economic bottom-line and consequently it fails to protect the welfare State, permits exploitation and allows the creation of under classes.

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 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, 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 labor without any fear of exploitation being prohibited by, in my view, a proper interpretation of economic, social and cultural rights.
I consider permitting global exploitation 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 which, in my view, seems to be the view of the global establishment.

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 et al: 2010)

America’s Dissent

The above book 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: 29 Aug 2015).

By comparison countries such as China and Russia whose constitutions include both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights seem to be gaining in global influence.

With the opposition of America 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.

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.

It became obvious to me during the discussions on the OP that the global public were not being informed of much of considerable 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 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.

While 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).

Rebalance of Power

I consider the creation of a 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.
In 2008 the IMF reported that since 1988, ‘as a number of 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” (Globalization: May 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 labor—the specialization that allows people and economies to focus on what they do best (IMF: May 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 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 also undermined the welfare systems of many Western States and permitted certain States to exploit a vast workforce.
President Ronald Regan 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 epicenter 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 favored 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: 8 March 2013)
Also 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.
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 (Millennnium Development Report: 2015).

With the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) likely to take effect in 2016 it can, in my view, be expected that given that exploitation is permitted redistribution of wealth from the West to the Rest is seen as 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).
The sustainable development goals continue on 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 neoliberal absolutism is 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: Oct

2015).

The West is often described as wealthy seemingly to justify 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.
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes most of the European Union including Canada, America, Australia and Japan, the gap between rich and poor keeps 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: May 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.
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 households 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 as long as people are ensured their ethical human rights. The latter requires that there should be no growth in economic inequality until all people are ensured their ethical human rights. Also the latter requires no forms of discrimination as well as the poor having 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).
In human rights I consider the ends do not justify means. Consequently even to achieve a good 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 while also depriving people of reaching their potential i.e. food is not enough if it requires being enslaved.
Also, under ethical human rights while there is an ethical duty to help other countries unable to ensure their people the core minimum of human rights, in my view, the primary duty of the State is to ensure their own population have their ethical human rights.
Consequently, generally, the ethical duty to help other countries would likely apply if a country is in a position to 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.

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 labor which, in my view, portends a global slave economy.

Consequently, many of those who are lifted out of extreme poverty would then 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 with the West the major loser.
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 is very largely 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.
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: 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: 21 March 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: 21 March 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: 14 March 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: 28 April 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.

And this, in my view, is very likely to decrease the influence of right-wing politics resulting in a greater political and national unity, perhaps even resembling an Asian harmony, much less tolerance of dissent and with ‘mind control’ meaning many important human rights truths withheld from voters so 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.

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, slave-holding Mauritania’ (UN Watch: 23 April 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, according to 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: 23 April 2014).

[Established in 1984 the International Service for Human Rights describes itself as a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights….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 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 the Jews:
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: 4 Sept 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: 16 Oct 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: Oct 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 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: 20 Sept 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: Oct 2015).

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 fulfill 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: 23 June 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 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: 2015).

Turn-Around

Given America’s dissent at the UN it was perhaps not surprising that on 4 November 2014 when the Republicans won a majority in the US Senate Mitch McConnell, the then presumptive Senate Majority Leader (now the leader) said that America needed to be ‘turned-around’.
The latter certainly seems to have been a response to the creation of neoliberal absolutism.

McConnell said that lawmakers in Washington have "forgotten that their job is to serve." He added: "So tomorrow, the papers will say that I won this race. But the truth is, tonight we begin another one, one that's far more important than mine," McConnell said, "and that's the race to turn this country around, to restore hope and confidence and optimism across this Commonwealth and nation of ours." (McConnell: 4 Nov 2014)

Given the West’s marginalization at the UN and the threat totalitarianism poses to Western culture it would seem there is little choice but for America to turn itself around i.e. replacing collective self-determination with individual self-determination, which is likely to mean an emphasis on the small entrepreneur rather than big business.

Such a ‘turn- around’ could unleash much suppressed potential and take the country forward and would also very likely give many of the young a future. For example, an article by the Rockefeller Foundation states: “With more than 23 million small businesses nationwide, this community provides upwards of 55 percent of all jobs and contributes significantly to new job creation in the U.S. These factors put small businesses in a unique position to create, test, and adapt strategies that reduce the unemployment hardships faced by our nation’s youth” (Rockefellerfoundation: 23 Feb 2015) ).

For youth and the discontented whereas in a former era the fight was individual freedoms versus the State under political globalization it is taken to almost a whole new level which could be described as individual rights versus the world.

The latter, in my view, was just too overwhelming for many of the young and discontented, often bereft of both survival and/or self-help rights, leaving them, from my observation, in a state of limbo, unsure what to do.

The International Labor Organization in its ‘World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2015’ describe the effects of the global financial crisis as particularly impacting on youth stating: “Young workers aged 15-24 are particularly hit by the crisis, with a global youth unemployment rate of almost 13 per cent in 2014 and a further increase expected in coming years” (UN News Centre: 20 June 2015) .
Although the figure of 13 per cent could be far higher. William Reese, CEO of the International Youth Foundation, thinks 13 per cent is ‘significantly underestimated’. He states: “I’m not surprised by that number, because it is probably much higher than they state. We’ve seen reports of over 70 million young people unemployed, but the real number is probably six or seven times that,”.
He said a flawed system of assessing unemployment led to employment figures far below the reality.
“Those statistics are typically assessing people who are looking for jobs, so if you’re not looking for work, you’re technically not unemployed. People in poor countries are often underemployed or underpaid,” (Butler: 9 Feb 2015).

Even if America does a ‘turn-around’, as planned by the Republicans, and is joined by other Western cultures, it is very likely to only provide a temporary reprieve as neoliberal absolutism is supported by the considerable consensus of States.

In my experience, ideology is virtually ‘ín cement’ and will simply ‘steam roll’ over property and people, even at enormous cost, to achieve its objective.
As with communism in Eastern Europe it often takes a long time before being released from its iron grip.

America may dominate militarily and economically and while very important it is of transitory nature and, in my view, neoliberal absolutism will eventually succeed in decimating Western culture and global freedom unless it is replaced. Consequently, a ‘turn-around’ is, in my view, only likely to slow America’s decline.

I consider that ethical human rights, development and globalization (see below) once it gets into the mainstream media will eventually replace both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism and would not only ‘turn society around’ but also ‘take it forward’.

However, if such a ‘turn-around’ means replacing the liberal collective elite with a liberal individualist elite this could see a return to the past when certain groups such as women and racial groups suffered because of liberal individualism’s lack of recognition of individual economic and social rights. A major criticism of liberal individualism was that it was too individualistic i.e. lacking in social responsibility.

The latter, in my view, meant that often women and racial groups did not have sufficient ‘survival rights’ to make use of their ‘self-help rights’ so they could achieve their full potential.

The ethical approach would, as would liberal individualism, ‘turn countries around’ but ethical human rights, which can be described as socially responsible individualism, would also take countries and the world forward because it also includes individual economic and social rights as well as duties.
Although, in the absence of socially responsible individualists, if liberal individualists replace liberal collectivists the State could ensure that all have, at least, all the core minimum human rights in the Universal Declaration sufficient to enable individual self-determination and ensure opportunities for all.

Consequently, those who wish to earn higher levels of human rights can do so.
So unlike liberal individualism ethical human rights cannot be accused of being too individualistic.
Such a turn-around with an emphasis on bottom-up development may also help address some of the world’s major problems often attributed to the Corporations such as climate change, the decimation of the animal population as well as exploitation (see below).

My hope is that America will revisit Franklin Roosevelt’s proposed second bill of rights which contained economic, social and cultural rights and adopt the ethical approach.

America did not adopt a second bill of rights however economic, social and cultural rights were eventually included in the Universal Declaration.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who has gained much popularity amongst the young who I consider are in much need of guidance, has been promoting ‘democratic socialism’.
Speaking at Georgetown University’s new Institute of Politics and Public Service at the McCourt School of Public Policy he described what ‘democratic socialism’ means to him by stating that ‘real freedom must include economic security’.
The newspaper report stated: “Sanders’ speech invoked Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address, in which the president described “a second Bill of Rights" to provide more economic security for the American people. Sanders quoted Roosevelt (FDR), who said that “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men” and Sanders noted that policies FDR advocated for, such as Social Security, a federal minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, the eradication of child labor, collective bargaining, banking regulations and other measures, were derided as “socialist” at the time”.
The newspaper report added: “Channeling FDR has become somewhat of a trope in this Democratic primary. The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, held her first rally of the 2016 race earlier this year at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on New York’s Roosevelt Island” (Lachman: Oct 2015).
While the ethical approach, which includes both sets of rights, could prove acceptable to some sections of both Democrats and Republicans a major concern may be that a future US Government could succumb to accepting the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda if economic, social and cultural rights are ratified by the US.

I think America, especially because it was the major opponent of neoliberal absolutism at the UN, would be the best country to adopt the ethical approach because you need a country that can stand virtually alone, and not capitulate, as America showed in the discussions on the OP.

In my opinion, if America did adopt the ethical approach it would take a world lead in human rights.

Both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism, in my view, would have no answer to the moral force of the ethical approach which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration.

I predict that if people are informed of the ethical approach in the mainstream media it will eventually see the collapse of neoliberal absolutism and the dominance of repressive States at the UN but I think it will happen far more quickly with America’s support.

Because of America’s opposition to neoliberal absolutism it now certainly appears that there has been a return to a bi-polar world and America seems concerned to seek greater Western unity.
For example, the American pivot into South Asia and the Australia US alliance may reflect this. It has seen ‘the emergence of Australia as a central part of Washington’s plans to strengthen American influence and military reach across the Asia-Pacific’ (Scappatura: 10 Sept 2014).
Also, President Obama’s appeal for Britain to remain in the European Community may also reflect a concern that Western cultures should remain united.
Obama said in an interview with the BBC: "Having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union," He said Britain being inside the EU had helped make the world a safer and more prosperous place since World War Two (James et al: 24 July 2015).

French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a very astute observation in the 18th century when he stated: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. I consider the leaderships of the global establishment including academia are almost all without exception ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda (Rousseau: 18th Century).
In my view, today’s world can be likened to the pre-second world war period when George Orwell (1946) described the totalitarian mind-set of the intellectuals of his day in his article, ‘The Prevention of Literature’. He comments that ‘a bought mind is a spoiled mind’ and he stated:

“But what is sinister… is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favor of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves” (Orwell: 1946).

But also almost without exception the minds of the discontented, including virtually all activists, seem to have ossified during the Cold War when capitalism, the Corporations and the very rich were often the target of left discontent.

While many activists and the discontented seem to understand economic globalization and the rise of the Corporations there seems remarkably little understanding of political globalization which saw the rise of a social class, ‘secular, liberal collectivists’, which was virtually ‘below the radar’ and in the shadows of the Corporations, to dominate domestically and globally, the UN bureaucracy, the European Union and an emerging East Asia Community, which is to include Australia and New Zealand.

Consequently, with the rare exception, animal, climate change, environmental activists and other discontented have not, in my view, adapted to the new politically globalized world.

Put simply, while the Corporations may well be the direct or immediate cause of many of the problems described by activists and the discontented e.g. exploitation, global warming, the decimation of the animal population, environmental problems etc., it was really the distant cause or what could loosely be called ‘the rules of the game’ e.g. international human rights law, determined by international bodies such as the UN, which is where the real power resides and which has allowed Corporations to gain so much global dominance particularly by a negation of individual self-determination and the small entrepreneur.

An ethical emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development, small business and small farming practices, could well help solve many of the problems described by activists. The new ideas of small business would very likely to further the development of human knowledge and find solutions to these problems.
Ethical human rights will help ensure that all counties ‘pull their weight’ in the development of human knowledge which can be an extremely onerous task often involving challenges to the status quo and powerful interest groups sometimes a near impossibility in totalitarian societies demanding almost absolute compliance.

However, an emphasis on ethical ‘bottom-up’ development is very likely to result in creative growth replacing exploitation, less emphasis on big business which may help cause global warming, while perhaps more small farming practices may also lead to less environmental damage and habitat loss and help protect the animal population from further decline.

The London Zoological Society (ZSL) stated in its new Living Planet Index: “.. populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have declined by an average of 52%. Populations of freshwater species have suffered an even worse fall of 76%’. The report also stated that ‘habitat loss and hunting have reduced tigers from 100,000 a century ago to just 3,000”.
The report shows that the biggest recorded threat to biodiversity comes from the combined impacts of habitat loss and degradation, driven by what WWF [World-Wide Fund for Nature] calls unsustainable human consumption (Harrabin: 30 Sept 2014)
While scientists at UCLA state that the carbon dioxide level has been rising since the industrial revolution. Assistant Professor Aradhna Tripati stated: “Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend”, (Wolpert: 8 Oct 2009)

It seems remarkable that given the urgency attached to global warming that to my knowledge there has been relatively little discussion of the alternative ethical emphasis on bottom-up development rather than the Corporations. It seems that the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist ideology which opposes the small entrepreneur and bottom-up development is also determining how climate change should be addressed i.e. science seems not exempt from ideological capture.
Expressing this urgency regarding the climate on 8 May 2014 in his article ‘Join the Climate Race to the Top’ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that there was still a chance to address climate change. He stated:
“Everything is at stake. We may not get a second chance. The more we delay, the more we will pay.
Let’s focus not on the obstacles we face, but on what we know from experience is possible when we call on our creativity, ingenuity and, most of all, our collective will.
It’s time for leaders to lead – and it’s time for each one of us to become a leader. Step up to the challenge. Join the climate race to the top”. (Ban Ki-moon: 8 May 2014)

The Cultural Cleansing of Individual Self-determination
Under neoliberalism, while neoliberal absolutism is likely to be far worse, bottom-up development seems to have also been severely suppressed negating the need for entrepreneurs and creativity.
The following are some examples of the domestic suppression of bottom-up development as part of the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination:
The section on New Zealand shows how bureaucracy suppresses small business using red tape which was exposed following the first Christchurch earthquake in September 2010 which required the government to assume greater executive power, using 'orders in council', to cut though the red tape, involving 22 statutes, in order to assist small business (see the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010, Section 6, 14 September 2010).
Also while having the opportunity the Key government failed to extend the assistance to small business nation-wide after the first Christchurch earthquake. In my view, the failure to include the right to individual self-determination in the bill of rights meant that small entrepreneurs could not challenge bureaucratic red-tape.
Another example of how small business is being suppressed in the age of globalization is given by the America Small Business League (ASBL) which states in the year to August 2014 that small business have lost approximately $63 billion in federal small business contracts to big business.

The ASBL states: “We estimate that the federal government diverts more than $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to large and international corporations and then counts those contract awards to large businesses in annual federal small business procurement reports”.

The ASBL explains that to ensure economic justice and to create new jobs, Congress enacted the Small Business Act in 1953, which requires that 23 percent of all federal contracts are awarded to small businesses annually. This is a landmark piece of economic legislation for the U.S., because small businesses create 90 percent of net new jobs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (American Small Business League: Aug 2014)
Also, the section on Bangladesh shows that its famed microloan scheme is now under serious threat. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus was the founder of the Grameen Bank which helped large numbers, mainly women, with small credit offered by the bank.

In November 2013 Bangladesh introduced a new law which Yunus considered would pave the way for the ‘ultimate destruction’ of the Grameen Bank. The government had increased its stake in the bank to 25% from around 3% and Yunus considered the new law “created the opportunity for the government to take 100 percent control of the bank” (Hindustantimes: 6 Nov 2013).

While the liberal collectivists, often consisting of academics and

bureaucrats, are usually in the background and perceived as

relatively benign and detached, in my view, they seize their

opportunity to further their class interests and the UN’s ‘hidden’

collectivist agenda when the occasion arises.

The first major occasion was the onset of neoliberalism when they

replaced the former dominant elite, ‘secular, liberal individualists’

which took place in 1984 in New Zealand and during that time when

working for the Justice Department I witnessed what I believe to be

the creation of an ‘old boys and girls network’ in the bureaucracy

which reflected the culture of the liberal collectivists with affirmative

action resulting in increasing numbers of women and Maori.

The liberal collectivists again seized their opportunity to advance their

class interests with the creation of neoliberal absolutism on 10

December 2008 with the liberal collectivists playing a major role in

promoting the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and cultural Rights.

Ratification
At present, the race now seems to be on to have the OP ratified by as many States as possible which would further marginalize America and any likely Western support.

The OP entered into force under international human rights law on 5 May 2013 after receiving the required ten ratifications. As of 7 June 2015 the OP has 45 signatures with 20 State ratifications since it was open for signature on 24 September 2009 (UN Treaties: 7 June 2015)
In my view, it was the secular, liberal collectivists in control of major human rights organizations who were the major drivers of the OP which eventually led to the rise of repressive States to determine the human rights agenda.

Given that human rights organizations were promoting an OP which would eventually see the ‘permanent’ decline of the West, the global decline of individual freedoms as well as the rise of repressive States at the UN it may not be surprising that America’s National Security Agency (NSA), according to Edward Snowden, was involved in spying on human rights organizations.

An article, ‘Edward Snowden: US government spied on human rights workers’, by the Guardian on 8 April 2014 states: “Whistleblower tells Council of Europe NSA deliberately snooped on groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International’ (Harding: 8 April 2014)

Without wishing to justify the NSA’s invasion of privacy individuals such as myself who would offer an alternative view are excluded from the global mainstream media.

The major promoter of the OP, including at the United Nations, has been the International NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Coalition) which describes itself as having ‘led NGO efforts towards the drafting and subsequent adoption of the Optional Protocol and now focuses on the ratification and implementation process of this treaty’.

The Coalition states that its work is coordinated by the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and led by an international Steering Committee formed by: Amnesty International, Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape, Fédération internationale des droits de L'Homme (FIDH), Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia Desarrollo (PIDHDD), and Social Rights Advocacy Centre (SRAC) (NGO Coalition: 2015).
While ESCR-Net, which coordinates the work of the Coalition,
states that 222 organizations and 48 individuals from 70 different countries form the General Assembly of ESCR-Net (ESCR-Net: 2015)
In my view, there is an urgent need for Human Rights Transparency by human rights organizations and individuals promoting human rights particularly now that repressive States appear to be in control of the human rights agenda at the UN.
There is a huge difference between liberal collectivism and liberal individualism but they both come under the human rights banner with almost all people not realizing there is any difference.
Also, in the Cold War the major ideological battle at the UN was between America supporting civil and political rights and the communists of Eastern Europe promoting economic, social and cultural rights while today America focuses on civil and political rights as in the US Constitution while China prioritizes economic, social and cultural rights. While all the latter come under the human rights banner they are all very different. Different human rights omissions often subject different sections of the population to gross neglect.
For instance, do the above human rights organizations promote the universal declaration of human rights, human rights as defined by America or do they include the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda? In my view, it is the latter.
Also, given that some of these human rights organizations seek donations from the public Human Rights Transparency should be required.

The OP has already been ratified by some States considered Western – Belgium, 20 May 2014, Finland, 31 Jan 2014, France, 18 March 2015, Italy, 20 Feb 2015 and Portugal, 28 Jan 2013.

However, it would seem unlikely that those countries in the America camp at the UN would ratify the OP. While my book describes New Zealand as often seeming to ‘sit on the fence’ between the American camp and the rest at the UN it seems unlikely that New Zealand will ratify the OP.

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states: “ The Optional Protocol to ICESCR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2008. While New Zealand engaged constructively in the negotiation of the optional protocol, it has not agreed to ratification, although it has indicated it may consider reviewing this position in due course” (Human Rights in NZ: 2010).
Also an email to me from the then New Zealand Human Rights Commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, stated: ‘It is highly unlikely that the current government (or even the previous one) would ratify it’ (email, 12 April, 2009).

While, in my view, America is losing the ideological battle in New Zealand because of the strength of the liberal collectivists who, from my experience, are virulently anti-America and anti-Israel but New Zealand’s cultural links especially to Britain and Australia, both members of the American camp, would seem much too strong for New Zealand to side with repressive States in the immediate future, at least.

In my view, the liberal collectivists, who I regard as ‘the major enemy of human rights’, need to be exposed and, in my view, one way of doing this is to require human rights activists and organizations to be Human Rights Transparent so they will expose themselves.

Rule of Law
Another area where the cultural cleansing of self-determination certainly appears to be taking place is the United Nations Development Program’s involvement in nearly half the countries of the world, so far, promoting the rule of law, police, security, and criminal justice systems and certainly appearing to be preparing for a future one world government (also see my article for further background, (Ravlich: 28 Jan 2014).

However, I consider the ‘rule of law’ is based on international human rights law which allows the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination.

The UNDP’s promotion of the rule of law, police etc. is intended, in my view, to criminalize and/or label as mentally ill many economic and social entrepreneurs and self-determining individuals who are not compliant with the rule of law to further the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination. Compliance is the new term that seems to be rapidly gaining traction in New Zealand and most likely elsewhere.
Helen Clark, Head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and ranked third at the UN, in her opening speech to the UN on 26 September 2013 described the Global Focal Point for Police, Justice and Corrections from the UN Secretary-General which involves the ‘strengthening of the Rule of Law, State police and security forces’.
Helen Clark states that the Rule of Law within the State is based on international human rights law: “Judicial independence is an indispensable part of the right to due process, the rule of law, and democracy. The concept of the rule of law is embedded in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Support for the rule of law is a core pillar of UNDP’s work. We have programs in this area in more than ninety countries and have developed global expertise on it” (Clark: 16 Oct 2014).
But rather than being a detached bureaucrat Helen Clark certainly appears to have far exceeded her mandate by 60 countries seemingly seizing the opportunity to further the UN’s collectivist agenda and the interests of her class i.e. the liberal collectivists.
Helen Clark stated about ten months after UN Secretary-General’s announcement in September 2012 which limits such support to ‘crisis and post-conflict countries’ described as involving ‘forty or so countries’: “We are active in more than 100 countries to help strengthen justice and security systems and establish the rule of law, including in almost all the forty or so countries which are seen as crisis-affected or fragile.” (Clark: 2 July 2013).
The United Nations Development Program’s Fact Sheet described the UN Secretary-General’s announcement. It states:
“In September 2012, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as the Global Focal Point for the Police, Justice and Corrections Areas in the Rule of Law in Post-conflict and other Crisis Situations. The Secretary-General has prioritized "delivery as one" by the United Nations in crisis and conflict settings. The Global Focal Point arrangement will strengthen the United Nations ability to fill critical civilian capacity gaps in the aftermath of conflict. To facilitate the provision of joint support, both organizations have agreed to co-locate a portion of their respective rule of law teams from early 2013 in a single location at United Nations Headquarters”
Helen Clark gained the backing of a High Level Panel on Post-2015 to extend her mandate from crisis and post-conflict situations to include people’s ‘well-being’ in general. She states:
“Demand for this kind of support is increasing. Countries are requesting our support to confront vulnerabilities stemming from climate change, the fallout from economic and financial crisis, organized crime, governance failures, and recovery from conflict and disaster. We aim to help countries to strengthen their resilience and address underlying challenges. Our integrated support aims to improve governance, strengthen security and justice systems, confront discrimination and inequity, and reduce poverty” (Clark: 2 July 2013).
Also, she indicates an intention to even further extend her mandate to possibly 194 countries based on UN-facilitated consultations.
“This view is reinforced by what we have been hearing in the UN-facilitated consultations. Hundreds of thousands of people from across 194 countries, have voted on their priorities for the future in the global My World survey. Support for "honest and responsive government" has ranked very high. That can only be achieved where the just rule of law prevails” (Clark: 2 July 2013).

UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda

The following shows how the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is reflected in State Constitutions. It is more of a technical nature and the reader may prefer to skip this section and refer to it later if necessary.

From my experience, often the existence of major social problems can be seen to be permitted by human rights omissions in human rights law (see chapter on New Zealand).

As stated above the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda can be seen by the human rights in the Universal Declaration but omitted from international law. The omitted rights written in full are as follows:
Article 17(1), ‘Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others’;
Article 29 (1), ‘Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible’;
Included in Article 22, ‘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 latter is also called individual self-determination
The State’s core minimums obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights i.e. Art 23 to 27, 29 UDHR ( consequently economic, social and cultural rights do not have a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ which permits exploitation and the creation of underclasses ).

Individual Self-determination:
The omission of individual self-determination from State Constitutions has already been discussed above.
The following describe the other omissions from State Constitutions required to implement the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.

Property Rights (including intellectual property) and duties to the community:

The right to property includes intellectual property. General Comment No.20 states: “Property status, as a prohibited ground of discrimination, is a broad concept and includes real property (e.g. land ownership or tenure) and personal property (e.g. intellectual property, goods and chattels, and income), or the lack of it.
(General Comment No. 20: 2 July 2009).

In my view, the omission of the right to property in the UN covenants permits those implementing the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda i.e. the leaderships in the establishment, to virtually regard human rights as their intellectual property.
While the omission of ‘duties to the community’ means they have no duty to inform people of important human rights truths if they choose not to, even in a democracy.
They can also choose who to share their intellectual property with, often expressing the need for confidentiality. And I consider this enabled the purging of the ‘best and brightest’ seen as ‘unsafe’ and fulfilling the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination. What employers seek, in my view, is compliance not success. It is well-known that many were excluded from employment for being overqualified even though there were sparse, if any, opportunities for them elsewhere.

Both the Universal Declaration and the UN covenants do include non-discrimination on the grounds of property (Part II, Art 2(2) in the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; Part II, Art 2(1) in the covenant on civil and political rights).
However, the covenants unlike the Universal Declaration do not include the right to property.
Because States follow international law as in the covenants the latter’s exclusion of the right to property enables States to exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property.
States can include property rights if they wish (according to the Constitute Project 166 States include the right to property) but can define it only in economic terms so they are able to exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property.

While the Constitute Project describes 80 constitutions which provide for the right to intellectual property none could be found which include non-discrimination with respect to intellectual property.
And, the 16 grounds of non-discrimination listed in the Constitute Project do not include non-discrimination with respect to property or intellectual property.
However, the grounds of non-discrimination do include non-discrimination on the grounds of financial status with 42 constitutions including the latter (The Constitute Project: Sep 2013)
Gillian MacNaughton, citing various authorities, states that in practice non-discrimination with respect to property only refers to economic status not intellectual property. She states: “That “property” in the non-discrimination provision refers to economic status — in other words, wealth or poverty status — is well recognized by commentators” (MacNaughton: Dec 2009).
I consider virtually all States exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property in order to favor collective interests, including the Corporation’s intellectual property.

Under ethical human rights the gifted and deserving must succeed or, at least, be seen to be the case by ensuring all the grounds of non-discrimination are included in human rights law. This would also include non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property. Other forms of discrimination which are also used to suppress human potential seem in much need of attention. For example, social class and socio-economic (wealth) discrimination, caste discrimination, and discrimination with respect to birth which also includes descent i.e. family lineage (the latter are discussed further in the sections on New Zealand and Bangladesh).

Others also see detrimental consequences for individual self-determination because of the exclusion of the right to property:
Francois Gianviti, former General Counsel of the IMF (1986 to 2004), describes how the omission of certain rights in the UN covenants means those rights would fall ‘outside the scope of the human rights monitoring system’ e.g. the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights holds States to account for economic, social and cultural rights while the Human Rights Committee holds states to account for civil and political rights.
The omissions he describes very largely reflect some of the omissions in the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
Gianviti states that ‘there exists a wider set of economic rights than those contained in the Covenant, and it involves economic considerations as well as legal ones’.
He states: “It may be noted first that the Covenant does not contain all the important rights that need to be exercised in order for individuals to enjoy the social progress that is the objective of the Covenant”.
He describes the omission of property rights: “There are a number of rights that are essential for the achievement of the social rights set out in the Covenant but are not stated in the Covenant. For example, the right to property is stated in the Universal Declaration but it is not included in any of the two covenants’, and thus has remained outside the scope of the human rights monitoring system”.
He then also seems to be describing the omission of individual self-determination i.e. whereby the individual is entitled to realize his/her economic, social and cultural rights rather than, for example, just being given welfare. Gianviti describing the importance of property rights states: “Other rights, such as the rights to engage in economic activity and to trade are as important to the realization of the rights specified in the Covenant. These rights provide the very basic tools that all people, including the poor, can use to engage in economic activity and to improve their economic condition’ (Gianviti: 2002).
Bernard Robertson, in his study for the New Zealand Business Round Table also describes the detrimental effects of the omission of the right to property.
Robertson points to a number of economic and social rights ‘which do not appear in the ICESCR’. These include the right to property ‘which would include not to have one’s savings eroded by inflation, freedom of contract including the freedom to agree to the form of contract which best suits the mutual purposes of the parties making it, the right to obtain the best goods and services regardless of the country of origin’.
He adds that these rights can be protected in the same way as classical civil and political rights, by rules which instruct the government to abstain from such activities as interfering in contracts, in inflationary spending, imposing tariffs and quotas, according privileges to particular groups and deficit budgeting’ (Robertson: 1997).
Duties
Under the Universal Declaration (Article 29(1)) all have duties to the community i.e. not just the Corporations, but while in the preambles of the covenants they are not included under international law for inclusion in domestic law.
According the Constitute Project no State constitutions include the general ‘duties to the community’ although specific duties are included by some States e.g. duty to work, duty to pay taxes, to serve in the military, to obey the constitution, to join a political party.

Core minimum obligations:

While the UDHR makes no distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights or with respect to their implementation the wording of the covenants are different:

Article 2(1) of the covenant on civil and political rights requires that the State ‘undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals….the rights recognized in the present Covenant’ however the parallel article in the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights requires States to take steps “with a view to achieve progressively the full realization of the rights”.

Consequently while civil and political rights are ensured e.g. implemented within an immediate time-frame, only the progressive achievement of economic, social and cultural rights are required i.e. the State need only take steps towards the realization of the rights.

Claire-Michelle Smyth considers this is why economic, social and cultural rights have in the past been considered as lesser rights and unenforceable because they leave States with a wide margin of appreciation on how to implement the rights.

She states: “Part of the reason for social and economic rights being classed as lesser rights is wording and non-enforceability of the Covenant. The only obligation placed on States is that they take steps “with a view to achieve progressively the full realization of the rights” and thus leaves State with a wide margin of appreciation on how to implement the rights” (Smyth: April 2012).

Chapter 5 of my previous book describes how States were afforded a ‘broad margin of appreciation’ permitting the focus of economic, social and cultural rights on elites rather than the most disadvantaged while also failing to protect against exploitation (which economic, social and cultural rights are meant to do) by not ensuring a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’.

In failing to include the core minimum obligations the OP ignored UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which stated:
”On the basis of the extensive experience gained by the Committee, as well as by the body that preceded it, over a period of more than a decade of examining States parties' reports the Committee is of the view that a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State party” (General Comment No. 3: 14 Dec 1990).
The Committee then described in practical terms the ‘bottom-line’ that is required: “Thus, for example, a State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant” (General Comment No. 3: 14 Dec 1990).

The Committee also added that without such a bottom-line the Covenant would lose any purpose. The Committee 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: 14 Dec 1990).
Also, without the inclusion of core minimum human rights as grounds for complaint most likely meant there could be no challenge in court to the growing gap between rich and poor and the failure of ‘trickle down’.

IMF
The IMF describes its ‘primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system—the system of exchange rates and international payments that enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with each other’ (IMF: 27 March 2014).

However, I consider another major reason, perhaps the major reason, for the existence of the IMF is that it enables a ‘divide and rule’ so the UN General Assembly is not seen to be directly involved in replacing the right to individual self-determination, which is in the Universal Declaration, with the right to collective determination, which is not in the Universal Declaration.

In my view, it means the target of discontent, for example, by academics, the anti-globalization and Occupy movements, often includes the IMF and America’s veto power, rather the UN itself and the general assembly and its ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.

The UN General Assembly largely determines much public policy for State sectors i.e. the human rights agenda, while the IMF is very largely concerned with private sectors and globalization.

At the domestic level, in my view, this also allows the liberal collectivists to deflect discontent towards the Corporations and hide the activities of those bureaucrats, domestic and international, who determine ‘the rules of the game’ (see chapter on New Zealand).

IMF globalization has the support of virtually all States so decisions of the IMF, which is ‘governed by and accountable to’ its membership may just as well be attributed to the UN General Assembly.
In its Factsheet the IMF states it is ‘governed by and accountable to the 188 countries that make up its near-global membership’ (IMF: 27 March 2014).

In the year 2000 the Millennium Declaration was signed by 189 world leaders whose States virtually comprise the membership of the IMF and all seem to believe in the IMF’s globalization policies which is evidenced in the Millennium Declaration which states in its “Values and Principles”:

  1. “We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people” (‘Values and Principles’: 8 Sept 2000)

The human rights omissions which form part of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, which are reflected in numerous constitutions, permitted States to implement IMF globalization policies at the domestic level.

Article 1 of the Purposes in the IMF’s Articles of Agreement makes no mention of the domestic free market only the global free market – its purpose being ‘to promote international monetary cooperation…’ and ‘to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade…’ (IMF: 27 Dec 1945).
This enabled development rather being based on individual self-determination, as exists in the Universal Declaration, to be based on collective or elite interests, including the Corporations, which is not in the Universal Declaration.
The covenants by excluding individual self-determination means collective self-determination is not required to reflect the interests of individuals.
That development should be based on the individual rather than elites also seems reflected in Article 2(1) of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development which regards the human person as the ‘central subject of development’. It states:

“The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development” (UN Declaration: 4 Dec 1986).
Consequently, IMF globalization policies helped fulfill the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination which increased as IMF membership increased, extending the domain of globalization.
IMF membership increased from about 31 States in 1945 to the present 188 States (IMF members: 13 June 2012).
Prior to globalization, about the same time of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, was a time the liberal individualists were the dominant elite in States which had greater sovereignty.

International trade during this period has been described as embedded liberalism which while encouraging a global free market also involved protection of the domestic market. Consequently, there seemed to be much entrepreneurial activity.

Embedded liberalism is a term credited to John Ruggie who defines it as involving - ‘A compromise, characterized by multilateralism, predicated on domestic interventionism’ (Ruggie: 1982).

Put more simply embedded liberalism is described as having ‘signified a compromise between excessive free markets and excessive protectionism’. In other words while States pursued economic globalization ‘governments also sought to maintain autonomy to pursue production strategies, employment policies and social welfare protection. (Coelho: 2012).
However, with the onset of political globalization and the liberal collectivists becoming the dominant elite the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination began under neoliberalism and, in my view, is to be completed under neoliberal absolutism.

The IMF is able to act contrary to the Universal Declaration because the IMF is a ‘human rights free zone’ as indicated by Kris Kirby who, citing a number of sources, states that the Articles of Agreement of the IMF ‘contains no explicit mention of human rights’ and that ‘the institution itself most often claims that human rights concerns are outside its scope’ (Kirby: 2006).

Consequently, unlike the general assembly the IMF is not accountable in terms of human rights. So global discontent can be directed at the IMF and America’s veto power with little practical effect.

The existence of the IMF, which is regarded as a UN specialized agency, is sanctioned by the General Assembly which also ensured that human rights did not impair the IMF constitution which enabled the IMF to be a ‘human rights free zone’.
The UN Economic and Social Council deals with the relationship between specialized agencies, such as the IMF, and the UN system. Article 51 (1) of the UN Charter states: ‘The various specialized agencies…..shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63’ and subsection (1) of the latter article allowed the Economic and Social Council to enter into agreements with the specialized agencies’.
Also, the UN covenants, which constitute international human rights law, make provisions for the specialized agencies and make sure human rights do not affect the constitutions of specialized agencies. Articles 24 and Article 46 respectively of the covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights state:
“Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the respective responsibilities of the various organs of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present Covenant”.

America’s veto power in the IMF may well be preferred by its membership because they also wish America, a major enemy of totalitarianism, to be seen as culpable.

America has 16.75 per cent voting power greater than the requirement for major institutional change of 85 per cent of all quotas (American quota: 9 Aug 2014).
However, it seems that America’s veto power could be removed if it was the will of the IMF membership. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 14 April 2014 shortly after the US Congress failed to ratify IMF reforms which would give more power to emerging economies that the latter had a plan to remove US veto power.

The WSJ stated: "The U.S. would lose its veto power on the International Monetary Fund's executive board under a plan being considered by some emerging economies. The countries are fed up with the United States' failure to ratify a four-year-old deal to restructure the emergency lender (WSJ: 14 April 2014).
Also, regarding the failure of America to ratify IMF reforms C. Fred Bergsten and Edwin Truman, who served under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, wrote that ‘the Fund could increase total country quota subscriptions that would remove Washington’s veto power over institutional changes’ (Lobe: 12 April 2014).
In conclusion, I consider the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda constitutes a global crime against humanity (Ravlich: 14 Jan 2015)
With respect to the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ Article 30 of the Universal Declaration prohibits any interpretation of the declaration which seeks to destroy human rights. Article 30 states:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”
In addition, article 29(3) states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
The purposes and principles are in the UN Charter which requires that the UN ‘promote’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 1(3), Art 55 (3) of the UN Charter) and assist ‘in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all…’. (Ch IV, Art 13(1), UN Charter).
Sir Geoffrey Palmer in an address to the International Law Association on 30 April 1998 stated: “Although not often acknowledged, members of the United Nations are under a legal obligation to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Under the Charter they have a legal duty to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Ravlich: 13 Oct 2004) (‘Social Justice Gaining Momentum’, Anthony Ravlich, 13 Oct 2004, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00152.htm )
Perversely, in my view, the UN’s hidden collectivist agenda actually seeks to destroy the universal human rights truth upon which the UDHR is based and I very much doubt given the ‘near absolute’ control of neoliberal absolutism that individuals would even be able to have a conscience of their own.
(It is also of profound concern because, in my personal opinion, neoliberal absolutism seeks to eliminate God’s Universal Truth and spirituality which I regard as also a creative force. Personally, I consider neoliberal absolutism as ‘evil’ (also see the discussion on religious political parties having an ethical human rights base at the end of the chapter on Bangladesh )).
In my view, the leadership of the UN bureaucracy should be held to account for failing to ensure States fulfilled their duty under the UN Charter to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UN High Commissioner and Under-Secretary General according to the General Assembly resolution A/RES/48/141 is ‘under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General’ but is required to ‘Function within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…’(General Assembly resolution: 20 Dec 1993)
Also, to my knowledge, the UN General Assembly has not been informed of the ethical approach and there would seem no reason why it could not be brought to the attention of the UN General Assembly. Article 14, Chapter IV, General Assembly, of the UN Charter states:
“……the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”.
Despite my attempts to inform the UN of what I see as a global crime against humanity I have had no response.
However, it seems very likely that the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights as well as the UN General Assembly are captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda however if I was able to inform people of the ethical approach to human rights in the public notices of the mainstream media (see chapter on New Zealand) there would seem no reason why the UN could not also inform people in this way.
I consider that by hiding so very many extremely important human rights truths the UN is treating humanity and the Universal Declaration with contempt.
As is standing in the path of human rights development which the ethical approach represents – people should have a choice.
While, it also, in my view, makes any of their claims to believe in democracy disingenuous as voters need to be informed of important human rights truths. It’s certainly as if, given the above human rights omissions, that they regard human rights as their intellectual property and they have no duty to inform people.
But, in my view, the UN was profoundly arrogant in regarding human rights universal truth as being virtually completely irrelevant while seeking to create a world in their own collectivist image.
I consider individuals, organizations and States need to be Human Rights Transparent e.g. whether they promote human rights as interpreted by the Universal Declaration or the considerable consensus of the States in the UN General Assembly which, in my view, really reflects the interests of those wishing to retain power.
Human Rights Transparency will expose those who are promoting the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and consequently promoting totalitarianism the prevention of which was a major reason the Universal Declaration was created post second-world war.
Given the above global crime against humanity I consider Western States would be justified in boycotting the UN until the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is removed.
The ethical human rights approach which would eliminate the UN’s collectivist agenda should, in my view, be adopted and reflected in international and domestic law.

Comments

Commenting has now closed on this article.

The Indymedia Network

Global
Oceania
Latin America
Europe
Africa
Canada
United States
East Asia
South Asia
West Asia