Global Iron Curtain: Repressive States control human rights at UN.
American Professor describes the World's State Criminals deciding human rights at the international level. In my view, a Global Iron Curtain exists with the UN hiding very much of enormous and profound importance from the rest of humanity.
Global Iron Curtain: Repressive States control human rights at UN.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
Michigan State University Professor describes ‘State criminals deciding human rights issues’ at the international level.
Our council promotes ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism (in my personal view, the latter is evil and anti-God) with the latter’s creation on 10 December 2008 leading, in my view, to repressive States sweeping ‘coveted UN human rights posts’.
While I consider there is a virtual Global Iron Curtain between the UN and the rest of humanity ‘hiding’ the dominance of repressive States at the UN, while the UN’s neoliberal absolutism remains ‘hidden’ as also is the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda
And also the UN says nothing about ethical human rights, development and globalization in the mainstream media so it can reach a democratic majority yet they have support it on the internet (see Anthony Ravlich Google+ and articles cited below).
Chris Berel , Adjunct Professor at Michigan State University, Jan 1980 – present, Top Contributor, stated on linkedin in response to my post 'Urgent need for Human Rights Transparency by individuals and organizations involved in human rights....' (see below).
Professor Berel stated: “Absolutely. The current international hierarchy has the world's state criminals deciding human rights issues”.
And I consider the following is what he is referring to:
On 23 April 2014 UN Watch’s press release describes, ‘NGOs protest “Black Day for Human Rights” in their article, ‘Iran sweeps coveted UN rights posts’, Also elected, Russia, China, genocidal Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Turkey, slave-holding Mauritania’ http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=131...
Professor Chris Berel was responding to my post on human rights linkedin sites on 5 March 2015 which states:
“Urgent need for Human Rights Transparency by individuals, organizations involved in human rights. In Cold War the ideological battle was America's civil and political rights vs Soviet bloc's economic, social and cultural rights, today, in my view, it is America's neoliberalism (civil and political rights with a hidden UN collectivist agenda) vs UN's neoliberal absolutism (both sets of rights with an expanded hidden UN collectivist agenda). All come under the umbrella of human rights but are vastly different - deception should be replaced by transparency – see my recent article ‘Human Rights Transparency needed to expose cultural cleansing of Genius and Greatness’, Argintina Indymedia, 3 March, 2015, http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2015/03/872853.php”.
In my view, neoliberal absolutism, which involves a ‘near absolute’ control, was effectively created by the UN on 10 December 2010 when the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
America has not ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and was the major opposition to the OP throughout the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008. Consequently, in my view, America opposed the creation of neoliberal absolutism and the dominance of repressive States.
From my observation, the existence of neoliberal absolutism still remains hidden from the general public. In my view, it would virtually eliminate individual conscience and, in my personal opinion, it is evil and anti-God. Also see my articles: ‘Message of profound Importance to UN’, Auckland Indymedia, 14 Jan, 2015, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3430 and also ‘Hidden neoliberal absolutism more evident in rise of repressive regimes’, San Francisco Bay Indymedia, 12 May, 2014, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/12/18755674.php.
There is also a book pending which I am trying to complete as soon as possible (I have a book contract with Lexington Books, Maryland, America, which also published my previous book in 2008, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’).
On 20 March 2015 I posted the following on the social media sites given the ‘hidden’ dominance of repressive States at the UN, the ‘hidden’ UN’s neoliberal absolutism, the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda, while they say nothing in the mainstream media, which would reach a democratic majority, about ethical human rights, development and globalization despite supporting it on the internet.
“THE GLOBAL IRON CURTAIN. What may help in understanding what is happening is, from my long experience, there is now a Global Iron Curtain but it has little to do with Russia as during the Cold War but rather it is a Global Iron Curtain between the UN and the rest of humanity where much is hidden e.g. dominance of repressive States. For the people of Europe this is very likely to be even more difficult because I very strongly suspect there is also another Regional Iron Curtain because of the existence of the EU. I was lucky because the East Asian Community, which includes New Zealand and Australia, is still being formed. If it had existed before I might have had far more difficulty in finding out what was happening at the global level”.
On 7 March 2015 I posted on social media sites that I see ethical human rights in mainstream leading to collapse of neoliberal variants and the dominance of repressive States at the UN (also see Anthony Ravlich Google+). It states:
“I consider as soon as ethical human rights, development, globalization gets into the global mainstream media you will see the non-violent collapse of America's neoliberalism and the UN's neoliberal absolutism (in my view, the latter virtually means your conscience will not be your own, and in my personal opinion it is evil, and anti-God, see PS below) because the ethical approach is firmly based on the Universal Declaration and consequently is an extremely powerful moral force which, in my view, the neoliberal variants would have no answer to while the Universal Declaration remains as it is.
While ethical human rights, which emphasizes a 'bottom-up' development and individual self-determination, is incompatible with the dominance of the repressive States which seek a 'near absolute' top-down control and a collective self-determination which reflects elite interests.
In my view, it is very urgent that people are educated into what is happening by letting my work be known far and wide - just tell your friends to look at Anthony Ravlich Google+ - so it will reach enough people the mainstream media will find it very difficult to ignore. Remember ethical human rights, development, globalization already has top support on the internet e.g. the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, the US State department, even the United Nations, Save the Children (US) and many others - see Anthony ravlich Google+
Professor Chris Berel also made another comment regarding the post, ‘Urgent need for Human Rights Transparency….’ on another linkedin human rights site where I had re-entitled the post: “Urgent need for Human Rights Transparency to replace Deception by Human Rights NGOs hiding UN's collectivist agenda which seeks to culturally cleanse world of individual self-determination”.
He stated: ‘This seems very confusing. Can you break this down into basics?
anthony ravlich In my view, the UN has made it deliberately confusing - its taken me many years to work my way through it. I am not sure what part you find confusing - but if its human rights transparency - their argument (unspoken) given that the rights to property (including intellectual property) and duties to the community have been left out of international law is very likely to be that human rights is their intellectual property and they have no duty to tell you anything they don't want to.
My argument is that in democracies voters need to be informed of important human rights truths.
I believe in ethical human rights, development and globalization and tell the world but they believe in either America's neoliberalism, the UN's neoliberal absolutism and if America does a 'turn around' it could be liberalism which all come under the umbrella of human rights yet are vastly different and we don't know what they stand for (we are being deceived).
State leaders, activists including human rights organizations should, in my view, be transparent so we know where we stand e.g. are you American and promote neoliberal absolutism or are you un-American and promote the UN's neoliberal absolutism.
In my view, there is a need for the domestic and international human rights establishment to rise above the power games and see that the future of the UDHR is at stake as well as the lives of seven billion people on this planet. It should be about the human rights truth not power games which destroys many lives.
At the very least, especially because they are involved in human rights and seen as brave, they should have the courage of their convictions and state where they stand. If this is not what you found confusing you could wait for my book which my publisher now trusts me to finish as soon as I can, you could read my numerous articles, ch5 of my previous book which describes discussions at UN (2004 to 2008) which I consider eventually led to the creation of neoliberal absolutsim, or take a look at Anthony Ravlich Google+, or you could phone me Ph (0064) (09) 940.940 9658.
I have been virtually a voice in the wilderness - those who do understand what has happened are not saying while virtually all the rest only seem to believe what the mainstream media tell them but, from my observation, they hide a great deal e.g. a global rebalance of ideological and economic power from the West to other regions I consider of profound importance leading the decline of individual freedoms, including the individual rights to self-determination yet I seem to be virtually only talking to myself.
PS [I wrote 3 days later]. Further to the above I am hoping when America does a ‘turn around’ (as I believe it will) it will revisit Roosevelt's second bill of rights which is concerned with economic, social and cultural rights and then interpret both sets of rights ethically i.e. ensure all get, at least, the core minimums of all these rights sufficient to enable individual self-determination. Also, I consider the UN's neoliberalism is a 'near absolute' top-down control which seeks to replace individual self-determination (which is in the UN) with collective self-determination (which is not in the UD). I consider the latter will result enormous numbers not being able to have a conscience of their own. In my personal view, the UN's neoliberal absolutism is EVIL and anti-God (see Anthony Ravlich Google+).
Further comments on the above post are as follows:
Vladislav Okishev, public expert, journalist, sociologist, lawyer, engineer. Expert Soviet under Department on regulation natural monopoly Consultative Information Centre, Kazakhstan. He states:
“First of all , the degree of respect for human rights , in general, depends on the political regimes in different countries , in modern terms , the problem is that the impact of appropriate control of international organizations are not effective enough , causing the further development of unpunished violence.”
Craig Coulson , Poet-in-Residence at Peddler Café, Australia, stated:
"As human rights cannot sit with "free trade capitalist economics" as making profits overrides the principles of a 'living wage' for the workers. The pool of cheap labour is maintained to keep/force wages down increasing the propensity for crime and allowing the formation of the police state. Quasi-communism works to maintain the status quo of the 'privileged elite' who ensure the workers cannot move out of the social position of worker. This engenders black market profiteering while undermining the power of the elite who maintain the police state for their own protection.
Anthony, there are no human rights, there are ideals that are claimed to be human rights, but they are ideals that the world's political systems do not actually want, as they interfere with the powerful 1% becoming more powerful. So it is my belief the United Nations, is not only a toothless tiger tolerated to maintain the façade of hypocrisy, but it is well past its "use-by-date" and is not really relevant in the world today".
Dr. C.M Afzal Javaid , Member at Chartered Institute of Arbitrators & Solicitor of Supreme Court of England & Wales. He stated:
“Anthony, I believe this is the core issue which needs a serious consideration. Various fake NGO's are operating in the field and are making the general public fool in the name of Human Rights”.
Tola Thompson Ade-Bayor , Regional Director at Regional Watch for Human Rights Inc., stated:
“Anthony you right, that is America for you. But when you are talking about UN you are talking about America; UN will always remain toothless bulldog until is attended to by its DENTIST (USA), she detaches its teeth at her own will and caprice-a backstabber with ideology of "no permanent friend but permanent interest"”.
Ochuko Patrick Otoba , Association Nationale de Lutte Contre le Trafic des Jeunes.(LUTRA-JEUNES), Burkino Faso, stated:
What is this news all about, I need more explanation.
(I responded to Ochuko privately because some linkedin human rights sites do not allow me to respond publicly. The following is my second message to him (can’t locate the first)).
Ochuko, I may have been incorrect in what I said before. I see the secular, liberal collectivists (who I consider often dominate States, the UN and EU) as the major drivers of the UN's hidden collectivist agenda e.g. to culturally cleanse world of individual self-determination e.g. eliminate greatness, genius (and also in my personal view, God) but, of course, it would have been the UN General Assembly which permitted the collectivist agenda to exist in the first place by leaving out certain human rights, which are in the UDHR, from international law.