$0.00 donated in past month
Hidden neoliberal absolutiism more evident in rise of repressive regimes.
The consequences of the UN's neoliberal absolutism on 10 Dec 2008 has been hidden from the public by the UN and leadership of major human rights organizations but its effects are seen in the GFC 2008/9 and the recent rise of repressive regimes at the UN.
Hidden neoliberal absolutism more evident in rise of repressive regimes.
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
The following posts on social media are perspectives on current issues from a global ethical human rights viewpoint.
Global ethical human rights is the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization. The latter requires that all should have, at the very least, all the core minimum human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For example, if all States ensured this ethical human rights bottom-line it would mean ‘fair competition without exploitation’. While the emphasis on bottom-up development (based on the individual not elites) will provide many opportunities for small entrepreneurs e.g. amongst the lost generation of youth, and so create much more employment and most importantly grow human knowledge and take society into the future e.g. landing a person on Mars.
Global ethical human rights retains the universality and emphasis on individual rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
By contrast neoliberalism requires civil and political rights to accommodate the IMF’s globalization policies which focus on elites and the Corporations meaning that civil and political rights became elitist e.g. individual freedom of thought, conscience, expression and belief’ became collective ‘thought, conscience etc’ with ‘unsafe’ truths relegated from the mainstream to the internet.
However, on 10 December 2008 in a decision made at the UN (see references cited below) neoliberalism was replaced by ‘neoliberal absolutism’, a ‘near absolute’ control of all human behavior covered under the UDHR. This occurred because the other set of rights in the UDHR i.e. economic, social and cultural rights, was adopted but these also have to accommodate the IMF’s elitist policies.
The creation of neoliberal absolutism has been kept hidden from the global public however its rebalance of global power away from the West to other regions is becoming more evident e.g. the global financial crisis 2008/9 with the West by far the worse affected and also the recent rise of the authoritarian regimes at the UN (see below).
America, which presently promotes neoliberalism, could easily adopt the ethical approach by revisiting Roosevelt’s second bill of rights and ensuring the core minimums of all human rights.
I consider the US would then take the global lead in human rights because the ethical approach is from the ‘bottom-up’ based on the individual rather than, as at present, the UN’s ‘near absolute’ top-down control focused on elite interests.
The millennium development goals (MDGs) do not come under international human rights law so are likely to last only as long as the West is prepared to accept a global rebalance of wealth based on a State’s capacity to exploit rather than creative growth (see below).
The ethical approach is also consistent with traditional Western liberties in the latter’s emphasis on the individual e.g. people are not numbers. In my view, if America tries to emulate the fanatical top-down control of authoritarian regimes it will fail because they are simply far better at it – better, in my view, to back yourself on your strengths.
America could reject the UN’s human rights agenda and the IMF’s elitist policies but still be a part of the UN e.g. security council etc, but fight peacefully to have the ethical approach included in international human rights law. I can not see it losing because there is little doubt that it is the proper, although more realistic, interpretation of the UDHR dream.
The following are some recent posts – from oldest to most recent:
Why are those who hate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in charge of human rights?
I answer a question from Katrin Urban following our earlier brief discussion in my recent article ‘Dissent within following article Profound Arrogance at the UN’.
Katrin Urban, M.A. candidate: Gender studies, Carleton University; B.A. Honours: Gender Studies/Human rights/Political Science, asks:
How has America "stood its ground in opposition to neoliberal absolutism??"
Anthony Ravlich The US’s resistance happened from 2004 to 2008 at the UN re Optional Protocol [OP] to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - see ch5 of my book, "Freedom from our social prisons...' recommended on the UN website for 2 yrs, see articles San Francisco Bay Indymedia, see articles on internet 'Profound arrogance at UN’ and ‘Dissent within following article 'profound arrogance at UN’. I see you are interested in including men and children within the feminist agenda - I see the latter as serving class interests.
I've female friends of all social classes who have been treated shockingly (e.g. incarceration in mental institutions) for their crime of being too bright. So take care Katrin.
It has been left virtually solely to me to tell the world about the UN's decision to rebalance global power from the West to other regions serving class interests and favoring authoritarian regimes (if you think the US was bad just wait!!!). The decision in 2008 also, in my view, led to the GFC 2008-9 which affected the West by far the worst. I regard the UN as responsible for a global crime against humanity and the leadership of the major human rights organizations as being very disingenuous [because of their support for the OP and rebalance of power in favor of authoritarian regimes while keeping the global public ignorant of its consequence. And in my experience they will not deny it, they just ignore it and hope it will go away].
I fought strongly against neoliberalism i.e. America's 'freedom and democracy', to see the development of a far more draconian neoliberal absolutism. Again it has also been left to me (virtually alone) to tell the world about the alternative to the latter - ethical human rights, development and globalization (outlined in the book, also articles). I now have another book contract with a well known publisher in academia (Lexington bks).
I have tried on many occasions to have an open public debate with today's human rights leadership without success - they lack the courage of their convictions and cower in elite circles. Suffice to say if it wasn’t for human rights I would say the leadership of human rights at the UN and major human rights organizations are not worthy of a life on the planet (although perhaps a rare exception).
Those who are concerned about this could tell the public of the ethical alternative in the public notices of major newspapers - despite the abject poverty and often violence they keep independent thinkers in I have managed to do this twice - I even suggested this to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights as well as challenging Helen Clark, Head of the UNDP, at a public meeting why the UN says nothing about the ethical approach - she politically side-stepped the question.
The ethical approach is universal and based firmly on the UDHR - while there would be rare exceptions why are those who hate the UDHR in charge of human rights?
Authoritarian States greater dominance at UN and world -will they treat us any better than they treat their own people!?
See article, ‘Iran sweeps coveted UN rights posts’, Also elected, Russia, China, Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Turkey, Mauritanai, UN Watch, April 23, 2014, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=13866335
Bureaucratic dictatorship in European Union. Human rights at the UN and the leadership of the major human rights organizations has, in my view, have been hijacked by a western left-tribal middle class (e.g. Helen Clark [formerly PM of New Zealand and now Heads the United Nations Development Program] who I see as a prisoner of her class). [The latter] use human rights to further their class interests ( in my view feminism has so far suited class interests) aiming for a one world government (world domination no less). To further their OWG agenda a neoliberal absolutism was created at the UN on 10 December 2008 which involves a near absolute control of all human behavior under the declaration - absolutism is evil in my view. Unless the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization is adopted the world looks as though its heading towards a battle between good and evil, Although a little dated see what bureaucratic dictatorship is doing in the European Union - under the 1999 ruling of the European Court of Justice (case 274/99) it is illegal to criticize the EU, http://www.prisonplanet.com/mep-reprimanded-for-exposing-eu-dictatorship.html
Amazing entrepreneurs in underclass. The following is my comment on the Live Debate: Have entrepreneurs lost the will to Innovate - Richard Branson (Founder of Virgin Group) see link below:
Anthony Ravlich I have found amazing entrepreneurs in the ranks of the underclass - is it so hard to comprehend - this age is different from when Richard Branson started out - IMF globalization policies highly favored the global free market to the neglect of the domestic free market - discrimination, bureaucratic red tape and about 50% of the population really struggling means it is highly risky getting into small business. Its known full well that youth, including small [economic] and social entrepreneurs world-wide, are highly discriminated against - the lost generation of youth! In fact, independent thinkers and entrepreneurs are so hated in our societies that they are completely marginalized to the ranks of the underclass where many of the lost generation are very likely to end up. I promote an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (to replace what I see as neoliberal absolutism) which emphasizes bottom-up development based on the individual (not based on elites which is presently the case) - so please wise up to the prevailing situation - creative growth is OUT exploitation is IN - but the ethical approach hopes to change this extreme negativity which involves mass human rights violations.
see link to Richard Branson’s site, http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140509160011-204068115-live-debate-have-entrepreneurs-lost-the-will-to-innovate?trk=nmp_rec_act_article_detail
Modus Operandi of the UN. My response to Ban Ki-moon’s latest post on LinkedIn Pulse. He says that we still have a chance to act on climate change -- but time is of the essence. “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 In 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” (see link below)
anthony ravlich Well in my view the modus operandi of the UN is much the same as many States has been i.e. to keep vitally important human rights truths 'in-house' (e.g. the creation of neoliberal absolutism, major rebalance of global power which has seen the rise of repressive regimes) and execute major global changes at pace before people become aware of the truth of what has happened [hence the panic]. I tend to think the IMF's prioritization of the Corporations (it should be a more balanced approach to development in my view) is most likely adding to global warming and environmental problems.but the UN does not seem to want to look at this. And the question is why [not] - if it’s so serious.
Elimination of Dissent and Creative Growth. My further response (see my previous post above) to Ban Ki-moon’s latest post on LinkedIn Pulse. He says that we still have a chance to act on climate change -- but time is of the essence. “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 In 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”.
What, in my view, the UN is wanting is 'political and national unity' in each State which requires the elimination of both dissent and creative growth (required for one world government [and its near absolute control]). They seek more social responsible Corporations but the optional protocol to the ICESCR failed to protect against exploitation (as it is suppose to do) adopted 10 Dec 2008 ( international law 5 May 2013). Consequently now there are no barriers to the Corporations seeking out cheap labour anywhere in the world - growth is to be based on the capacity of a State to exploit not on creative growth - all this, and much more, has been hidden from the global public (see article on internet, "Great world can be achieved by Great States..' .