Further redistribution of wealth from the West to the rest very likely.
Top sustainable development goal is to end poverty which very likely means a massive redistribution of the wealth from the West to the rest. However, to achieve this the UN has seriously violated the Universal Declaration it claims as its authority.
Further redistribution of wealth from the West to the rest very likely.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
With the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) likely to take effect next year it can, in my view, be expected that a further massive redistribution of the wealth will occur from the West to other regions.
It is likely to leave many in the West impoverished but also with no way of improving themselves or regaining what has been taken.
The SDGs are expected to be adopted at the UN in September 2015.
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. (‘Sustainable Development Goals’, United Nations, 2015, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics ).
Neoliberalism, which began in the late 1970s, permitted exploitation eventually resulting in large inequalities in the West which could not compete with States such as China and India able to exploit a vast workforce.
Competitive advantage between States was determined by the capacity to exploit rather than creativity with the West the major loser.
The adoption of neoliberal absolutism (presently hidden from the public) on 10 December 2008 (see Anthony Ravlich Google+) aims to create liberal totalitarian societies (see below) demanding top-down compliance with virtually no room for freedom and creativity.
Neoliberal absolutism also permitted exploitation but this time under international law which portends a global slave economy.
Corporations and investors realizing that exploitation would not be prohibited meant Corporations could relocate to States with the cheapest labour while investors saw greater opportunities in countries other than the West.
It is not surprising that the global financial crisis occurred in the same year neoliberal absolutism was adopted. The epicenter of the crisis was the European Union.
My forthcoming book (I have had a major set back but I am confident it can be overcome) will show that both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism are permitted by the existence of a UN ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda (also see Anthony Ravlich Google+) i.e. although in the Universal Declaration international law omits the right to individual self-determination, property (including intellectual property) rights, duties to the community as well as the core minimum obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights (the latter means no protection for the welfare State and no socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ thereby allowing exploitation and the creation of underclasses).
This collectivist ideological agenda is a major violation of the Universal Declaration which the UN claims as its authority. In my view, the UN is responsible for a global crime against humanity. The real purpose of the collectivist agenda, in my view, is to create liberal totalitarian societies in preparation for a one world government.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is, in my view, largely responsible for the creation of liberal collectivists who drive the agenda and who hope to preside over a one world government. The liberal collectivists, consisting of many academics and bureaucrats, are dominant in many States although largely in the shadows of the Corporations who also follow the collectivist agenda. Their political representatives are often called left neoliberals.
I consider the liberal collectivists e.g. Helen Clark from New Zealand who is seen by many as a future UN Secretary-General, also dominate the UN, and the EU bureaucracy as well as the East Asia community, which includes Australia and New Zealand, which is forming.
I regard the liberal collectivists, who often find common cause with repressive States, as the major enemy of human rights in the world as well as those States in the UN General Assembly who allowed the omissions in the first place most likely to protect their dominance without threats from seekers of truth and dissenters.
The liberal collectivists promote a liberal totalitarianism which kills by omitting human rights subjecting enormous numbers to gross neglect and many with lives, their potential crushed, barely worth living. I consider it is no less an effective form of control than authoritarian States which kill using direct violence.
In my view, such a major redistribution of the wealth is not only likely to impoverish many in the West but also aims to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination e.g. seeking of truth, hopes and dreams, which will make it virtually impossible to improve oneself or regain what has been taken.
In my view, because the West has been the major champions of individual freedoms this means a severe global decline in individual freedoms while also, with little creativity permitted, bringing the development of human knowledge to a standstill seriously jeopardizing the survival of humankind.
There is little doubt in my mind that Western culture will be decimated unless the West unites and fights back but war need not be a consequence if the ethical approach is adopted (see below).
Furthermore, in my view, the collectivist agenda perversely aims to eliminate the universal truth upon which the declaration is based (and, in my personal opinion, it seeks to eliminate God’s Universal Truth and spirituality which I regard as a creative force i.e. personally, I consider the collectivist agenda and liberal totalitarianism as ‘evil’).
In my view, the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (see Anthony Ravlich Google+) should replace both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism. The ethical approach is firmly based on the Universal Declaration and would eliminate the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
Put simply, ethical human rights requires States to ensure for all, at least, all the core minimum of the human rights in the Universal Declaration.
Ethical human rights ensures survival with dignity as well as the added dignity of self-help both sufficient to enable individual self-determination. Survival rights are the core minimum of economic, social and cultural rights while self-help rights are the core minimum of civil and political rights.
Ethical development is based on individual self-determination. Consequently there is an emphasis on bottom-up development i.e. the small entrepreneur, small/medium business rather than the Corporations.
With all States having to ensure an ethical human rights ‘bottom-line’ means there can be no exploitation. Consequently creativity rather than the capacity to exploit a vast workforce will determine competitive advantage and enable the development of the individual and human knowledge.
I see ethical human rights as the common sense interpretation of the Universal Declaration i.e. imagine the virtual impossibility of trying to provide all in India with the highest level of human rights. Rather people are ensured the ethical core minimum and need to earn higher levels of human rights.
What is remarkable is that the ethical approach to human rights, which retains the universality of the Universal Declaration, has, to my knowledge, not been implemented or seemingly even contemplated since the Universal Declaration was created.
In my view, much of what has happened at the UN has been pursued with low cunning and gross deceit – it has been hidden from people behind a global iron curtain, with the global establishment complicit, and people in the West have not been given any choice in the matter e.g. many might consider that you can only help the poor when you can afford it - not when it results in your own country being divided between rich and poor.
States under the UN Charter have a duty to uphold the Universal Declaration but their failure to do so means the West would, in my view, be quite justified in boycotting the UN especially given that repressive States now appear to be in control of the human rights agenda (see Anthony Ravlich Google+).
Also people should be informed of the ethical approach, which has had some top support such as the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, the US State Department and even the United Nations itself but only on the internet.
In my view, people need to be informed of the ethical approach in the mainstream media where it can reach the democratic majority. In my view, it would give many a realist hope.