Living with Dignity

When it comes to the United Nations, you can count on Aesopian language being the rule as opposed to the exception. And their term ‘Dignity’ might well be the very worst in a catalogue chock full of disasters.

Let’s qualify this because I receive a lot of replies on Twitter relating to textbook definitions, and these quite simply do not apply - and that’s the core idea behind ‘Aesopian Language’¹. And how do I know? Because all of these terms, considered together, provide an ideological fit when going by my understanding - as opposed to opaque definitions by the United Nations, which never really appear to fit together.

But what can be established for sure is that the United Nations is all about dignity. Here’s their foundational document on ‘Universal Declaration on Human Rights’² from which we further learn that - ‘Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge‘

… we all need to come to a common understanding…

‘… strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.‘

… through progressive measures, leading to universal and effective recognition and observance through teaching and education of the people??

… you mean imperceptible brainwashing?

And this is not just clumsily worded by accident. But before we go there, let me assure you that the United Nations are dead serious about that dignity. In fact, even Antonio Guterres makes clear that you living a life of dignity is very, very important to the United Nations³. December, 2022.

And separate agencies are in on it as well. Here’s the UNFCCC - yes the Convention on Climate Change - repeating the call for a life of dignity⁴. From March, 2024.

And the World Health Organisation, too, add their thoughts on the matter⁵. This particular release relates to disabilities and Somalia, December, 2021.

And I can keep this going for a very long time. In short order, here’s an article relating to the safety of women⁶ from November, 2022; one related to living with disabilities⁷ from December, 2017; and finally a press release in the context of AIDS from July, 2016 as delivered by none other but the former Secretary General of the United Nation - Ban Ki-Moon⁸.

And other organisations are also dragged into the fray. Here’s the Holy See (Vatican)⁹. September, 2017,

Courtesy of India, we have ‘Socially Exclusion and Inequality: Opportunities in Agenda 2030‘¹⁰, which I assume was released around 2016.

So - as you should be able to tell - there’s no shortage of requests for dignity. We even have ‘MEXICO – Communique: The Church Proposes a National Dialogue for Peace and Justice‘¹¹ courtesy of our totally legit friends, EcoJesuit, from September, 2023.

Now, I briefly outlined the concept of ‘Living in Dignity’ over here - but there’s more to the story. And this story also drags in other concepts such as 'global citizenship', 'global ethics', 'human rights (and duties)', and ‘life-long learning'.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights

And to repeat - the 'global ethics' derived from the intersection of purpose and human rights will delineate a range of acceptable activities and interactions for individuals, establishing operational boundaries. In this context, dignity refers to the right to live within those boundaries. However, if global ethics evolve, those boundaries will change accordingly.

In other words - ‘Global Ethics’ will dictate your personal operational boundaries at any time, and provided you live within, you will be considered to live a life of dignity. But there’s a second side to that coin, and that’s where ‘duties’ enter the frame.

In 1997, the InterAction Council released the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities‘¹², and the introductory comment which we will cover in full (because it’s important) from which we learn -

‘Globalization of the world economy is matched by global problems, and global problems demand global solutions on the basis of ideas, values and norms respected by all cultures and societies.’

Globalisation leads to global problems which call for global solutions, which call for a global… I’m sure you can see where this is going.

’Recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all the people requires a foundation of freedom, justice and peace – but this also demands that rights and responsibilities be given equal importance to establish an ethical base so that all men and women can live peacefully together and fulfil their potential.’

The ‘inalienable rights’ relate to the human rights discussed above - and those need ‘balancing’ relative to ‘responsibilities’ - or ‘duties’, if you prefer.

’A better social order both nationally and internationally cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions and conventions alone, but needs a global ethic.‘

And there’s the predictable call for A Global Ethic, which Hans Kung floated only few years prior (1993).

A Global Ethic

‘The proposed declaration points out that the exclusive insistence on rights can lead to endless dispute and conflict... basic premise should be to aim at the greatest amount of freedom possible, but also to develop the fullest sense of responsibility that will allow that freedom itself to grow.‘

Setting aside their manipulative arguments… a sum of all the people’s individual freedom…? That’s collectivism.

‘… whereas human aspirations for progress and improvement can only be realized by agreed values and standards applying to all people and institutions at all times,‘

… and there’s that call for global ethics again, without which collecticism quite simply will not be attainable (oh no!)...

But let’s zip through the articles, … though they’re somewhat predictable and really rather tedious. In article 2 we find -

‘No person should lend support to any form of inhumane behavior, but all people have a responsibility to strive for the dignity and self-esteem of all others.‘

Collectivism. Article 3 continues -

‘… all are subject to ethical standards. Everyone has a responsibility to promote good and to avoid evil in all things.‘

All must adhere to our manufactured Global Ethics., from which alleged ‘evil’ and ‘good’ is established. Article 7 -

‘All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations‘

Suggestively leaning up against intergenerational justice, and the arbitrary rules of environmentalism. Article 9 -

‘They should promote sustainable development all over the world in order to assure dignity, freedom, security and justice for all people‘

… we have sustainable development, followed by article 11 -

‘All property and wealth must be used responsibly in accordance with justice and for the advancement of the human race‘

… which sounds a tad… Marxist… followed by article 13 -

‘No politicians, public servants, business leaders, scientists, writers or artists are exempt from general ethical standards, nor are physicians, lawyers and other professionals who have special duties to clients. Professional and other codes of ethics should reflect the priority of general standards…‘

… which establishes that no-one is exempt. All should have arbitrary ‘ethics declarations’ shovelled in their general direction. Article 14 -

The Ethical Approach

‘The freedom of the media to inform the public and to criticize institutions of society and governmental actions, ... Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades the human person or dignity must at all times be avoided‘

Consequently, whatever runs counter to those ‘Global Ethics’ should not be reported, because to live in dignity is to live within the operational boundaries of said, and should you venture outside… well, the MSM will not report on it fairly, supposedly to protect the dignity of those who implemented… vaccination mandates during Covid.

Ethically.

‘… since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, it is time now to initiate an equally important quest for the acceptance of human duties or obligations.‘

… no. Just no.

‘The concept of human obligations also serves to balance the notions of freedom and responsibility: while rights relate more to freedom, obligations are associated with responsibility. Despite this distinction, freedom and responsibility are interdependent. Responsibility, as a moral quality, serves as a natural, voluntary check for freedom. In any society, freedom can never be exercised without limits.‘

It’s an interesting phrasing. Because while morality does indeed stop us from doing things which we believe to be wrong (most of us, anyway), it’s not the same as ethics. Morals tend to come from ‘within’, and ethics tend to be imposed upon us. Consequently, the long-term objective here is to convert their expedient palette of ‘global ethics’ into morality, and the way to do that is through education of the young. Which - incidentally - is exactly what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (covered above) considers a primary objective. And the objective of said ‘lifelong learning’ is then to keep updating your principles of indoctrination, when the new ‘best available scientific consensus’ drops, as interpreteted through lens of ‘human rights’.

As for the claim that ‘freedom can never be exercised without limits‘… that’s exactly why we have a legal framework for starters.

‘We have struggled for freedom and rights. It is now time to foster responsibility and human obligations.‘

No - it absolutely isn’t. What this subversively promotes is some Marxist bureaucrat, dictating what you’re allowed to do and say, as opposed to a legal framework, which outlines when you’re in breech of national law. What the above describes is exactly what humanity has rebelled against, repeatedly, but - unfortunately - generally not until after a tragic disaster has struck, often leading to death tolls in the millions.

‘… global interdependence demands that we must live with each other in harmony, human beings need rules and constraints. Ethics are the minimum standards that make a collective life possible. Without ethics and self-restraint that are their result, humankind would revert to the survival of the fittest. The world is in need of an ethical base on which to stand.‘

No, we are in need of judges who uphold the law in an honest way, and don’t immediately attempt to weaponise or destroy it from the inside, such as all those Soros Pet DA’s - not forgetting the ECHR judges he bought primarily in the former Eastern Europe, after the EU reformed its judge selection process in 1998¹³.

‘Recognizing this need, the InterAction Council began its search for universal ethical standards with a meeting of spiritual leaders and political leaders in March 1987 at La Civiltà Cattolica in Rome, Italy. The initiative was taken by the late Takeo Fukuda, former Prime Minister of Japan who founded the InterAction Council in 1983. Again in 1996, the Council requested a report by a high-level expert group on the subject of global ethical standards. The Council, at its Vancouver Plenary Meeting in May 1996, welcomed the report of this Group, which consisted of religious leaders from several faiths and experts drawn from across the globe. The findings of this report “In Search of Global Ethical Standards”…‘

… I can absolutely guarantee you that Hans Kung will be among those invited¹⁴.

‘Because rights and duties are inextricably linked, the idea of a human right only makes sense if we acknowledge the duty of all people to respect it.‘

Collectivism.

‘The expert-group, which was convened in Vienna in April 1997, … summarized and condensed by the three academic advisors; Prof. Thomas Axworthy, Prof. Kim Kyong-dong and Prof. Hans Küng.

Prof. Küng provided a very helpful first draft as the starting point for the discussion…‘

… all so utterly predictable.

The document is so kind to include contributors and endorsers - and the latter count Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev… yes, the guy who suddenly became an avid environmentalist, post collapse of the Soviet Union¹⁵.

Let’s zip through ‘Lifelong learning’¹⁶ before concluding. This is entirely within the sphere of UNESCO, and they released a report on just that… while you were distracted by some bullsh- ‘pandemic’.

The summary outlines that this ‘demands a major shift towards a culture of lifelong learning by 2050‘ which is great, because it gives us a concrete year to work with. It carries on, issuing a ‘call for societies that understand themselves as learning societies and people who identify themselves as learners throughout their lives‘, which should be obvious, but do grasp that ‘learning to learn and managing one’s own learning journey must become basic competences‘ is entirely compatible with said ‘global ethics’, which is to be continuously updated through ‘lifelong learning’ and rolled out as indoctrination. Indoctrination of what, you ask? Simple.

Trust in authority.

It really is that simple, because not at any stage will you be allowed to question any of said ‘global ethics’ - because it’ll lead to your instant loss of legal rights through national legal frameworks, where said legal rights lost are your ‘human rights (and duties)’ intersected with the ‘purpose’ (ie, sustainable development at present), codified into legislation at the national level (thus providing the ‘enforcement mechanism’). Besides, as article 14 above helpfully suggests, the media won’t cover events which impair ‘human dignity’, where said of course relates to said ‘global ethics’ through operational bondaries.

‘At the same time, learning must be a collective process that acknowledges the value of peer and intergenerational learning. This social dimension emphasizes learning to care for each other, for different communities and for the planet‘

It all absolutely reeks of collectivism, through and through. And - who knows - perhaps once you hit the age of 50 you’ll be deemed of no use to society - perhaps even earlier - and your ‘lifelong learning’ will then become subtle manipulation getting you to top yourself, ie ‘dying with dignity’¹⁷… well, unless all those ‘vaccines’ are used to establish ‘the necessary balance between man and his environment in relation to the maintenance of his health and well-being in their broadest connotations.‘ per recommendation 3.5 of the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings.

The 1968 Launch Event

‘Legal foundations and mechanisms–acknowledging lifelong learning as a human right…‘

… and duties - codified into law…

‘This vision can be realized only through an enabling environment‘

Which of course initially calls for primarily a legal environment, but also -

‘All of these elements form part of the 2050 vision for lifelong learning presented in this paper and require adequate funding and resource mobilization, as well as targeted policies and programmes emphasizing a demand-led perspective‘

Lots and lots of Western taxpayer funding. You are expected to pay for your own demise, indeed, all while accepting infinite amounts of economic migrants, authoritarian censorship, carbon taxation, absurd biodiversity restoration projects… and all while simultaneously ignoring that the mainstream media will lie through its teeth about anything which might actually do you good, while absolutely ignoring the vastness of corruption within political spheres, including how an increasingly smaller minority steals every part of your children’s future through corrupt, fraudulent Blended Finance deals, enabled through the Global Environment Facility, monetising carbon credits from those lands stolen via Debt-for-Nature swaps, which unfortunately went bust, forcing the private creditors (as the public - you - unfortunately lost every penny due to the struturing of said blended finance deals). to seize the underlying Collateral - ie, the lands on which those indigenous peoples lived for centuries.

Blended Finance

The Global Environment Facility

Debt-for-Nature Swaps

Collateral

As for the key messages we have holism and transdisciplinary research - which essentially means concentrating power - include vulnerable people at the core, because it provides not only an opportunity for those Marxist swine to use them as pawns, if nothing else through voting, setting them up against their host nations¹⁸…

… but also seek to place ‘lifelong learning’ as a ‘common good’, revising the curriculum to the advantage of the Marxists, promoting the ‘collective dimension of learning’ which you can be certain they will claim you ‘misunderstand’, and finally to enshrine ‘lifelong learning as a human right’ with which follows duties, … as we saw only recently.

So with all of that said, let me explain how all these concepts are stitched together, in one, giant, treasonous, trans-disciplinary holistic approach - just to use their own lingo. I suppose I could here highlight how all of this combined with censorship works to facilitate arbitrary rule, but I have other things to do.

Everything is ruled through Global Ethics.

Global Ethics are created through intersecting a purpose (meaning) through the lens of human rights declarations (and other related documents). The contemporary purpose is sustainable development, but this will change in imperceptible (they hope) slow motion.

And Global Ethics are then rolled out through morality (ie Laudato Si)…

Laudato Si and the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change

… Global Governance (United Nations)…

Global Governance and the Role of Ethics

… and even business, through ie the World Economic Forum, thus ESG¹⁹.

And to ensure that you - and especially your kids - learn to not question ‘facts’ as presented by your technocratic overlords, we also have a Global Citizenship education, promising ‘lifelong learning’²⁰, ensuring your continous indoctrinating…

And as we progress through the slow-motion Marxist revolution - as envisioned by Bolshevik party founder and author of Tektology; Alexander Bogdanov - ‘rights’ become ‘duties’, which you will - per InterAction Council - be required to uphold, or those Global Ethics - codified through national law thus ensuring their enforcement - will be used to establish you not living within operational boundaries (as established by said ‘Global Ethics’) and thus, you will be said to fail to uphold your duties. And as you now fail to uphold your end of the bargain you will no longer be considered to live a life of dignity… and thus, your own legal rights will be stripped.

In short - Global Ethics leads to personal operational boundaries, and your refusal to live within these lead to the stripping of your legal rights… but that’s really only half the story.

The other half is where said ‘duties’ enter the frame. As said, should you fail to live a ‘life with dignity’ you could lose your own legal rights, and be hauled in front of the court. And that court will decide whether you breeched your duties… or if it’s a matter of society failing to uphold its part. And if it’s a case of the latter, the next step likely will be to understand exactly who stopped you from living in dignity, unless society will be punished… collectively.

And even if the judge is not a political appointee (which they tend to be in these systems), as the rules are dictated through Global Ethics, driven through intersecting the various human rights documents with the purpose (present ‘sustainable development’), that means true power comes not from the largely static framework of human rights, but from the setting of the purpose - and from those who interpret said into ethics. And the latter is explicitly the field in which the Collegium International operate - though they’re not the only organisation of interest in this regard. The InterAction Council is also noteworthy, as is the Club of Rome.

But while the InterAction Council tends to operate at the level of intersection of ethics with senior politicians (and other ‘stakeholders’), the Club of Rome operates more in the field of delivering the purpose - which they do not set, but somewhat act more the conduit between those who establish the ‘best available scientific evidence’ used as grounds for setting said ‘purpose’, and those interpreting said into ‘ethics’. And this then defers responsibility to those establishing the scientific order, which would be the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, the International Science Council, and the United Nations agency which not only is responsible for science and education, but further invited the ICSU (ISC) into its fold on practically day one of its operation in 1946²¹… UNESCO.

But back on the main topic -

The Global Ethics will become your operational boundaries of tolerable behaviour. And the duties in this regard translate into your responsiblity for others in this regard just as well. And this, in turn, leads to calls for a judge to rule in matters of almost infinite complexities - climate change and environmentalism for starters - matters of which, even should he be the most qualified judge on the planet with a perfect possession of contemporary knowledge - he could not possibly get right, considering most of it relate to forward predicting chaos theory, which - of course - is a complete impossibility. But what this does do is open the door for arbitrary rule²².

And on that cliffhanger, it’s time to end.

-

Should you not quite grasp how they will cash out, here’s an explaination in 20 simple steps. It’s the greatest scam of all time… and there isn’t even a close second.

The Public-Private-Partnership

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesopian_language

2. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf

3. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/12/1132062

4. https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/the-built-environment-living-with-dignity/

5. https://www.emro.who.int/ar/somalia/news/living-with-disabilities-is-no-barrier-to-living-with-dignity-and-pride.html

6. https://untf.unwomen.org/en/stories/news/2022/10/storyofresistance-making-the-home-a-safe-place-for-women-and-girls-in-tajikistan

7. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc3756-report-special-rapporteur-rights-persons-disabilities-note

8. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2016-07-18/secretary-general%E2%80%99s-remarks-opening-press-conference-of-aids2016

9. https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/va_en.pdf

10. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/11145Social%20exclusion%20and%20Inequality-Study%20by%20GCAP%20India%20.pdf

11. https://www.sjesjesuits.global/2023/09/20/mexico-communique-the-church-proposes-a-national-dialogue-for-peace-and-justice/

12. https://www.interactioncouncil.org/sites/default/files/udhr.pdf

13. https://web.archive.org/web/20200407140948/https://media.aclj.org/pdf/ECLJ-Report,-NGOs-and-the-Judges-of-the-ECHR,-2009---2019,-February-2020,-Complete-Edition.pdf

14. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000105139

15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Cross_International

16. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374112

17. https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/

18. https://web.archive.org/web/20191109004545/https://www.unv.org/news/first-un-refugee-volunteer-east-and-southern-africa-urges-world-davos-empower-refugees-agents

19. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/the-g-in-esg-3-ways-to-not-miss-it/

20. https://www.uil.unesco.org/en/adult-education/global-citizenship-education

21. https://web.archive.org/web/19970717143327/http://www.lmcp.jussieu.fr/icsu/Partners/intergov.html

22. https://chatgpt.com/share/c63d86f3-59eb-4375-93b4-88363aef293e