Our Common Good
On our continuously unfolding journey, leading to the progressive understanding of our collective destiny… as outlined by those who prefer to live in the shadows… we come across the Valencia Declaration, which I bet you never even heard of.
Let’s change that.
In fairness, you’d be hard pressed to locate the precise one to which I refer, as easily 10 others go by that name. Here1 are2 a3 few4, stretching topics as diverse as whistleblowing, human genome and cloning, university and society, and the principles of ‘good governance’. No, no, no, and no.
None of those are the one to which I refer..
And sometimes you’re drawn to the conclusion that this just might be a strategy… of ‘good governance’ principle number 4 on ‘Openness and Transparency‘… by hiding information in plain view through making it almost impossible to locate, as the contentious document is just one of many in a huge pile. And a similar issue we observed in context of the (hugely) controversial ‘Canberra Declaration‘ from 2019 on the topic of global surveillance, utilising real-time satellite feeds.
And while you could table the argument that Valencia is just a really nice place for a swift United Nations sponsored working… vacation, with all the desired high end hotels… restaurants… strip clubs… that argument certainly dosn’t apply to Canberra, which is an oddly located Capital, if for no other reason but it being geographically halfway between Melbourne and Sydney. I’ve been there and, apologies, Aussies, I didn’t think much of it.
But before diving into the particular declaration of interest, I think it’s important to mention that unfortunately, the President of the World Federalist Momenent 1991-20045, Peter Ustinov, couldn’t quite make the trip6 to Valencia. He did, however, laud the efforts, proclaiming that the initiative ‘represents a new form of democracy, more immediate in its effects than the traditional vote‘.
And given that the World Federalists Movement is all about global governance, I’m not quite sure that this ‘new type of democracy’ will be a particularly palatable one.
And in another bout of bad luck, noted member of the world governance-seeking Collegium International7 Mary Robinson also failed to fit the event into her packed schedule8. But do make a note of the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute also being directly involved with said Collegium. She, of course, chaired the effort, drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948.
Either way, the declaration of interest9 outlines that time is quite simply up on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights… because rights alone no longer do the trick. We quite simply must attach ‘duties’ and ‘responsibilites’ to said ‘rights‘, or… well, we’ll all repeatedly die in a lake of fire… again. It’s critical, you see.
Thing is, however, Article 2910 of the UDHR already informed us thusly -
‘Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible… everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society‘
But it’s just that… this definition appears rather opaque and broad. What on earth does a ‘just requirement of morality’ entail, specifically? Well, … apart from being a moral call, one of which you can rest assured is practically always included in the very worst literal atrocities out of the United Nations.
It further pays its dues to trisectoral governance (public, private, NGOs) - interesting timing, considering this is right around the time Kofi Annan reformed the United Nations around the concept of ‘Stakeholder Approach’ governance for the foundations to capitalise on - then outlines that we all ‘share obligations‘, even calling for a ‘new and evolving… mechanism’ to ‘enforce human rights’ in all circumstances, which essentially is somewhat indicative of trisectoral governance exactly, incidentally also described by Ustinov above as representative of ‘a new form of democracy, more immediate in its effects than the traditional vote‘.
This is about both joint and individual responsibility and solidarity… as outlined by the chair of the initiative, Richard J Goldstone.
Next follows the individual articles, and Article 1 kicks off with detailing that ‘duty means an ethical and moral obligation’, while ‘responsibility means an obligation that is legally binding’.
I… like it. Ethics and morality, right there in article 1, not even attempting to hide (for a change). But this single article also explains the difference between duties and responsibilities in clear terms, and this explanation firmly slots into the strategy outlined previously on the topic of the UDHR; while the United Nations outline the ethical principles (intersection of human rights with the purpose, ie Sustainable Development at present), the codification into law happens at sovereign level, and those national, legal frameworks will also hold you to account.
The ‘responsibilities’ thus indirectly refer to the ‘human rights’ granted you by the United Nations, and ‘duties’ indirectly refer to the sovereign legal codification.
The reason behind this discrepancy I outlined previously, but quickly - this allows the United Nations to claim that your rights are ‘inviolable’, yet, when you break the resulting codified laws, then they can pretend to be outraged, because the national government will strip you of said ‘human rights’ in practise.
It’s as brilliant as it is manipulative. They have in essence weaponised the sovereign state through complicit, corrupt politicians at the national level.
And I know that my good friend, the Underdog over at the Daily Beagle will object, but I’m going to quickly means test this through ChatGPT regardless, if for no other reason but it allowing me to focus my efforts on the core material itself.
‘In summary, the purpose of the UN in promoting sustainable development intersects with human rights to create a framework of global ethics. These ethics translate into responsibilities for individuals and nations, which are then codified into laws, transforming them into enforceable duties at the sovereign level‘
So, to summarise -
Take human rights (UDHR and related documents)).
Intersect said with the purpose (currently the SDGs)
The output of which is ‘Global Ethics’
These become your responsibilities
And through sovereign codification into law, ultimately your duties.
It’s clever, isn’t it? That’s why they only hire the very finest, raging Marxists.
And you know what’s even more impressive? That it even further goes to explain a few things previously discussed here -
What I specifically refer to is the below figure. I took the liberty of making a few additions, hopefully making things more obvious, because it becomes quite clear how they’ve stitched together this… new world order… once you comprehend exactly the meaning of this ‘social justice philosophical framework’ -
To summarise the above we have -
Human rights are the equivalent of ‘distributive justice’. These refer to what you have a right to receive…. at least in theory.
Human duties are the equivalent of ‘contributive justice’. These outline what you have a duty to contribute.
‘Commutative justice’ details the reciprocity of our ‘human rights’. These are procedures, outlining our social interactions with one another.
Both ‘contributive’ and ‘distributive justice’ relate to the ‘common good’.
Adhering to this parallel legal framework means you ‘live in dignity’
And this entire, overarching framework is what ‘social justice’ entails.
Intersecting our ‘human rights’ with ‘the common good’ leads to the ‘Global Ethics’ which - in short - rule us through legislation, codified into law at the sovereign level, further tailored to the local culture for maximum… manipulative effect… but ultimately, all of this comes back to said ‘human rights’ which rarely change, and - of far higher importance - the ‘common good’ (presently ‘sustainable development’) which are defined... by whom, exactly?
Oh, and have the ChatGPT log, if for no other reason but to confirm absolutely no cheating through front-loaded questioning was involved11.
We previously discussed the concept of ‘human dignity’, a topic which also brought in the InterAction Council… but more on that later. In short, you are said to ‘live with dignity’ if you accept living within the range of tolerable activity, as staked out through the contemporary ‘Global Ethics’.
Yes, your ‘dignity’ means you accept an arbitrary and ever-changing set of rules set through intersecting your ‘human rights’ with… whatever constitutes ‘our common good’… which, incidentally, through environmentalist quack science is exactly where the ‘best available scientific consensus’ enters the frame.
And you can then also discuss the rolling out of said ‘global ethics’ through morality, business, and global governance. Hopefully I’ve made my point. If it appears to be all in sync, it’s because it is.
Oh wait, no, we can do even better. Here’s ‘Extending Planetary Health: Global Ethics and Global Governance in the Noosphere‘, a paper released in 2023.
And though the paper invites scrutiny, I genuinely hope you’ve latched onto the topic of ‘Global Ethics’ by now. It is absolutely pivotal to their strategy. Either way, I will select a few quotes to nail that coffin conclusively shut.
‘This essay proposes ways to extend the concept of planetary health, in the framework of major evolutionary transition applied to the planet as a whole… including issues related to geo- bio- techno- and noo- spheres. I show the need and importance for ethics and governance to become global.‘
It’s Global Governance through Global Ethics, and the purpose needs extending from human to planetary health. Planetary well-being. And to that extent -
‘Given the diversity, complexity, scale and importance of such global issues, humanity needs new ways of thinking about the health of our planet.‘
And, oh boy, are they serious about that -
‘Indeed, I believe that attempting to maintain and sustain human civilization at all cost may be a mistake in the long run. Our planet may be transforming towards a diferent and more complex organization than one centered solely on humans‘
In fact, they are so serious about this that maintaining human civilisation is of less importance in the grand scheme. It then carries on, dragging in Lovelock (Gaia theory), Vernadsky (Noosphere), before nailing down that -
‘… humanity must extend human ethics and governance at planetary scales, that is, think global ethics and global governance.‘
Global Governance through Global Ethics… for sakes of Planetary Health.
Finally, a few expected, yet still interesting keywords are included; biodiversity, public-private-partnerships, moonshot thinking, cybernetics, planetary values and goals… such as the Sustainable Development Goals, before requesting that ‘health should be taken care of at multiple levels, and this strengthens the case for systems thinking‘, which of course is where General Systems Theory enters the stage, best summarised through Kenneth Boulding’s epic 1956 paper, ‘The Skeleton of Science’.
Finally, an interesting inclusion of Odum’s ecological economics. This will come through carbon-backed Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)… of which there are two; one backed by carbon sequestration (Convention on Biological Diversity), and one backed by carbon emission permits (UNFCCC).
And finally, the conclusion adds -
‘,,,, ethics and governance cannot be thought anymore for the beneft of humans only. If humans want to succeed to hatch a noosphere, to make it through this planetary major evolutionary transition, we have to extend the notion of planetary health, by focusing on the integration of the geosphere, the biosphere, the technosphere and the noosphere, and not only the well-being of humans and what supports them‘
Planetary Wellbeing12, in short. Not yours. Not even that of your culture.
And this is, in fact, is a brand new field of science13... well, scientism… through the Planetary Wellbeing Initiative, which will seek to justify… murdering billions… in ways only raging marxist psychopaths can. And though I’m unsure of where their primary faculty exists, its entrance really should feature a big, shining statue of Pol Pot. But what I am however certain of is that their eventual justification will somehow be about ‘protecting us’.
‘the PWI understands the concept of “planetary wellbeing” as the highest attainable standard of wellbeing for human and non-human beings and their social and natural systems‘
There quite simply are too many of us. Thus, we need killing fields, round two, to protect us from ourselves.
‘… various ‘must haves’ as pre-conditions for human prosperity that arise from nine planetary boundaries on safe human conduct, identified by Rockström et al. in 2009‘
And we now also have the nine absurd ‘Planetary Boundaries’ looped in. Excellent.
But - though tempting to also go through the paper in detail - let’s return to the original document, though only after we have confirmed that - yes - this is the Rockefeller/Lancet initiative which kicked off in 2015, and - yes - this utilises a ‘multi-disciplinary, holistic approach’, and finally -
‘Planetary wellbeing is a global concept concerned with the common good, the good of all present and future living beings on the planet‘
Planetary wellbeing is about the common good, with a dash of original sin for good, Marxist measure. It’s manipulative to the extreme, and will result in the death of billions, justified by psychopaths, speaking of ‘protecting us from dangerous zoonotic illnesses’, thus calling for you to accept ‘vaccines’, which may be tested on all of 8 mice.
Hey, in fact, Jeffrey D Sachs even encourage us all to get ‘educated’, so that we’re not all ignorants, believing in ‘conspiracy theories’, but instead listen to all the quality information dispatched by the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, incidentally hosted by… Jeffrey D Sachs himself.
And I will here make yet another appeal that you read the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings, because it’s all right there. Really is.
Pay particular attention to Recommendation 3.2, guest starring ‘zoonotic diseases’, and 3.3, featuring ‘the establishment of the necessary balance between man and his environment in relation to the maintenance of his health and well-being in their broadest connotations‘.
Incidentally, the full conference proceedings suggest that this recommendation was penned by none other but Rene Dubos, of the Rockefeller University.
But back to the original document.
Article 2 continues, outlining the ‘collective, as well as individual duties and responsibilities’, before Article 3 helpfully adds that this bridges ‘both present and future generations’, and even includes the likes of ‘disease and environmental destruction’.
And while the contemporary, contextual relevance of the latter should be clear, the prior reference is clearly aligned with the concept of ‘intergenerational justice’, aka repackaged original sin14. And this interpretation will see your children punished, simply because your parents committed the sinful ecocrime of driving a car to work15. It really is just a matter of when this becomes a matter of serving the ‘common good’, that’s the insanity of this system… of scientific socialism16.
And I am absolutely serious in that regard, because the advice given on who to sue, for what, and how - provided by Jeffrey D Sachs and Owen Flanagan in their 2022 book; ‘Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development’ - is taking place at this very moment17.
And - incidentally - do you know who also happens to be a regular contributor to ‘common dreams’? That’s right, the guy who outed himself as the globalist shill that he truly is, recommending a slew of policy action in the above book, two steps… nah… one step shy of outright Marxist ideals. The book genuinely is that bad, as I have detailed in depth through three separate articles.
And I couldn’t care less about claims of him having ‘switched sides’, or other such nonsense. The most consistent message of his is his criticism of the United States - to demoralise in expressly the way Bezmenov spoke of18 - through psychological warfare. He has absolutely not changed his stance on anything, but rather, uses every opportunity and means possible to enable Global Governance.
Incidentally, he also happens to be rather the fan of Global Ethic, in fact, was a first signatory to Hans Kung’s 2009 efforts, extending Global Ethics to business.
Articles 4 and 5 discusses ‘collective security’, and the ‘rapid and effective disarmament in the interest of peace’ - and if this all appears somewhat familiar… well, here’s a 1951 report, prepared for the US House of Representatives by the ‘Committee on Un-American Activities‘19.
Articles 6-7 pertain to human rights law and violations thereof, and is written in the typical, interpretatively broad style, enabling just about anything to pass as an example thereof. However, these also call for the ‘provision of requisite resources’, courtesy of the ‘global community’, which in reality translates into further demands for Western taxpayer funding. We then observe a call for an ‘early warning mechanism’, plus the demand that ‘other states have a collective duty to intervene’ which will so obviously be used to gradually chip away at sovereignty under the guise of alleged ‘human rights violations’… in any state without a BIS-connected central bank.
Article 8 continues by looping in environmental protection… in a framework of human rights… before Article 9 includes a call to ‘preserve and promote an environment suitable for sustaining all forms of life‘, before adding that we have a duty to ‘protect and preserve the stability and quality of the global, regional and local environment and to utilise natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation and protection of bio-diversity‘, thus looping in - though not exclusively - the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Article 10 relate to States being called on to ‘pursue economic and social policies designed to achieve sustainable human development and well-being‘, and in process therof, ‘recognize the interdependence of all States in a global community and shall avoid any measure which may cause substantial injury or harm to other States‘.
I know this sounds harmless - perhaps even a good idea - but this actually relates to transboundary issues like alleged air and water pollution, used to control the actions of sovereign states under the guise of the ‘global commons’. This initiative began with the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution20, and continued through the 1982 World Charter for Nature - but what’s of further importance is that the LRTAP was pushed through almost immediately following the alleged ‘carbon consensus’, set at the 1979 First World Climate Conference21, which was a political and not a scientific consensus.
But this is a topic to which we will return, thus, will not be further detailed here.
Article 11 is the somewhat odd inclusion, opaquely speaking of ‘usurious levels of debt’, which I suspect relate to onerous Debt-for-Nature Swaps, which unfortunately appear to gain traction at present. These will be used to, eventually, transfer either the underlying collateral - the lands themselves - or the rights of exploitation thereof to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, through which these will be monetised through Blended Finance deals intended to rip off the Western taxpayer, arranged by the Global Environment Facility aka World Conservation Bank.
And in the event you’re curious about how this all works - but can’t be bothered to read all the many link I include - here’s a 20 step guide, explaining how the greatest scam ever devised works in detail.
Article 12 follows, referring to not only the ‘science’ which you should ‘trust’, but also drags in explicitly those ‘Ethics Declarations’ which I have repeatedly stated are an outright trap, because the entire objective is to get absolutely everyone wrapped in a parallel legal framework, ultimately enabling arbitrary rule through cherry picking of judges, ruling on account of those absurd ‘Global Ethics’.
Articles 13 and 14 detail why sovereignty should no longer have ultimate authority, first declaring that ‘respect the sovereignty of the host State in which they conduct business… unless those laws constitute an infringement of human rights‘ before detailing that the International Criminal Court holds ultimate authority on matters of ‘international crime’ - regardless of what that actually entails.
That, in short, translates into people being prosecuted for committing international crimes, though said weren’t actually crimes at the sovereign level. It will, in short, eliminate sovereignty over the long run.
Article 15 is a call to ‘Build an Ethical Society‘, inclusive of ‘codes of conduct‘, where the public sector has a duty to commit to ‘public discussion of ethical issues involving government, political parties and civil society‘, while the private sector must ‘develop an ethical commercial environment‘, where the contemporary definition of ‘ethics’ of course is entirely arbitrary, and subject to… continuous change. And these - coupled with ‘ethics panels’ aka ‘enforcement mechanisms’ - will see doctors fired for refusing to tow the line, should they choose to speak up during a hypothetical ‘pandemic’ on grounds of ethics violations… OH WAIT A MIN-
And even worse, this same, ‘ethical’ system will soon be brought in to see people fired for speaking up against obvious quack science, such as on the topic of ‘climate change’ and the heinously corrupt IPCC.
And as for the topic of the ‘ethical business environment’, we recently saw Jeffrey Sachs and Owen Flanagan promote exactly this in their 2022 trash book, ‘Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development’.
Article 16 calls for ‘participation’ in public life, where said refers to the picking of ‘stakeholders’ in a process, absurdly open to abuse… by intent, ultimately selecting only those ‘in agreement’ with project direction. The rest of you… quite simply will not be ‘included’ in their ‘participatory approach’, because agreeing is very, very important.
Article 17 details freedom of opinion, based upon ‘underlying universal values and responsibilities‘ (but fails to state whose), but is also inclusive of the media which has a duty to ‘report honestly and accurately and to avoid incitement of racial, ethnic or religious violence or hatred‘.
Coincidentally, did you know that there is absolutely no legal definition of what constitutes ‘hate speech’ anywhere in EU legislation22, thus turning it explicitly into a judgment call, meaning that the appointment of the judge to rule over your case suddenly becomes of pivotal importance. And that, of course, is by intent.
Article 18 adds rights relating to communication for sakes of the ‘common good’, before detailing exactly the kind of protections which will never, ever be respected, due to manufactured exceptions… as we recently witnessed in the UK, relating to data protection and opt-out forms during the ‘pandemic’23… obviously justified on the back of claimed ‘public good’.
Article 19 refers to the right of assembly… which many governments undermined during that same ‘pandemic’24… article 20 relates to freedom of religion, which tends to be upheld in the spirit of ‘equity’ (ie hugely biased against Christianity), before articles 21-22 outline personal liberty, integrity and security, ‘carried out in accordance with universally recognised standards of fairness and due process‘ which certainly didn’t appear terribly fair, nor respectful of law in general during the alleged ‘pandemic’.
We skip past articles 23-26, arrive at article 27, which opens the Pandora’s Box of ‘intergenerational justice’ (original sin rebranded), which further continues through article 28, before article 29 puts in a remarkably hypocritical effort through alleged ‘gender equality’, which not simply prioritises women, but in fact hardly even mentions men at all in the kind of way emblematic of the United Nations.
And though articles 31-34 supposedly detail the rights of members of members of society, they leave the barn door wide open for the likes of Jeffrey D Sachs to exploit on the topic of migration in general.
Articles 35 and 36 includes a huge variety of terms wide open for interpretation, limited to not only ‘adequate’, ‘productive‘, ‘justly’, and ‘favourable’, but further outright suggesting that ‘States should cooperate to prevent, control and treat epidemic and endemic diseases, and should equitably share the benefits of medical research and technology‘, principles which certainly appear familiar given the alleged ‘pandemic’, but also includes a mention of ‘primary health care’, which in reality leads to the concentration of power over information, education, drugs and vaccines.
Article 37 rather self-servingly states that ‘Academic institutions, teachers and academics have a duty to promote and develop human rights education and awareness‘, before looping in that ‘Non-governmental organisations have a duty to work with States and inter-governmental organisations in the promotion of the right to education and, in particular human rights education, and shall develop and implement their own human rights education programs‘, which is a problem as it absolutely is not within the mandate of said NGOs, operating almost exclusively outside of public oversight.
We skip to article 40 which outlines the same tripartite government structures gradually introduced in UN capacity during the 90s, ultimately aiming to replace all government structures with arbitrary rule under the guise of ‘Global Ethics’. And to compound the matter of trisectoral governance, the declaration even adds that ‘Such tripartite councils shall also be entrusted with monitoring compliance‘ meaning there is precisely 0% likelihood they won’t be corrupt to hell and back.
Now, a fairly crucial question is - when was this declaration written and released? Because the InterAction Council released theirs in 1997 as we saw over here.
And as it transpires, the Valencia Declaration was in fact developed during 199825, and submitted to the Secretary-General of UNESCO in January, 1999, making this a chronological successor to the InterAction Council report from 1997.
We further see that - per the chair itself - it calls for ‘dignity’, ‘participatory government’, ‘our obligations’, the ‘common good’, and the ‘political, moral, ethical and legal duties and responsibilities‘, which can only become a possibility with a ‘just world order based on cooperation, broad participation and the equitable sharing of resources and the benefits of scientific and technological progress is a necessary prerequisite…‘
But more illuminating is that the declaration also is referred to as the ‘Declaration of the Duties and Responsibilities of Man‘ which is great, because it just might bring us more detail through a web search… or then again, perhaps it comes up with absolutely no search results whatsoever, which appears a tad odd, given that Richard J Goldstone finished off by stating -
‘It is therefore my great honour and privilege to submit the text of this Declaration of the Duties and Responsibilities of Man to the Director-General of UNESCO , Professor Federico Mayor Zaragoza. My colleagues and I hope that this Declaration will be studied in the intergovernmental bodies of UNESCO with a view to its adoption and wide dissemination‘
But there is however a document, going by the title of ‘Education in Responsibility in Order to Secure Human Rights in Times of Crisis‘26, which shed further light on the development of this initiative. And through that we have -
1993. Hans Kung.
Declaration toward a global ethic27.1993. International Council of Human Duties.
Trieste Declaration of Human Duties28.1997. InterAction Council.
Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities29.1997. UNESCO.
Declaration of the Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future Generations30.1998. Valencia Third Millennium Foundation.
Declaration of Responsibilities and Human Duties31.
(Released in 2002. but drafted in 1998, per the chair itself)2003. United Nations.
Predraft Declaration on Human Social Responsibilities32.
And though we’ve covered Hans Kung, the InterAction Council, and the Valencia reports, let’s quickly whizz through some of the more important inclusions in the three other reports.
The Twieste Declaration largely covers the well-trodden path, but includes further specifics, such as ‘sale of human parts’, ‘inexhaustible energy sources’, and ‘genetic diversity of living organisms’.
UNESCO’s efforts are somewhat more… planetary in aspect, placing much focus on the environment, the future of mankind, and preservation of life on earth. Almost as though it was written by the IUCN.
Not forgetting the additional detail on especially the role of education, and implementation through the United Nations systems.
But the UN’s 2003 ‘Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’ is actually the more noteworthy of the lot, not only because the initial google search kicks off… more or less exactly as you’d expect.
But when you eventually locate the document, you interestingly find that it further adds to the reponsibilities/duties differentiation described above, even adds ‘obligation’ into the mix, defined as -
Obligation is a legal requirement.
Duties is the ethical dimension.
Responsibilities is interchangeable with duties.
However, the eagle-eyed have no doubt observed how the ‘Education in Responsibility’ document above (from 2014) states that ‘duties’ related to morality. Consequently, the final picture emerges -
Obligation is a legal requirement.
Responsibilities is the ethical dimension.
Duties is about morality.
And as we know through ‘living with dignity’ that the legal codification into law takes place at the sovereign level, let’s just keep that in mind for the time being - because that would logically suggest that the closer to legal codification we get, the language should increasingly shift to discussions about ‘obligations’, and not ‘duties’.
Either way, the document in general carries a somewhat sharper tone all around. From the preamble -
‘Bearing in mind the contents of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration and the fifth preambular paragraph common to the International Covenants on Human Rights33, as well as the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights34, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Helsinki Final Act35 and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam‘36.
… so beyond the UDHR Article 29 it further drags in even more documents…
‘Considering that the current globalization requires the creation of new extralegal perspectives based on morality, human solidarity and equity, aimed at strengthening, not weakening or destroying, the international legal framework already created in the field of human rights, and the adding of a more visible global ethical perspective …‘
It’s extra-legal, and it’s about ethics. Pretty much exactly what I have repeatedly stated - though, in fairness, I said it was ‘quasi-legal’, though certainly about ethics. And in interest of full disclosure, the codification of human rights into law through the sovereign really only clicked with me after reading Gordon Brown’s absolutely awful report on the UDHR from 2021. Either way, though it’s always nice to be right, the main objective here is actually to establish whether my reading is correct, because I receive so little pushback. And I fail to see how this doesn’t confirm what, essentially, is pretty much the final, big piece of the puzzle. All of this is expressly about ruling the world through manufactured ‘global ethics’, where said has been produced through fraudulent ‘science’ cooked up by ie the ISC/ICSU and SCOPE.
The preamble continues -
‘Profoundly convinced that an essential element of this new ethical perspective will be the creation and encouragement of a generalized awareness that the individual not only has rights that give a legal framework to his freedom but also duties towards the society…,‘
In fact, it’s an ethical perspective, and it relates to rights - and duties.
‘Acknowledging with regret the lacunae that exist and considering that it would be useful and necessary to define the social duties or responsibilities of the individual towards the community… and fully develop his or her personality‘
Which, in short, facilitates the creation of good, little worker bees, because the ‘development of his or her personality’ expressly centres around what is required for them to ‘serve the common good’, after all. And this will, of course, take place through generally education, which should be lifelong37, and about global citizenship38.
What I say here is that this is the express opposite of freedom. And - golly gee - it all centres around UNESCO, who integrated ICSU to become the ‘S’ on practically their first day of operation. And though I could here include the Collegium International, I have to snap back to the main story39.
And the preamble continues -
‘Profoundly convinced that the adoption of an international standard on social responsibilities is the most effective way…‘
… and this… claim of ‘freedom’ is to be international, ie, global.
Global Ethics.
Article 4 then adds -
‘No person, organization, group, … can consider itself, in its practical actions, removed from its social duties, nor above them, or beyond the principles of the social ethics…‘
LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND.
Article 10 throws fuel onto the fire -
‘States have the additional duty to abstain from promoting or supporting - in particular, through direct or indirect financing - the activities of individuals, groups, institutions or organizations that are in contradiction with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations‘
That’s right, States are not to fund anything critical of the United Nations. And finally, in Article 11 we see -
‘Every person has the duty to contribute actively to … an international and social order‘
Bulldoze the United Nations. And finally, article 27 adds -
‘… to guarantee his or her descendants the right to due education and ethical and professional training, as well as to assist, feed and shelter minor children.‘
Yes, do make sure you brainwash your kids about ‘Global Ethics’.
But let’s test the prior hypothesis relating to the word ‘obligation’. The United Nations Office on Human Rights in 2011 released the document ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights‘40. And what do we see?
Duty: 13.
Responsibili-: 30.
Obligati-: 24.
And the report ‘The Independent Human Rights Act Review’41 followed in 2021 out of the United Kingdom. And what do we find?
Duty: 136. (+Duties: 13)
Responsibi-: 74.
Obligati-: 154.
Either way, these are very early days. Apart from updated legislation from Dictator Dan’s Victoria, Australia, I don’t appear to find much in terms of legislative ‘Human Rights and Responsibilities’, or even ‘Duties’. And that, of course, is relatively good news, but the UK efforts show that with high levels of likelihood it’s just a matter of time we seem them everywhere. Sure, they’ll be customised to the local setting and culture, but the underlying framework remains the same. It’s how they do things.
But let’s return to a prior reference, because it just so happens the the UDHR from 1948 was not the first document on the matter; no, the very first document is titled ‘American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man‘… and this, similarly, dates back to 194842 - but while the UDHR was adopted by the United Nations in December, 1948, the American version dates back to April, 1948, and consequently beat the UDHR to it by more than 6 months.
And it’s an interesting document, for sure. Broken into two distinct sections, with the former detailing ‘rights’, and the latter ‘duties’. And… perhaps it’s just me, but it appears remarkably similar. In fact, I took the liberty of comparing and inserting the equivalent articles of the UDHR.
Golly, right? It’s borderline identical!
The exception to the rule of… complete overlap.. is a ‘right to petition’ which really is a slight broadening of the language to be located in the UDHR. And as for the duties… the ‘societal duties’ are by and large covered by UDHR Article 29, but we further have the ‘duty to take care of children’, ‘receive instruction’, ‘vote’, ‘obey the law’, ‘serve the community and nation’, ‘social security and welfare’, ‘pay taxes’, and to ‘work’ - all of which can briefly be summarised as ‘listen (education), respect (legislation), and serve (family, community, nation, taxes)’.
It’s an odd, odd one. There’s so, so much overlap, that appears unlikely to be a coincidence. So the question naturally arise - why? And how? And who? Because you’ll find that drumming up much information beyond the absolute basics isn’t trivial in this regard whatsoever.
But a 2003 document titled ‘Basic Document Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System‘43 just might have provided a hint in that regard - though not through the text itself, but through a reference at the bottom of page 5.
And upon further investigation we discover that the ‘Organization of American States, the oldest regional international organization in the world‘, adopted its charter at ‘the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogotá, Colombia on April 30, 1948‘ - at the very same event, in fact, where the ‘American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man‘ was approved44.
And of further note ‘the OAS Charter proclaims the organization to be a regional agency within the UN system‘, which is really rather interesting, given the UN had hardly even begun its operation at the time of the establishment of this charter. But perhaps, just perhaps it’s somehow connected to the revelation that -
‘In 1910, … American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie donated $5 million to construct a permanent headquarters in Washington, DC, which is today the historic OAS building on 17th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW‘
And while I suppose it makes a break from always finding the name Rockefeller, Carnegie operates is a slightly different sphere to John D and his merry gang.
No, see, while you commonly find the name Rockefeller in the fields of health, environmentalism, climate change and others, Carnegie is more active elsewhere. Specially in the field of… Global Governance45…
… but also in the field of… Global Ethics46.
In fact, venture across to their ‘history’ page on their website, and you’ll find them vested into a field for which Gates receives much flak at present, such as ‘governance for climate-altering approaches, such as solar radiation modification‘47.
But while Rockefeller is easily sourced, Carnegie is a somewhat different kettle of fish. They generally work behind the scenes, which is very, very different to how the flamboyant Rockefeller organisation tends to operate. Consequently, sourcing is typically harder, though not impossible. Time will tell.
But what I at this stage can source - besides Carnegie donating that OAS building in 1910 - he in fact participated at the very first conference in 1889-1890.
But taking a step back - there’s another oddity here. Because it appears there are two different versions of that declaration, both claiming to be from 1948. So on that account, I located the very original on the United Nations’ websote, and this version features… quite the interesting inclusion48. See, it appears that Article 33 has since gone entirely missing -
‘It is the duty of every person to refrain from taking part in political activities that, according to law, are reserved exclusively to the citizens of the state in which he is an alien.‘
Who the hell removed that - and why?
That was a tough slog to get through and I didn’t even look into all the supporting documents yet! I commend you for your dedication to trying to decode all of that and distill it into something that makes sense to the “common man”. I’m sure that these documents were deliberately created to be intentionally confusing with flowery, feel good sounding ideals. In reality, it seems to be a diabolical roadmap to deceptively enslave humanity. No one can actually say they gave INFORMED consent to any of this. With the censorship laws that are currently being passed by our governments and their focus on “dis/mis information” and “hate speech” they are creating a net which will make it impossible for anyone to speak out against the globalist framework. Thank you for trying to make sense of it all!
The advertised "human rights" of the individual are mere privileges, subordinate to the agenda of the global governance apparatus and the oligarchs who control it. The rest is just propaganda to obscure that fact. See UDHR Article 29, section 3:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/