The Universal Declaration on Human Rights

In 2021, a crack team of has-been politicians and world governance appealing socialists took a second look at the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights‘ - a key document of the United Nations - ensuring that it still relates to the 21st Century.

And the crack team goes by the name of the ‘Global Citizenship Commission‘, and it is headed by none other but the former Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown.

As a quick primer - on the relevant United Nations page we find -

‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)¹ is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.‘²

The list of commission contributors³ also include Klaus Schwab; a virtual shoe-in in the context of a human rights round table, and the Rothschild/Sen power couple, bridging the Rothschild empire and Collegium International world socialist governance ideology. There are other controversial names, more on that later.

The Collegium International

The report, subtitled ‘A Living Document in a Changing World‘⁴ as released by the Global Institute for Advanced Study, starts by tracing back the history of the original document, adding that not only did Julian Huxley and Mahatma Gandhi contribute, but Eleanor Roosevelt in fact chaired it. And in this regard, both Huxley and Roosevelt’s political ideologies are well-documented⁵.

The intent was threefold - outline the general set of principles, the codification into law, and a practical means of implementation. Unfortunately, the latter two points proved impossible to complete, thus she left us with a number of well-meaning principles, but unfortunately no way to push beyond just that.

The principles are meant to provide a ‘common conscience for humanity’, and a ‘call for action’. And that the former sounds rather a lot like ‘morals’ which would make the latter a ‘moral call’ - my favourite - is just a coincidence.

In 2002-2005, the commission ‘met in a series of seminars to discuss the UDHR’s continuing relevance and contribution to the develoment of a global ethic’. Ah, a global ethic. Another favourite of mine.

A Global Ethic

But it didn’t stop just there, no, in fact it appears the UDHR should become a global ethic - through a covenant (thus codified into law) - thus meeting the second of the three intents of the original document.

Discussions also included adopting ‘a more far-reaching convention on refugees and migrants’, which I personally don’t understand why we even need, seeing how we apparently can’t stop illegals from invading our nations - though this probably relates to the following sentence; ‘including our conclusion that countries may not hide behind the thin veil of national sovereignty‘, settling the debate on exactly where Gordon stands on the topic of sovereignty (where Gordon clearly prefers the ‘pooled’ kind).

Incidentally, Gordon Brown is also a raging Fabian Socialist⁶, though I’m sure that’s another coincidence in this context.

Further, they ‘advocate enhancing the UN’s system for upholding and advancing human rights with a proposal that Security Council members voluntarily suspend veto rights in situations involving mass atrocities‘, which of course will be swiftly followed by those crooks redefining the meaning of the term ‘mass atrocities’, with the ultimate aim of stripping said veto rights altogether.

And to finish off with an… unsettling feeling… that their definition of the word ‘rights’ might be Aesopien language, everyone’s favourite gold trader⁷ completes the intro by insisting that the ‘commission is insistent that rights imply responsibilities’.

I’ll do something different here… I will skip straight to the final chapter, because ‘Human Rights and a Global Ethic‘ is the one of primary importance. And it also allows me to explain what this is ultimately all about, thus hopefully providing a clearer understanding of the chapters leading up to said chapter.

‘… the UDHR should be regarded as one of the pillars of a modern global ethic‘.

And though they can’t tell you how it will work (actually, they can, but choose not to), they go on to explain that it’s an intersection of ‘fundamental ethical ideas‘ (ie, the UDHR), and ‘a set of principles that arise out of the development of a new kind of interdependent global civil society’.

If you ever studied Jantsch’s pyramid⁸, you’d realise that the latter refers to the ‘purposive’ which in contemporary settings can generally be taken to mean ‘sustainable development’. Simply put - what they do is interpret ‘human rights‘ through the lens of ‘sustainable development’ - and the output is ‘global ethics’.

The ‘commission believes that a globalising world needs an ethic of global citizenship’, after which other pillars are revealed to include ‘good governance and the rule of law’, ‘responsibility for planet and climate’, ‘basic humanitarian responsibility for one another’, and ‘a broad commitment to strengthening institutions such as the United Nations’.

First off, ‘good governance’ includes concepts like ‘inclusion’, ‘participation’, ‘transparency’, and ‘accountability’… and while the former two in Aesopian language means ‘exclusion’, and ‘no participation (unless invited)’, the latter two can be wholesale ignored, simply because they clearly do not apply to those pushing the concept in the first place. Responsibility for planet and climate means… whatever their quack science tells you it does, and - deferring ‘responsibility for others’ - those ‘strengthened institutions’ means precisely the United Nations… and that’s pretty much it.

All of this opens up avenues for ‘global obligations and participation’, and you most certainly will not ‘participate’ unless you accept said ‘obligations’. Then follows what should be an alarm bell to anyone paying attention -

‘Many things need to be comprised in a global ethic cannot be laid down in precise legal terms… it is possible to build real-world institutions and practices upon these ethical foundations‘.

What this boils down to is that every call become one for an appointed judge to make. And he - I can assure you - will certainly be of the card-carrying party member sort, who really enjoys judging heretics. Well, and likely bribes, too.

‘The distinctiveness of the contribution made by human rights to the global ethic is that they represent the responsibilities that are owed to every individual man, woman, and child on the planet. While some rights are group rights, in the final analysis the idea of human rights conveys a commitment to the liberty and well-being of individuals‘

I know this sounds awkward and clumsily worded, but I assure you that it’s by intent - as we shall soon discover.

‘… violating human rights is something that no person, state, or entity is entitled to do and for which they may properly be held accountable by the world community at every level‘

Get it? Because it’s all right there. But they wouldn’t want to tell you in a ‘transparenct’ way, because you might disagree - in fact, you almost certainly would.

Fortunately, I speak United Nations. So let’s dig through the Aesopian language.

‘Human Rights’ - as outlined by the United Nations - are ‘offered to everyone’, and are said to be ‘inalienable’. That means that even if you choose to not uphold the associated duties and responsibilities, you will still retain said ‘human rights’.

However - per the original threefold intents - the objective is to translate the ‘human rights’ into ‘global ethics’ (through lens of present purposive), and codify and pass into law - not through the United Nations, but through national governments. And then, then it’s a different matter. Because not upholding said ‘human rights’ could well lead to your loss of those associated legal rights - meaning that while you are still offered those ‘human rights’, in practice you will have to accept said responsibilities.

See - isn’t it clever? They claim ‘human rights’ for all, but then farm out the ‘enforcement mechanism‘ which enables the gutting of said ‘rights’ to the sovereign, through codifying into law said ‘human rights’ principle-derived ‘global ethics’ - and passing at the national level.

It’s manipulative to the extreme, and serves as a great example of exactly how the United Nations commits to doing business - through gross manipulation, and dishonest and deceptive practices - whilst wholesale ignoring said ‘good governance’ principles they seek to push onto others.

But let’s rewind. Because in the executive summary we further find that ‘we all belong to a single global community and that each human being has moral ties and responsibilities to all others’. Yeah, summed up in a single word, we’re all ‘interdependent’.

The commission seeks to consider the ‘evolving understanding of human rights’ (ie, as the purposive is changed, so will the ‘global ethics’ interpretation), and they further ‘examine the issues of limitations and derogations, social and economic rights, where the responsibility for upholding human rights lies, and - critically - implementation’, which as we saw above would be at the national level. To ‘human dignity’ we shall return.

In terms of derogations and limitations we find that ‘the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes separate and extensive provision for the derogation of rights in national and/or international emergencies’ - ie, wars and alleged pandemics. It’s always an emergency (as Hitler could tell you), before outlining their exemptions applied at the individual level -

‘Lastly, it is critical to take a comprehensive approach to terrorism that encompasses not only essential security-based counter-terrorism measures, but also systematic preventative measures that address the root causes of violent extremism. These include lack of socioeconomic opportunities; marginalization and discrimination; poor governance; violations of human rights and the rule of law; prolonged and unresolved conflicts; and radicalization in prisons.‘

What exactly constitutes ‘terrorism’? Oh wait - that’s another judgment call. And further - at no stage is the offender blamed for anything. No, he was simply the victim in this equation. The real criminal here is you, for enabling the conditions leading to said act of terrorism. This is proper, hardcore socialism.

‘The social and economic provisions of the UDHR should be interpreted to mean that everyone is entitled to certain minimum standards of health, education, and social security. The concept of dignity – while abstract – provides a yardstick‘

We also find that -

‘States have front-line responsibility for the social and economic well-being of their citizens‘

However, should be dare to be successful -

‘There is an overwhelming moral case for interpreting the social and economic rights provisions of the Declaration as placing obligations on the international community to alleviate world poverty‘

Then, sure, you have to pay for everyone else in the process as well. And this, of course, will eventually lead to no-one being successful, and no-one even tries - which of course is the whole point.

‘… states must be regarded as the main guarantors of the rights of their own citizens. The laws and national constitutions of states, in most instances, will be the first recourse to address any violations of human rights, and should be regarded as the ordinary mode of implementation‘

As stated above - the enforcement mechanism comes courtesy of the state, passing the laws meant to judge you - and keep the United Nations’ hands clean.

‘In a globalized world, it is also the duty of each state to concern itself to a certain extent with the human rights of persons outside its borders.‘

And if your nation refuses to jail you for mocking our dear leader of the United Nations, then your neighbouring state has a moral obligation to invade and do it. Perhaps a hyperbolic example, but its a gross violation of the principles, rights and priviledges of national sovereignty.

‘Rights generate waves of responsibility, and those responsibilities may fall on an array of duty-bearers. Though national state responsibility is primary, sub-national governments, international institutions, corporations, and private persons each and all have a common duty to ensure recognition of human rights and accept responsibility to secure them. Rights-bearers themselves also have responsibilities with respect to their own rights and responsibilities as rights-bearers to the rights system as a whole and to society generally.‘

We now have the concept of a ‘duty-bearer’, and those ‘waves’ describe… a perfectly hierarchical set of organisations, from your local authorities, to national, through international institutions (more on those later), but also looping in business (threating your income) and even your neighbour. In fact, ‘we’re all in this together’ ensuring we leave no-one behind. Summed up in a single word - collectivism… incidentally, also known as interdependence.

‘Fourth, the fullness of human rights will only be achieved through multiple overlapping and coordinated mechanisms – that operate at both the international and national levels, and which engage both governmental and non-governmental institutions‘

The overlapping and coordinated mechanisms is an indirect referral to the hierarchical system, where the national should press charges if your local precinct does not, and the international community step up, should the national similarly fail to act. And as for implementation - sure, this will happen by strengthening the United Nations - as was made clear already very early on.

‘Non-governmental organizations play a frontline role in highlighting the importance of the rights protected in the UDHR, in drawing attention to shortcomings in their implementation, and in naming and shaming governments that are guilty of violations or of failing to protect their citizens from human rights abuses‘

… roughly translating into them being in charge of hiring rent-a-crowd’s like Purpose Campaigns… or Avaaz… to protest… er, whatever the early briefing at dawn clarified.

‘Human rights education also has an indispensable role to play. Fostering a universal culture of human rights among all individuals and institutions through transformative human rights education “from the bottom-up” can add important impetus to the adoption and enforcement of legal standards by governments “from the top-down.”‘

… explicitly tying in with the role of national governments as outlined above.

‘One principle the UDHR represents, and rightly so, is that human rights in every country are the world’s business… There are many instruments of change used: some widely acknowledged, like trade sanctions; some far less recognized, such as human rights “name and shame” mechanisms; and others perhaps less clearly articulated, such as providing shelter to migrants fleeing from neighboring countries in times of great distress…‘

I could comment here on the former, but it’s the latter which catches my eye - particularly in the context of Gordon’s introduction covered above.

‘The Commission supports the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) governing the process of humanitarian intervention‘

… which is where the world governance calling One World Trust enters the stage⁹.

Charter 99

‘Over the decades since 1948, the UDHR has provided the rudiments of a “common conscience” for humanity. In the words of Immanuel Kant, a violation of rights in any place is now felt all around the world. The international community is continuing to build on this, and the UDHR should be regarded as one of the pillars of an emerging global ethic for our increasingly interdependent world.‘

The ‘common conscience’ of course relates to a ‘global ethic’, a fact confirmed later in the same paragraph with bonus interdependence.

And the preamble then starts by reminding you that this is a living document (not only could it change in the future, but it will also continuously be intersected with progressively shifting ‘purposive’ values).

‘But we begin by elaborating the sense of global community and global ethics in which both the Declaration and our discussions are grounded. The idea that every human being is part of a seamless human fabric, a single global community, bound by moral ties to every other human being, is as ancient as recorded history‘

While it might be that some collectivist philosophers have penned down said, that does not imply that it’s correct. Besides, in terms of practical implementation through legal systems - that’s pretty much only been carried out in Marxist socialist states, none of which stood the test of time.

‘None of these separate traditions, however, proposed a commitment to a global community resting on the creation of a single world government.‘

And that’s what this is all about. The One World government. The New World Order. Whatever you call it, I don’t want it. And I doubt many do, and of that I think they are fully aware - because why otherwise go to such extents to hide behind a wall of Aesopian language.

‘… not just a matter of articulating rights and duties… treating each human being as someone who seeks and deserves to live a life of dignity, a life imbued with significance. For global citizenship to have practical meaning, we believe it is indispensable for us to come to a common appreciation of these basic ideas.‘

More on dignity soon, but the bridge to ‘global citizenship’ thus goes through ‘common basic ideas’ (global ethics), and -

‘For this reason, we decided that exploring the continuing role and relevance of the UDHR was the best starting point for developing a common contemporary understanding of the meaning of global citizenship. That ambition is the guiding purpose of this report‘

… hence to aid in the implementation of world governance, we must have a ‘common global understanding’ (global ethics) outlining the concept of ‘global citizenship’.

We’re largely done with the document, but there’s a few further parts which stand out. From section 3.2, outlining ‘exemptions’ -

‘Here the ICCPR sets out the rules for derogations in times of emergency… But the UDHR remains in and of itself something of crucial educational importance and a vital foundation of the global ethic of human rights… relatively short-term, clearly demarcated emergencies‘

I’m sure you can see where this is going. This, once again, becomes a matter of a judgment call. That’s standard fare on the path to arbitrary rule.

‘If the standards governing the use of force in the UN Charter are no longer effective, then the international community needs to create a new and more workable regime. Certainly we should understand that the UDHR and the UN Charter must operate together: a world in which war or the threat of war is endemic cannot be a world in which human rights are respected. The human rights community therefore has an interest in the workability of the UN Security Council’s role being revisited‘

That’s another objective of theirs - the elimination of the UN Security Council veto.

‘Hard work needs to be done to create an architecture of values and principles, derived from current conceptions and the enduring foundations of human rights, that can deal coherently with these new features.‘

The ‘current conceptions’ relates to the ‘purposive’ (‘sustainable development’, at present), while the ‘enduring foundation’ relates to the UDHR. And it’s the intersection of the two - as outlined earlier - which outputs the ‘global ethics’. And this framework further is capable of dealing with ‘new features’, as it only requires for this intersection to be interpreted again. The question, of course, is - interpreted by whom. That, however, is outside the scope of this article, but… the Collegium International?

There are also a few items in section 5 which deserve addressing.

‘…, our task now is to expand on the reference to “every individual and every organ of society” in the preamble and on the reference to everyone as “entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized” in Article 28. The rights in the Declaration should be understood as generating duties for states, international institutions, corporations, private persons, and even rights-bearing individuals themselves‘

These rights, in fact, are duties, and these apply to everyone. And specifically, the resulting global ethics, codified into law and passed by national governments will make sure you uphold those ‘rights’.

‘Global and regional institutions, including those associated with the UN (like the Security Council), the IMF, and the World Bank, should regard themselves as bound by human rights. Even if they do not have an affirmative responsibility to provide what is necessary for rights, they have a responsibility not to undermine human rights or make them more difficult to secure. Even when an organization believes itself to have a legal immunity, it is appropriate for that immunity to be waived in cases of egregious violations of human rights‘

Everyone must abide by said ‘global ethics’, even the highest offices of the United Nations - including the Bretton Woods financial institutions - in case of egrigious violation… which, of course, calls for another judgment on the matter - in effect transferring ultimate power to some external, universal judicial system. Oh wait, the Baha’i have one of those¹⁰. Another coincidence, I’m sure.

And on the matter of corporations -

‘Thus companies need to work with key stakeholders to develop industry minimum standards on human rights, and metrics to monitor and assess compliance... Home states, which directly benefit from the economic activity generated by global companies, must take steps to ensure that companies under their jurisdiction respect human rights in their operations abroad.‘

States must uphold said ‘human rights’ (codified global ethics) of companies in their home nations, and said companies must identify a set of metrics… indicators… which are more conveniently surveilled. Finally -

‘The Commission is attracted to the idea that individuals – ordinary men and women – should be thought of as the ultimate bearers of the duties that correspond to human rights. In the final analysis it is everyone’s responsibility to respect and look out for each other’s rights.‘

Thus leading to a STASI society, where everyone reports on their neighbour for ‘violations’ of ‘human rights’ (and duties), also known as 'global ethics’… as codified into sovereign law.

‘And individuals have the responsibilities of global citizenship in relation to the specific demands of human rights.‘

Rights become responsibilities, these are translated into ethics, codified into law… but also spliced into education relating to global citizenship.

‘The responsibility of rights-bearers requires us to recognize that: rights may at times be legitimately limited; there is a duty to listen to and consider any reasons given for the limitation of rights; and that the fulfilment of some rights is costly and that this may render rights not immediately achievable.‘

… but naturally, said individuals should accept when their ‘rights’ are limited - even if for alleged financial reasons. This is all enabling an arbitrary rule, top-down dictatorship, and if you speak out, you’ll lose your legal rights.

‘… so certain human rights must be understood as operating for the benefit of those who have come under public suspicion of crime or other anti-social activity. We view with horror the suggestion that these protections should be diminished on the grounds of “responsibility.”‘

See how it works? They ‘view with horror’ when said ‘rights’ are removed - and they’re in a position to do so, as it’s the state carrying out enforcements. This allows the United Nations to criticise nation states for doing as they’re told.

‘… the central principle in these articles that individuals, broadly speaking, have a responsibility as well as a right to work for a living‘

And though I won’t go into depth here, this relates to ‘rights’ in the context of ‘provision of food’, etc. See, even here the Aesopian language rears its ugly head as these typically don’t mean to infer you have a right to handouts, but rather, you have a right be able to feed yourself.

Everything is a brazen lie, in other words. And never mind that ‘the economy must be such as to satisfy certain conditions‘ means that it must be centrally controlled, because in a chaotic free market, there’s no way to make that guarantee. Of course, there isn’t in a top-down economy either, but hey, what’s another lie on top of the mound?

We see further detail on education, sovereignty, the limitation of the UN Security Council veto and so forth in chapter 6, but we’ve gone through the content already.

-

A topic I deferred is that of ‘human dignity‘. Simply put, 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.

On this, ChatGPT agrees. However, what this also means is that anyone falling ouside the operational boundaries now no longer are considered to live a ‘life of dignity’. This then logically infers that by manipulating the purposive and the translation into ethics, they can dictate when your life is outside allowable thresholds.

And I suppose it’s in this context that Canada has provided the solution¹¹. It’s rather simple, just top yourself before you exit the operational boundaries.

Those are ‘human rights’ you can count on until death… premature as it may be.

-

The ‘Global Citizenship Commission‘ was founded in 2013, courtesy of a grant by the Carnegie Foundation¹²… or more specifically, the ‘Collective Wellbeing’ component thereof. And as for the objective - ‘Universal Declaration to coalesce a global ethic‘.

From the report itself we see the inclusion of a number of very interesting characters; Emma Rothschild is there, as is Gordon Brown - but we also through K Anthony Appiah, Mohammed ElBaradei, Ricken Patel and Robert Rubin have indirect representation of the IAEA (why?), Avaaz (who provide rent-a-crowd services), the Council on Foreign Relations, and last but not least - Laurance S Rockefeller.

The report, in short, is early stage. Prep work for the 2021 report covered above. It deals with inclusions of ‘missing rights’ (women, children, the disabled, LGBT individuals, refugees, migrants, …), the topic of allowing ‘global problems to be solved with global solutions‘, and - of course - the ‘potential for the Universal Declaration to coalesce a global ethic’, which should ‘reflect a set of global moral values that reflect a proper balance between rights and responsibilities’.

‘I and my fellow Commissioners are indebted to the Carnegie UK Trust for its support of the inaugural meeting of the Commission in Edinburgh. It was fitting that Carnegie, which has done so much to advance educational opportunity in a hundred years of grant giving to young people, did so as part of the celebrations of its centenary year.‘

In other words, this report was released at Carnegie’s 100 year anniversary. And what did it deal with? Turning ‘human rights’ into ‘global ethics’.

Incidentally, 1993 marked the 100th anniversary of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, first held in 1893. And what did they formally release at said centenary anniversary? Hans Kung’s report, ‘Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration’.

A Global Ethic

Now, why is that relevant, you might ask. Well, that’s really rather simple. Because none other but Paul Carus chaired that event¹³.

And who is Paul Carus you will now wonder. He was a very influential figure in the development and promotion of monism, a philosophical viewpoint that emphasizes the unity of all things and the idea that there is a single, underlying substance or principle that constitutes reality.

And he furthermore promoted a worldview in which ethical principles could unite the empirical rigor of science with the moral and spiritual aspirations of religion, fostering a more holistic understanding of reality¹⁴.

Paul Carus in short fused science with religion through ethics. And he also served as chair of the pivotal 1893 event which not only gave birth to the ‘Interfaith Movement’¹⁵, but also actively promoted the integration of religion and science within academic curricula.

And this event then, in turn, at its 100th anniversary in 1993 released a report titled ‘Towards a Global Ethic‘ - though I’m sure that’s just an extraordinary coincidence.

And you’ll see more of Carus. And Marx. And Bogdanov. And Vernadsky.

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

2. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

3. https://gias.nyu.edu/2016/04/release-global-citizenship-commission-report/

4. https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0091.pdf#page/1/mode/2up

5. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/eleanor-fbi/

6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.29887090.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad7ea14fc8796032e1cf52ad7e7afcacc&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1

7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767

8. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transdisciplinary-university-structure-Adapted-from-Jantsch-2_fig1_365574438

9. https://www.oneworldtrust.org/our-history.html

10. https://www.bahai.org/the-universal-house-of-justice/seat-universal-house-justice

11. https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/

12. https://carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/global-citizenship-commission-summary-of-private-meeting/

13. https://web.archive.org/web/20170222110318/http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015679/1893-11-07/ed-1/seq-6.pdf

14. https://books.google.pl/books?id=KbH3yNuNQAsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

15. https://parliamentofreligions.org/globalethic/global-ethic-task-force/