Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 427 | The Hidden Corruption of the United Nations | Guest: Hillel Neuer

Episode Date: May 26, 2021

Today, we're talking with the executive director of U.N. Watch, Hillel Neuer. The United Nations is not the respectable organization that many people believe. In fact, it gives cover and legitimacy to some of the worst regimes on the planet. Neuer's organization aims to expose the corruption of the U.N. and return it to its founding principles of standing up to tyranny, rather than empowering it. --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Today I am talking to Halel Neuer. He is the executive director of UN Watch, United Nations Watch. And we are going to talk all about the UN today, why it is not just this innocuous body that is trying to preserve human rights and peace throughout the world is actually rife with corruption that we need to know about. And there are things that we can do about this. And the first step is awareness. And he is going to make us very aware of what is. going on in the United Nations, even in the WHO, it's attached bodies, and where the United States comes in in all of this. And then at the end, I also want to give kind of a worldview application to all of this because there was so much I was thinking about in this conversation that I wanted to talk about just quickly from a biblical perspective. I've been following Mr. Noyer for a very

long time, have been wanting him to come on the podcast for a very long time, just an amazing, insightful and brave person. So I'm very, very excited for you to listen to this conversation. Without further ado, here is Hillel Neuer. Mr. Noir, thank you so much for joining me. For people who may not be familiar, can you tell us who you are and what you do? Sure. My name is Hillel Neuer, and I direct an organization called UN Watch, which is based in Geneva, Switzerland. And our mission is to monitor the United nations and hold it accountable to the yardstick of its own charter. We also promote human rights for all. And how did you get into this line of work? Well, I'm, my training is, I was a lawyer

before that. I was, I was in New York City for a few years working for a large firm doing litigation, commercial litigation, but also civil rights work. And before that, I had studied law and politics. and was active working at a think tank and writing about political issues. So human rights, law, politics, international affairs were always a fascination for me. And this job was available and it was the right thing for me. A lot of people, when they think about the United Nations, probably the average person, average American thinks about it in very neutral terms or maybe even in very benevolent terms, that it's just this, you know,

body of countries coming together for the well-being of the whole world. But in following you, I have learned that there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes at the UN that we don't know about. Can you talk about just the mischaracterizations that people have about the United Nations in their head? And why just in summary, those assumptions about the UN being this good force for humanity is wrong. Well, you know, the United Nations was founded with great ideals, with great vision. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not alive when it was created, but it was people surrounding him who had the vision to create the United Nations. So it came out of World War II in a time of genocide and war and destruction and mass murder.

And the United Nations was supposed to be an end to that. And it was founded to reaffirm faith in human dignity and fundamental freedoms and human rights and actually Eleanor Roosevelt was the founding chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights. And there was this thing called UNICEF, which is the UN Children's Fund, which people who grew up in the 50s would go around in their neighborhoods with little blue boxes and raising money for UNICEF. So it began with great ideals and actually with idealistic people. I mentioned Eleanor Roosevelt founding chair of the Commission on Human Rights. And I think that the UN still benefits in many ways from that from that idealism. But the reality is that if Eleanor Roosevelt was the founding chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1946,

in 2003, the chair was the representative of Colonel Gaddafi's mass murdering Libyan regime. So, 1946, Eleanor Roosevelt, 2003, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the rising fall of human rights at the UN. Many people around the world today, especially in Europe, but in other countries in Canada, and I think it's parts of the United States, still when they hear the words, the United Nations Human Rights Council decided they imagine men in white robes with long white beards strolling along Mount Olympus making their decisions based on facts, logic, or morality. When Ali, nothing could be further from the truth. Sitting around the table today at the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is the new

and improved, supposedly, improved version of what Eleanor Roosevelt chaired back in 1946, sitting around the table are not Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato, but in fact, Gaddafi, Castro, and the House of Saad. The members today that have just joined recently include the Chinese Communist Party is one member of the Human Rights Council, Russia's Putin regime, Venezuela's Maduro regime, and Cuba's communist regime. These are 60% of today's Human Rights Council at the United Nations. Tell me how this happened. I know there's probably a lot that goes into it, but, How did that happen over a span of just a few decades going from Eleanor Roosevelt to the representative of a terrorist regime being the head of the United Nations Human Rights Council? Well, you know, a couple of things happened. First, I think when the UN was founded, they didn't exactly know how, let's say, the Human Rights Council would work. So they allowed these eminent idealists to be sitting on the Human Rights Commission. But very quickly, politics came into it. The UN is a political body. And so rather than being Eleanor Roosevelt sitting there, it was the chair held by the U.S.

And eventually it was countries that held the chairs. And as that body actually accumulated more influence, not just adopting the universal declaration on human rights, which is generally a very good document or the covenant on civil and political rights in the 1960s, also a good document that protects freedom of speech and other civil and political rights. But as it acquired the power to name names to, to conduct an investigation into a specific country, what we call it the United Nations naming and shaming, which is very significant power at the UN. Countries do not want to be shamed on the world stage. And so as the UN accumulated that power, the worst regimes wanted to make sure they would not be singled out.

So China became a member of the Human Rights Commission. Sudan, which was committing genocide, became a member of the Human Rights Commission. And as I mentioned, Gaddafi's Libyan regime in 2003 becoming the chair. of the Human Rights Commission. So as that body accumulated more influence, and it doesn't have any binding power, but it can shame a country on the world stage. And the more unelected and illegitimate you are,

the more you are fearful of being called out and exposed as being illegitimate by a world body. And some people in the United States, some of your followers will think the UN is silly, but around the world, the United Nations carries with it the imprimatur of international legitimacy. they can give you a badge of international legitimacy.

So China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, today, all members of the Human Rights Council because they want to wear that false badge of international legitimacy. And they will trade stuff. China has enormous reserves, financial capital assets, political assets, that they can trade to your country in order for them to get a seat on that body because they really need and want that false badge of international. legitimacy, and they'll trade whatever they need, they'll pressure whoever they need to win those seats on that body. And you just kind of answered the question, how does this happen? I mean,

you said that Russia and China, Libya, they want a place for that false badge of legitimacy. But it's hard for me to believe that the majority of countries at the UN would approve of that, would say, yeah, that's totally fine. Let's put these people in charge of human rights in the UN. And yet it just happened. So are you saying it just happens through bargaining or is there something, is there something else also beneath the surface, some ideology or some other level of corruption that goes on that allows these brutal regimes to take these seats? Yeah, look, it's completely outrageous. It's hard for for myself and regular folks around the world to understand. The sad thing, Ali, is that if you speak to United Nations diplomats, this is normal. The fact that Saudi Arabia about four years ago was elected to the UN women's rights.

Commission, which is the technical name is the commission on the status of women, but it's the UN Women's Rights Commission. The fact that Saudi Arabia was elected, countries defended that, okay? They think it's normal. You know, we revealed it was a secret ballot, so we don't know who voted to elect Saudi Arabia, but we do know at least five EU countries voted yes to Saudi Arabia on the Women's Rights Commission. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst regimes when it comes to women's rights.

Women up until a couple years ago were not allowed to drive a car. They need a male guardian's permission to go to the hospital, to leave the country. They're completely subjugated. And we know that possibly Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, voted for Saudi Arabia to be in the Women's Rights Commission. When we exposed this, what we heard from certain countries like the Swedish foreign minister, was that, oh, well, we need a big tent. And we need all kinds of countries from all regions to be there.

so they will learn and improve, said the Swedish foremanister. The reality, though, Ali, is it's very cynical business. There's a lot of vote trading that goes on. So the worst dictatorships will trade votes. They'll say, I vote for you, you vote for me. It was revealed that Belgium, not only did we discover that Belgium actually voted for Saudi Arabia, but a cable, a diplomatic telegram went from Brussels to New York, telling the Belgian ambassador New York, vote for Saudi Arabia and make

sure, you tell the Saudis that we voted for them. Why did they want the Saudis to know? Because Belgium was running for the Security Council. And they wanted Saudi Arabia's vote. Maybe they wanted Saudi oil. Maybe they wanted Saudi money. So it is routine at the UN to have vote trading. We uncovered a letter where Saudi Arabia and Russia. Russia is a rival to Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. And yet there was a letter from Russia to Saudi Arabia saying, Russia, you vote for us, onto the Human Rights Council, we'll vote for you. So I would say that it's cynical vote trading and as an excuse,

apologists for the UN, diplomats who are part of the UN system will try to give you an ideology. They'll say, no, no, we need all countries. And I agree, all countries, all regions should be represented. But guess what? In the Middle East, in Africa and Asia,

there are many countries, in Latin America, there are many countries that could serve that aren't the worst of the worst. Okay, if you go in the Middle East, you can have, you know, United Arab Emirates is far better than Saudi Arabia when it comes to women's rights. And if you're talking in Africa, you don't need Zimbabwe or Somalia or Libyan. There are many African countries that are not the worst of the worst.

The same goes in Latin America. You don't need Venezuela and Cuba. You can get many other countries, Costa Rica and others. So the UN will tell you we need to have the worst dictatorships there as part of an ideology. But the reality is that many of these European countries who claim to care about international law are actually selling their soul alley, because we know even the UK made a deal apparently with Saudi Arabia to vote for them.

They're selling their soul to do cynical vote trading, but then pretending it's out of some ideology. Well, that was also my question is, is there any kind of cohesive ideology that drives these kinds of decisions, or is it just cynicism? Like, is it some form of moral, relativistic, progressivism that says, you know, we don't feel like we can condemn these countries. It's

cultural relativism, whatever. Let's just be progressive and inclusive. Or is it really just about, you know, what you can bargain for and what you can get for the reputation of your own country? I think it's primarily cynical vote trading because we've actually seen the vote trades documented in letters. I said we have a letter from Saudi Arabia to Russia documenting the vote trade. and they'll sometimes announce it. But it's true there is an ideology that you mention of cultural relativism. And I would say that when you speak about organizations

that are not voting at the UN but play a very significant role, groups like Amnesty International, which are rife with cultural relativism, they have a very hard time saying that you shouldn't vote for Russia, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela. They feel as kind of Western colonials

if they dare to say that you shouldn't vote for certain countries. as opposed to, you know, saying that countries like the U.S., Canada, France, which have problems. Every country has human rights violations and problems. But obviously, you know, I believe in my organization you would watch, believes very strongly what George Orwell said, that there's a huge difference between half a loaf of bread and no bread at all. And a country like Britain, France, Canada, that has blots on their system. And of course they have blots on their system is completely.

completely different than a country where the blot is the system. And if you live in China, if you live in Cuba, if you live in Russia, the blot is the system. If you dare to speak out against one of these regimes, they'll throw you in prison, they'll kill you, they'll silence you, you'll be disappeared. And in the countries that I mentioned before, you can, you know, be elected to parliament and go on live national TV 24 hours a day condemning your government. They have, you know, all democracies have human rights violations, but systems that have checks and balances that and have functioning free and liberal democracies, have nothing in comparison with oppressive dictatorships, and the latter should not be sitting on the Human Rights Council.

And by the way, this isn't just me making up this as a rule. United Nations, when they created the Human Rights Council, they said there should be standard. They said members, I'm going to quote, shall uphold the highest standards of protection and promotion of human rights. And in Article 8 of the founding document that created the Human Rights Council, Resolution 60-251 says that countries that commit gross and systematic violations can be removed. So when you have the Dutch ambassador in Geneva giving an interview recently saying,

oh, we need all countries there, she's going against actually what the United Nations itself decided. So there is an ideology. I would say groups like Amnesty International, and some diplomats have imbibed that ideology, but it's actually against what the founding resolution of the Human Rights Council says, which is that there should be membership criteria. So it's this very harmful, like, intertwining of postmodernism and cynicism that I guess has made the UN what it is. And what I always find in this kind of postmodern morally relativistic mentality is that there are contradictions. They say, you know, we need to bring everyone to the table, but they are willing to condemn some countries for what they see as human rights infractions while they turn their eye from other countries like Israel.

There seems to be just another level of criticism that we see often coming from the UN towards Israel. Why is that? And how does that kind of fit into this whole, oh, big tent, let's just tolerate everyone mentality? Yeah, I think you have identified an important point of hypocrisy and contradiction. Israel is the object of a pathological obsession at the United Nations. These are resolutions. We'll give you a few statistics at the General Assembly, which is the World Parliament of the United Nations, every year, as we just had last year in 2020, there was one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, one on Syria, one on Myanmar, one on some other country, and 20 on Israel. I think last year, maybe there was 17 or 18 on Israel.

Then typically, there's 20 on Israel, 17, 20, and there's zero resolutions on China, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela, and Venezuela. you know, Zimbabwe, you go down the list at the General Assembly, one on Iran, one on North Korea, 20 on Israel, 17 on Israel. At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, where I'm based, there is one agenda item for the whole world called agenda item for human rights situations around the world, and one agenda item only for Israel, meaning one day for 193 countries, one day for Israel alone. There is not an agenda item for North Korea. There's not an agenda item for Syria where millions have fled and maybe half a million have been

killed. There's not an agenda item on Sudan where there was genocide, only agenda item on Israel. Who's behind it? The Palestinians, together with the Arab League and the Islamic countries, Islamic countries are 56 countries at the UN, very influential. They're represented in Asia, in Africa. They put forward the resolutions, but who votes for them? Well, actually, EU countries vote for 75% of them. And if you ask me, I think part of it is a kind of anti-Semitism. Yes, some of it is vote trading. Arab countries will say, historically, if you don't vote for us, we won't give you oil, we can threaten terrorism against you, we'll vote against you. But why do so many European countries willingly go along with the scapegoating of the world's only Jewish state?

If you ask me, part of it has to do with certain archetypes, as today we might call memes, where in the Middle Ages, if you wanted to blame someone for problems in the world, if there was the plague in the Middle Ages, you scapegoated the Jews, the Jews poisoned the wells. And today, when you sit at the United Nations, and if you're at the Human Rights Council, at the General Assembly, at the Women's Rights Commission, at the World Health Organization, often the only country being condemned at the World Health Organization at the Women's Rights Commission is Israel for violating women's rights or violating health rights. It's so absurd and pathological alley that it really seems like a scapegoating. The world gathers, they're silent on most of the world's worst

abusers, and you pick up the Jew and you scapegoat the Jew. That's what I see in many cases, both pragmatic, cynical vote trading, but also something that is not based on Realpolitik, but seems to be based on ancient prejudices. And would you say that these kind of prejudices are also at times leveled against the United States, or no? Absolutely. Not in the way of anti-Semitism, but just the anti-United States kind of mentality that it seems like these kinds of bureaucratic bodies often have.

Well, I think it ties into what you said before. You know, the United Nations is sometimes a, we're speaking about the pathologies, is a toxic combination mix of realpolitik where worst dictatorships have a majority and a post-colonial ideology that took over Europe in the 1960s, which became anti-Western, anti-capitalist, also anti-Israel, and anti-American. It's kind of all in the mix. And so there is an anti-Americanism that is very strong in Europe and is very powerful. And I mentioned groups like Amnesty International.

They don't vote, but they represent the ideology of the UN. Many of their people have worked at the UN, will be working at the UN. And that ideology is very powerful at the UN. And the Soviet Union was very clever, Alley, in fueling the anti-Western and anti-American alliance. They were behind this group called the non-aligned movement, which actually was very aligned against America. And they tried to turn African and Asian countries against the United States. So there is definitely a very powerful anti-Americanism that ties in with anti-capitalism, anti-Westernism, blaming, accusing the West of being against the rest. It's a very strong ideology at the United Nations,

and it goes together with dictatorships who want to single out America in various ways. And we're seeing that America is being accused of racism. When last year in America you had the Black Lives Matter and George Floyd protests, the United Nations Human Rights Council held an emergency session and some of the most racist countries

in the world like Mauritania, which has slavery. Right to the Guardian newspaper, according to CNN, it's one of the last bastions of real slavery. Hundreds of thousands of people in Mauritania were black slaves. And they were accusing America of slavery. China, which has herded one million

Uighur Muslims into camps and is committing at least a cultural genocide against them, accuses America of racism. So there's something very cynical going on there. Has the United States done a good job at all of standing up against this or calling this out, trying to say, hey, we don't want to legitimize these kinds of not just hypocritical actions, but these kinds of hostile regimes? Or have we kind of just gone along to get along? Look, I think there's two approaches, and I'm not sure if either one was the best. The democratic approach historically has been to support the UN.

I wouldn't say blindly. The various Democratic administrations have criticized the UN. They voted against anti-Israel resolutions and so forth. But there was a tendency in recent years under the Obama administration to support the Human Rights Council. America joined the Human Rights Council and said, you know, it's doing good things. And my concern is the Biden administration, as they intend to rejoin the Human Rights Council, we're not against engagement.

We think U.S. leadership is very important. If you want to keep out the Chinas and the Russias who are trying to take over the UN, you need to be there. But you shouldn't necessarily be giving out false praise for the institutions. So I'd say the democratic approach was too inclined to maybe go along to get along. Not 100%, but definitely in that direction, the way the Europeans do it in a much more significant way. And then if you ask me in the Republican administrations, the problem was that sometimes they said, well, we're just going to walk out and we're not going to deal with it. And the problem doesn't go away. China taking over the World Health Organization, we're taking over large swaths of the human rights system at the UN. You need to be there to fight back. So I think the Republicans need to be much more sophisticated about what's going on in the UN and how to push back, how to fight back, do so cleverly, strategically, articulately. And the Democrats need to have more backbone and fighting back. So I think there is a happy middle that both administrations. should be getting to.

Because the United Nations is not going away. The UN Rights Council is not going away. They influence the hearts of hundreds of millions of people. And if you want to push back against China trying to subvert the meaning of human rights, we need to know how to do so cleverly and effectively. What tangible power does the UN have? Well, there's different parts of the UN. I'd say the Security Council deals with war and peace and some conflict,

conflict, some wars have ended when the UN Security Council passes the resolution, which, if it does so under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter is considered binding under international law. The General Assembly, the world parliament, in theory, not binding, but in reality, they control a budget of billions of dollars. The U.S. pays for a large part of it and has enormous influence around the world. When UN Secretary General announces something, makes a statement, that goes around the world. People regard that as a credible and legitimate statement when a general assembly adopts a resolution, the world will regard that as a credible statement. So the UN doesn't really have boots on the ground, but, you know, Stalin famously,

apocryphally, someone said to him, well, the Pope said something, and Stalin said, oh, well, how many divisions does the Pope have, right? The Pope doesn't have tanks. Well, in the end, the Pope remained, and the Soviet Union, that evil regime disappeared. in, you know, around 1990, and the Pope and the Vatican remain. Sometimes having legitimacy and influence and credibility can be more significant than having all the tanks in the world. The Soviet Union had thousands and thousands of tanks and nuclear warheads, and it disappeared. So moral power or the appearance of moral legitimacy is very significant.

The United Nations has incredible legitimacy around the world. And so the Human Rights Council, the reason that Russia, Cuba, China, Venezuela, struggle very hard, And Venezuela actually had to fight against Costa Rica, which was a late candidate, and they beat them. The reason they invest so many resources, Allie, is because it's moral power, perceived moral power. International legitimacy is very significant on the world stage. So I would say that UN decisions can't change everything in the world. And if you want to stop a genocide, you need the U.S. Marines to do it. The U.N. can't do it.

But U.N. statements, U.N. resolutions, U.N. reports, U.N. commissions of inquiry that get sent to the International Criminal Court, can be very influential and can change the way people think and thought is thought and word our father to deed. Would you say that China and the legitimization of China through the UN, even through the WHO, would you say that that is our biggest threat, the biggest threat to the Western world, the domination that China seeks, especially through these kinds of organizations? I think the UN is becoming an arena for superpower conflict.

China has identified the United Nations as a very important arena. They're now heading agencies in Montreal, the UN's ICAO, the civil aviation agency headed by a Chinese representative in Geneva, the telecommunications union, which governs things like frequencies, internet, cell phones. There's a Chinese representative heading that. you can be sure he gets his orders from Beijing, the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, another agency in Vienna. They're taking over agencies. They are now members of the Human Rights Council. They're on the five-member group that I revealed in April, the consultative group that named

17 international human rights investigators of the Human Rights Council, the expert on disappearances, when someone magically, forcibly disappears, or the expert on arbitrary detention. The things that China is committing is the greatest perpetrator of, China is now naming the individual who will be the investigators. So China is methodically, systematically, strategically, taking over large parts of the United Nations. They want the influence. They want the legitimacy. You mentioned the World Health Organization.

You know, China, Ali, I'll be honestly, I didn't realize it as much. But there was a Hong Kong, a woman from Hong Kong, Margaret Chan, who headed the World Health Organization for a decade up until 2017. She was from Hong Kong. I didn't realize, but she's actually controlled by China. If you look back at her candidacy more than a decade ago, China was her sponsor. When she finished being 10 years as head of the World Health Organization, she was put on the Chinese Politburo, on a leading Chinese government body as a reward for what she did,

which was helping China. The World Health Organization has two goodwill ambassadors. One of them is the wife of the Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. The other one is a guy named James Chow, who's a presenter on Chinese television. He's a full-time paid propagandist of Chinese TV, and he's a World Health Organization goodwill ambassador. China is subverting these UN institutions like the World Health Organization. The reason that Dr. Tedros was so hesitant to say anything about China when the coronavirus began out of Wuhan was because China was behind his candidacy as well. So if we want to push back, we need to be there and to do so cleverly and effectively.

And I hope the U.S. and other countries work in concert to push back. against the Chinese communist regime. They're trying to take over everything. The level of corruption and depravity and these kinds of organizations, I think makes a lot of people just feel completely helpless and desperate. Like there is no hope for the future because how can we just average people push back

against this kind of stuff except for just talk about it? What's your recommendation or what's your encouragement if you have any to people who say, okay, like, I stand against this stuff. I want transparency. I want integrity. I want the UN to at least somewhat be an organization that we can trust and we can look to. What do I do?

How do I push back against all this? Yeah, Ali, I think there is reason for pessimism, I'm afraid, because sadly, I've been in this business for some time now. And the United States isn't what it used to be, you know? United States used to be the number one superpower, and today it's far weaker economically, politically, and otherwise. So the ability of the U.S. to shape the U.N., which was the case in 1950s, the U.S. really could shape the U.N. that's changed a lot.

However, the U.S. is still very important, still paying for a large part of the U.N. budget, at least 22 percent of the U.N. budget is paid for by the United States, and they pay for much more involuntary contributions. So the U.S. plays an important role. And I think your viewers, who are primarily in the United States, have a responsibility to make sure the United Nations does not subvert the principles of human rights and international peace and security that we all believe in. And we'd like to see the U.N. live up to.

And what they need to do is, first, regular folks need to know what's happening at the U.N. They can do so by following the news. They can follow organizations like ours. Our website is UNWatch.org. You can go there, sign up. you will get once a week, get updates on terrible things that are happening, things that you need to know about. And when you have the information, you're empowered. Citizens should write to their congressperson, write to their senator, right to Secretary of State, and say, I just heard that China is running to be on the Human Rights Council.

Is the U.S. going to fight back and push them off? I heard that James Chow is still at the World Health Organization as a goodwill ambassador. and if the Biden administration rejoined the World Health Organization to engage well and good, but use the engagement, demand that WHO fired James Chow, who's an out-and-out Chinese propagandist using this WHO title to legitimize his lies about the coronavirus. So I think citizens can push the U.S. government, Republicans or Democrats, push the administration to demand accountability, transparency at the U.N., and I've seen it happen, when the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., when Congress persons, when senators demand action from the U.N.,

I've seen changes and reforms by U.N. bodies. So, frankly, it's only going to come from the U.S. That's where it's going to begin. And your viewers should be the first ones to get the information and to demand action and reform from the U.N. Yes, absolutely. And how can they support you? How can they support U.N. Watch? I know that you gave the organization's website, which we will put in the description of this episode.

But can they follow you? Is there any monetary support that they can give? Sure. Thanks, Sally, for a very important question. Folks who want to help the work that we're doing, which is to make the United Nations live up to the original founding principles of its charter, which are about upholding real human rights, fighting genocidal dictators, making sure that they don't corrupt UN bodies, they can follow us. I mentioned www.unwatch.org can sign up there. They can follow us on Twitter.

UNWatch on Twitter. My name, Hillel Neuer, on Twitter. It can follow us. We're also on Facebook. UNWatch. We're on Instagram, United Nations Watch. Can follow us on there. Can like our posts that will empower us.

They can donate. Our funding comes entirely from private contributions. And we're a nonprofit organization in America. Get a tax receipt for it. They can go on our website, UNWash.org, and make a donation. and make sure that we continue our important work to support real human rights victims. One of the things that we do at UN watch

is we bring human rights victims from China, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran to testify at the UN so that actually the voice list who are being shut out by the UN bodies as they're electing their oppressors and dictators, we bring the victims and those who just come out of prison, political prisoners, amazing, courageous people. We bring them to testify to the United Nations

and folks who support us will be supporting not just UN reform and UN accountability, but we'll be supporting real human rights work to help the real victims. Thank you so much, Mr. Noyer, not just for coming on this show, which I am appreciative of, but also for all the work that you do and that UN watch does. I know people learned a lot from this conversation. So thank you so much. My pleasure.

Thank you. All right, guys, I know that you enjoyed that conversation. I know I did. I learned a lot as I was listening to him, especially that line. about Orwell, a whole or a half a piece of bread is better than no bread and just how moral relativism and cultural relativism forces us to be very stupid when it comes to understanding right and wrong, that we are so afraid of criticizing certain countries because of this idea of Western privilege and our guilt about Western colonialism or imperialism that we are unwholesome.

willing today in this postmodern mentality that all of us have just been affected by in the West. We are so afraid of criticizing regimes outside of the West for any bad that they have done. We try to draw some kind of equivalence between what happens in China today, enslaving people, colonizing other countries, getting them in debt traps to be able to control them, taking away or refusing to acknowledge any idea of objective human rights in their own country. We tried to draw some equivalence between that and then what happens here in the United States. And there is no equivalence.

But that's what postmodernism, that's what a disbelief in absolute truth, an objective reality, an objective morality. That's what moral relativism, cultural relativism does. And that is the result of rejecting the idea of a supreme moral, lawgiver, as C.S. Lewis puts it in mere Christianity, the idea that all of our rights come from somewhere. They're not given to us by governments, but they're recognized by governments, in particular in the United States, by the Constitution, and that there is an authority that is higher than earthly authorities. That is where we get any kind of agreement on an objective,

inherent human right that needs to be protected. Once you take away the idea of a source of human rights, then everything is up for grabs. We all become our own gods. Everything from truth and morality to science becomes subjective. It becomes up for interpretation. And you can see the chaos and the confusion that that would wage. And there's always going to be contradictions within that. That simultaneously you see some countries saying, well, I can't criticize, you know, what's happening in some countries in Africa or what's happening in Russia.

Because, you know, we've got our own problems here. or in the United States, whatever it is. But I can absolutely criticize the United States, and I can absolutely criticize Israel. It's this leftist, moral relativist, contradictory, postmodern mentality and worldview, that it's constantly tripping over itself to make any sense. And in the process actually looks over real human rights atrocities,

and it has real consequences, as we talked about, with Mr. Noir. And so when I asked him, hey, you know, what can we do? Of course, I encourage you to do all the things that he told us to do. But also as Christians, like preach the gospel. Of course, not just to change things politically, but the only way people are going to realize, oh, we have to look to an objective,

supreme, transcendent moral lawgiver in order to tell us what right and wrong is, in order to give us any kind of idea what morality is, then hearts have to change. Hearts have to be softened by the gospel. People have to be seeking after truth. They have to be looking towards the source of truth. I mean, there are two things that I think could change culture very powerfully.

The first one is piety, the seeking after God, the obeying God, a longing for a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and obedience to him. And the second is patriotism, caring about your country. caring about the values of your country, caring about the ideals upon which your country was founded. Patriotism and piety have so drastically deteriorated over the past few decades in the United States and have been replaced by postmodernism that we no longer care. We no longer want to fight for our ideals because critical race theory and all the stupid academic theories that are being pushed down our throats from kindergarten through grad school are unfortunately they are convincing us that those things aren't worth fighting for, that America is so bad that the

Constitution is so corrupt and that we don't represent any kind of virtue whatsoever that it really doesn't matter if these corrupt regimes take over. And it really doesn't matter if we lend legitimacy to somewhere like Saudi Arabia or China or Russia. That is unfortunately what moral relativism does. It makes hearts of stone and brains of mush. And the only way to rectify that is to return and repent to God, the creator and sustainer of all things, the source of morality and truth. And so there's a spiritual aspect, certainly, to all of this. Well, I just wanted to finish with that because I was thinking about that as he was speaking, but I hope you enjoyed this episode and enjoy this conversation, and we will be back here soon.