Category Archives: Bill of Rights

Bill Gates, Depopulation, Coronavirus & Values

The coronavirus is all over the news, I don’t watch TV so I don’t have any fear.  I also know if my life is to end by a virus it will.  I know we are on journey’s and I don’t fear life.  The core issue is greed and public/private partnerships where companies are having control over decisions that impact humanity.

According to a friend, people are panicking, stocks are running low and it is causing all sorts of problems in global populations. I feel for the Chinese people whose lives have been turned upside down.  The problem of mass panic is not helped by the media coverage as fear and powerlessness grows.   

I did research into pandemics many years ago and whether Australia can respond to a problem and coordinate.  I wonder today why the research was commissioned? 

Coincidently, I have been sick overnight, which is rare for me.  I got some bug/virus. I threw up all night.  It felt like poison.  I sit here with a temperature, I can feel my kidney’s cleaning my blood as they are sore and my body aches and is exhausted.  Perhaps that was the birthday gift I gave to myself yesterday to raise my inner awareness of sickness at this time.  

I often get inspiration in my life. So this is the topic I feel to explore.  I would like to add in before I start that I actually contacted the Gates Foundation when in London when I was a Rotary Peace Scholar, I was given direct access as Rotary and Gates are working together. I was seeking support for my SPEAK UP award which is a Sustainability and Peace Encouragement Aware for Kids to Unite People.  I took this project to the top of Rotary.  It was to empower children to solve environmental problems and learn about peace (harmony).  Nothing happened.   I note Rotary is involved in vaccinations.  Rotarians may want to investigate this.   Ref. https://www.worldpeacefull.com/childrens-speak-up-award/

Another point relating to vaccines is The Australian Government campaign ‘No Jab, No Pay’, this was championed by News Limited a Rupert Murdoch company. This campaign uses the loss of benefits to influence vaccinations of children. This would impact the poor more and is clearly not about free choice as there is a negative consequence. There is an anti-vaccine lobby who believe vaccines cause autism. Autistic children have excellent mental skills but emotionally they are underdeveloped.  A little like the movie Rainman, living in their own worlds.

Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay

I have also been offered to work with the CSIRO where as a market analyst I was to market genetically modified organisations (GMOs).  That week a sculpture was given to my partner. It was metal with prongs all different sizes.  There was a twist at the end (DNA). It was at a time when I had $20 in my account.  I chose not to take the job (it was mine) as I did not want to participate in science that was profit driven and likely to cause greater harm to natural systems. so I said no.  
Ref. https://newspunch.com/study-links-gmos-to-cancer-kidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

One final point before we discuss coronavirus, is information coming out about iPhones, 5G and electromagnetic frequency microwaves (EMF) which is stated to lower sperm counts and it is being asserted it causes cancer  Ref: https://www.naturalhealth365.com/cell-phone-radiation-3138.html

Today I felt to look at the coronavirus as my sense of empathy is heightened when I am sick and to work out who is behind it.  

Firstly, I’d like to say what right does anyone have creating viruses? Nature rebalances without human intervention.  Where I am studying I walked past labs with the sign “Biosecurity”. Then I realised the weaponization of viruses.  This is the fusion of security and biological warfare.  I felt concern.

My first thought is the lack of ethics of our world leaders and business leaders with a single focused agenda to benefit the few over the many without any sense of the cost of intervening in natural processes that are finely tuned.  Some may say ‘playing God with life itself’.  It is an easy argument to refer to overpopulation given it is evident we have a large population on the planet.  It is noteworthy that 1% own 46% of the world’s assets, another issue that is not discussed in respect of economic systems rewarding the concentration of wealth.  The disproportionate power that accumulates to around 2,000 people. This gives a small group the power to change our world in their image without our permission. This planet has been circulating the sun for 4 billion years, human life has been here 1 minute to midnight. Yet we presume we know how to rebalance nature and human activity when we have not looked into our own discord which expresses in – greed, anger, war, jealousy, judgement, ruthlessness and power over others.  Nature constantly rebalances. This imbalance is behind credit creation so we all buy more of the things we don’t need. There is no discussion about marketing campaigns, media spin, rewarding those who accumulate material wealth, built in redundancy, excessive packaging, plastics, coal burning energy grids, IT industries and technocracy (non renewable products) and this constant focus on economic growth which is expanding the disruption in reality.  The focus is not on genuinely solving our psychological imbalance. Instead the focus is to shift the problem to the poorest people in the world or the so-called ‘enemies’ (range of labels) and the unquestioned pathology that has no issue with reducing population in civilian areas through warfare.  Crimes Against Humanity.

Paul Erlich is the American biologist who discussed population and is the alter boy used to justify murdering large numbers of people (genocide) for the greater good.  Ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

Many environmentalists may agree given their studies of species, boundaries, food supply, water, numbers, ecosphere’s etc.  Certainly, nature seeks to balance and species do die off when they are out of balance with natural homeostasis.  

However, the intent behind depopulation is not looking into our deeper imbalance as we are completely disconnected from nature, from living in harmony with the earth, from healthy human relationships and a cosmology which ensures we observe and respect the nature around us. Instead our focus is narrow,  our world becomes economics, jobs, families, technology but we have no language or words for the silent natural signals that rebalance our world in every moment. As the sum of the parts knows the whole. It is intelligent design not smart or clever.

Buckminster Fuller was a visionary who did not agree with the depopulation perspective but rather inventing system that harmonise with earth systems.  Here is his story and visions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

Those in leadership positions and authority are the most out of balance as the intent is profit maximisation not human health and happiness. The distortion is in making money. The profit intent changes or distorts what we see and how to deal with a human problem.  We have the ‘new rich who are specialised and made money from their pursuits, that does not make them wise stewards. Wisdom cannot be purchased, love is the driver of wisdom. They would not think to look at the discord and disharmony in their own mindsets.  It is in my view simplistic to regard depopulation as the solution for resource balance and life on earth.  Sir David Attenborough believes in depopulation  but I would say to him that when we get the conditions right (natural) we will not reproduce.  I didn’t have children as I followed my purpose.  I knew not to have children.  So learning to tune into nature is a clue.  The structural violence of inequality forms the foundation to excess births due to survival and customs. So education, empowerment of women, restoring reproductive rights. This bumps up against patriarchy and religion that wants women bare foot and pregnant.   Female inequality and poverty (devalue poor) all linked and it drills down to the imbalance between the masculine and feminine.  A core issue not discussed in this context. Many of those women giving birth to large families is a result of having no say over birth control and whose purpose is to be ‘mothers’ not equal members of the human family.  Men (group) need or expectation to control is another core problem where men won’t go there or call out ‘feminist’ to deflect from their sense of being out of control and their fear of the feminine.  Mother’s are powerful. 

Therefore, the poor do utilise their children to help them grow food, they use considerable energy for survival as that 1% at the very top control the resources. Property ownership is controlled by the wealthy and a unconscious belief they are bred to rule. There are unquestioned beliefs that drive the depopulation agenda, inequality and insecurity is at the centre. 

In the West we pay our way out of feelings of ‘need’ without any thought about where things come from and how life has its own abundance flow and natural timings.  

If we are to survive we need to completely change the way we think and venture deep into how we feel about life and what we truly want.  We require a cosmology that aligns humanity with earth systems. 

REAL HOPES program is one of those renewable values based framework’s that would guide wiser choices. Depopulation in my view is not going to do it. https://www.worldpeacefull.com/real-hope-program/a-new-model/

Other ideas can be found in my book:  
https://www.academia.edu/27265551/A_Fool_for_Peace_1_A_FOOL_FOR_PEACE_A_Fool_for_Peace_2  

The first article is about who owns the coronavirus.  Note it is from a Christian perspective.  I do not advocate to demonise people but to solve the problem. However, I am open to all voices.

The second one provides more information about the coronavirus patent and depopulation agenda’s.  The problem we face as citizens is that we don’t have the collective voice to be able to stop what is clearly not in humanity’s interests. We are losing our sense of community and looking out for each other, for what you do to another returns to the self.  Our world is connected but disconnected technologically, interestingly enough Bill Gates was the driver of these systems of control.

 

 

 

Bill GatesDepopulationVaccines

Bill Gates Funded the PIRBRIGHT Institute, Which Owns A Patent On Coronavirus; The CDC Owns The Strain Isolated From Humans

HAFJanuary 29, 2020Sponsored by Revcontent

Believe it or not, a coronavirus strain is a patented by the The Pirbright Institute, which is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Another strain, which was isolated from humans, is owned by the CDC.

The patent page for coronavirus explains that it “may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject,” suggesting that this is just another weaponized viral strain designed to sell more useless, deadly vaccines, while at the same time killing off a few thousand, or perhaps a few million, people.

A close look at the patent page also shows that the Pirbright Institute owns all sorts of other virus patents, including one for African swine fever virus, which is listed as a “vaccine.”

Bill Gates Coronavirus

It is thus no surprise that Bill Gates is a Pirbright Institute financial backer, seeing as how he’s one of the most aggressive, vaccine-pushing “philanthropists” on the planet.

Coronavirus Patent

And here is another patent for Coronavirus, isolated from humans — Patent US7220852B1 – CORONAVIRUS a.k.a. SARS. The patent was granted to the CDC and the “inventors” are all American:

C.i.a. Patent Us7220852b1 – Coronavirus Aka Sars

Patent US7220852B1 – CORONAVIRUS a.k.a. SARS

You can download the above patent HERE [.pdf].

The way this whole coronavirus situation is taking shape would seem to be exactly what Gates once proposed as a “solution” to the alleged problem of “overpopulation.”

At an infamous TED Talk, Gates explained that vaccines are one of the keys to reducing global population levels, and what better way to do that than to unleash patented coronavirus on the masses in order to later introduce a patented vaccine for it?

Bill and Melinda Gates hosted “Event 201” back in October, described as a “high-level pandemic exercise”

What’s further interesting is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation co-hosted a “high-level pandemic exercise” back in October that involved discussions about how “public / private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.”

Held in partnership with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum, this latest endeavor by Bill Gates is highly suspicious, to say the least, especially when considering that it was held just in time for the coronavirus outbreak.

As is usually the case with suspicious disease outbreaks that get the media and academia talking about new vaccines and public-private partnerships, Bill Gates’ fingerprints are almost always hiding in the background.

And this is exactly the case with coronaviruses, which could accomplish many of Gates’ expectations for the future, including mass depopulation, mass vaccination and mass consolidation of government power.

“These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society,” reads an announcement about “Event 201,” as they called it, or the meeting with Gates and his cronies from back in October.

“Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these pandemics becomes global – a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes ‘Event 201,’ would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.”

This reads like a predictive script for what we’re now seeing with coronavirus, as governments around the world scramble to “manage” this deadly outbreak with martial law, vaccine fast-tracking, quarantines and plenty of fear-mongering.

If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [the global population] by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent,” Gates is infamously quoted as saying about the true intent of his “humanitarian” efforts.

By Ethan Huff, Guest writer

Homeless Bill of Rights

In the public interest.

The Brighton & Hove Homeless Bill of Rights: Consultation

The Brighton & Hove Homeless Bill of Rights: Consultation

Brighton & Hove City Council is consulting on the adoption of the Homeless Bill of Rights. This page provides information to assist those responding. It is written by the Brighton & Hove Housing Coalition and the views expressed are those of the Coalition.

The full text of the Brighton & Hove Homeless Bill of Rights can be downloaded as a .pdf or as a .doc file.

In addition this page provides a detailed article by article commentary.

What is The Homeless Bill of Rights?

It was launched by FEANTSA (the European voluntary sector umbrella organization on homelessness) in November 2017. It has been adopted by seven European cities so far including Barcelona. (See https://www.feantsa.org/en/campaign/2017/11/21/homeless-bill-of-rights). The Labour Party Conference 2019 adopted Brighton’s version as party policy.

FEANTSA describes it as a compilation of basic rights drawn from European and International human rights law. By endorsing it, cities reaffirm their commitment to human rights which should guide all public actors towards tackling the root causes of poverty and homelessness.

It was launched in Brighton in October 2018 by the Brighton & Hove Housing Coalition, FEANTSA, and a British human rights organization called Just Fair. Many future Labour and Green councillors (and Robert Nemeth) were present and all three Brighton MPs sent in messages in support.

A petition calling on the Council to adopt it currently has about 2,600 signatures: . The petition was submitted to the full Council meeting on 25th July 2019; it received supportive speeches and was referred to the Housing Committee on 18th September.

What does it say?

Like other human rights declarations, it is a statement of principle for us to aspire to and work towards, rather than a legal instrument.

Article 1 is the international human right to a home. This document is not about normalising homelessness. That there are homeless people is already a breach of this right. It may seem strange to start with a right that we cannot at the moment deliver, but it is essential that it is stated at the beginning that our aspiration is to end homelessness.

Article 2 states that we should provide enough emergency accommodation and shelter, open to all, that no-one should be forced to sleep rough. This need not mean ignoring the national law relating to people without immigration status; simple life-preserving shelters can still legally be provided in the same way as under SWEP. The other articles make detailed, practical provisions for ensuring that homeless people are treated with the respect for human equality and dignity that is at the heart of human rights.

What is it for?

Fundamentally it is about a different attitude towards the homeless. For good and bad reasons, councils tend to see homeless people as a nuisance, to be cleared away as far as possible, or at best as a problem to be solved. The Homeless Bill of Rights is an attempt to change this, to put the dignity and humanity of homeless people at the heart of policy and practice.

Crisis: “Everybody In”

You will be familiar with the brilliantly ambitious and well-researched plan published by Crisis last year, “Everybody In”, which provides a detailed programme for ending homelessness in Great Britain. Its goals are fully aligned with those in the Homeless Bill of Rights. Like it, it is built around the belief that everyone should have – and is ready for – a safe, stable place to live, and it requires a response from government and local authorities that is without discrimination.

Chapter 4 of the report deals with the way that the homeless are stigmatised by the public and, in effect, sometimes by the sector. Extensive research by the Frameworks Institute on the most effective way of changing public attitudes found that it was to appeal to our shared humanity and connections as members of society, preventing us from thinking of homeless people as “other” or different. Two strategies are highlighted as being the most effective; one was human interdependence; the other was the use of moral human rights, that we all have the moral right to dignity and respect as part of our shared humanity. Please consider the ways that the adoption of the Homeless Bill of Rights, as well as being morally right in itself, may strongly contribute to this Council’s wish to help the homeless and to persuade the public to partake and share in this common effort to help our fellow human beings.

What are the criticisms?

It is said that Article 11, which among other things says that homeless people should not be criminalized just for begging, is contrary to the existing crime of begging in the Vagrancy Act 1824. The Vagrancy Act also makes it a crime to sleep rough; so arguably many of the articles are against its terms. However:

a)         the Homeless Bill of Rights is a statement of principle for us to aspire to and work towards; we should sign up to it even if we can’t implement it all at once – see Article 1, the right to housing.

b)         This early 19th century Act is highly controversial. It is Labour party and Green party policy to repeal it. There is a current campaign by Crisis, Homeless Link, St Mungos and many other homelessness charities to repeal it, and the government is to consult on the Act soon.

c)         Sussex Police have wide discretion on what crimes to pursue; they have chosen not to enforce the offence against rough sleeping in recent times.

It would be ample compliance with Article 11 for the Council to respond to the consultation and to indicate to its police partners its view on the matter.

It has been said that this document would give the homeless rights to housing and that this would mean they jumped the queue over those already waiting in emergency and temporary accommodation. That is absolutely not the case. The Homeless Bill of Rights includes people in temporary and emergency accommodation. It does not give homeless people more rights than everyone else – it seeks to make real for them the same rights that everyone else has.

Some people are very concerned about homeless people sleeping in tents, and issues of course can arise, different in each case. The Homeless Bill of Rights in no way stops the council from dealing with anti-social behaviour or safeguarding people. What it tries to prevent people from doing is treating homeless people as though they were as a whole a source of anti-social behaviour, or a threat. Like any equalities provision, it bans stereotyping; specifically, it demands respect for people living in a desperate situation.

If the Council adopts the Homeless Bill of Rights, what should happen?

The council often adopts petitions or statements that then go nowhere. We are not interested in virtue signalling. What we think the council should do, if it is wholeheartedly adopting the policy, is this:

  • For each committee whose work affects the homeless (most of them)
    • to commission a report reviewing all existing policies, practices and procedures that affect the homeless for compliance with the Homeless Bill of Rights, and
    • to commission a report making proposals for new policies that will work effectively towards making the council compliant.

This is where consultation and the help of the Council’s partners will be needed, and considerations of resources and timing come into play.

  • To change council procedures so that compliance with the Homeless Bill of Rights be included explicitly in the equalities assessment that every report dealing with the homeless must carry. Homelessness is not one of the statutory protected characteristics, but at this time of great and increasing homelessness, in this City of Sanctuary, it must be treated as if it is; and
  • To seek in all its relationships with its third sector or other partners to encourage and require where appropriate compliance with the Homeless Bill of Rights.

Finally, the Council is consulting on its Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategies for the next five years. We would like to see replies to the consultation urging that the principles of the Homeless Bill of Rights should be a golden thread running through the whole of these strategies, relevant to every word of them.

More Information

You are cordially invited to look around the site, which contains information regarding the campaign so far.