The Great Reset abolishes the US Constitution & English Bill of Rights

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) self proclaimed “Great Reset” is shaping the way governments around the world have responded to Covid-19. It sets the precedent for a “New Normal” where our Human Rights can be arbitrarily suspended for temporary or permanent states of emergency that are either real or engineered for that purpose.

The “Great” Reset is being organised on behalf of the United Nations, led by WEF Founder, Klaus Schwab. He has written the book on how Covid-19 can be taken advantage of to implement the “Great” Reset. This is why any debate about alternative approaches to solving the pandemic fall on deaf ears, whilst it continues to serve the implementation of their unpopular and unlawful agenda. This is why they are dragging out the pandemic far beyond any reasonable sell by date and World Bank documents indicate that the Covid-19 project may be planned to continue until March 2025. Their slogan is “Build Back Better”, but for whom?

This article sets out the Great Reset’s origins and legal framework. It also explains why ending lockdown and restoring liberty is not inconsistent with saving lives, because we believe that nutrient deficiencies are the primary factor in pandemics and seasonal colds. The article then concludes by explaining how the Great Reset knowingly pretends to overthrow Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the US Constitution and the fundamental principles of Common Law.

Stakeholder Capitalism

The “Great” Reset claims to replace Capitalism with Stakeholder Capitalism. This is the over-riding of national sovereignty with the technocratic rule of the United Nations. A global government not for and by the people, but for and by their state, corporate and NGO partners. The Corporate Partners of the UN are the sole Stakeholders of Stakeholder “Capitalism”.

This is the opposite of liberal democracy and free markets. You and your small business do not have a seat at the table, we are not consulted, we have no vote or veto. The UN’s idea of consent is that their decrees are adopted if no objection is received within a reasonable time and yet no methods are provided to object, unless of course if you happen to be one of their Corporate Stakeholders.

The current partnership between the WEF and United Nations demonstrates that global corporations, many of which are now larger than nations, are now firmly in the driving seat, with Communist China taking a leading role. This is an attempt by the WEF and DAVOS to position their corporate partners at the helm of Global Governance. Imagine Monsanto designing school lunch policy, Bill Gates heading up your Department of Health, General Motors running your Department of Transportation, Goldman Sachs running the Treasury. This is Stakeholder “Capitalism”. Completely absurd but they are giving it a go, meanwhile we are busy discussing a pandemic. This helps to explain why those questioning “the science” of the pandemic are ignored, because the response to this year’s seasonal illness is not and has not been about saving us from a virus.

Universal Declaration of “Human Rights”

The Great Reset is at its core a marketing strategy and propaganda decoy that aims to sanitise, re-package and distract from the real agenda, which is to implement the world order agreed in 1948 after WWII. It is set out in Article 29 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of “Human Rights” (1948) (UDHR). The Great Reset did not come from nowhere, as explained by Antony P Mueller.

Articles 1 to 28 of the Declaration describe positive rights that appear beneficial on the surface and that gave hope, particularly for countries that never had a constitution or bill of rights. UDHR rights can however be contradictory and many contain qualifications and derogations that make the it incompatible with Common Law and the English and US Constitutions. Any pretence of a liberal utopia are blown out of the water by UDHR Article 29.

UDHR Article 29(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

UDHR Article 29(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These two articles place the positive individual rights described in Articles 1 to 28 into context with a “community” that they declare we must live within or else be anti-socialist outlaws without rights. This is Socialism or Communitarianism. It ensures that individual rights will ultimately be cancelled out by the tyranny of the majority and the powerful when they become an irritation. In this case the Community is the United Nations and its Corporate Stakeholders.

UDHR Article 29(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The kicker is Article 29(3), which authorises the UN to suspend or remove ANY right or freedom and due process of law that is contrary to their purposes and principles that could of course change at any time, No mechanisms exist to check this power. Infamous Satanist, Aleister Crowley once proclaimed “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and so it has come to pass that Article 29(3) pretends to allow the United Nations to do with you as it wishes with this being the whole of the law.

Article 30 then outlaws any activity or act “aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein” including the “right and freedom” that the UN pretend to have to suspend your rights and freedoms. This Orwellian doublethink is particularly appropriate for the era given that George Orwell’s dystopian 1984 novel was also published in 1948.

You must comply with but have no control over the UN’s Stakeholder Community. Rather than create a world order suitable for the condition of the people, these corporate stakeholders lobby from a position of self interest. They work with governments to convince an unsuspecting public to accept policies that are not in their best interest by using manipulative applied behavioural psychology. For example using the UK Government’s Behavioural Insights Team that operates in over 30 countries, with manipulative psychological units embedded into government. In the UK much of the re-framing (brain washing) of public officials has been carried out by a seditious organisation called Common Purpose.

Is Stakeholder Capitalism the new Fascism?

The Fasces symbol of Benito Mussolini’s Fascism.

Stakeholder Capitalism is better described as Fascism. The Fasces, a symbol used by Benito Mussolini, is an axe formed of a bundle of sticks that represent corporations (Stakeholders) bound together by a strong corporatist state that together wield an axe head that represents the power over life and death and also liberty. This is the merger of corporate and state powers. Fascism was re-branded as public-private partnership or enterprise, or the Third Way after World War II made it unpopular. It is the political philosophy of UDHR Article 29 and the Stakeholder Capitalism of the “Great” Reset.

The Council of Europe and European Convention on Human Rights

The UK joined the Council of Europe In 1949. Their “European Social Charter and European Convention on Human Rights” adopted similar language to UDHR, implementing substantial qualifications and derogations to previously inviolable human rights in tune with UDHR, Article 29.

Some of the new “rights” are intentionally conflicted. For example the ancient right to not be arbitrarily killed by your government has become an absolute “right to life” that is being used during the pandemic to justify suspending all of your liberties to protect everybody from viral contagion.

Article 15 of the ECHR Charter is most important to lockdown. It allows the suspension of human rights during an “emergency”. It has been officially invoked in response to the “pandemic”. However, when you follow that link it is interesting to see that very few nations have chosen to satisfy their treaty obligation to notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of any derogations they have imposed. Is this because they fear backlash if such a notification were made public? Are the derogations “legal” under this treaty when no notifications have occurred?

The ECHR operates an international court of Human Rights to which many nations have delegated the arbitration of their liberties. The derogations that they allow and their complicity in the suspension of human rights during the “pandemic” should be a lesson to any country that seeks to have their liberties arbitrated by an unaccountable foreign power. Countries should withdraw from the Council of Europe and ECHR if they wish to protect their liberties.

Human Rights Act (1998)

Tony Blair finally adopted the ECHR into UK law with the Human Rights Act (1998). Whilst this did incorporate a number of derogations of human rights, Article 15 that allows suspension of human rights during emergencies was not adopted. This was due to a lively national debate with MPs threatening to vote against the Act if Article 15 was included. This could explain why the UK has relied on guidance and fixed penalty notices rather than more explicit lockdown laws, because the UK Human Rights Act has no emergency provisions. Sadly, the Human Rights Act must be abolished to protect our human rights.

International Covenant on “Civil and Political Rights) ICCPR (1976)

ICCPR Article 4. 1. “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the na tion (sic) and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, col our, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

Article 29 and the derogations of human rights in the ECHR were further expanded by ICCPR, Article 4, which came into force 23 March 1976. This, along with ECHR pretended to extend the UN tyranny franchise of Article 29(3) to nation states worldwide, providing them further opportunity to suspend any right or freedom, again, simply by declaring an emergency, so long as that state of emergency is in tune with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. This is why we hear for example about the Climate Emergency. Whenever you hear this terminology, know that the corporate “stakeholder” community is defining new boundaries beyond which you have no human rights. Breach your carbon quota or exit your coronavirus bubble and you become outlawed.

Covid-19 and the World Health Organisation

Regarding the Coronavirus “Pandemic”, WHO guidance states that nations should issue a State of Emergency when the WHO declare a Level 5 or 6 Pandemic, which is when there is “sustained community level outbreak”, thus triggering ECHR Article 15 and ICCPR Article 4, both of which pretend to allow the suspension of human rights during an emergency.

The WHO, in “Addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning”, page 36, discuss the absurd concept of “Valid limitations on human rights”. They pretend that ICCPR, Article 4.1 allows nations to “suspend most other civil and political rights” and that “Thus, compulsory measures such as vaccination, treatment, or isolation would be permitted,”.

WHO’s Level 5 and 6 guidance and Pandemic Preparedness Publications set out clearly the steps that are desired in terms of social distancing measures. These have been followed and then expanded upon by national governments. The Level 5 and 6 guidance was written for but not implemented during the 2009 Swine Flu “Pandemic”, which was confirmed by the European Council to have been a hoax. We were not consulted, nobody was made aware of these plans or the intention to roll them out worldwide in 2020, eleven years later. Whilst governments have gone further than WHO guidance with current unprecedented lockdowns, they have arguably not gone as far as the WHO propose is possible under international treaties.

Nowhere in the pandemic response guidance is there any attempt to provide evidence or risk assessment because these organisations are only accountable to themselves. Article 29 of the UN Charter proposes no method for scrutiny or accountability and ICCPR Article 4.1 merely has an equality clause, presumably ensuring that populations suffer an equal suspension of liberty during a state of emergency.

In the steps that have been taken, the “stakeholder” corporate agenda is clear. Work from home and social distancing forces The 4th Industrial Revolution that digitises and automates with artificial intelligence, providing the ability to “track and trace” all human activity. The digitisation of workflows previously carried out in real offices will facilitate automation, outsourcing and offshoring of previously safe local jobs to low wage countries with poor levels of pay, working conditions and terms of employment. Socialist style minimum basic income is then proposed for those in previously self sufficient employment who fall through the cracks.

Automation and AI are promoted with no recognition that eye watering levels of taxation and regulation of human labour that already place human work at an artificial competitive disadvantage to the output of robots that are not taxed or regulated. Pharmaceutical companies are also making incredible profits from the deregulation and sale of vaccines and other drugs and medical devices. Healthcare providers are seeing profits soar due to subsidies for covid cases and from being relieved of their duty to treat non-covid patients. These are just a few of the corporate agenda’s being implemented through the pandemic.

Pandemics are made inevitable by WHO nutritional guidelines

We at the Weston A. Price Foundation are concerned about the social distancing approach to epidemiology from a health perspective. We challenge the viral theory of contagion in our Summer Journal. We also believe that the solution is nourishing traditional diets, rich in the fat soluble vitamins A, D and K2, as promoted by Dr Weston A. Price. Recognition of this is being avoided because vitamin D, the key nutrient for seasonal illness, is produced from cholesterol and it is stored in and obtained from the saturated fats of free range animals, eggs, dairy and fish along with vitamins A and K2. The solution therefore requires a reversal of the contemporary demonisation of cholesterol and saturated fats and an end to the disastrous policy of prescribing cholesterol reducing statins. Seasonal illness is also associated with low levels of zinc, which is primarily found in shellfish and crustaceans, in particular oysters, but also in beef, lamb and ginger.

This is the opposite of the low fat, high carbohydrate diet being promoted by the World Health Organisation that we believe made widespread chronic disease and pandemics inevitable. Their “food pyramid” was originally designed by the United States Department of Agriculture to increase demand for the commodity products of American farmers, i.e. grain, in an early example of Stakeholder “Capitalism”. False health claims were then retrospectively applied. It is no surprise therefore to see Eat Forum and others working with WEF to remove animal products from our tables as part of the “Great” Reset. Why share turnover with farmers when you can make artificial meat in a factory, converting all that consumer spending into corporate profit? Our health unfortunately becomes collateral damage, which has also occurred with our liberties, as discussed below.

Comparing the Great Reset with English and American Law

Whilst the United Nations and global governance are the problem, our Common Law and Constitutions are the solution.

The most important first step towards the modern Common Law system that the United Nations is trying to abolish with the Great Reset was the English Assize of Clarendon (1166), This re-issued ancient Anglo-Saxon rights and customs during the reign of King Henry II. It established for the first time a national Common Law system of courts with Habeas corpus and trial by juries empowered to strike out judgements and laws that are unjust through Jury Nullification and rulings by judges. Court decisions create precedents that allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. It is not uncommon for Parliament in the UK or Congress in USA to reform or repeal laws in response to court judgements with there being a separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive.

This dynamic system, separation of powers and empowerment of the common man via fair trials and Juries allows for feedback to the governors from the governed to deliver a relatively organic, adaptive and stable system. This Common Law system is in direct conflict with the top down treaty system of the United Nations and the administrative law of continental Europe.

Magna Carta (1215)

It was violations of common law rights that caused England and USA to develop constitutions to codify certain rights that had been infringed. It is the inviolability of rights in lands with English Common Law that are under attack by the Great Reset because a global corporatist state cannot survive such constraints.

Chapter 39 “No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

 Chapter 40 “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

The Magna Carta of 1215 is the most famous attempt to make constitutional some of the principles of the Common Law. It is the first known law to have asserted that a King, at that time King John, was not above the law. The UN is therefore certainly not above the law in any Common Law jurisdiction. It included Chapters 39 and 40 that guaranteed forever the liberty, justice and due process of law that Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights pretends to abolish, along with its counterparts, the ECHR and ICCPR.

Magna Carta (1297)

The 1215 Magna Carta was a treaty between the Barons and the King. It was subsequently re-issued into Statute law in 1297 by King Edward I, proclaiming in the introductory text, which remains the law of the land, that:

“these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.”

And in Article 1 that “We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.”

Magna Carta (1297) Article 29 (XXIX) “Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.” states that: “NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor deal with him [condemn him,]but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Chapter 29 (XXIX) of the Magna Carta is the most important law still in force in the UK and possibly the world, it clearly makes arbitrary Coronavirus lockdowns unlawful. The United Nations will have been painfully aware of this when they passed their Universal Declaration of “Human Rights” in 1948 that seeks to abolish our constitutional rights and the common law when it suits them. Is this why the UDHR Article that pretends to abolish Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta is Article 29 of the UHDR? If so, this is an indication that the UN Charter and therefore the “Great” Reset are a declaration of war upon all Common Law jurisdictions including the Constitution of the United States of America, which embodies the spirit of Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) in the 14th Amendment.

Further evidence of intent is that Eleanor Roosevelt declared the UDHR to be an “international Magna Carta for people everywhere” and yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) remains the law of the land in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies and its principles remain the foundation of all common law countries.  The “Great Charter”, e.g. Magna Carta was confirmed by Chapter VII of the Petition of Rights (1627), which remains law in the UK.

Magna Carta was confirmed to be retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007) and the whole of Ireland has its own Magna Carta Hiberniae (1216) that was also retained. It arguably remains law in Canada and Australia and remains on the statute book in New Zealand.

US Constitution, 14th Amendment

“,,, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) is reflected in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Magna Carta includes a similar equal protection clause where it states that justice or right will not be denied or deferred to any man. This attack and declaration of war on the Magna Carta is therefore also a direct attack on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Liberty of Subjects and Due Process of Law

The road was not always smooth and grievances still occurred with various attempts subsequently made to reinforce and codify the liberties of Subjects. For example, the Liberty of Subjects Act (1354) and Observance of Due Process Act (1368) signed into law by King Edward III, both of which remain law in the UK today. They further reinforce protection of general liberties and due process. In particular, and relevant to Article 29 of the UN Declaration and all UN treaties that pretend to be able to suspend liberty and due process, the 1368 Observance of Due Process Act made Constitutional the ancient Anglo Saxon custom, that:

“if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary (of due process of law), it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error”.

Therefore, any treaty, enacted or imposed upon a Common Law jurisdiction, certainly in the UK, that pretends to be able to suspend due process of law can be deemed null and void, not only henceforth but also retroactively. This is an unfamiliar principle for many places that are not Common Law jurisdictions and this helps explain the hatred that is often expressed towards the Anglo Saxon customs, laws and peoples who are not accustomed to administrative, technocratic governance and derogations of their liberties. Therefore those UN treaties that suspend our rights and due process of law are “void in the law” and should be “holden for Error”.

English Bill of Rights and the US Constitution

England suffered a Civil War following tyrannous Stuart rule that saw the Petition of Rights (1627) with King Charles loosing his head in 1649 after failing to comply. Finally, during the Glorious English Revolution, England produced the jewel in its the crown, the English Bill of Rights (1688), which established today’s Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy that remains in full force to this day. Its clauses are similar to the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution.

Many Articles of the Bill of Rights have been contravened by the Coronavirus Regulations including:

  • Articles 1 & 2 with the imposition and suspension of laws by decree. These English articles are reflected in the Article II of the US Constitution that requires the President to ensure “that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
  • Article 3 of the Bill of Rights and Chapter 1 Magna Carta (1297) have been breached regarding the unlawful state regulation and suspension of church activities, which reflect how the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prevents state interference with the free exercise of religion.
  • Article 5 has been breached regarding commitments and prosecutions for political speech, protest, assembly and limitations on freedom of the Press with online censorship “That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.” This right to the freedom of political speech is reflected in and expanded by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
  • Article 6 has been breached regarding deployment of the military domestically, both on the streets in in cyberspace against the people without an Act of Parliament, with them and the Police enforcing restrictions that have not scrutinised or approved by Parliament. “That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.”
  • Article 9 has been breached by pretending that the majority of MPs could pass a law that suspended the individual right of all MPs to scrutinise and vote on restrictions on behalf of their Constituents. “That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached,, “
  • Articles 10 has arguably been breached regarding fixed penalty notices of up to £10,000 for assembling or running a business “That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.” & 12 “That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.” This clause is reflected in the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments.
  • Article 11 by suspending courts and Jury trials. “That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned”
  • Article 13 was arguably breached by causing infrequent six monthly Parliamentary scrutiny of Coronavirus regulations. “And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.”

It should not go un-noticed that these infringements in the UK have been by a “Tory” government, that at this time is anything but Conservative, because the English Bill of Rights was passed by the Whig Party against Tory Party opposition. The Whig Party became the Liberal Party of Adam Smith and the industrial revolution. They eventually dropped their liberal economic policies when they merged with the Social Democratic Party to form the Liberal Democrats in 1988.

The English Bill of Rights remains constitutional law in the UK and Scotland has its own version, the Claim of Rights (1689). Article 9 of the English Bill of Rights was recently upheld in the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 564. We suspect that the English Bill of Rights applied in Normandy and Saxony, France, because they were part of England in 1688.

The English Bill of Rights is often referred to as the Bill of Rights abroad. It was recently retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007) with three minor repeals. it remains in statute with constitutional status in Canada, Australia and also New Zealand, which recently bolstered its liberties with the New Zealand Bill of Rights (1990), that amongst other things prohibits forced medical procedures and medical experimentation. When using the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta in your defence in these places refer to Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615, which upheld Article 1 of the Bill of Rights at the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The Great Reset and Pandemic are Fraud and Treason

Most politicians and public officials are guilty of committing fraud and malfeasance in office when they read from a script a false lockdown narrative with them imposing unappraised measures handed down by the World Health Organisation. This renders them all vulnerable to private prosecution, no public official is above the law, except apparently if you run the UN or WHO. Further, any imposition of United Nations treaties that suspend liberty and due process of law within a Common Law jurisdiction is void and in error and those who seek to suspend the common law and constitution are committing sedition or treason.

The Treason Act (1351) of King Edward III remains in force in the UK as a amended by subsequent treason laws. It seeks to protect the Realm from enemies and from giving them aid and comfort in the Real or elsewhere, with similar wording to Article III of the US Constitution.

The death penalty was removed for Treason in the UK by Tony Blair’s government via s.38 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), though life imprisonment is retained. More concerning, Gordon Brown’s Government abolished the Common Law offences of Sedition and Seditious Libel in s.73 of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009). This is ironic given that the seditious fakery of Coronavirus deaths by the Coroner’s system during the pandemic. Did they know what was coming?

In the USA the President swears an Oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Similarly in the UK, the Monarch swears a Coronation Oath from the Coronation Oath Act (1688), that applies also to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in which they, on behalf of themselves and their governments “solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same.”. This makes it unconstitutional to attempt to overthrow the constitution and common law.

The English Bill of Rights goes further, making it unconstitutional for the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to be ruled by a foreign power such as the United Nations, it states:

“I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

“England appears to be the rock on which the revolutionary waves split and disperse and which starves the coming society even in the womb.” Karl Marx, (Cologne, December 31, 1848)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *