The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) “Great Reset” is the real reason behind the way that governments have responded to Covid-19. It 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, presenting us a so called “New Normal”. 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 nutritional deficiencies are the primary factor in pandemics. The article then concludes by explains 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.
Rather than lock people down, we advocate identifying vulnerable groups, testing for nutritional and general health status, then spend the summer preparing people for seasonal illnesses like coronavirus and Influenza. This also requires a fundamental change in general nutritional guidelines.
The Great Reset claims to replace Capitalism with Stakeholder Capitalism. This is the over-riding of national sovereignty by United Nations global governance, for and by their state, corporate and NGO partners, who 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 push by WEF demonstrates that global corporations, many of which are larger now than nations, are now firmly in the driving seat, with Communist China taking a leading role. This is also an attempt by the WEF and DAVOS to position their corporate partners at the helm of Global Governance. Imagine Monsanto designing school lunches, Bill Gates providing your healthcare, General Motors designing your transportation policies and Goldman Sachs designing your financial system. Completely absurd but they are giving it a go; meanwhile, we are busy discussing a pandemic.
The Great Reset is also a marketing strategy and propaganda decoy that aims to sanitise, re-package, re-market and distract from the real agenda, which is to implement the world order that was set out in Article 29 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of “Human Rights” (UDHR) back in 1948. The Great Reset did not come from nowhere as discussed by Antony P Mueller of the Mises Institute.
Articles 1 to 28 of the Declaration provide positive rights that appear beneficial on the surface and that gave hope, particularly for countries that never had a constitution or bill of rights. However, 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 ensures that individual rights will ultimately be cancelled out by the tyranny of the majority and the powerful when the exercise of those rights becomes an irritation. In this case, the Community is the United Nations and its State, Corporate & NGO Partners. 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 naturally lobby from a position of self interest, using marketing techniques and applied behavioural psychology, such as from the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, to sell us policies that really are not in our best interests.
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 presumably due process of law that is contrary to their purposes and principles, which could of course change with the wind, with no mechanisms in place of any kind to check that power. They can simply do with you what they like, when they like.
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” for the UN 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.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (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, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”
Article 29 was expanded upon by ICCPR, Article 4, which came into force on 23 March 1976, around about the time that the English Constitution was removed from schools, Bar exams for Solicitors and training for Police Constables. This pretended to extend the UN tyranny franchise of Article 29(3) to nation states, providing them opportunity to suspend any right or freedom 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.
Stakeholder Capitalism is better described as Fascism. The Fasces was the symbol used by Benito Mussolini. It was a very popular idea during the 1930s and 1940s. The Fasces symbol is an axe formed of a bundle of sticks that represent corporations 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 the Third Way after World War II made it unpopular, with this arguably being the philosophy of the UDHR Article 29 and the “Great” Reset.
Regarding the alleged 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 ICCPR Article 4. 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 this 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”. 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 in their interpretation of ICCPR Article 4.1.
The European Council investigated the WHO following the 2009 Swine Flu “Pandemic”, in particular for the influence of pharmaceutical companies with their report declaring that “National governments, WHO, and EU agencies had all been guilty of actions that led to a waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”
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. In the steps that have been taken, the “stakeholder” corporate agenda is clear. For example, work from home forces automation and the 4th industrial revolution, which increases certain corporate profit. The digitisation of workflows previously carried out in real offices will facilitate outsourcing and offshoring of previously safe local jobs to low wage countries with poor levels of pay, working conditions and terms of employment, with Socialist style minimum basic income proposed for those in previously self sufficient countries who fall through the cracks. Automation is promoted with no recognition that eye watering levels of taxation and regulation of human labour already places human work at an artificial competitive disadvantage to robots and AI.
We at the Weston A. Price Foundation are concerned about the social distancing approach to epidemiology from a health perspective because we 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 found in the saturated fats of free range animals, eggs, dairy and fish. 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.
This approach is the opposite of the low fat, high carbohydrate diet being promoted by the World Health Organisation that we believe made widespread chronic illness and pandemics inevitable in the first place. Their “food pyramid” was originally proposed by the United States Department of Agriculture primarily 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 removing 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.
Comparison with the English and United States Constitutions
The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were first unified on 12th July 927 by King Alfred the Great, making England the world’s oldest country in existence today, hence the unique importance of English law that forms the basis of US Law and all other Common Law Jurisdictions, founded upon individual liberty and due process of law, two things that the United Nations seek to arbitrarily abolish with Article 29(3) of their Charter.
The most important first step towards our modern Common Law system was the Assize of Clarendon (1166). This law was a re-issuance of ancient rights and customs during the reign of King Henry II that 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, with court decisions forming 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.
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. Common Law is the opposite of the top down administrative legal system of the United Nations that reflects the Napoleonic Code and Roman law of continental Europe. The last court of assize was quietly replaced by Crown Courts in England and Wales in 1972 just prior to adoption of the ICCPR and the UK joining the administrative European Union that lacks Common Law.
The other contrast is that in a Common Law jurisdiction, you can do anything that is not prohibited by law, whereas under administrative law you can only do that which is expressly authorised, hence the voluminous nature of EU laws and UN policies and treaties.
Magna Carta (1215)
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 codify some of the principles of the Common Law and the first known law to have asserted that a King, at that time King John, is not above the law. The UN is therefore certainly not above the law in any Common Law jurisdiction. It included Clauses 39 and 40 that guaranteed forever, liberty, justice and due process of law that Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights pretends to abolish.
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. 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 the Common Law when it suits them. Is this why the Article that pretends to abolish Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta is Article 29 of the Universal Declaration? If so, this is an indication that the UN Charter and therefore the “Great” Reset is 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).
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. It was confirmed to be retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007), and the whole of Ireland also has its own Magna Carta Hiberniae (1216). It arguably remains law in Canada and Australia and remains on the statute book in New Zealand. The United States Constitution is in compliance with Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta.
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 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. Therefore, those UN treaties that suspend our rights and due process of law are “void in the law” and should be “holden for Error”.
England did suffer a Civil War following tyrannous Stuart rule that saw the Petition of Rights (1627) with King Charles losing his head in 1649. 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 of the Bill of Rights Articles have been contravened by the Coronavirus Regulations including:
- Articles 1 & 2 with the imposition and suspension of laws by decree, which also contravenes Chapter IV the Act of Settlement 1701, which is also law in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
- Article 3 of the Bill of Rights and Chapter 1 Magna Carta (1297) regarding the unlawful state regulation and suspension of church activities.
- Article 5 regarding commitments and prosecutions for political speech, protest, assembly and limitations on freedom of the Press that seek to petition Her Majesty’s Government. “That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.”
- Article 6 regarding deployment of the military domestically, both on the streets in in cyberspace without an Act of Parliament, 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, by pretending that the majority of MPs could pass a law that suspended the individual right of all MPs to scrutinise and vote on new restrictions on behalf of their Constituents. “That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached,, “
- Articles 10 “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.” by the promise of excessive fines and forfeitures before conviction, including £10,000 fines with no means test or method of appeal for amongst other things opening “non-essential” businesses or for organising “unauthorised” political rallies that should be protected by Article 5.
- Article 11 by suspending certain Jury trials. “That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned”
- Article 13 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.”
Ultimately, the general suspension of liberties and due process of law are contrary to Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta, which made constitutional the Common Law principle that you should be able to do whatever you want so long as it is not expressly and very specifically prohibited and so long as that prohibition is lawful and, with any commitment or prosecution that suspends your liberties being deemed lawful by a jury of your peers. Some are even proposing to cement that unlawful inversion of the law with Covid Passes and passports that will grant you freedoms you already had in exchange for frequent testing or vaccination.
It should not go unnoticed that these infringements have been by a “Tory” government, that at the moment 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.
Whilst Article 29 of the Magna Carta speaks of rights in general terms, the Petition of Rights and English Bill of Rights described and made constitutional specific rights as does the United States Constitution, all of which merely elaborate upon the general principles of liberty expressed by Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297). The English Bill of Rights remains constitutional law in the UK, and Scotland was given by England its own version, the Claim of Rights (1689). The English Bill of Rights was also retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007) with three minor sections removed.
The English Bill of Rights is often referred to as the Bill of Rights abroad, 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, which has occurred writ large with lockdown.
Article 29(3) of the Universal Declaration of “Human Rights is the specific clause that plunges a knife into the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights and United States Constitution by declaring in hostile terms that “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” It may not surprise you therefore that when you divide 29 by 3 you get 9.666 reccurring. Whether planned or by coincidence, finding the number of the beast in this clause is appropriate because infamous Satanist, Aleister Crowley, proclaimed “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” and so it has come to pass that Article 29(3) allows the United Nations to do as it wishes with this being the whole of the law.
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, given that the Great Reset seeks to overthrow our ancient, inviolable, unalienable customs, liberties, laws and constitutions. The Treason Act (1351) of King Edward II remains in force in the UK. It seeks to protect the Realm from enemies and from giving them aid and comfort in the Real or elsewhere, with similar wordings to Article III of the US Constitution.
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, which places a cloud over the UK’s previous membership of the European Union, 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)