Although we do not want to perpetuate the Regimes sick agendas and propaganda, we must learn to identify treason against the people and look deeper into the facts and learn from history.
The Regime could be defined as anyone wanting to take away sovereignty, a foreign army/corporation or treasonous tyrant, or anyone making unlawful demands on a living man, or anyone other than the peoples elected democratic will of government imposing legislation/laws on the people. The tyrants of the regime have infiltrated our parliament, constitutions and establishments, and it becomes obvious their agenda is solely, to take away our constitution, our sovereignty, our freedom and our rights, with the ultimate goal of, enslavement by deception and to destroy our Commonwealth Realm. Unless you are on their side, you will be forever grateful for the existence of Magna Carta 1215 and the insight of our For-fathers, and the Barons and Knights of old.
We are becoming more aware of the deceptions, and the silent weapons being used against us now and throughout history, to enslave humanity, and to deceive the masses. Because of article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a Law to stand under to protect the rights and liberties of mankind. Other than the bible, there is nothing like Magna Carta 1215 to ensure equality, regulate society, identify treason and to hold individuals accountable by promoting common sense and common law among the people. Our Realm and Commonwealth structure is based on the peoples sovereignty and Magna Carta 1215, is the nemesis of the satanic cabal and regimes who thrive on war, greed and misfortune. Imagine if Magna Carta and Constitutions did not exist, we would have been totally enslaved centuries ago. It has shaped our society and the governmental structure we have to day, with Royalty and public servants who swear an oath to protect the people. Although that too is being destroyed.
The current Regime run close parallels to the Nazi war machine and Eugenics programs proliferated throughout the last war, and is occurring throughout the world. They are using Terrorism, Covid and Climate Change to entrap the world.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II and the inheritance of the British throne by her eldest son Charles, can either be viewed as a significant event holding the possibility of positive change, or the further manifestation of a beguiling and deceptive show of imperial/colonial self importance.
It’s too early to know which way the pendulum will swing, but well over half the British public still supports the existence of a monarchy and turns out in large numbers to express their approval of the theatre that remains an enduring part of the British love affair with tradition and the uncompromisingly expensive and pompous spectacle that surrounds the great majority of royal occasions.
King Charles III takes the throne at a time of great uncertainty and insecurity for all people, not just the population of Great Britain. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, is locked into a seemingly insoluble set of political and economic upheavals, all symptomatic of the dominant globalist regime of the past three/four decades.
Most of what provides the appearance of worldly significance for the UK comes from what is referred to as its ‘special relationship’ with the USA. This means letting US top brass decide the UK’s role in the geopolitical machinations of an international power struggle and then entering into collusion with UK officialdom over how this will be financed and spun by the global media.
The brutal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were largely Anglo-American planned and executed events taken up later by the European Union as a show of what is called ‘international solidarity’.
But recently a whole new dimension of power has imposed itself on the socio-economic and cultural pattern of the UK, Europe, North America and beyond. This power heist is that of the World Economic Forum (WEF) operating in full collaboration with the United Nations (especially its World Health Organisation) along with the corporate giants that dominate the global economy.
This is especially true when it comes to the machinations of the privately controlled and debt-creating central banking system that’s led by the secretive and almost unknown Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
Controversially, King Charles III has been revealed to be in very close collaboration with the WEF’s executive director Klaus Schwab. In 2020, Charles gave the opening address to the WEF Summit at Davos where The Great Reset was formally announced.
The Great Reset, let us remind ourselves, comprises ‘The Green New Deal’, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the UN’s seventeen ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ and the ‘Zero CO2’ global warming/climate change imperative that originated at the Club of Rome, itself an active participant in this small cabal of ‘hidden government’ which seeks total domination of global affairs and global wealth.
The vast majority of the public have no idea that their new king appears to support the imposition of The Great Reset, which according to Klaus Schwab, involves merging human beings into digitally controlled ‘trans-human’ cyborgs that will represent ‘a great advancement’ of civilisation here on Earth. Indeed, Schwab’s chief advisor, Yuval Noah Harari, recently stated “We will create non-organic humans … we will do better than God”.
As Prince, Charles made a name for himself as an upholder of environmental causes, traditional architecture and organic farming. How is it possible that he could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Klaus Schwab giving support to his widely stated claim that, as part of The Great Reset, the human race will have to live on a diet of petri-dish propagated laboratory foods and processed insects? Not to mention Schwab’s now famous declaration that under The Great Reset “You will own nothing, and will be happy”.
Many see Charles as having a broadly humanitarian outlook and a certain ease with working class people and farmers. But, as a stated supporter of The Green New Deal, he is putting his weight behind the end of independent family farming by introducing in its place sterile robotic agricultural mechanisms, synthetic laboratory foods and ‘rewilded’ countryside, likely offering shooting and hunting opportunities for the privileged, but little artisan or useful silvicultural activity for those skilled people who traditionally provide the stewardship of our countryside and rural communities.
The new king was schooled in the ‘environmental sustainability’ movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Leading non-governmental figureheads of this movement adopted an elitist view on how to manage the resource base to counteract so-called ‘global warming’. They believed in the false science of the government-backed International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its wholly contrived rhetoric that global warming is the result of excessive CO2 production of industrial nations and that only a major cut back in the use of fossil fuel could ‘save the planet’.
This belief is the basis of the WEF’s entire policy agenda, including achieving ‘Zero CO2’ by 2040.
Stopping global warming is the excuse for collapsing the present economy and shifting all energy production into a fake green programme of centralised and corporate owned ‘alternative’ power sources, drawing heavily on scarce finite resources of rare minerals and use of high energy demanding metals for the construction of large scale wind and photovoltaic energy farms.
Could Charles, famed for his support of organic agriculture, really be in support of the WEF’s plan to subject the general public to a diet of insects, cultured fake meat and dairy products to replace real food by 2030? Is he so high-tech appeased to believe in the proclamation by Schwab that “At the end, what the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological bodies.”
As Charles takes the throne an extraordinary clash of powers are playing out their end game agenda. On the one hand, the vast corporate global power matrix is backing a frighteningly mechanistic, digital and algorithmically controlled future. A future dominated by weaponised 5, 6 and 7G electromagnetic wave pulses powering control grid based ‘smart cities’ to be inhabited by disenfranchised country dwellers.
On the other hand, a new wave of awareness is rising which holds Man as sacred and his environment as a priceless gift in need of a whole new form of benign and common sense stewardship that contains the true and human-scale values of real ecology.
King Charles will swear his Coronation Oath on his official day of inauguration. His mother did the same at her Coronation in 1953. This oath states that the King will remain loyal to protecting the well-being and safety of his subjects and to guard the independent sovereignty of the nation.
His mother, for whatever reason, failed the citizens of Great Britain in this respect. She sold out to the globalists and supranational authority of the European Union.
UK citizens have clawed back one of these losses. Will King Charles III be true to his Coronation Oath? Will the rulings of 1215 Magna Carta re-emerge from their present obscurity and be proclaimed as the foundation for the future of the British Isles? Will the never-revoked constitutional Common Law of the people rise up to force the lawless elite cabal off their Masonic pedestals of power?
Perhaps the people of Great Britain will finally wake up to the fact that the royal chimera played out daily on their TV screens is nothing but a tool of simple deception that’s designed to soften and obscure the stark realities of a world governed by fascist sentiments and an advanced array of high-tech weaponry for the imposition of the digital hypnosis of the masses.
Whichever way it goes, ‘waking up’ remains the highest imperative and we, the people, need to recognise—and act on—our rightful and lawful authority to lead, and not leave it to the unelected and unaccountable masters of pomp and spin.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside and Co-founder of the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology HARE. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind—Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is strongly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
Absolute Zero is the amount of freedom and quality of life and enjoyment we will experience in 2050 if this despotic plan goes ahead. This is all part of the EU UN WHO Agenda 21 2030 2050 to remove our sovereign freedoms, liberties and rights and to dictate our lives.
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?
Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.
In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.
This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.
For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
The phrase ‘modern slavery’ would ordinarily bring a person to imagine a child in shackles in some faraway land. However, the reality is far more complex and closer to home. It is a phrase that has gained traction in international political discourse, promoted into the spotlight through the work of organisations such as the Walk Free Foundation and the International Labour Organisation. Despite its newfound fame, the phrase’s true meaning and its practical application remains unknown to many. In truth, the phrase ‘modern slavery’ is an umbrella term which includes various forms of exploitation such as slavery, forced labour, human trafficking, child exploitation, slavery-like practices and servitude.[1]
Sadly, while we may like to associate slavery with the past, modern slavery is ever-present and can be seen all over the world. There has been a reintroduction of the slave trade by ISIS, who trade Yazidi women in Syria and Iraq as sexual slaves.[2] In Australia, a couple has recently been jailed for holding a woman as a slave for eight years.[3] In addition, the Walk Free foundation has declared that 40.3 million people are victims of modern slavery.[4] Clearly, the phrase still has a place in the present. However, there has been a recent pivot in attention towards the business landscape, which requires us to re-imagine the preconception of a faraway child in shackles. The links between big brands and modern slavery, especially forced labour, have been brought into the spotlight. Events like the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013, which killed 1,138 workers in Bangladesh who were producing materials for some of the best known labels,[5] have revealed the importance of assessing all levels of global supply chains for malpractice.[6] But in a world where corporations reign supreme, how can we expect them to hold themselves accountable? The answer: we cannot. That is where the law needs to step in.
There has been some progress made by Australia in this regard. After the UK enacted the Modern Slavery Act2015,[7] Australia followed suit with the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (‘Commonwealth Act’).[8] It should be noted that this legislation does not appear to define what modern slavery is; instead, it refers to several international conventions, as well as the Commonwealth Criminal Code1995 (Cth) which detail offences such as trafficking.[9] This goes to show how the term itself has come to encompass a number of different exploitative practices, rather than having a concrete legal definition of its own.
The substance of the legislation is focused on a business-led approach to controlling modern slavery. The Commonwealth Act makes two main changes. Firstly, it states that entities with a consolidated annual income over $100 million are ‘reporting entities’, as long as they are an Australian entity which carries on its business within Australia.[10] These entities are required to create a ‘modern slavery statement’ which covers the criteria under s 16 of the Commonwealth Act.[11] This includes reporting on the risks of modern slavery within the entity’s operations, as well as any efforts taken to combat this. Other entities may also voluntarily submit statements even if they do not meet the income threshold.[12] Secondly, the Commonwealth Act establishes a Modern Slavery Statements Register, which is run by the Australian Border Force, where all statements must be registered to allow for public access.[13] This can be contrasted with the approach taken by the UK initiative, where statements need to be made available by each entity.[14]
On the plus side, this allows the phrase ‘modern slavery’ to add the punch that is desired. Companies are forced to lay bare any blights in their supply chain, and the transparency of the register allows consumers to access this information. Additionally, the government can name and shame the entities that do not adhere to this requirement— which will further encourage compliance.[15] Nonetheless, companies are ultimately not bound to lodge their statements, because the legislation expressly removes any civil or criminal penalties which may have otherwise flowed from such an omission.[16] Therefore, it is left up to businesses and corporations to comply; each having to take the initiative to look into their own supply chains to determine how they may act to eradicate any form of modern slavery present. This may seem like the government is pulling their punches when it comes to regulating businesses, and instead depending on rhetoric and a ‘woke’ society to pull corporations into line. Here we see further indications of a global arena where corporations can do as they wish, with minimal government intervention.
However, there is hope for the future. The NSW government introduced its own Modern Slavery Act2018 (NSW) (‘NSW Act’) which is not yet in force.[17] To avoid any constitutional conflict with the Commonwealth Act, this applies to entities which report a revenue between $50 million and $100 million. There is one fundamental difference which presents the NSW Act as a stronger front. Rather than simply allowing the minister to publicly name and shame non-compliant companies, as the Commonwealth Act does, the NSW Act imposes active punishment. Companies face a penalty of up to $1.1 million if they fail to prepare and publish a modern slavery statement, or provide false and misleading information in this respect.[18] This presents an important step forward in the fight against modern slavery, since it goes beyond mere rhetoric and creates a legal obligation for businesses to prevent exploitative practices within their supply chains. The Commonwealth Act is also up for a review in 2021, and it is possible that greater enforcement mechanisms will be implemented.[19]
There are also positive signs if we consider an international lens. The second draft of the Treaty on Human Rights and Business has been discussed by the United Nations Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. If this treaty comes into force, it will become a legally binding document which will promote further state regulation into the activities of businesses.[20] Furthermore, this treaty promotes due diligence on human rights which appears to expand beyond modern slavery— requiring businesses to assess a broader range of impacts, such as environmental footprints.[21] Looking elsewhere, Canada is seeking to introduce legislation which will impose a duty of care on businesses to not only report modern slavery present in their supply chains, but also take active steps to prevent it. This will include expansive investigative powers and large fines for non-compliance.[22] In addition, Germany has passed the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act 2021 which creates obligations for companies to assess, document and prevent against human rights violations that occur in their supply chains. Importantly, this can be enforced through penalties.[23]
Therefore, it is clear the world is starting to notice that the shackles we imagine when we hear the phrase ‘modern slavery’ are more complexly connected than we would think. Indeed, they are linked to businesses that we interact with every day. The magnitude of this connection is why it is essential that supply chains are kept transparent, and corporations are held accountable for exploiting people all over the world. Hopefully, with more legislation and regulation in this growing area, the shackles will eventually be broken.
Image: Skill Cast
References:
[1] Nicola Piper, Marie Segrave and Rebecca Napier-Moore, ‘Editorial: What’s in a name? Distinguishing forced labour, trafficking and slavery’ (2015) (5) Anti-trafficking review 1.
[2] Samar El-Masri, ‘Prosecuting ISIS for the sexual slavery of the Yazidi women and girls’ (2018) 22(8) The International Journal of Human Rights 1047, 1047-1048.
[18] Standing Committee on Social Issues 2020, ‘Modern Slavery Act 2018 and associated matters’, report 56.
[19] Commonwealth Act Act 2018 (Cth) s 24.
[20] UN Open-ended Intergovernmental working group on transitional corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, 46th sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc A/HRC/46/73 (22 February – 19 March 2021).
[21] Legally Binding Instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises second revised draft 2020 (not yet in force) arts 6.1 and 6.3.
Malinthi Mallawa is a third year Law/Arts student majoring in Human Rights. She is part of the Progressive Law Network and is a Paralegal at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. She is very interested in international human rights law and how it can be used domestically to further social justice initiatives. Having recently completed some studies in Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, this is an area that she finds particularly
No Privacy, No Property: The World in 2030 According to the WEF
12/08/2020 Antony P. Mueller https://mises.org/wire/no-privacy-no-property-world-2030-according-wef
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control. Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.
Eight Predictions
Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns.
According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.
If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment.
In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
Meat consumption will be minimized.
Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
Western values will be tested to the breaking point..
Beyond Privacy and Property
In a publication for the World Economic Forum, the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken, who had served as her country’s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property. In “Welcome to 2030,” she envisions a world where “I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” By 2030, so says her scenario, shopping and owning have become obsolete, because everything that once was a product is now a service.
In this idyllic new world of hers, people have free access to transportation, accommodation, food, “and all the things we need in our daily lives.” As these things will become free of charge, “it ended up not making sense for us to own much.” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent, “because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.” A person’s living room, for example, will be used for business meetings when one is absent. Concerns like “lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment” are things of the past. The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.”
Ecological Paradise
In her 2019 contribution to the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “if we win the war on climate change.” By 2030, when CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced, people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “will be a rare sight” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today. Because of the shift from buying goods to using services, the need to have money will vanish, because people will spend less and less on goods. Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow.
For the future, Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles. Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians. By 2030, agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products. The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again.
Fabricating Social Consent
How can people be brought to accept such a system? The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income. The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases. Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments, a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible. Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality. The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life.
Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person into a godlike superman, the promise of a “universal basic income” is highly attractive, particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy. Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor.
To make it economically viable, the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences. The technical procedures of the money transfer from the state will be used to promote the cashless society. With the digitization of all monetary transactions, each individual purchase will be registered. As a consequence, the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money. A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted.
Who Will Be the Rulers?
The World Economic Forum is silent about the question of who will rule in this new world.
There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent. Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats, what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables? What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman? Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few?
Not being swayed away by the utopian promises, a sober assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world, there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “unemployable,” “feeble minded,” and “ill bred.” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics, which as a technique is now called “genetic engineering” and as a movement is named “transhumanism,” a term coined by Julian Huxley, the first director of the UNESCO.
The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world. The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism. Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems. Therefore, we need more free markets and less state planning. The world is getting greener and a fall in the growth rate of the world population is already underway. These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets.
Conclusion
The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.
This is the Petition to Prince Charles prior to his Coronation to remind him of his Constitutional duty to protect the Common Law Constitution and the Sovereignty of the Realm. By The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology (HARE) Common Law Constitution.Org
His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, The Earl Marshal The House of Lords LONDON SW1A 0PW 24th February 2023
Dear Duke of Norfolk, A Royal Retraction is now required for the Coronation Oath to be taken
We, the undersigned, make this urgent and open approach to you in your formal position as the Earl Marshal esponsible for the planning and coordination of the forthcoming Coronation of King Charles III. We write not as Republicans but as loyal and well researched Constitutional Monarchists who fear very much the direction that our democracy is now being taken. His Majesty is to be crowned in Westminster Abbey this May as our ‘first among equals’, confirmed with the onerous and overriding responsibility of protecting his fellow sovereigns from tyranny, oppression and injustice throughout the period of his reign. To ratify this formally, the King will swear and then sign his Coronation Oath in Westminster Abbey before God and his fellow sovereigns. This will confirm that he will rule according to the ancient ‘laws and customs’ that make up the Law of the Land (Legem Terrae – the Customary Common Law) which, for England and Wales, is our ancient Common Law Constitution that was confirmed in 1215 by the Great Charter (Magna Carta). As constitutional researchers of many years standing, we are fully conversant with the effective and inalienable protection that is rendered by our tried and tested Common Law Constitution. The Law of the Land takes absolute precedence over any statutory legislation that has been passed by Parliament, especially if that legislation is contrary to the fundamental principles and the effective protection that is offered by Common Law. Unless the people of England and Wales wish to experience government overreach that could lay the foundations of outright tyranny, common sense dictates that Parliament must never be allowed to write itself into constitutional authority. To understand the full ramifications of having a fully-fledged Common Law Constitution, we will take this opportunity to remind Your Grace of two of the essential responsibilities a Monarch has:
His Majesty must ensure that all trials involve a randomly selected Jury of the defendant’s peers that judges all aspects of the case, independently of legislation and the judiciary meaning that annulment can result. It is in this way, that people define their own liberties and govern themselves at all times.
His Majesty must use his constitutional right to withhold Royal Assent where proposed legislation would be violating the liberties of the people or be infringing constitutional laws and customs. These two fundamental duties of His Majesty the King should provide a double-lock safeguard against any future encroachment of tyranny. However, it is now becoming clearer by the day that both of these safeguards have been completely overlooked by previous Monarchs, including, it has to be said, the late Queen Elizabeth II. During the whole of Her Majesty’s long reign, in complete contradiction to Article 39 of Mana Carta (which has not and can never be repealed by Parliament), unlawful trials were taking place without Juries. Where trials did take place with Juries, the Jurors were not permitted complete independence as is required by our Common Law Constitution. Never once did Her Majesty refuse to give Royal Assent despite very clear unconstitutional moves being made by Parliament to undermine the very sovereignty and fabric of the British nation. As His Majesty’s reign begins, it would appear that there are no plans to address this unconstitutional state of affairs and this is despite the invocation of Article 61 of the 1215 Great Charter by concerned peers back in 2001. To this day there has never been any form of redress for that quite lawful invocation to challenge clear government overreach. Redress would include, but not be limited to, the expunging of all statutes that are out of alignment with our Common Law Constitution. Indeed, to the contrary, King Charles has warmly endorsed, perhaps unwittingly, a global initiative by an organisation that is both unelected and entirely unbound by any oath of service to the people of this country. For, on June 3rd 2020, the King, as the then Prince of Wales, helped to launch publicly the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. This is the brainchild of Klaus Schwab who set up this privately run global think-tank that recruits the world’s wealthiest entrepreneurs and technocrats whilst grooming and placing his ‘young global leaders’ to influence the world’s political channels. Meeting annually in Davos and elsewhere, these unelected and unaccountable ‘visionaries of the future’ purport to direct the lives of all the peoples of the world. Working alongside the privately controlled and usury-practising central banking system led by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the World Economic Forum (WEF) is now overseeing extreme social engineering to hollow out sovereign nations from within in order to bring them to the point of complete moral collapse and meek compliance, especially when it comes to sowing the seeds of deliberate confusion and doubt in young minds. This all has the potential to take humanity towards a very dark place indeed, involving complete digital enslavement and the physical ockdown of entire communities and countries. At the same time, ‘bad science’, to quote the late and sorely-missed Professor David Bellamy, is being hyped up by multi-billionaire-funded universities to justify this ‘Great Reset’. They are using bogus ‘climate change’ modelling to take us towards a Net Zero carbon-free economy where we will experience complete state
control over our everyday lives involving among other things, their planned ’15 minute cities’. Any proper scientific debate has been deliberately shut down by the mainstream media and people are not being told that CO2, which accounts for only 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, is in fact the ‘Gas of Life’. Real science actually says that we need more CO2 not less! Our freedoms will be further put in jeopardy by the myriad of digital traps that are currently being laid: for example, the ‘internet of things’, the ‘internet of bodies’ and ‘transhumanism’ – that is the physical linking of the human body to the digital world. It is proposed that we will have Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) which will be combined with invasive and detailed Social Credit Schemes that use advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI). Whether in our home, on the streets or in our workplace we will all be monitored on a daily basis by the state using SMART 5G/6G technologies and advanced facial recognition software. Our capacity to make independent decisions for ourselves, including the right to travel, will be diminished considerably, if not altogether. Our ability to spend our state-provided digital money or tokens in an otherwise cashless society will be determined by our ‘carbon footprint’ and our loyalty, acceptance and ‘good behaviour’ towards the ‘state’ and what it now stands for. Everything that George Orwell warned us about is now starting to happen. When it comes to the actual roll-out of this encroaching nightmare, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is already leading the way as it sets out to digitally enslave all of China with a comprehensive and all-pervading CBDC and Social Credit System ⎯ a blueprint that Klaus Schwab and his WEF team have actually been working on with the CCP for some years. And please remember, Your Grace, that this is all being done on the premise of ‘saving the planet’ from a gas that actually gives life to all living creatures on Earth. But apparently, it is not all bad news. The all-seeing and all-knowing state will allow us to invest in the digital Metaverse so that we can all enjoy and escape to a very different ‘reality’ from the one that the ‘globalists’ are now working to create for us. His Majesty, to his enormous credit, has a high profile in calling for the tackling of pollution, increasing biodiversity, supporting rural economies and protecting our vulnerable eco-systems. The ideas of the WEF are deliberately presented so as to appear to provide solutions to many of his Majesty’s legitimate environmental concerns. However, the level of control proposed presents an enormous risk to our liberties, the main protection against which is to shore up our national sovereignty under our ancient Common Law Constitution. The country looks to His Majesty for this protection. What is now emerging as a result of the British Establishment’s support for and endorsement of these external policies is a technocracy about which the British people have neither been consulted nor for which they have voted. This is unlawful under our Constitution. If this state of affairs is permitted to continue there is a risk that our ancient Common Law Constitution and our great nation will be completely destroyed. In order that the people can feel sure that they have His Majesty’s protection, common sense decrees that there now must be a comprehensive and public Royal Retraction by His Majesty to end, formally, his commitment to the WEF and its planned Great Reset; this to include the rescinding of the 2006 honour endowed on Klaus Schwab by the late Queen. It would seem, Your Grace, that only then would His Majesty be in a position to recite and sign his Coronation Oath to uphold our ancient laws and customs. Lastly, as with our ancient Common Law Constitution that was drawn up by our forebears and later confirmed by the Great Charter of 1215, this Royal Retraction must contain a solemn commitment that the King and al future monarchs will continue to uphold good governance according to the same constitutional principles. This must be a statement in the form of a Royal Constitutional Document signed personally by His Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in front of the privy councillors and invited lay witnesses. Only then can His Majesty take the Coronation Oath before God with a truly clear conscience Your Grace, this is an extremely serious situation that we all find ourselves in and a massive constitutional crisis will emerge if His Majesty takes the Coronation Oath without having first signed and sealed a Royal Retraction to negate his erroneous support for what is being planned by the World Economic Forum.
Yours sincerely Justin Walker Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology (HARE) https://hardwickalliance.org/people-vs-globalists/ William Keyte CommonLawConstitution.org https://www.commonlawconstitution.org
