{"id":56348,"date":"2023-04-01T17:36:22","date_gmt":"2023-04-01T17:36:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/astheworldturns.org\/wdp\/?p=56348"},"modified":"2024-09-06T20:27:37","modified_gmt":"2024-09-06T20:27:37","slug":"the-fabian-society","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/astheworldturns.org\/wdp\/2023\/04\/01\/the-fabian-society\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fabian Society"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Written <\/span>by <\/span>@LepaDinis<\/a><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In 1884, the Fabian Society was formed by a group of elitists, for the purpose of ushering in a one world oligarchic collectivist state through a process known as Gradualism – a policy of gradual reform from within a system rather than sudden change or violent revolution.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This would become the basis for what is today called Fabian Socialism.<\/p>

The global financial elite operate very much in the shadows through a network of secretive and so-called \u2018think-tanks\u2019 such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, all with one common purpose, global governance by the elite. In the UK, one of the more well-known groups is the Fabian Society.<\/p>

The attempts to \u2018power grab\u2019 started as far back as 1609 when the House of Commons first tried their luck. They wrote to the House of Lords claiming to be the Knights, Burgess\u2019s and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying they would never accept the Commons as Barons and that without them (the Lords) they were not a true court. Next in 1667 the House of Commons told the House of Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten-year argument between both Houses ensued until in 1677 the House of Lords agreed not to amend any money bills. This was the start of the problems we have today. In 1714 Queen Anne died and King George I came to the Crown. He spoke no English and so unlike all previous Kings and Queens, he did not attend parliament or cabinet meetings. The government of the day in the Commons were left to do as they liked. King George II spent his entire reign complaining that his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom and that he was discouraged from attending parliament or cabinet meetings. We know that King George III fought back and in part reversed that trend. On the 8th March 1784, a vote was taken in Parliament and the King won the vote.<\/p>

When King George V came to the throne, following Edward VII\u2019s death, he was told by a government minister that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them unless he had the backing of a government minister! When the King accepted this, it was the final nail in the coffin of England. At the same time, Asquith put through the 1911 Parliament Act which purported to remove from the House of Lords their ability to reject a bill. So, we now have a situation where Asquith (a Fabian prime minister) had usurped the Royal Prerogative, a clear act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and a clear act of the subversion of the constitutional arrangements of Parliament.<\/p>

The 1911 Parliament Act was a clear case of High Treason against the Constitutional arrangements of Parliament at English Common Law.<\/p>

Similarly, the 1999 House of Lords Act which removed the hereditary Peers from their rightful place in Parliament is also High Treason. The Peers should have a constitutional right of personal audience with the Sovereign. This is intended to avoid the problem of “evil counsellors” keeping the Sovereign in ignorance of the people\u2019s grievances. If this were maintained, we may not be where we are today.<\/p>

Therefore, it can be seen that according to our Constitutional Law, every Parliament since 1911 has been an unlawful assembly & all laws passed since then are void under English Common Law. \u00a0Sovereignty theft by stealth. The fact they are still part of our British Common law is undeniable, Sir Edward Coke said, \u201cThe Royal Prerogative is part of the Personality of the Monarch and could not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament\u201d which the Law Lords Halbury and Jowitt agree. (Halbury\u2019s Laws, The Birth Right of the People of England \u2013 these are legal reference books of great prestige).<\/p>

Since the Assent is given under the regal \u2018Prerogative Power,\u2019 it is invalid if it is given to an unconstitutional act. Therefore, one can conclude that ALL of the bills that have been made law since 1911, which includes 1972 entry into Europe, and all that follows, together with the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Constitutional Reform Act, Equality Act and the Immigration Act ARE VOID.<\/p>

It is clear that our entry into the European Union is INVALID, ILLEGAL and against our Constitution. The security clause – Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 invocation following constitutional protocols on 23rd March 2001 – making it the ONLY LAW in affect-means We have to inform others of their Constitutional Duties under the Law. The Heath administration 1970-72 was clearly aware they were committing a serious crime as they used national security legislation to hide the documents from the people for 30 years FCO 30\/1048 is a file gleaned in 2002 from the public records office after it was hidden under the criminal 30-year rule.:<\/p>

https:\/\/www.nommeraadio.ee\/meedia\/pdf\/RRS\/Brittide%20petmine.pdf<\/a><\/p>

This proves that Edward Heath and his co-conspirators committed Sedition and High treason at common law. They were in breach of the act of supremacy 1559 which states control of our country must not be passed into foreign hands unless beaten in outright war. They knew that signing us up to the EU would erode our sovereignty. They are all in their positions illegitimately and fraudulently due to the ignorance of the masses of the invocation of Article 61 – making it the ONLY law in affect.<\/p>

\u2018On this day in 2001, Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215- the people\u2019s security clause for treason was invoked following constitutional protocols.<\/p>

All Government\u2019s dissolved queen deposed for TREASON.<\/p>

Article 61 is the ONLY LAW in affect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Parliament Act 1911.<\/p>

Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 & as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote, which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.<\/p>

The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the \u2018fiscal power,\u2019 which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution \u2013 No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.<\/p>

At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren\u2019t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elisabeth (info here<\/a>) put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit.<\/p>

Brussels overruled it and fined the British \u00a3300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, \u201cI am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.\u201d, is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elisabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, \u201cYou can do what you like.\u201d<\/p>

Elisabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, \u201cTechnically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911\u201d<\/p>

The crown refers to the British Monarch and its duties under the law…the crown corporation is part of the treasonous deception and is a corporate entity so yes two crowns….<\/p>

Anything other than a de jure system of governance is illegal and especially so since article 61 was invoked. Yes they use Admiralty rules that govern the high seas but which does not stand under the common law as it should, All governments in Britain have been at least aiding and abetting treason since the 1911 Parliament Act was treasonously granted royal assent by King George V.<\/p>

No because man made law is fine as long as it complies with the constitutional constraints, if it does then it is of the law of God anyway you see? Some of the acts etc that have been passed into law since 1911 may well be within constitutional boundaries but they will still have been created under an illegal administration making them null and void.<\/p>

You see folks, everything is topsy turvy and this is because Britain & the Commonwealth has been under a treasonous administration for 105 years. The 1911 Parliament Act was an Act of Treason by the Herbert Henry Asquith (Liberal 1908 to 1916) administration because it breached the proper protocols and protections of the constitution, King George V granted assent to said Act, not long after the Parliament Act was passed into law everything started to change…. in 1914 the Banksters contrived the first world war to further the corporate takeover of the globe. This has been an ongoing trend as the drip-by-drip legislation that has been granted royal assent has completely changed the system of law and of service that the sovereign peoples of this land should be enjoying.<\/p>

Asquith, asked Edward VII to create sufficient new Liberal peers to pass the Bill in 1910 if the Lords rejected it. The King said that this could only happen if Asquith went back to the polls to obtain an explicit mandate for the constitutional shift. The Lords, in fact, voted this 1910 Parliament Bill down as it wasn’t very fair on the people, so Asquith called a second general election in December 1910, and again formed a minority government.<\/p>

Edward VII had died in May 1910 in his sleep at the age of only 68 and his second son, King George V, who was nowhere near as knowledgeable on constitutional law as his recently deceased father, agreed that, if necessary, he would create over 500 new Liberal peers to neutralise the Conservative majority in the Lords in order to push the Act through. The Conservative Lords then backed down, and on 10 August 1911, the House of Lords had illegitimately pushed the Bill through because they had passed this Bill under duress.<\/p>

\u00a0Since the 1911 Parliament Act, all subsequent legislation passed by Parliament hasn’t had the proper authorisation to be considered legitimate Statutes.<\/p>

“There is no Act of Parliament” says Coke, “but must have the consent of the Lords, the Commons, and the Royal Assent from the King, and it appeareth by records and our books, whatever passed in parliament by this threefold consent, hath the force of an Act of Parliament.”<\/p>

Parliament consists of three parts in all: the Commons, the Lords, and the Sovereign. None of these parts can make or repeal law Individually. No part can be changed or moved and they must remain balanced. It works by the Commons originating legislation, which is then passed to the Lords for scrutiny. It is then the function of the Lords to refuse the legislation if they believe it to be oppressive, or in any other way not good legislation (e.g., unconstitutional). If the Lords approve the legislation, it then goes before the Sovereign who may refuse the Royal Assent if they believe the legislation is not in the best interests of his or her subjects.<\/p>

What the 1911 Parliament Act eventually and unconstitutionally achieved was the usurpation and theft of the Royal Prerogative. The lords should still sit and stop unconstitutional legislation being passed. The House of Commons purported to assert supremacy over the Lords, which was and still is highly illegal. The disestablishment of what become the United Kingdom parliament started after the restoration under King Charles II. Charles had just been handed his father\u2019s throne and was somewhat indebted to the House of Commons so he did not argue with them when the Commons told the Lords they could not originate a bill or amend a money bill. The Upper House resisted this for some time but eventually gave way; there is nothing in the Constitution which allows this assault on the powers of the House of Lords. As a direct result of this, the House of Lords accepted that they would not amend a money bill. Then after the death of Queen Anne in 1714, we inherited a King (George I) who, being born in Osnabr\u00fcck, Germany, did not speak English. So, unlike every King or Queen who went before, he did not attend Parliament or Cabinet Meetings, allowing politicians to go on a destructive free run. George I signed everything put before him, not knowing what he was signing and George II was told he should not attend Parliament and Cabinet Meetings by government. This was both unconstitutional and was the acts of treason and sedition by restraining the King from carrying out his constitutional role to supervise legislation, and he spent his life complaining that his ministers were kings in his kingdom. 6 1 George III fought a twenty-year battle with the House of Commons as to where sovereignty lay, with him as the Anointed King, or with the House of Commons. After a speech by Pitt the elder in which he said;<\/p>

\u201cInstead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart King we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of the Commons. If this be true, what benefits do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is exercised by a number of tyrants, My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the constitution, we have a law of parliament. We have a statute book and the Bill of Rights.\u201d <\/em><\/p>

The King won the vote in the Commons. It was decided that sovereignty lay with the King. This is the legal, constitutional position today. Indeed, that has always been the case.<\/p>

The Commons may indeed claim and purport to hold superiority over both the Lords, the Monarch and the People of the United Kingdom today but this does not mean that there are no constitutional implications involved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t