The Anglophone World & Sovereignty of the Individual

[Rev.Cambeul]

Britain has the Magna Carter
America has the Bill of Rights
Australia has Constitutional Rights
The UN has the Nuremburg Rules with the embedded threat of new Nuremburg Trials for transgressors ...

True sovereignty of the subject or citizen is not the right to break any petty law you want. It is not the right to drive a dangerous, unregistered vehicle. Those laws are in place to protect your sovereignty from nutters driving clapped out dangerous wrecks without breaks, on steel rims, and with rotating knives on the wheels. Yeah, a bit extreme, but that's what those laws are meant for.

True sovereignty is the right to know. To not be injected with experimental drugs. To not be sentenced without a fair trial of one's peers. To not be arbitrarily arrest and held by the state. To not be robbed, beaten or mugged without state retribution on your behalf. True sovereignty is to think, to speak without fear of arbitrary arrest because your rights have been superseded by the rights of another.

True sovereignty is THE GIVEN RIGHT TO WORK TO BUILD A HOME.

Too many of us have already lost those rights. That is why we are to be considered Outlaw Creators. And we are not alone. RaHoWa!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQD0HE9UfY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1LCHjOs5SI

* * * *

Magna Carta, to dumb it down, was like a forced agreement upon King John (he the evil bastard of Robin Hood fiction) that the people had rights. In truth, only men that had the right to vote gained the rights of Magna Carta to not be arbitrarily arrested, and to be judged by their peers. That means only nobles. Not the common man. Although the law did filter down to the commoner in its own way. The freedom of the common man didn't come about until the 19th century - and then not really until the advent of full workers' rights in the twentieth century. Essentially, the 40 hour week, and the right to not be forced to risk death at work - at least without adequate compensation.

So what happened after those English nobles gained their rights from arbitrary arrest by the King for what is today erroneously believed to be a right for the common man that only filtered down and was accepted after hundred of years? The king fought back, that's what.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekCByuXIGr8

King John of England eventually lost what was essentially a civil war. After his defeat, the rights of Magna Carta were enshrined in English law.

Among the Magna Carta's provisions were clauses providing for a free church, reforming law and justice, and controlling the behavior of royal officials. One of the charter's 63 clauses tasked the barons with choosing 25 representatives to serve as a "form of security" ensuring the preservation of the rights and liberties that had been enumerated. Above all, the Magna Carta guaranteed that government, royal or otherwise, would be limited by the written law of the land.

Magna Carta, English Great Charter, charter of English liberties granted by King John on June 15, 1215, under threat of civil war and reissued, with alterations, in 1216, 1217, and 1225. By declaring the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties held by "free men," the Magna Carta provided the foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta

The Petition of Right in 1628 and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 looked directly back to clause 39 of the 1215 charter, which read:

No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

American colonisation meant America adopted English law lock stock and barrel from its source. Australia, settled later in 1788 and only coming together as a nation in 1901 adopted much of the American constitutional guarantees for its own constitution. Australia's Founding Fathers claim that there is no need for a Bill of Rights, as the Australian Constitution contains all Rights, which are protected from parliamentary interference by constitutional law.

In reality, judges judge on moral grounds, based on the latest garbage as seen on TV, while claiming to hold a moral stance for public opinion. Hence, THE LOCAL, STINKING SUBHUMAN NIGGERS are rarely convicted of violent criminal acts against White Australians, White Americans, and White British.

Understand history, and you will recognise the future as it's presented by so-called Progressives today.

F.T.W! & F.T.V!

@Cailen.