by Iain Davis
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Pseudopandemic
Chapter 2 - Global Public Private Partnerships
Chapter 3 - Who Cares About The Risk
Chapter 4 - Keeping Us Safe
Chapter 5 - A Testing Time
Chapter 6 - Pseudopandemic Lockdowns
Chapter 7 - Covid Catch 22
Chapter 8 - Unthinkable Happens
Chapter 9 - The Pseudopandemic Opportunity Realised
Chapter 10 - The Official Story
Chapter 11 - Hybrid War
Chapter 12 - Lockdown Mortality
Chapter 13 - Core Beliefs
Chapter 14 - Population Control Eugenics
Chapter 15 - Sustainable Eugenics
Chapter 16 - Technocracy Rising
Chapter 17 - Constructing The Technate
Chapter 18 - Pseudopandemic Motive
Chapter 19 - Faith In The Eco-Dictatorship
Chapter 20 - Behaviour Change
Chapter 21 - Pseudopandemic Vaccines
Chapter 22 - Making An Extremist
Chapter 23 - The Biosecurity State
Chapter 24 - Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance
Chapter 25 - Money For Nothing
Chapter 26 - Private Wealth Transfer
Chapter 27 - Pseudopandemic Trigger Event
Chapter 28 - We Can Reset The World
Pseudopandemic
New Normal Technocracy
Iain Davis
Copyright © 2021 by Iain Davis
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
Printed in the United Kingdom
First Printing, 2021
ISBN: 9798524282330
www.in-this-together.com
DEDICATION
For my Dad
You were right
Introduction
We are living through a global transformation. Our society, culture, economy and even our humanity is undergoing a process of change at the behest of our leaders. This book attempts to explain who those leaders are, what the transition is propelling us towards and why our leaders are taking us there.
The policy response to the COVID 19 crisis has been opposed by a large minority but supported by the overwhelming majority. Among those who question what we are told about COVID 19 are a contingent who wish to exercise their inalienable rights and freedoms. Often described as anti-lockdown, anti-science, anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists, on the whole, they are not opposed to anything other than dictatorship and slavery. Rather they are pro-freedom, pro-science (pro-medical science) and pro-truth.
The people who have been marginalised, censored, berated by many, and physically attacked by the authorities, are the people who most vociferously advocate the freedoms our democratic societies are supposedly based upon. The freedoms which generations before us struggled, fought and died to protect. While government frequently exult us to honour this sacrifice it seems it is currently inconvenient for them to do so.
Those who appear to unquestioningly support the policy response to the COVID 19 pandemic claim that these freedoms and rights don't matter when we are faced with a global emergency. It is difficult to understand this argument.
In what way are freedom of speech, expression and thought dangerous? Dangerous to whom? How do they inhibit our ability to respond to a genuine emergency?
Governments around the world are determined that we will embrace the idea of human rights. They claim that everything they do is based upon these rights and their determination to keep us safe.
Human rights are permissions written down on pieces of paper by other human beings. A system of global human rights is a system of government issued permits which defines what we are or are not allowed to do.
As human rights are just words written on pieces of paper they can be changed, reinterpreted and ignored. They are neither immutable nor inalienable. This is why governments are so eager for us to place our faith in human rights. It enables them to tell us what is permitted.
Governments are pathologically allergic to the concept of inalienable rights. They are mentioned just once in the preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights and are omitted entirely from the Declaration itself.
Article 2 states:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration."
In other words, no one is entitled to any rights that are not stipulated in the Declaration. Unlike inalienable rights, which every human being is born with and no human being can legitimately deny, human rights are a political construct.
The Declaration then goes on to describe our rights to life, liberty, health, education and various freedoms. Who could disagree with these noble principles?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights employs a form of propaganda called Card Stacking. By presenting a lengthy list of righteous humanitarian goals, to which no reasonable person could object, it hides the insidious and unacceptable reality. Unless we are observant we are easily fooled by Card Stacking. The devil is always in the detail.
Article 29 states:
"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 rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Human rights are not rights at all. They can be denied by any law (legislation) enacted by any government (politician). As we have just experienced with the Coronavirus Act in the UK, human rights are expendable to protect "public order and the general welfare." Under the U.N Declaration they can be and are ignored whenever the government sees fit. They are nothing but empty words written on pieces of paper.
A society based upon human rights has no rights. Those who think human rights are expendable in emergencies are correct. They are expendable “whenever.”
What they fail to grasp is that inalienable rights can never be extinguished. Throughout this book the consistent, unspoken theme is the disregard for our human rights. Not just among those who intentionally ignore them but also among a population who appear to have forgotten what they are and why, without them, we have nothing.
Inalienable right are not permits bestowed upon us by government. They are universal concepts of natural justice inherent to Natural or God's law. They exist in nature, not on pieces of paper. They are immutable and inalienable and can be perceived by every emotional being, including humans.
No one needs a written law to tell them that it is wrong to harm a defenceless child or commit other acts of violence. We don't need to be told that it is wrong to take something that is not ours without the permission of the owner. We feel that it is wrong, we experience our wrongdoing as guilt. Inalienable rights are emotionally resonant and, as soon as we are able to experience emotion, we can sense them.
We are born capable of emotion. We are born with the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. We are born with inalienable rights. The few of us who are incapable of making the distinction are suffering from personality disorders.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are unable to distinguish between right and wrong because they lack natural human emotional responses. Their egos convince them that they are special and therefore they do not feel the need to observe other’s rights. For them, only that which serves their purpose has value. Inalienable rights
are incomprehensible for the psychopath and the sociopath.
When these people collude, their only goal is to serve their own collective interests and deny the rest of us our rights. Throughout our history generations of these rights abusers have caused untold chaos and human misery in pursuit of their ambitions. They are and always have been the most dangerous threat we have ever faced. Their actions are consistently wrong and, as sovereign human beings with inalienable rights, it is our duty to disarm any undue influence they may hold over anyone.
The rest of us innately possess empathy, remorse and compassion. We try to avoid antisocial behaviour, where we might cause harm or loss to others, because we instinctively know that we do not have the right to hurt other people. If we act in good conscience and in observance of our own and other’s rights, whatever we do is right and it is our right to do it.
Inalienable rights are solely defined by what is right and what is wrong. Anything we do which does not cause harm or loss to another human being (including denial of their rights) is right and it is our right. We are free to exercise our rights at all times and "freedom" is defined as the unhindered freedom to exercise our rights.
We do not define what is right or what is wrong. We don't decide to feel guilt or shame, nor can we feel assured by our own honourable action if that assurance isn't genuinely felt.
Rights are not our property. We don't own them just as we don't own the physical space we inhabit. We occupy our place in space and time and we occupy our individual rights. While we live, we are the rightful custodian of our rights but no one permits us to occupy them and they cannot be taken from us. They are our inalienable rights.
While we exist it is impossible for us to give away our rights, just as it is for us to give away our place in space and time. Our rights encapsulate us but we don't possess them. When we die we no longer occupy a physical place in space and time but both continue in our absence, as do inalienable rights.
To fail to defend our rights against those who would seek to stop us exercising them contravenes Natural Law and is therefore wrong. We all know this, we naturally react defensively when we feel someone is attempting to deny our freedom to exercise our inalienable rights.
Psychopaths and sociopaths have learned this truth from experience. They have come to place great value upon deception as the best way to coerce us into accepting that they have the right to ignore our inalienable rights. By neither exercising nor defending our inalienable rights we permit them to do as they wilt.
This abrogation of our rights always causes harm because psychopaths and sociopaths always harm or cause loss to others. To idly stand by and do nothing, in the certain knowledge that harm or loss is being inflicted upon others, is negligent. To passively allow harm or loss to be inflicted upon ourselves is equally negligent. Negligence is wrong and we have no right to be negligent.
It is always wrong to initiate the use of force but we might have to use minimum force to defend our rights against those who commit the wrong of trying to deny us our rights. We may harm them in that defence, but we did not initiate the use of minimum force and it is our duty as human beings to defend our rights.
Anything which, either by intent or neglect, initiates the causation of harm or loss to another human being is wrong. It is not a right that any human being can ever exercise. Inalienable rights are universal and are undeniably occupied in equal measure by every human being. All those who cause harm are wrong and we must defend our individual rights because they are everyone's rights in equal measure.
The only justice is natural justice. It is the restoration of right when a wrong is committed. Natural justice is an expression of Natural Law (God's Law) which is the universal balance between chaos and order. Natural Law is unforgiving, it does not care what we think or imagine to be true. It is balance, it is the truth and it is absolute.
Those who do not respect inalienable rights must be brought to natural justice. We all share the responsibility to defend everyone's freedom in equal measure. All peaceable means must be exhausted in the pursuit of justice. The minimal use of force is solely a right of self-defence but an attack on one human being's inalienable rights is an attack on all human beings inalienable rights in equal measure.
So far, despite all the community groups we frequently identify with, such as English, Democrat, Black, LGBTQ+, Green or Conservative, the community we have universally failed to identify with is human being. Instead, we have been convinced to divide ourselves into ever smaller social subdivisions in search of the individuality which increasingly eludes us and can seemingly only be expressed in terms of the group we believe we belong to.
It is as if identifying as a human being, the most intelligent, creative and resourceful creature ever to walk the Earth, is somehow not good enough.
Or perhaps it is because doing so would force us to confront our existence. Rather than express our individual truth, as many seem to want to do, we would need to accept that there is only one abiding truth and it is not relative to us. We are a part of it.
We would be one among 7.8 billion other souls who are not "other" but rather family. Regardless of our nationality, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability or what team we support, we would be part of the whole and if one of us suffers we all suffer.
Instead of defining our individuality through our affiliation to a belief system or a social construct, we would have to do it through our own independent thoughts and actions. We would be entirely responsible for ourselves and, as human beings, we would share an equal measure of responsibility for each other and the conduct of all humanity. We would have no one to blame for our travesties but ourselves and all achievements would be ours.
We have been deceived into imagining we have human rights and in doing so we have neglected our duty to defend humanity's inalienable rights. Our irresponsible behaviour, apathy and credulity has brought us, most assuredly, to the brink of a global dictatorship.
Whether that malevolent plan succeeds or fails is up to us. If you seek a leader to take responsibility and to stand up against this tyranny then look in the mirror.
Many will strongly disagree with the conclusions in this book. This is as it should be. There's nothing wrong with debate, it is the silencing of debate that should concern us. Evidence is cited throughout Pseudopandemic. It has been necessary to provide links to archived citations because many of the scientific articles and papers, news reports and qualified opinion pieces have already been censored.
I do not assert that “Pseudopandemic" is the truth, only that I have tried to present the truth to the best of my knowledge and understanding. You have the evidence before you, please explore it, look for more and form your own conclusions. Freedom is your inalienable right. Make of it what you will.
"Our culture is predicated upon the idea that truth in speech is of divine significance. It is the fundamental presupposition of our culture. If you believe that then you act it out and you take the consequences. You are going to take the consequences one way or the other. So do you want the truth on your side or do you want to hide behind falsehoods?"
[Jordan Peterson]
Chapter 1 - Pseudopandemic
COVID 19 was a pseudopandemic. The threat level suggested by those running the psychological operation was a lie. It was a fraud designed to fool you into abandoning your inalienable rights and freedoms. The core conspirators objective was to enable the reset of the global economy, the world's monetary system and its political and social structure, simply to further their own interests.
We are going to examine the evidence which exposes the pseudopandemic fraud and the likely perpetrators. The evidence is cited throughout. Please check it yourself, look for more and make up your own mind. We will necessarily cover some extremely contentious issues and you probably won't agree with some of the conclusions drawn. This is as it should be.
Disagreement and open, evidence-based dialogue is a vital component of any healthy, free society.
One of the travesties of the pseudopandemic has been the erosion of critical debate. However, it was designed to lay the foundation of a global tyranny and no totalitarian system can tolerate dissent.
The COVID 19 pseudopandemic wasn't the first pseudopandemic but it was the first to be fully implemented and exploited. It seems previous attempts may have been trial runs.
This time, those responsible, having learned from their previous efforts, thoroughly prepared [1] for their pseudopandemic operation. They perfected the strategies and techniques required to convince the population that the scale of the public health threat was overwhelming. In reality, as pseudopandemic proponents admit, it was the least significant pandemic humanity has faced in the last 2000 years. They even had to change the definition of ”pandemic” to describe it as such.
The COVID 19 pseudopandemic crime moved the core conspirators much closer to their longstanding objectives [2]. On this occasion the pseudopandemic delivered on its earlier promise.
While this pseudopandemic was fundamentally a deception, this doesn't suggest that pandemics aren't a genuine threat. Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever (EHF) is a truly terrifying disease. It has the potential to become a deadly global pandemic. Throughout history, pandemics have threatened populations and we have every reason to be wary of the next. COVID 19 just wasn’t one of them.
Seen by many as one of the world's leading public health experts, Bill Gates referred to COVID 19 as Pandemic One [3]. He wrote:
"I grew up learning that World War II was the defining moment of our parents’ generation. In a similar way, the COVID-19 pandemic—the first modern pandemic—will define this era. No one who lives through Pandemic One will ever forget it."
COVID 19 was a pseudopandemic because a powerful group capitalised upon a respiratory disease, with a relatively low mortality rate, to create the illusion of a dangerous global pathogen. COVID 19 itself wasn't a "hoax." While the cause of the disease and its origin are debatable, people certainly became ill, some seriously and sadly many died.