Inalienable Rights: A Suggested Solution To The Covid Coup

By Iain Davis


Inalienable rights, founded upon the principles of Natural Law and natural justice, offer us a potential solution to the COVID coup d’état, or pseudopandemic as I call it.

Exercising our inalienable rights, in observance of Natural Law, and collectively acting in peace to undermine the objectives of the conspirators, is the best way to resist it.

The objective of the global public–private–partnership of stakeholder capitalists, and their government agents, is to establish centralised global control. If our intention is to resist the imposition of this new world order the solution will not be found in any other form of centralised control. We must construct a society based upon decentralised freedom.

I have challenged the official COVID narrative. However, as many have pointed out to me, quite forcefully on occasion, it is easy to criticise. So here I offer a suggested remedy.

This is my opinion, I am sure there are many alternative ways to peaceably resist and we should use any and all. However, as yet, I haven’t heard any political theory that makes more sense to me than the one I am about to suggest. I do not claim any great insight or knowledge. I claim nothing other than my inalienable right to speak freely.

Freedom is the unrestricted freedom to exercise our inalienable rights. It is the freedom to do all that is right whenever or wherever we choose. No one on this Earth has the authority to deny, remove or redefine any of our inalienable rights. They are immutable and ours from birth.

Freedom is not the freedom to cause harm or loss to another human being. Freedom, based upon inalienable rights, places a duty upon each an every one of us to act responsibly. Inalienable rights not only demand that we respect the rights of others but that we defend them without hesitation.


If we want to live free of the technocratic, neofeudal dictatorship that is being erected around us it is a fools errand to appeal to our so called political leaders. They are the bought and paid for lackeys of the tyrants.

Nor can we realistically expect systemic reform. So called representative democracies are so corrupt, so utterly subservient to the will of the stakeholder capitalists that they are beyond salvation.

We need true democracy, and that will only come when randomly selected peoples’ juries have the supreme power to annul any and all legislation. The current party political sham, masquerading as government of the people, while serving nothing and no one but the malevolent agenda of its corporate paymasters, is irretrievable.

A parliament of party members ensures a legislature loyal to political parties and the stakeholder capitalists who bankroll them, not the people who “elect” their representatives.

A better model would be a constitutional Parliament of independent, elected parliamentarians with no party affiliation. This may increase the likelihood that they would represent the interests of their constituents at least.

However, while this makes political corruption marginally more difficult it does little to stop it. We would still face the prospect of electing our own criminal aristocracy. Fortunately, there are, in my view, better options. These require a radical rethink of the way we order our society and operate democracy.

Such a radical transformation is already underway. It is not led by and does not serve the people. It is a technocracy managed and manipulated by stakeholder capitalists, globalist thinks tanks, inappropriately named non governmental organisations and philanthropic foundations.

The facade of democracy is maintained by “elected” governments. Their primary role is to foster the illusion of democratic accountability while forcing the policies of stakeholders upon us.

This is the system we periodically vote for. In this alleged democracy an election is the ceremonial anointment of the next batch of corporate stooges. Every time we cast our vote we legitimise it, nominally empowering the stakeholder capitalists to enforce the policies that benefit them, not us.

Petitioning the judiciary, which is permitted to exist in this system, is equally futile. Court justice has become an archaic tradition, no longer practiced. There are undoubtedly some honourable benches remaining, but any just decision they make in favour of the people will be overturned by the venal higher courts.

The solution will neither emanate from or ever reside within the current representative democratic structure. Any time or energy expended on trying to salvage it is wasted.

We perpetuate our own subjugation with our votes. The first thing we should do is stop voting for our enslavement. This may be a token gesture, but at the very least we should let the stakeholder capitalists know that we do not consent to their mendacious system.


Nor can we indulge in the revolutionary fantasies of wannabee hard-nuts and ideologically driven insurrectionists. They merely seek to stamp their authority on the system and to lead us into their half-baked vision of a new realpolitik, cobbled together from all the previously failed, and occasionally lethal, political project disasters of the past.

The notion of violent revolution is folly of the most absurd kind. Not only would it lead to the totally unnecessary deaths of thousands, possibly millions, the system we currently tolerate is built upon claimed right to exercise force. The stakeholder capitalists have all the military and policy weapons they need to meet any violence with an overwhelming response.

If we ever initiate the use of force ourselves we would give away the moral ground we currently hold. We would provide the stakeholder capitalists their casus belli and lose any possible tactical or political advantage. They have used false flag attacks throughout history to justify their violence. We must be very watchful for the next.

We should note that Swiss intelligence agencies are already warning of attacks on vaccine distribution infrastructure. Reporting how devastating they will be, despite admitting they have “no tangible indications of planned attacks.”

How incredibly convenient for the authoritarians who seek to criminalise anyone who questions their COVID vaccine program. Any such “attacks” should be treated with immense scepticism and the evidence pointing to the alleged perpetrators scrupulously examined by everyone.

Violence truly is the language of the oppressor. We are under attack and we have the right to defend ourselves but that doesn’t justify unbridled stupidity. Initiation of the violent use of force is both morally indefensible and counterproductive.

We cannot look to the authority of any leader and expect anything but oppression in return. That is the nature of non existent, claimed right of authority.

Any brief reprieve the from despotism would be welcome, but there are no political leaders anywhere who can alter the course we are on. Desperately hoping for a saviour or believing we can vote our way out of this, is monumentally naive. Acceptance of the authority of leaders has brought us to this point. As it has repeatedly throughout human history.


We must build something better. That is the only true solution. It is just that it is not the solution most people want to hear.

People expect authority to tell them what to do, what to say, where to go and what to think. They have been conditioned to accept this and learned helplessness is the result.

People live apathetic lives, labouring under the illusion that they cannot “change anything.” They actually believe that they need to devolve their individual responsibility to trusted authorities. They do so in the unavailing hope they some benevolent State parent will care for them while they get on with their normal, everyday lives, imagining themselves to be free.

We can and we must take responsibility for everything ourselves. If anyone imagines that they can give away their individual autonomy and their own agency to some unimpeachable custodian who will nurture them, in exchange for their electoral devotion, they are deluding themselves.

We can no longer afford these illusions. We have to face facts. We are not children.

The State (governments in partnership with stakeholders) is intent upon farming us. It demands that we give it our authority so its henchmen and women can do as they wilt. The State has now established multiple control systems which are coalescing to enslave us. These are going operational right now.

No one is going to rescue us. There aren’t any allied forces amassing on any borders ready to liberate us from the yoke of totalitarianism. If we want to defend ourselves and our families, we have to do it.

We must take full responsibility for ourselves and each other. We must build new decentralised systems of communication, exchange and commerce. We will need a new justice system, a new healthcare system, social care and more.

It is undoubtedly a daunting proposition, perhaps it sounds like an infeasible daydream. If there is a better solution that would be fantastic, but what is it? Time is running out.


The State, with its new surveillance and control mechanisms, will fiercely oppose any attempt to break away from its clutches. However, if we remain lawful and peaceable, if we build and don’t destroy, if we maximise the use of what dwindling freedoms and resources we have left, then the only recourse we leave our oppressors is naked, raw violence. It doesn’t mean they won’t resort to it but “everyone” will see it.

Those of us who oppose the COVID coup d’état are in the minority. The State has invested billions in propaganda. Public opinion still matters to them.

They are not yet at the stage where they can simply beat law abiding, peaceful people to a pulp en masse and expect their project to succeed. Equally we cannot embark on the construction of a better society without acknowledging that painful sacrifices will have to be made.

We have another advantage. The tools we need to set about building something better already exist. Here in the UK, while it remains unknown to most people, we have a codified, written constitution. It offers us a path towards lawful remedy and we should use it.

We also have Natural Law and our inalienable rights. We should not ask for them to be respected, we should unequivocally demand that they are.


Inalienable rights are not “human rights.” We live in a global political system that has persistently attempted to define our rights in terms of these alleged human rights. We must reject this fraud.

These are declared in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights (UNDHR.) It lists a number of venerable humanitarian principles such as Article 1: Innate Freedom and Equality:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights..”

We are constantly told by our political leaders that they act with respect to our human rights and that they “protect” them. This means that they assume the authority to completely ignore all of our so called rights whenever they choose. Article 29 of the UNHDR states:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law… and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society…”

Legislation (a form of law) is set by the State. It can limit our freedoms and will judge what it deems to be moral. The State will decree what constitutes “public order” and it will determine which of our human rights need to be ignored for the “general welfare” of society: A “society” which it defines.

The UNDHR is the United Nations (UN) attempt formalise a system of behavioural permits, but member state governments would never have agreed to them were they not free to ignore human rights on an individual, national basis. Hence Article 29.

However, in the preamble to the UNDHR, the UN briefly acknowledges the entirely different concept of inalienable rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..”

Recognition that inalienable rights are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” is as far as the UN go. That recognition is also something we can and should use.

The UN then created the UNDHR to exclude the concept entirely from the “law” of their member states. Inalienable rights aren’t even mentioned in the declaration itself but they are acknowledged, at a global political level.

The US Declaration of Independence also recognises inalienable (or unalienable) rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”

It is clear that the State acknowledges that inalienable rights are “self evident.” Yet, when the government authorities formulate their laws and declarations of principle they seemingly go to great lengths to avoid any further acknowledgement of inalienable rights. They have replaced the “foundation of freedom in the world” with meaningless human rights.

Just like the UNHDR, there is no mention of “unalienable” rights in the US Bill of Rights (constitutional amendments) nor the written Constitution. For example, the 4th Amendment announces:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

In other words, the State claims a “right” to judge what it considers to be “reasonable.” Based upon its opinion, it can break into our homes, seize us and our goods, simply because it asserts that it has “probable cause.” This is the inevitable consequence of a system of government that hides from inalienable rights and instead bases its rules (legislation – law) upon its deceptive construct of human rights.

Observance of human rights guarantees that the State can force us to do whatever it likes. Adherence to the principle of inalienable rights rules out that possibility.

The “legal” definition of inalienable rights reads:

The term given to the fundamental rights accorded to all people.”

Inalienable rights, from a legal perspective, are the equal rights of ALL human beings. There are no exceptions.

No one has more inalienable rights than anyone else. High office, or a government issued badge, doesn’t afford any additional inalienable rights.

None of us have the inalienable right to order anyone else to do as we command. The State claims that it derives its authority from us. Yet we never had this right in the first place. How can we possibly devolve our authority to the State if it never existed?

The State alleges it has this additional right, to license our behaviour, and calls this its authority. In doing so it rejects inalienable rights and, by its own admission and “legal” system, the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It can only achieve this confidence trick through deception and our ignorance.

The State is pathologically allergic to inalienable rights precisely because they are universal, immutable and absolute. We are sold fraudulent human rights because they allow the State to peddle its myth of authority. What’s worse, State authority only works in practice because we have been convinced to believe in this fiction.

State authority is nothing more than our faith in a lie. The moment we stop believing in it, it vanishes. All the State has left after that is brute force. In truth, that is all it ever had.

We should not give any credence to claims of imaginary rights. We should use reason and robustly reject the State’s preposterous assertions.

Equally, we need to rid ourselves of our own delusions. We cannot both maintain the belief that we elect governments which serve us while simultaneously acquiescing to every demand they make for fear of punishment if we don’t. This is a nonsensical position.

Therefore it is crucial that we fully understand what inalienable rights are. Especially if they are the hill we are going to die on.


In 1882 Lysander Spooner wrote Natural Law; or The Science of Natural Justice. In it he explained why there is only one Universal Law that governs our relationships. Natural Law stands above all others.

Natural Law was not created by men and women and it cannot be altered, denied or evaded by any human being, claimed authority or State. It defines the nature of our interactions and even how we judge our own character.

As Natural Law is a phenomena that exists in nature it can be studied like any other. Understanding Natural Law is, as Spooner wrote, the science of natural justice.

How do we live in peace? What rules determine how we maintain peace between each other? It is “self evident” that we can and do live peacefully but do we only do so because some higher “authority” will punish us if we don’t. Or do we all innately understand the unwritten Law that binds us within our corner of society?

Is there a common set of principles which we all understand, regardless of the jurisdiction we live in? Is there a Universal Law which establishes the boundaries of our behaviour, enabling us to live in peace and harmony?

Of course there is, if there were not humanity would not have survived. This is Natural Law and Spooner described it:

Each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.. each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.. So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.”

Natural Law is our foundational morality and natural justice are the ethics that emerge from it. It is in our nature to know this because it is discernible through reason, which is the defining character of our nature.

There are many attributes which we deem to be “good” or “bad.” The selfless and compassionate are considered to be “good,” the selfish and callous “bad.” Yet regardless of the value judgments we place on the actions of others, if they act in accordance with Natural Law we can still live in peace alongside them.

It is not a matter of being good or bad, it is a matter of doing either that which is right or wrong, as determined by Natural Law.

If we harm or cause loss to another, or act dishonestly in contracts, then we have committed a wrong. Others around us will recognise that we had “no right” to perpetrate that act. However, whatever we do that is not wrong is a right. We may not like what someone said or did but, if they caused neither harm nor loss to anyone else, they had every “right” to act or speak freely.

This sense of natural justice, of understanding and differentiating between what is right and what is wrong, operates in every play ground. Children must grasp Natural Law quickly or they will fail to build the relationships they need in order to thrive. Children come to understand this Law even before they have the words to express themselves.

If children can live in peace, without any comprehension of man made law or legislation, adults certainly can. Yet we have seemingly forgotten this.

Instead we imagine that justice is handed down to us by governments or the judiciary. We wrongly assume that without their rules we would have no Law and would be incapable of peaceful coexistence.

Natural Law governs our relationships, it is the Law that enables us to cohabit, work together, achieve common goals and find value in each other. It exists regardless of the lesser laws prescribed by men and women.

We did not create Natural Law and have no ability to amend it. It endures in nature. It is a principle of nature which defines us as a species.

All living creatures are subject to Natural Law. It is the universal rules based system. It determines the conduct required for social complexity to function. Just as termites use Natural Law to cooperate to build their remarkable structures, so we use Natural Law to live peacefully in communities.

As we did not create Natural Law it leads many to call it God’s Law. Theological arguments aside, there is no reason to think that the processes which formed Natural Law differ from those which formed, for example, the planets or gravity.

Some will say that these could not exist without an interventionist god or some other supernatural guidance. The legal definition of Natural Law makes this claim. Others will point toward probability in an infinite universe of interacting forces.

This is a matter for debate, but it does not alter the nature of the subject in question. Planets and a force we call gravity exist in reality, as does Natural Law.

Justice is real. We all know what it is and have even invented a word to describe it. It is the restoration of right when a wrong has been committed. The concepts of right and wrong also exist in reality. If they did not then the words we use to describe them would be meaningless.

Words like “mine” and “yours” or “fair” and “unfair” would have no context. You cannot possess something unless you have the right to claim it as your own, no act can be principled if there is no concept of justice or injustice by which to appraise it. In fact, none of the laws created by men and women, or positive law, could ever have been formed unless they were preceded by Natural Law.

How could theft ever have been considered a “wrongdoing” if natural justice didn’t already exist? If natural justice didn’t predate the laws of men and women then taking something that does not belong to you could never have been identified by anyone as either just or unjust.

We would have been incapable of perceiving an act like theft without innately understanding natural justice. We certainly wouldn’t have written positive laws to seek recourse from thieves. Without Natural Law “theft” would merely be the movement of something in a chaotic void of immaterial behaviours.

Natural Law is the universal law of everything and, just like anything that occurs in nature, we can study it, understand it and, because we are human beings with the ability to reason, formalise it into a compendium of determining principles. Those who transgress against Natural Law can be judged against it and, as Spooner noted, we have a duty to do so.

A society founded in Natural Law would be built around the maxim “to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to everyone his due.” In order to “live honestly” no one can pretend that they are disinterested in dishonesty, especially where it causes harm or loss. A disregard for wrongdoing would be negligent, effectively condoning harmful behaviour.

As Natural Law is universal, absolute and immutable, and all are afforded equal rights and responsibilities under it, to fail to lawfully prosecute wrongdoing would be to disregard Natural Law. This negligence is, in and of itself, a harmful act. The duty, to bring wrongdoers to natural justice, should best be discharged through jury led trials.


Inalienable rights stem from Natural Law. Whatever we do or say, that is not wrong under Natural Law, is our inalienable right. The only limit on exercising our inalienable rights is that we live honestly and cause no harm or loss to anyone else.

As inalienable rights are derived from Natural law they too predate man made law and are universal, absolute and immutable.

No one, no organisation, no authority or the State can force us to do anything against our will while we remain “honest.” If we are not causing any harm or loss to anyone else then there is not a single “authority” on Earth that can “lawfully” initiate the use of force or otherwise compel us to do anything.

A society constructed upon inalienable rights must, by definition, be a voluntary society.

As no one, or no body claiming authority which doesn’t exist, can lawfully coerce, compel, deceive or otherwise force either our agreement or action, all our interactions can only be entered into freely and we can withdraw our consent whenever we choose.

That is the power of our inalienable rights. We cannot possibly be ruled by diktat if we insist our inalienable rights are observed. Those who refuse to observe our inalienable rights must concede that they reject the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

It is worth noting what a real jury led trial is, because they are not part of the current judicial system. If we want to build a world based upon our inalienable rights, then natural justice, ruled upon and administered solely by a jury of our peers, not judges, is essential.

Following the 1670 case of The King v Penn and Mead the foreman of the jury Edward Bushel, after a brief imprisonment for declining to find the defendants guilty, subsequently refused to pay the imposed court fine and presented his appeal case to the Court of Common Pleas. In his eventual ruling, upholding Bushel’s appeal, Chief Justice John Vaughan stated:

The jury must be independently and indisputably responsible for its verdict free from any threats from the court.”

In a court of Natural Law the judge will merely be the convener. Their only role to guide the jury on the technical aspect of the law. They will not instruct, coerce or in any other way influence or interfere with either the deliberation or judgement of the jury.

The jury will be entirely antonymous and they must agree unanimously both upon a verdict and the appropriate punishment. They will then instruct the judge (or convener) to pass the sentence they have agreed.

Natural Law is easy to understand and simple to administer. The only question, in fact the only crime, is the direct causation of genuine harm or loss or dishonourable conduct in a contract (dishonesty.)

As beings imbued with reason it is a straightforward task for us to decide if harm or loss was caused. Within the system of jury led trials we can be more confident, not less, that natural justice will be delivered.

The jury must be satisfied that real injury or loss resulted directly from the actions or speech of the person accused. Merely offending someone does not cause real harm. Expressing disagreeable opinions or refusing to comply with an unreasonable order does not cause legitimate harm or loss.

The 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill drew a clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate harm. Mill was particularly concerned with freedom of speech and, in his work On Liberty, he illustrated where “free speech” could cause of legitimate harm:

Opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corndealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard”

The real-world impact of our actions would be the context within which all jury led rulings would be made. That stands in stark contrast to the pernicious corporate-owned, corrupt judicial system we are presently forced to endure.

The cases of people like David Noakes & Lyn Thyer, Ross Ulbricht, Julian Assange and Craig Murray are just some, among countless thousands around the world, where court justice is notable only for it complete absence. Too often, what we incomprehensibly refer to as the justice system acts as a weapon wielded by stakeholder capitalists, and the governments which serve them, to enforce their malevolent, impossible claim of authority upon us.

During David Noakes’ UK trial Judge Nicholas Loraine Smith advised the jury that the court was not a court of morality but rather a court of law. Law without morality is not justice, it is oppression.

In a jury led court of Natural Law the only consideration would be the harm or loss caused, without which there could be no possible crime. The opinion of the judge (convenor) and the technical demands of legislation would be irrelevant.

In refusing to find the defendant guilty, regardless of legislative edicts, the jury would find the positive law to be an ass. As it so obviously is in every legal disgrace inflicted upon us.

In this better world of Natural Law and natural justice, legislation which is found to cause harm would be annulled by a jury of the people. Any legislation, such as the 1939 Cancer Act, which effectively exists purely to protect the monopoly of pharmaceutical corporations in their cancer market, would be found to cause harm and be annulled by a jury.

This is true demos – kratos (people – rule) where the people, randomly selected (by lot), form the supreme rule of law. Standing above all as the final arbiters of natural justice.

In such a system bribing useful authoritarian idiots would be a waste of time. Any legislation they passed to protect and promote the interests of their stakeholder capitalist controllers, or any malign force seeking to impose its will, would be overruled by the people wherever it was judged to cause harm or loss, in contravention of natural justice.


In 1982 Murray Rothbard published The Ethics of Liberty. He deduced that the positive law of any society can emerge from just three sources. It can be founded upon custom and tradition, State diktat or be based upon reason and Natural Law.

We are hurtling towards a State dictatorship. The solution is for us to refuse to accept anything less than absolute observance of our inalienable rights.

We must insist that Natural Law is the only foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world; we must affirm that natural justice is the inalienable right of all people, equally, without exception; we must demand that no positive law can remain unless it is judged reasonable, not by the State or any other body that claims the non existent right of authority, but by the people, either through trial by jury or, wherever harm is apparent, through a grand jury convened; we won’t accept any jury selection, save by random lot drawn from all people with capacity, and we proclaim that a jury of the people is the highest court in the land and the supreme arbiter of Natural Law which is the whole of the law.

We must be relentless in pursuit of this objective and accept nothing short of our inalienable right to live in peace and freedom. Freedom will be defined as the freedom to exercise our inalienable rights and no attempt to deny our freedom or rights will be tolerated.

Any and all who use force, coercion, deception, bribery or any other means in an attempt to falsely assert that they possess the mythical right of authority will be held accountable for their dishonesty, and any harm or loss they have caused, by a free jury of their peers.

We must build this better society ourselves. We must live in peace as if we are free, in accordance with Natural Law, observing natural justice and exercising our inalienable rights, until we truly are free. As Rothbard observed:

Natural law is, in essence, a profoundly ‘radical’ ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.”

The State has invested everything in the technocracy it is stamping into existence. It will not sit idle while we embark on a course that poses a potentially powerful threat to the status quo. We can anticipate that the State will use all the means at its disposal to stop us from creating freedom, justice and peace. Constructing a better world will be arduous and dangerous.

The “do nothing” alternative will condemn us and future generation to the abject, totalitarian tyranny of a global technate. Those who go along with the new world order, hoping all will be fine, will suffer nonetheless.

There is nothing humanitarian about this project. Quite the opposite. Those of us who oppose it ultimately have nothing to lose and literally everything to gain.

We must strive for something better and we must act now to begin that effort. However, we need to act wisely, with guile, as we work towards our objective of peace and freedom. There is nothing so pointless or disheartening as a symbolic sacrifice, soon forgotten.

We must get real. We should avoid falling into the trap of the all or nothing mindset. We aren’t going win a decisive victory any time soon. This will almost certainly be a generational struggle.

Our aim should never be to topple the State, it is a completely impractical proposition. Our aim should be to encourage the evolution of society through the example we set. It is hopelessly unrealistic to think we can muster a single political assault that will both overcome the entire apparatus of the State and simultaneously win over the hearts and minds of the brainwashed masses.

Creating a peaceful, free society will have to occur in the margins initially. We need to form a parallel society of free people and the decentralised systems we build will need to respond and adapt as they come under attack from the State.

First and foremost we have to survive. There is absolutely no chance of us building anything better if we aren’t around to do it. While we support each other to maximise our noncompliance with the “unlawful” demands of the State, there will be occasions where we have to comply.

If your elderly parents lives abroad, becomes seriously ill and need you, what are you going to do? Stand on your principles, refuse the test and leave them to struggle alone? There are many situation one might envisage where some degree of compliance will, unfortunately, be unavoidable. However if our mindful intention is to keep this to an absolute minimum we will be on the right track.

Our purpose should be to show as many people as possible that a society based upon inalienable rights and natural justice is preferable to the one they are trapped in. The centralised authority of the State won’t suddenly disappear. However, if our numbers grow, it will slowly evaporate.

We should use every possible peaceable means to achieve this by encouraging as many as possible to join us. Wherever the State punish and marginalise people we will support and embrace them. If they deny peoples inalienable rights we will fight for them. When they abandon people we will offer them comradeship.

We will have to adapt to the tyranny of the State as it unfolds. For example, when the UK State enacts its Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (currently at the Bill stage) and lawful protest is effectively outlawed, we will have to be creative and seek new ways to protest. Similarly when they deploy their imminent Online Safety Act (also a current Bill) and attempt to remove freedom of speech online, we will outwit them and create alternative means of communication.

It won’t always be possible to stay within the “legal” limits of the State’s dictatorship. Which makes it even more important to act “lawfully,” in accord with Natural Law and our inalienable rights, prior to the inevitable arrests and subsequent trials.

State tyranny means we are forced to live in an unjust system. By scrupulously maintaining our ethical commitment to natural justice the unlawful nature of the State can be exposed, especially if we use all available legal means to attempt to secure a trial by jury.

Non-compliance doesn’t just mean refusing the State’s test, jabs or its apps. We must stop using as much of the State system as possible and start using our own.

The State relies on propaganda so stop buying it. We should refuse to pay for its TV license or buy anything produced by its mainstream media propaganda machine. Instead, support independent media and promote it wherever we can.

The global public-private–partnership of stakeholder capitalists is essentially corporate and the COVID coup d’état has created a corporate-led technocracy. Therefore we need to choose carefully how we spend our money. While practically impossible to avoid entirely, we should keep our transactions with global corporations to an absolute minimum.

The coup has also attacked local and small to medium-size businesses. Therefore we should buy what we need from them as far as possible.

We must abandon our obsession with convenience. Instead of popping to the supermarket, we should make the effort to buy our food from local, independent farmers markets or other small businesses. Let’s reinvigorate the high street.

One of the primary drivers for the coup d’état was the creation of a new international monetary and financial system. The intention is to force us all to use Central Bank Digital Currency.

This “programmable money” will give central banks complete control over every aspect of our lives. Able to control every CBDC transaction, the central bank’s algorithms will dictate what we can or cannot buy.

We must comprehensively reject CBDC and start using our own, decentralised forms of currency and exchange. This doesn’t just mean crypto-currency, although that could be part of a decentralised solution. We need to think much bigger than that. We need to be, as a community, as antonymous as possible.

We should construct local freedom cells focused upon maximising our independence from the State system. We need to understand and engage in widespread counter economics.

We must grow our own food wherever possible, freely exchange goods and services among ourselves, cutting out the corporations wherever we can. We must relearn forgotten skills and crafts, we’ll need them. We should buy second hand where we can and, where we can’t, use cash.

In short, we must re-prioritise. The things we do every day truly matter. The entire State technocracy is predicated upon exploiting us for the benefit of stakeholder capitalists. The COVID coup d’état was designed to enslave us to that exploitative system. The purpose of the propaganda we have been deluged under is to force us to live in fear and accept the State technocracy as the only solution.

It is obvious, from the actions of the State, that it needs us far more than we need it. We can build a global society without the State. We do not need to fight it or change it. We need to ignore it and build something better. We need to engage in evolution not revolution.

A world based upon Natural Lawnatural justice and the freedom to exercise our inalienable rights will enable that evolution. We must steel ourselves to the task of creating freedom, justice and peace in the world.


You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.



can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.


Copyright © 2021 OffGuardian

Privacy Policy