by PAUL COLLITS – PROBABLY few Australians realise that their opportunity to make a submission to Australia’s COVID non-inquiry runs out this week.
On December 15, 2023, to be precise. That time went quickly.
It’s almost as if the entire political class has deliberately gone quiet since the inquiry was announced in September. And no one is even mumbling about it now.
Having made sure that Daniel Andrews was safe to retire and not play golf (by excluding any reference to State actions in the terms of reference), the Prime Minister has proceeded to just stay schtum.
Contrast this with the endless, inescapable nightly propaganda during the plandemic to wear masks, stay locked up and get your “safe and effective” jab. No nightly adverts to make sure you get your submission in on time. The megaphone has been turned off.
This, then, has been a three-stage process. The process of keeping a promise by breaking it and of protecting the COVID elites.
First, make the inquiry a non-event so that people will quickly lose interest. Second, sit back, say nothing, and watch people not being interested. Third, steer the inquiry towards questions that do not matter and away from questions that do matter. Exclude difficult problems from the terms of reference. Make the process bureaucratic. Invite “experts” and “stakeholders” to make submissions and give evidence.
In other words, keep the conversation bouncing around an echo chamber of insiders. Make it future-oriented, so as to avoid any suggestion that past actions were evil, corrupt and illegal. Which they were. All three. Fatal as well.
Having carefully scripted the process, and steered everyone away from the real issues of criminal negligence on the part of the State, the ringmasters can simply watch on as the non-issues discussed at the non-inquiry get dissected ad infinitem by the legacy press, further embedding the false narrative.
Questions like “was the government sufficiently prepared for the pandemic?” A question asked by The Guardian of the British non-inquiry (of which more is below).
This is simply a classic. Ask all of the irrelevant questions. And none of the important ones. The decision-makers during COVID were mostly white middle-class males. That was the really worrying thing about the responses. Yes, the paper did actually say this.
The Guardian is paid by Bill Gates not to ask difficult questions of anyone. Bill’s money (around $400m globally) is obviously money well spent.
The inquiries are shaping up as simply another, further stage of the globalists’ hostile takeover of democratic government. A further cynical opportunity to embed their own narrative. There is a term for this, which we will come to.
I expect the trajectory of Australia’s non-inquiry to follow Britain’s (the Hallett inquiry) and to have similar non-outcomes.
The UK’s political class has played a blinder. It has been going through the daily ritual of the media breathlessly reporting on who said what about whom at the inquiry.
The legacy media has played its part to a tee, turning the thing into a political circus in which serious questions are buried deep under the soap opera headlines. Concentrate on the politicians. Then no one will notice Big Tech, Big Pharma, the globalists, and the rest of the puppeteers. Focus firmly on the puppets.
I expect that it will be the same here. Either that or the thing will simply be a huge yawn.
Will our non-inquiry resemble Britain’s in other ways? For example, the bias and the transparent ill-treatment of witnesses not sticking to the government script.
As Ros Jones at TCW (The Conservative Woman) notes: “At 3hr 50 mins, Professor Carl Heneghan takes the stand, and with Andrew O’Connor KC the whole atmosphere changes. Rather than extolling him as an expert, he spends the first eight minutes going through Heneghan’s CV and recent publications, going to great lengths to show that Professor Heneghan’s research interests have been around general practice and not the spread of viral diseases. He comments that Heneghan did not sit on Sage or NERVTAG or SPI-MO, failing to understand that this witness is therefore well-placed to interrogate some of the group-think which has undoubtedly occurred.
“Heneghan is questioned for 25 minutes about the Great Barrington Declaration (which he had not even signed). This part of the interview is peppered with demands to ‘just answer Yes or No’, a tactic not seen with any other witness. O’Connor then weighs in with the ‘f*ckwit’ label. Heneghan is amazingly restrained and professional in his response, unlike the users of such playground language. With the time wasted on the above, O’Connor totally fails to discuss even one line of the 67-page witness statement provided and abruptly ends with ‘no more questions.’
“Baroness Hallett concludes the session at 4hr 46 mins by thanking Professor Heneghan for his time with barely a smile or any eye contact and adding that if he wishes he may submit evidence in writing – she seems not to have noticed that he had already done so. The contrast in body language in her thanks to Professor Heneghan could not be more evident than to the two other professors earlier in the day.”
Will our three “independent”, inevitably female and inevitably mediocre panelists show similar disregard for anyone appearing who dissents from the narrative?
Then we have the assumptions of the Counsel supporting the British inquiry, for example the assumed lethality of the virus, meaning that every last one of the decision-makers automatically gets a pass mark.
The Inquiry’s counsel has been at pains to paint a picture of the country facing an almost existential threat from the virus. From the outset, counsel has framed their questioning on the basis that it was indisputable a “highly dangerous fatal viral outbreak was surely coming”.
The UK inquiry is an embarrassment.
On the issue of bias: For those witnesses who were part of the “home team” — government-appointed advisors, and those who have already publicly ascribed to the Inquiry’s apparently favoured storyline — impeccable credentials and impartiality have been assumed.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, for example, former director of the Wellcome Trust, member of SAGE and currently chief scientist at WHO gave oral evidence to the Inquiry in June.
One can almost picture counsel for the Inquiry scattering rose petals as he sums up Farrar’s illustrious credentials…
Not just biased. Not just an insider. But one who profited from the policies that the inquiry is meant rigorously to probe.
Farrar’s chairman at the (eugenicist) Wellcome Trust was – Julia Gillard! Talk about the in-crowd.
And this: Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, and chief architect of the dramatic scientific modelling on which the global lockdown response was predicated was warmly welcomed to the witness box by counsel last week “as a world leading specialist in this field”, and was later thanked profusely for his hard work by Baroness Hallett.
The very same Professor Pantsdown. He, more than just about anyone else on the planet, except for Fauci, Gates and Xi, created the whole thing. It is nauseating. Will the process be repeated in Australia’s non-inquiry?
Astonishingly, all this is going on the same week that, as the BBC reports: “Preacher loses appeal over COVID fraud conviction.”
Yes, poor Bishop Climate Wiseman (is that his real name, as someone once asked of Spiro Agnew) has been pinged for urging his followers to buy (for £91) his very own plague protection oil. His penalty, £60,000 in costs and 130 hours of community work.
He sold a mixture consisting of hyssop, cedarwood and olive oil under names including “divine cleansing oil”.
At least no one called it “horse paste”, nor did his “cure” kill anyone, as far as we know. Unlike the fake cure of the manufacturers of the (unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous) snake oil vaccine and their co-conspirators, the British Government, under whose legal system he is being punished. All reported with a straight face.
No one at the BBC gets irony, clearly. I am certain that anyone who raises questions of criminality by Big Pharma at either the British or the Australian non-inquiries will get pretty short shrift. They will be shown the door, no doubt, after a shrill tirade of insults.
The BBC also notes: “Southwark Trading Standards was alerted to Wiseman’s scam on March 24,2020 – the day after the country entered a nationwide lockdown.”
At least the good Bishop had the decency to wait to market his “cure” ’til after the plandemic had actually started. Bill Gates and Pfizer were ready and raring to go well before the first cases were reported. They had even workshopped the whole thing (with CEPI) the previous October.
The State’s COVID class protection plan (aka the non-inquiries) might be called a “limited hangout”, or, perhaps, as John Erlichman described Nixon’s Watergate cover-up play, a “modifed limited hangout”.
Wikipedia explains: “… a limited hangout is ‘spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting – sometimes even volunteering – some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further”
While used by the CIA and other intelligence organisations, the tactic has become popularised in the corporate and political spheres.
COVID non-inquiries certainly fit the bill. Allow the admission of venial sins while saying “look over there” as the mortal sins are papered over, if not totally ignored. Nice one.
It is not as if there aren’t massive questions to be asked about every aspect of our governments’ responses. In a telling interview in late 2022, recently transcripted by TCW, Robert F Kennedy Jr made a number of compelling arguments to indict the COVID class.
Here is an excerpt: “SINCE the beginning of COVID, all of that project [the compromising and subversion by the rapacious Pharma industry of all major institutions – public health and media] has been amped up to where it has really, I would say, obliterated democracy across the globe. And liberal democracy has been demolished.
“Re. the Constitution, we’ve seen in the United States virtually the entire Bill … each of the Bill of Rights systematically obliterated. We got rid of freedom of speech, which is the most important, the First Amendment.
“We closed the churches for years, that’s, you know, religious … you know, the separation of church and State, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment and religious freedoms. We obliterated … we demolished property rights by closing every business in our country, or most of the businesses in our country – a million businesses without due process, without just compensation. We got rid of jury trials for any company that says that it’s involved in countermeasures, no matter how reckless or negligent they are, no matter how toxic their ingredients, no matter how grievous your injury, you can’t sue them.
“We’ve gotten rid of the protections against warrantless searches and seizures through pervasive track and trace surveillance that’s now part of our lives. Our privacy rights are gone. Our medical privacy is gone. And we’ve gotten rid of due process of law.”
Democracy obliterated. In a few decisive, strategic actions by evil perpetrators and their puppet governments and acolytes.
The indictment of (mostly) the US Government is savage, telling, demanding of responsive action. An indictment that should have led to … well, indictments.
The whole US Constitution rendered irrelevant in response to a middling virus. Instead, there is ongoing denialism.
Admissions of truth have certainly not been forthcoming in Australia either. What admissions there have been have been dragged out of Government officials through Freedom of Information requests, always resisted, and the probing, forensic questioning by members of the Big Five – Babet, Rennick, Roberts, Antic and Canavan – answers generally padded with obfuscation and cliches.
It might even be worse than simple denialism by the COVID class. They just might use the non-inquiry to double down. This would appear to be a different strategy to that outlined above – to sit it out and yawn it to sleep.
There is, however, evidence of double down in the UK.
Here is Heneghan again: “It is clear now that this [British] inquiry – which may end up costing a quarter of a billion pounds – is evolving into an attack on those who questioned the official policies of lockdown, mask-wearing and so on.”
If this happens in Australia, then the gloves must come off.
The likely behaviour of the three stoogettes running the show must be brought to account, and called out.
Held up to ridicule and treated with contempt, just as Hallett is back in the mother country.
Those who were subject to ridicule and treated with contempt for questioning the narrative have been proven correct on every single question. Proven in dozens, indeed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of peer reviewed papers.
Vaccine harms. Vaccine inefficacy. Lockdown harms. Mask uselessness. Sweden’s success. Florida’s success. Lockdown’s waste. Its economic harms. Its impact on children. On mental health. Its causing of a global economic meltdown. Ivermectin’s success. The killing of the aged by ventilators and lethal end-of-life drugs. Big Pharma’s lies. Its crashing share prices. COVID death numbers (hugely exaggerated). Excess non-COVID deaths. Hugely hidden and under-recorded. COVID lies. On every question where the science is in. The dissidents win.
Just wait for the attacks on us. Attack is, as we know, the best form of defence. And wait for a fresh round of lies. Especially the big lie. “We saved lives.”
The very same questions posed by Kennedy Jr must be asked here. And answers forced from the criminals in charge.
Right now, we all have a chance. But unless the silent COVID minority rouses itself to get in their submissions – with absolutely no guarantee they will be taken seriously, I grant – they, will remain voiceless.
And the COVID class will simply live to fight another day.
As Carl Heneghan, himself utterly ill-treated throughout his testimony at the Hallett inquiry, says, the stakes could hardly be higher.PC