I have been watching sections of the Covid Inquiry and felt like jumping into the never-ending lockdown debate and decrying the terrible treatment of Carl Heneghan. However instead of doing that, I wanted to step back and use the work that the Thinking Coalition has been doing recently on the ever-expanding powers of the State and the new quasi-religions that are developing in Britain to try and explain what the Covid Inquiry is really all about – and this is power.
The context for the ‘inquiry’ is the growing climate cult, the cult of safety and misplaced faith in The ScienceTM, especially to ‘defeat’ a virus. What the inquiry is really about is ensuring that the elite’s vision of the biosecurity state (as described by Simon Elmer) is not only not derailed, but is actually institutionalised. To allow this to happen, the inquiry needs to ensure that:
- the effectiveness of the draconian powers used by the scientific priesthood (lockdowns) are not subject to serious scrutiny and
- the usefulness of models is not questioned.
This means that going forward, the scientific priesthood can oppress the general public at will, given that models using exponential growth will always lead to a predicted catastrophe within a short period of time, measured in days or at most weeks. This gives carte blanche to oppress the population in the name of health, even in the absence of any hard evidence on cases, deaths or hospitalisation.
The other element of the Covid response which is not receiving scrutiny is the implicit but fundamental reversal of the objective of the existing Pandemic Preparedness Strategy (PPS). A key focus of the PPS was how to keep the country operating and being able to cope with a large number of staff absences so that the system (particularly the NHS) serves the citizens. This logic was reversed at some point in March 2020 so that the primary aim of the Covid response was to exclude the possibility of the NHS being under excessive pressure; in this case the citizens serve the system. The central commitment in the PPS was simply discarded.
The U.K. Government does not plan to close borders, stop mass gatherings or impose controls on public transport during any pandemic.
This well established response was jettisoned through intense lobbying from Dominic Cummings and various other pressure groups, many Left-leaning. In Cummings’s correspondence with Professor Gowers, the professor creates a ‘back-of-the-envelope’ illustration using assumptions plucked from thin air and not connected to the 100-plus years’ worth of pandemic statistics referred to in PPS. The illustration showed that 800,000 people may need intensive care treatment. In the event 10,000 people needed intensive care treatment over the first wave from March 1st 2020 to August 31st 2020. Professor Gower’s illustration was wrong by a factor of 80 times.
Remember also that the PPS is a planning scenario for 210,000 to 315,000 influenza deaths in a short 15-week period, which is a scenario that was much worse than the Covid experience.
It makes more sense to look at the Covid ‘Inquiry’ in the context of redefining the role of the state and the citizen. To illustrate, I have spilt the protagonists into two main camps, the Traditionalists and the Revolutionaries. Due to differing worldviews those two groups will think differently about almost every subject, including the response to Covid.
The table below illustrates the diametrically opposed views the Traditionalists and the Revolutionaries will likely take on virtually every topic. This means that in many ways, interactions between the groups will probably be confrontational and can only really generate a win-lose outcome.
It is possible to classify the Revolutionaries as having absolute faith in man’s ability to manage nature, including to manage the weather and to defeat viruses. In general, the Traditionalists often believe in higher power(s) and tend to believe that man’s ability to manipulate some natural events is limited. Indeed, Traditionalists can believe that meddling with viruses in gain-of-function research is actually extraordinarily dangerous.
Revolutionaries tend to be arrogant, with a propensity to put a line through accumulated wisdom on the grounds of their superior data, analytical capability and technology. The abandonment of well-established vaccine trial protocols is a particular case in point, where a standard 10-year vaccine development process can allegedly be substituted with a 100-day vaccine development process using new technology.
Given the cult-like beliefs of the Revolutionaries, they need to silence dissenters and they must studiously avoid any real scrutiny of their core beliefs. The core beliefs of the Revolutionaries, which are being fiercely guarded by the biased ‘inquiry’, are:
- Covid was a once in a century pandemic.
- Covid vaccines are effective.
- Lockdowns work.
- The costs of lockdowns (and other interventions) don’t particularly matter.
The Thinking Coalition has spent the last two years working with academics like Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and Professor Norman Fenton and looking at data and analysis that blow most of the above assumptions to pieces.
One of the unusual features about the Revolutionaries is that although they seek unlimited coercive powers, when it comes to delivery they are fairly hopeless. That much was clear from (for example) the failure to properly test hospital patients being discharged into care homes despite the fact that public spending sits at £181.7 billion per year on the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
What the ‘inquiry’ has been able to lift the lid on is some of the personal traits of the Revolutionaries, who often seem to hate each other, let alone anyone whose views differ from theirs. A fair number of the Revolutionaries seem to lack basic integrity and are fairly aggressive in pursuing their preferred policy options.
My main conclusion from the ‘inquiry’ is that the protections given to the individual against state overreach need, if anything, to be significantly strengthened. The dysfunction that we have seen indicates that the people with the sharpest elbows get their policies implemented, whilst good and competent scientists are ignored. That is why the Government should not be allowed to impose a lockdown without hard evidence; the people in positions of power simply can’t be trusted with this judgement call using models. Similarly, all related tools of coercion such as vaccine passports which were designed to undermine the absolute right to informed consent need to be similarly banned.
Clearly this is not an outcome that the Revolutionaries are prepared to accept and in this regard, I very much doubt the counsels to the ‘inquiry’ will be standing up for the general public. Presumably, the main players will do very well out of their share of the expected £200,000,000 cost to the public of the ‘inquiry’. I doubt that shrinking the powers of the state is a line of questioning that either Mr. Keith KC or Mr. O’Connor KC will be pursuing.
I believe that what the inquiry is really doing is seeking to institutionalise the mistakes made during Covid and make it even easier for subsequent scientific priesthoods to coerce U.K. citizens. The inquiry does not appear to have much interest in improving the U.K.’s ability to respond to future pandemics given its refusal (so far) to challenge any of the sacred assumptions. This was clearly illustrated by Andrew O’Connor’s KC failure to address the suggestions made by Carl Heneghan on important improvements, particularly in the care home sector.
To my great regret, a large number of people in the U.K. appear happy to surrender their agency to the state. This phenomenon was described in Joost Merloo’s definitive book on totalitarianism:
The ordinary citizen becomes as dependent and obedient as a child. In exchange for giving up his individuality, he obtains some special gratification… the safety of being anonymous, of being merely a cog in the wheel of the all-powerful state.
This is really a battle between power-hungry technocrats and more reasonable people who respect long-established limits to state powers and would prefer to see incremental improvements, rather than the radical changes proposed by the Revolutionaries. That is the real battle.
Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was an early critic of the Imperial Covid model. He is a founder of the Thinking Coalition, which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach. This article was first published on the Thinking Coalition website. Sign up for updates here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bullseye. Great article.
I posted this yesterday under the Tegnell piece and I believe it is just as relevant here.
“I am sick and fed up with all this enquiry BS. The starting point must be – ‘given there was NO PANDEMIC why did our government act in the way they did?’
Criticising any investigation which originates from a corrupt premise can only lead to Jackanory conclusions.
By continually criticising the Pantomime enquiries we are actually going along with the official but wholly dishonest storyline.
Any enquiry which refuses to commence with the No Pandemic starting point can only ever be a farce and a grotesque insult to the taxpayers funding it.
The Hallett pantomime had its conclusions written before it started and I expect no better from the Scottish version.”
The C1984 was the starting point, the fear factor which was used to ramp up the “vaccine ” saviour myth. Running alongside we had lockdowns and Scotch eggs and the criminal and anti-human treatment of the population. All utter bollox but it kept the fear up.
“Vaccines” – poisons brewed to maim and kill. At least the author is on board with the Technocracy elements and the concomitant Control mechanisms but what is missing is the real purpose of all this issues – depopulation.
Probably the best writer on the matters playing out is Iain Davis with his Theft of the Commons series. Simon Elmer is getting there.
For almost daily updates on the criminals behind Technocracy the go to is Patrick Woods’ Technocracy News.
Grim reading, but accurate I suspect.
There is also this point. Many of the witnesses especially the politicians seem to be passing the buck or seeking to blame others. This suggests to me that they feel someone is to blame for something. Could they secretly believe they over-reacted and should have done a Sweden? I’ll answer my own question – probably not, most think they should have locked down sooner and harder and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is still the position of the public.
Coupled with our enemy within, I suspect we are doomed. Has a civilisation ever fallen so far and so fast?
Looking on the bright side, perhaps some of them will realise that they’ve lost the plot. Perhaps some of them believe that they are likely to lose their seats at the next GE, but another possibility that the turn out slumps as well, if loads of people don’t trust any of them; well see. There have been some low turnouts at the latest by-elections (like the one in Tamworth) – more like typical council election figures.
All Empires fall. Then there’s a period of sanity – before scum rises to the top again. Ad infinitum.
Just keep the plebs happy and if that doesn’t work there’s always force/fear.
Bread and circuses
Was our leafleting a waste of time?
Roman Empire in its death throes took a tad longer…?
I served in the US military partly to help defend the rights and freedoms of other Americans. It galls me that so many of them “thank me for my service” then give those rights away. And in doing so, they give away my rights, too. It’s discouraging to realize that when a significant majority of citizens willingly give up their rights, those rights are effectively taken from everyone. And you can never get them back.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/11/06/authoritarians-drunk-on-power-its-time-to-recalibrate-the-government/
Jon Whitehead at Off-G and written with an American perspective but just as relevant to us in Great Britain.
Apparently all current events were forecast in the film ‘V’ for Vendetta. An excellent article with a deeper look at our increasingly grim circumstances.
Off topic but todays Daily Mail expose from Nadine Dorres is fascinating in that it validates us conspiracy nuts who hold the view that shady power brokers decide our politics not us.
Regarding the defenestration of Boris and ID Smith:
”IDS (as he’s always known) is a wise and honourable man, one worth listening to and with valuable information to impart to me for my probe into the shadowy cabal — Dominic Cummings, Tory apparatchik Dougie Smith, Secretary of State Michael Gove and a powerful, very frightening individual I have codenamed Dr No — who have been at the heart of the Conservative Party for years…..
…..They came to see me at my home and treated my wife, Betsy, like she was a paid servant answering the door. Didn’t acknowledge her. They came in and told me what it was I had to do — like they would know — and what I had to do was manage the decline of the party into defeat.’
I stopped writing and wondered, was that what was happening today? Do these people want us to lose the next election? Is that why they removed Boris, so that we would lose?”
”…’It was Owen Paterson, my PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary], who was the first to raise the alarm,’ IDS continued. ‘He kept saying to me: ‘Iain, these people are going to bring you down. They just want to use you to take control with their own agenda to destroy the party.’
‘It was a peculiar agenda. But they could never quite articulate it. It was as though they were intellectually superior and it was beneath them to have to explain the evidence behind their beliefs — but I suppose what they did express was that they were against anything to do with removing ourselves from the EU.
‘That was the only position they did and could articulate. They were very certain about that. It was an absolute anathema to them. All they would say at meetings was — and I’m talking Danny Finkelstein, Michael Gove and all the acolytes and hangers-on and underlings — that they didn’t want to talk about Europe, we shouldn’t talk about Europe at all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-12717581/NADINE-DORRIES-Not-convinced-Boris-forced-sinister-clique-No-10-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html
This book is great if you want to disabuse normies of their cock up paradigm of politics. In another article today, she tells how Liz Truss was booted and Rishi placed in position. So some of us calling this a conspiracy…just 2-3 years ahead as usual.
”Boris Johnson was ousted by a cabal that has been controlling the Tory leadership for two decades, according to an explosive book.
In The Plot: The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries identifies Michael Gove, Dominic Cummings and a powerful adviser called Dougie Smith as members of ‘the movement’.
She says it toppled Mr Johnson and ‘brought down Iain Duncan Smith as party leader, created havoc for Theresa May and undermined Liz Truss‘. Her book, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, argues that ‘when it came to behind-the-scenes manipulation and manoeuvring, all roads lead back to Michael Gove’ because ‘he binds all the dark-arts people together’.
She says the Levelling Up Secretary was ‘in cahoots’ with Mr Cummings, who used his appearance at the Covid Inquiry last week to attack Mr Johnson’s leadership.
The sensational revelations come after Ms Dorries accused the Government of making a ‘desperate’ attempt to block her book’s publication. Officials had warned that her refusal to hand the manuscript over for official vetting could lead to her being blacklisted from future public appointments, including a peerage.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12708657/Sex-parties-ruthless-Tory-clique-secretly-make-break-Prime-Ministers-Revealed-Nadine-Dorries-bombshell-book-assassins-wanted-Boris-No-10-straight-landslide.html?ico=related-replace
Maybe Nadine will get heart attacked or car crashed….
Personally I’ve hated Gove ever since I first heard/saw him.
How he survived school God knows. If ever there was a face you’d love to punch that was he. Enough to make a Bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window (copyright Raymond Chandler).
Then there’s always Cummings.
FFS, how the hell does this dross have so much power?
At least Johson has a sense of humour, loved his “catch covid and live longer” quote.
Quite a credible report. We could equally, and with some justification, consider the same dark shadowy people got rid of Thatcher and put a failed bus conductor applicant in No 10.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/whos-murdering-england-just-follow-the-money/
A rather more forceful interpretation of our situation.
“The question is whether England’s murderers can be caught before our land is a corpse in the graveyard of Europe while the imams wail six times daily from the turrets of the great mosque built over its skeleton.”
The starting point for this inquiry should have been an interrogation of Ferguson on the flawed basis of the modelling. A mathematical approach based on excess mortality, that was described early in 2020 by Professor Michael Levitt and John Daniels, immediately undermines the validity of the work by Imperial College and therefore the basis of any decision making made on this premise. Here is a video summarising that approach:
https://youtu.be/hnkXF60lm_I?si=KulumTSmTxMhjICq
Apologies this is the wrong link. The correct one is:
https://youtu.be/jm5eLuVjUhA?si=xDNDNx-qXdks8bc1
It should, imho, have started with the entirety of events leading to the alleged outbreak in Wuhan – pipe dream I know, but “perchance to dream”. It would have caused a lot of frantic meetings, emails, WhatsApp, scrambler phone calls, MSM opeds……my hope is the fact that “it” has not still might have a similar effect for different reasons … Oh wait it has !!!!!!
Yes, grim but no doubt true. But one query: in the second illustration above, shouldn’t the Traditionalists vs Revolutionaries be the other way around as regards ‘Vaccine Efficacy’? This is an error, surely?
I thought from the outset the “Inquiry” was about ensuring that the Tyrants have the ability to do it all again.
An enquiry was conducted in the 1980’s on the Financial Services Act that had recently enshrined on the statute. Sir Kenneth Clucas KCB FRSA, an obvious pair of safe hands, conducted it. For the critical thinkers, that I helped lead at that time, he soon became known as Sir Kenneth Clue-less. Leaving aside and comparisons with history the authorities had totally cocked-up but, can you expect them to admit it? They merely had the tune of the times and could see nothing in depth.
It’s all a power grab, climate change, scamdemics, 15 minute cities etc by the WHO the UN, W Gates, Soros and we’re letting it happen all in front of our very eyes. It’s like watching a slow motion car crash.
Exactly.
CV Enquiry parameters here: most important, for me, is that these parameters are set by ….HMG; Baroness Hallett being a very compliant apparatchik ( I refrain from using a different epithet…from a wide choice of words and phrases)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-inquiry-terms-of-reference/uk-covid-19-inquiry-terms-of-reference
To paraphrase, there are only 2 Aims: “Aim 1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account….”, and:
Aim 2. Identify the lessons to be learned from the above, to inform preparations for future pandemics across the UK.
Some of the, for me, key specifics are:
Aim 1:
Aim 2: None.
No specific mention of a thorough examination of the process of the MHRA to oversee the drug trial, whether it followed a tried and tested path, if so what and if not why not;
No specific mention of the advice given, its provenance, consistency and dissemination by Health quangos and Government Health and Science Heads of Service (CSO&CMO and their deputies);
Disturbingly but wholly predictably, there appears to be:
And so on. HMG have hobdayed this enquiry for their own benefit and no one else, installed a compliant Judge ( and thereby trashed her independence with her total approval), recruited legal counsel who have made the error of flagrant bias ( and thereby trashed their independence with their total approval too).
“Not sexed up” – all over again; what else could be expected in all honesty?