Umbrellas Without Rain

What if the ‘evidence’ for the ‘pandemic’ is everywhere entirely secondary — circumstantial — like the ‘evidence’ for a ‘downpour’ consisting entirely of umbrellas, but no rain?

Have you not rumbled it even yet? Have you not seen what they’re doing, their methodology? Have you not begun to observe their mendacious constructions, their ceaseless misdirection, their fake data? 

The trick of unravelling the puzzle resides in answering this question: How do you fake a pandemic when there is none? The evidence that there is none is easy to show, but we shall come to that in a while. 

First, the answer to the question.

It ought not to be easy to fake a pandemic, but — to say the very least of it — the possibility cannot simply be dismissed. It may be hard to credit, but it is not, technically speaking, an impossibility.

It is not a merely technical-medical matter: At least as important is control and dissemination of information. You would need a number of other elements: some way of frightening or buying off the relevant scientific disciplines; personnel skilled in the behavioural sciences; effective tools of silencing, marginalising and demonising those stray voices that might persist in asking awkward questions; a complicit police force and judiciary to ensure that such people were either frightened back behind their lines or, in the alternative, dealt withmade an example of. But, above all, a corruptible media. 

Because of the triumph of media corruption, the Irish public, and indeed the populations of most of the world — or at least the formerly free world — have not merely not considered the possibility that the ‘pandemic’ is not real, but remain, on the contrary, solid in their sense that it is very real indeed. This is understandable. It would verge — if not intrude — on the preposterous that the leaderships of countless countries could have embarked on the same deceit at the same time. Is this not self-evident? Moreover, this apparently bankable truth is buttressed by the apparently undeniable ubiquity of evidence that the pandemic exists and is very serious. No? After all, for the past year we have heard almost nothing about anything else. The pandemic is therefore not merely a hypothesis or position, still less an opinion, even less a theory, but no less than an aspect of reality itself. 

It is that solid. Or is it?

Firstly, let us consider where the evidence is coming from. It comes, in the case of Ireland, from NPHET and the Government, reaching the public virtually untreated via the conduit provided by media. This direct feed of local information is supplemented by further information from outside the jurisdiction, from around the world, all of it appearing to reinforce the idea of a pandemic afflicting the entire world. Let us reserve, for now, the question of how trustworthy the various aforementioned actors may be (NPHET, Government, media etc.), and simply ask ourselves whether it might be possible, objectively speaking, to corrupt this process and create the impression of a pandemic without one actually existing. 

An interesting exercise might be to isolate Ireland from the broader picture, to remove from the equation all the evidence being offered about the effects of the pandemic elsewhere and concentrate entirely on the domestic situation. This is not necessarily to form any view on what is happening abroad but simply to address the question as to whether it is possible to fake a pandemic purely on the local circumstances, data and information. There is an objective justification for such an exercise: What is true for Ireland may well be true for other countries, each other country, perhaps even all other countries, but the mutuality of the flow of information tends to muddy the picture. The population of country A tends to believe all the more the evidence concerning the pandemic within its own boundaries because of the evidence of apparently similar circumstances beaming in from country B, C and Z. And vice versa. 

Hence, if only for the sake of the present exercise, it may be useful to look at Ireland on its own, each other country being free separately to apply the same process of interrogation to its own circumstances, and see what that uncovers. 

A proposition: Let us hypothesise that, if the system described above is corruptible in the manner outlined, then it is theoretically possible to fake a pandemic. It is hard to think of a metaphor that utterly captures such a phenomenon — the achievement, if such it be, is just too, well, phenomenal. It is as if an entire population of a city had been persuaded that it was raining not on the basis of water falling from the sky but on the grounds of people walking around with umbrellas opened in the street. But it is more than that: It is as if, in addition to the umbrellas, the authorities were able to use such as firehoses to maintain a constant spray of water on the streets of the city. And, in addition, if the news media were prepared to supply a constant feed of reports of torrential rain all over the kingdom. In such circumstances, it might be nigh on impossible to remain other than convinced that it was raining. 

A citizen looks out his living room window and sees that everybody passing, in both directions, is carrying an open umbrella. A voice in the background asks, ‘Is it raining?’ He answers: ‘Yes, a veritable plague of rain.’

If that seems silly, I cannot argue. But what if this is more or less what has been done to our country by the bunch of creeps and criminals we trusted it to?

Support My Work

What, in the Covid saga, might be the parallel to the umbrella metaphor? 

Cast your mind back nine months, to July of 2020. Let us, for the purposes of this argument, accept Covid as a bona fide condition and SARS-CoV-2 as a real virus. Let us credit (again purely for the purposes of the present argument) that, from March through June, everything more or less happened as reported by the media. In terms of evaluating whether or not there was a pandemic, the most salient statistic is that, at that point, approximately 1,700 people had died in Ireland from Covid-19, some two-thirds of them in care homes. In that month of July, however, just 27 Covid deaths were recorded; in August, 14; in September, 27. Since the average normative daily death toll in Ireland is 85, these figures are statistically meaningless. This information, noted in retrospect, tells us that, at that stage, the ‘pandemic’ — allowing for the moment that it had been in some sense real — was incontrovertibly over. The natural and predictable response of a government in these circumstances would have been to breathe a huge sigh of life, emerge with ties loosened from their war bunkers, high-fiving each other joyously and whooping to high heaven to tell their people to chill out and start to enjoy life again. 

On the contrary, what the government did was issue an order that everyone venturing out in public must carry an opened umbrella. 

Except that here, in our non-metaphorical reality, the first ‘umbrella’ was a face-mask, made mandatory on public transport in July and in shops and other public buildings a month later.  

Other examples of ‘umbrellas’ are: social-distancing, the first and most enduring ‘umbrella’; ‘hotel quarantine centres’ with ‘secure transport’ from airport courtesy of the defence forces; Garda checkpoints with hundreds of bollards and advance-warning screens along the motorway; testing centres with gratuitous army guards; vaccine passports, especially those abolishing choice and equality for the unvaccinated; tannoy warnings in pubic parks; chalk body-outline street markings; ambulances with sirens blaring at all hours; Covid placards bedecking every public building; and of course, the ‘human umbrella’ —  the strange, inculcated behaviour of people who circumvent their fellows at a remove of several metres as though convinced they are packing loaded forearms. All these are, you might say, offer ‘secondary’ evidence of a pandemic. But this ‘secondary evidence’ occludes the fact that there is almost no primary evidence — or none at all. The numbers don’t stack up; the tests are clearly falsified; the deaths have been misclassified on a wholesale basis from the outset.  

Timing is crucial to the success of the ‘umbrella’ strategy. It is vital that any potential lull or lacuna in the ‘natural’ inundation of propaganda be diverted by a planned escalation that, were reason to be applied to it, might appear disproportionate. The inundation also has the benefit of ensuring that the application of reason may be ruled out.  

For example, mandatory hotel quarantine was announced on February 26th, 2021, — at approximately the moment the annual flu season tends to begin winding down — and rolled out four weeks later on March 26th, just as people were expecting a respite. Similarly, vaccine passports were announced in late February, 2021, and introduced by law on April 10th — the anchorage of a bridge intended to span all the notional freedoms of the coming summer.  

Masks make especially good umbrellas: if, in surveying a streetscape in any city or town, the preponderance of people are seen to be wearing masks, the effect on the observer is infinitely more powerful than almost any amount of death data. 

The quasi-total acceptance of face-masks in July and August 2020, at a time when the ‘pandemic’ appeared to have long passed, occurred despite several national and international experts having previously stated that masks were of little or no benefit in halting or retarding the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 

For example, a constant face and voice on Irish media since the outset of the ‘pandemic’ was Professor Luke O’Neill, the Head of the School of Biochemistry and Immunology at Trinity College Dublin. Even a short time into the Covid-19 episode he had come to be regarded as one of the country’s go-to experts. On February 29th, the day of the first Irish case of Covid-19, Professor O’Neill and presenter Ryan Tubridy had the following exchange on The Late Late Show:

RT: Are face masks worth a damn?

LO’N: They are if you’re infected. . . . A face mask would trap the virus in the face mask. If you’re not infected, no reason to wear a face mask. Two reasons: one, people fidget with it anyway, you know? And secondly it’ll go in through the eyes as well. It’s an evil virus, it’ll penetrate the eyes. And that’s not covered anyway. There’s no evidence that wearing a face mask will protect you. The main reason is to stop you spreading it – which is very important, to stop it going to other people.

RT: Yeah. But there’s no reason … if you don’t have this . . . ?

LO’N: No, there’s no need to wear a face mask… absolutely not.

RT: At all?

LO’N: At all. It’s a recommendation.

 RT: So why are people panicking a little . . . ?

LO’N: They’ve seen too many horror movies, that’s one (indecipherable)

 RT: Is it like that? Is it that straightforward? Are we panic- . . . Is there an unnecessary panic about the place?

LON: It’s understandable. People are scared. It’s understandable It’s in the media. People are frightened in a sense. So wearing the face mask might make you feel a bit better maybe, but there’s no evidence at all that it’ll stop you catching the virus.

Yet, at the end of June, just four months later, Professor O’Neill spoke again to Ryan Tubridy:

LO’N: ‘If you and I are wearing masks now, it decreases our risk 99 per cent. Isn’t that fantastic? Science will get us out of this, by the way, there’s no question science is the answer.’

Viewers were thereby invited to believe that, in the previous four months, a lot of serious scientific investigation had taken place and the upshot was that wearing a mask had come to be regarded as life-saving. 

A very manoeuvre was performed, more or less within the same timeframe, by Dr Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the President of the United States. Dr Fauci, like Professor O’Neill, performed a 180-degree turn on a question on which medical opinion had been split down the middle for more than a century, with many doctors holding masks to be extremely dangerous to the wearer, especially people who suffer from respiratory conditions. 

The surgical masks in use today, although up until 2020 primarily seen in the eastern hemisphere, are a Western invention. The use of masks in medical procedures dates back at least to 1897, and was not widely adopted by the Chinese medical community until the early 20th century. Is it conceivable that scepticism concerning the effectiveness of face masks had persisted for all that time but became settled science sometime between February and June of 2020? 

The American TV news channel CNN reported on March 31st, 2020 that Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme, had said at a briefing in Geneva: ‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.

‘In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.’

On July 12, 2020, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed that the WHO had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘DO wear them’. In March, 2020, an official statement from the WHO had said: ‘There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.’

In early July, 2020, the WHO changed its advice to say it ‘advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments.’

But the key fact as revealed in the Newsnight report in July was that this u-turn had been effected not because of scientific discovery or new information, but as a consequence of political agitation. On July 12th, Cohen revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this charge to the WHO, which had not denied it.

A crucial ‘umbrella’ is what you might call ‘the management of mortality’, this being the strategic orchestration of the flow of fatality statistics at critical moments that help to maintain the impression of a pandemic. Because almost no one had ever before paid attention to mortality figures, this was easy to manipulate. The illusion of unusual mortality is relatively easy to achieve, since virtually no layperson can be expected to say what a normative rate of mortality might be, or know what is being compared with what. If the public is informed that certain figures are shocking, the public is obligingly shocked.

The ultimate measure of the existence or gravity of a pandemic resides in a single metric: excess deaths, these being the volume by which yearly mortality exceeds the average of recent years. It is difficult to say what level of deaths might constitute a pandemic (the WHO changed the definition in advance of the swine flu outbreak on 2009: previously the definition had stipulated a requirement for simultaneous epidemics worldwide ‘with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses’, but this was altered to remove the severity of illness and high mortality criteria . . . )

But, regardless of the definition of a pandemic, we can surely say with certainty that no excess deaths means no pandemic — unless ‘pandemic’ is now a completely meaningless word.

I am grateful to the website GlobalResearch, and to the researcher Kieran Morrissey, for the following information concerning mortality in Ireland in 2020/21, and much of its interpretation. Kieran Morrissey is a US born Engineer who has worked in healthcare for most of his career and has been educated and spent most of his life in Ireland. My analysis owes much to his collation of various elements of Irish mortality statistics between January 2020 and March 2021. 

Over the past 15 months, there have been two significant spikes in mortality, localised, more or less, to the months of April 2020 and January 2021. Aside from these two spikes, the remaining monthly figures for 2020, and up to the end of March 2021, show no appreciable deviation from the patterns of recent years. Similarly, the total figure for ‘excess deaths’ for 2020 — this being the ultimate measure of whether or not, by any rational measure, a pandemic has occurred — shows that last year was below the recent five-year average for deaths nationally — indeed had the lowest mortality for eight years — and this is borne out in statistics gleaned from both the General Register Office (GRO)/Central Statistics Office (CSO) and the death notice website 

A noticeable divergence — about 600 deaths — is discernible between the GRO/CSO and total figures for 2020. However, the higher figure of 31,276 ( is just marginally (84 deaths) above 2017, and approximately 1,000 deaths below both 2018 and 2019. The GRO/CSO figure is the lowest in five years. Of the two figures, the figure is to be regarded as the most complete, as various kinds of delays can occur in the official registration of deaths, on which the GRO/CSO figures depend. The two figures tend to converge within about six months of the end of every year, though after three months the outstanding official registrations habitually reduce to a trickle. 

A stark divergence reveals itself between the general patterns provided by the GRO/CSO and figures on the one hand, and NPHET Covid fatalities on the other. Up to the end of 2020, NPHET was claiming that 2,167 people had died of Covid-19. The problem is that nowhere in either the GRO/CSO or figures can this level of excess be discerned. It just isn’t there. There is a spike in April 2020, yes — 3,552 deaths that month, approximately 1,000 more than the average monthly burden — and in January 2021 a figure of 3,228, which is approximately 400 more than the average January burden. As we shall see, these figures are cancelled out by lower-than-average burdens before and/or after. 

Another notable feature is that the death burden for January 2020 was somewhat lower than average, by a margin of between 100 and 500 deaths, depending on which figures you work with. GRO/CSO calculated the dip at 266, whereas puts it at 339. This phenomenon, whereby the number of deaths in any given flu season are below the norm, is somewhat insensitively termed ‘dry tinder’, mainly by epidemiologists — the syndrome referring to deaths that might have occurred in that particular flu season but did not, and are therefore highly likely to occur later in the year. In 2020, these ‘outstanding’ deaths appear to have mostly been delayed until April, with the result that, essentially, the total for the first four months of 2020 is in line with what might have been anticipated in a normal year, and also on a par with other recent years. (2020: 11,657; 2019: 11,111; 2018: 12,156; 2017: 11,168.)

The figures also extend a high plausibility to Denis Rancourt’s thesis that many of the deaths beyond the norm that occurred in April 2020 were caused by stress arising from governmental and media-generated panic, affecting older people, especially in care homes.  I wrote about this at the end of December 2020 and inter alia anticipated that, ’[f]rom the available evidence, it is clear that virtually all deaths occurring in Irish nursing homes between mid-March and June [2020], and many of those from the beginning of October to the present [end of December 2020], have been attributed to Covid-19. Although it is as yet too early to conduct a thorough analysis, it is likely that the accounting of the winter 2020 death burden attributed to Covid-19 involves many of the same syndromes that characterised the spring manifestation, as well as exhibiting an additional tendency to classify influenza cases as Covid, with the result that, by many accounts, winter flus have all but disappeared.’

Although I was more or less anticipating something akin to what would duly occur, the January 2021 spike is more puzzling within the frame-of-reference provided by the health authorities, Government and media. On its face, it has the appearance of something significant and worrying. indicates a divergence of several hundred additional) deaths for the month of January (3,722 as compared to 2,885 in 2020 and 3,093  in 2019) — perhaps of the order of 600-800 additional deaths. Kieran Morrissey pointedly notes that these deaths occurred in the month the Covid vaccines were rolled out in care homes. 

He also notes that the number of Covid-19 deaths claimed by NPHET for January/February [2021] (1,082 and 1,045 respectively) ‘indicates a very large exaggeration’ — i.e. respectively more than double and three times the excess noted by GRO/CSO and 

He also notes obtaining 50 records for deaths which occurred in the nursing homes after the scheduled date of Covid-19 vaccinations, which revealed that, although the deaths occurred ‘very shortly after the scheduled vaccination dates’ they were all recorded as Covid deaths. He continues: ‘If those patients who died were ill with COVID-19 then they should not have been vaccinated, otherwise if they did not have a positive COVID-19 PCR test then it is very likely that they died from an adverse reaction to the experimental COVID-19 vaccination and not COVID-19 disease.’

What appears undeniable is that the NPHET figures, announced daily with all but a swinging thurible at 6pm on all national media, were frequently accumulations of deaths that had occurred over a period, with all the hallmarks of being calculated to create maximum intermittent effect on public opinion. Overall, they suggest that several thousand excess deaths have occurred as a result of Covid-19 since March 2020, but these are nowhere to be found in the GRO.CSO and statistics. 

Kieran Morrissey concludes:

  • The NEPHET/ claimed COVID-19 deaths are deaths of older people and people with underlying conditions who died as per normal but were fraudulently classified as COVID-19 by vested interests using PCR tests which have been found to produce a high percentage of false positive results;

  • The approximately 500 excess deaths in Jan-Feb 2021 must be related to the rollout of the vaccinations in those nursing homes during that period, and the excessively high COVID-19 deaths claimed by NPHET/ in Jan-Feb 2021 are contrived for the sole purpose of allowing those deaths to be explained as COVID-19 as per the death records rather than adverse reactions to the vaccines;

  • The 2020 death rate will be the lowest since 2012, a clear indication that there was no occasion for the mass hysteria created by vested interests which could not be challenged due to the lack of up-to-date and transparent death data from the Central Statistics Office.

Kieran Morrissey’s report also disposes of the fraudulent claims that the discrepancy between actual excess deaths and NPHET claims is explained away by a reduction in influenza and accidents due to Covid measures. Influenza deaths have never been recorded as such, but as respiratory disease, but in truth it is clear that what has happened is that the normative influenza burden has simply been reallocated to Covid (see my article, ‘Straight-faced lies about missing Influenza’, March 30th 2021). Accidental deaths, similarly, cannot be expected to get NPHET off the hook. Already we know that road fatalities for 2020 were — contrary to expectations arising in relation to the lockdown — up by 6 per cent on 2019, 148 compared to 140. Figures for workplace deaths in 2020, for example, (released on January 7th 2019 in respect of 2018) are not yet available for 2020 (surprise, surprise!). The indications are that there will not be significant differences between 2020 and other years (roughly 900 in 2019). We do know that 30 people were killed in workplace accidents involving vehicles in 2020, compared with nearly 250 killed in this category in the previous decade — 20 per cent above the average, according to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA). 

In an article by Louise Roseingrave, the Sunday Times’ Irish edition recently reported that the Mayo County Coroner, Patrick O’Connor, arrived at several conclusions that corroborate and supplement those of Kieran Morrissey. Commenting on the alleged 4,831 deaths by then chalked up to Covid, O’Connor said: ‘in reality a lot of people have terminal cancer or multiple co-morbidities. People can die from Covid or with Covid. I think numbers that are recorded as Covid deaths may be inaccurate and do not have a scientific basis. When a person is suffering from a number of medical conditions which will or may lead to their death at some short time in the future, if they are unlucky enough to be infected by the Covid virus, that is recorded as the principal cause of death.’

In the beginning of March 2020, when the first Irish case of Covid-19 was announced, I was fully bought into the pandemic narrative, but became increasingly uneasy as the month wore on. Guessing my immune system to be in rag order after two years of pretty much continuous illness — first kidney cancer, then a bizarre virus with the preposterous name of Ramsay Hunt Syndrome — I was a long way from match-fit. 

My wife Rita and I had planned to go abroad for an extended period in the early spring, but rumours of a threatened pandemic of some influenza-like virus coming in from China caused us to put this on the long finger and instead take a short break in Rome while we waited to see what would happen. Rome was as per the old normal, but while we were there the virus erupted up north in Lombardy, so we returned home pretty certain that something very worrying was on the prowl. For the first two weeks of March, I scrupulously observed all the recommended safeguards: handwashing, sanitiser gel, rubber gloves, social distancing and so forth. 

Meanwhile, several of my friends were way down the rabbit hole, convinced that the whole thing was bogus. They belonged to differing categories of people, but were all politically savvy in that they had for some years been observing the machinations of bodies like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, and with no little concern. They were what the current generations of journalists, oblivious of the provenance of the term, would have called ‘conspiracy theorists’, people who question the dominant narrative as though by instinct, and are usually not far off the mark whenever the truth tumbles out. But, at the outset of the Covid narrative, I was not disposed to join them. I even had arguments with some of them, though in each case, having heard my concerns about my own possibly depleted immunity, they did not press the matter. 

My attitude was ‘better safe than sorry’. A virus was a virus. A pandemic was a pandemic. It could not be ruled out, I felt, that a replay of something like the Spanish Flu was possible. I had been aware, and had written previously about the sensationalising of previous alleged pandemics, like the SARS outbreak in 2003, the threatened bird flu ‘epidemic’ of 2008, the swine flu outbreak of 2009, and had been critical, even from within the mainstream, about the tendency of media to present these in terrifying terms when in reality all three were unexceptionable pathogens that fizzled a little before burning out. A recurrence of this tendency was the worst I feared on the media front. I was alert to this possibility but not especially exercised by it, reckoning that it would be a month or so down the road before it would be possible to tell if the virus was being hyped unnecessarily, and that by then the normal checks and balances would have kicked in. 

Following, as I always do, John Stuart Mill’s dictum that we should always listen even to just a single dissenting voice on the basis that this person may turn out to be right, and given that I had already catalogued exhaustive evidence of media deception, I began to ask myself: Should I not at least take just the most cursory peek down the rabbit hole? 

I began by exploring the world wide web, particularly YouTube, which I had become more and more adept at negotiating since turning off the TV and radio in 2015. I started stumbling across scientists and doctors who were giving an altogether different account of the Covid-19 situation to that coming to me, largely secondhand, from the Irish media. 

The first significant post I came across was by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, from Germany. Back in 2009, then Head of Health at the Council of Europe, Dr Wodarg had been among the first to call out the swine flu ‘pandemic’ as a WHO and UN scam. 

On March 18th 2020, Dr Wodarg posted a video in which he argued that SARS-CoV-2 was but one of many similar viruses which usually go undetected as part of an ordinary seasonal burden of respiratory infections, and that, in effect, these viruses had been weaponised by the WHO to create the impression of a novel virus.

He described how there are likely to be several coronaviruses co-existing quite harmlessly in the system of any person at any time, including the common cold. All of us carry such viruses, he said, but only occasionally is there sufficient load to make us ill. The conventional tests, he said, were incapable of distinguishing one coronavirus from another. He also raised an eyebrow about the manner of certification of Covid-19 deaths. He finished by declaring the whole thing a case of ‘emperor’s new clothes’, which, although I was impressed by his knowledge, I thought at the time over the top. You can watch the video, which has English subtitles, here:

(The reference to the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes is at 9 mins 30 secs.)

My initial sense was that Dr Wodarg had to be completely wrong, if not insane. It was only after I had listened to upwards of a dozen other scientists and doctors saying similar things that I began to consider that he had hit the nail on the head. 

It is important to note that the reason fables are a worthwhile literary form is not on account of their often fantastical character. It is predominantly because they have the capacity to convey deeper truths that they endure and continue to offer value to human self-understanding. The story of the Emperor, his officials, the scoundrel tailors and the little boy, is only implausible if you have a very limited view of human nature. Most people know that human beings, including themselves, are deeply impressionable — on account, perhaps, of wanting to fit in, not wishing to appear obtuse, professing intelligence at least sufficient to comprehend ‘expert’ advices and opinions, and so forth. Perhaps it might be argued that the precise circumstances outlined in this particular fable strain credulity, but it cannot be said that the syndromes it highlights are beyond the realms of the possible. 

The story of the Emperor’s new clothes is concerned with the subjects of mass suggestibility and intellectual vanity — the being that false ideas can put down roots by a process of contagion. It is, in short, a story of enchantment.

In Andersen’s story, the swindlers warn at the outset that their cloth had ‘a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.’ Something like this was also a central element of the Covid confidence trick: the constant assertion that those who questioned the pandemic were demonstrating their ignorance. The media from the outset sought to smear those who questioned Covid as ignorant of ‘the science’. (Note: We no longer speak merely of ‘science’, but ‘The Science’, the new Gospel of the post-Christian era. At the end of each reading, as with the New Testament, the Book of The Science is solemnly lifted for all to see, and the voice of the celebrant intones: ‘The Science, according to Luke (updated version).’ 

It is also interesting that, from the beginning, Covid appeared to have an ideological hue, with believers tending to be from the better-off, more ‘educated’ sectors, while sceptics almost exclusively emanated from the ‘deplorable’ classes. 

It is remarkable, too, how the characters in Andersen’s offer an immediately recognisable correspondence with the characters of our domestic Covid narrative. The tailors, clearly, equate to NPHET, the medical community, the HSE and the purveyors of ‘the science’, the Emperor and his officials stand for the politicians and, by extension, the media. In both instances, we can only hope, the people, surveying the consensus of more intelligent beings, initially surrender to the narrative, until the spell is broken, as by the little boy in Andersen’s fable.

The Emperor first sent his Minister to inspect the looms. He found them empty but, conscious that a failure to see the fabric would reveal him as a fool, decided to ‘see’ the fabric. The swindlers ‘proceeded to name all the colours and to explain the intricate pattern.’ The old Minister paid the closest attention, so that he could relay everything to the Emperor. And so he did. The same happened with another official. When the Emperor finally came to see the ‘weavers’ at work, the two who had already ‘seen’ the fabric came too, and both exclaimed: ‘Just look, Your Majesty, what colours! What a design!’ They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the fabric. The Emperor, fearful that he would seem unfit to rule his people, declared: ‘Oh! It's very pretty. It has my highest approval.’ 

The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of Sir Weaver

It is the fear of being thought foolish that most often causes people to make fools of themselves. 

At first, as the naked Emperor parades before his people, the subterfuge is enabled to continue. But eventually, awakened by the little boy’s cry of ‘He is naked!’, the crowd begin to shout: ‘But he has nothing at all on!’

The story continues:

The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.’

The story of the Emperor and his new clothes has many interesting inner chambers, which are not often alluded to. In this excellent article, Damian Bruce visits several of them in describing his awakening to the relevance of the story in the Time of Covid while reading it to his son: 

‘The citizens of the city will not believe the evidence of their eyes because those around them are all saying something different. More specifically, it starts because a duo of experts (the dastardly tailors) simply state that the clothes are real. This is picked up and repeated by the Emperor’s officials and then by the Emperor himself, all of them too afraid of looking stupid, until soon everyone is perfectly happy to ignore reality and cheer as the Emperor parades naked down the street. They are lost in the fog.’

Bruce’ extrapolation of Andersen’s fable for the Time of Covid is as crisp as a freshly-starched collar:

Some experts, whether it was the WHO or the CDC or individual Chief Medical Officers, stated that lockdowns and masks were effective tools to combat the virus and that the price of employing them (the complete devastation of our economies, the cessation of our children’s education, the destruction of our whole way of life) would be worth it. And, so, despite the clear and obvious evidence in front of our eyes that these measures have failed miserably to achieve their stated aims and are nowhere close to being worth what we have lost to accommodate them, we accept it. And many of us even cheer it on just like those raucous citizens who lined the street and roared their approval of the Emperor’s new clothes so that no one could miss their devotion to the cause.

And, at the end of the story, it is worth remembering that even when the Emperor realises his nakedness he carries on walking ‘even more proudly’. That is where we are now with Covid. Like a great unspoken truth, we all know, deep down, that we’ve been wrong. We do not need to be epidemiologists to see it anymore than the people in the story had to be tailors to see that the clothes were not real. But, like the Emperor, we cannot bear to face it. So, on we march, still naked. For if we’re going to be wrong we might as well be proud.

‘Meanwhile, what of the two tailors? They escape the city with their riches, their motivation clear to all. But what of our tailors today? The Faucis who tell us night after night to stay in and stay afraid. What is their motive? Will we ever know?

Bruce lucidly conveys the dilemma of those embroiled in such an imbroglio. The politicians, knowing that they are doomed if the truth is finally exposed, double down, then treble down. Likewise the public, who though wronged have also been complicit in their own hoodwinking. The terror of being found out in such myopia, dupability and/or stupidity is too much to allow for a simple u-turn and fessing up, especially in circumstances wherein everybody else is determined to keep the fiction going. A mutualised ‘contract’ is entered into whereby everybody tacitly agrees not to squeal. The ‘tailors’ — or, in this case, the wreckers of constitutional protections and peddlers of untested vaccines — are able to escape with an almost certain immunity from prosecution.

It is at this, crypto-mystical level that we need to contemplate the efficacy and persuasiveness of the Covid scamdemic. Nothing else — no apprehension of the facts or data — can bring us anywhere close to understanding what has befallen us. The con is just too big — in fact it is, almost literally, total. The truth is walled out by lies, misdirection and enchantment, and only the innocent or culturally sterile offer any prospect of blurting out the truth. 

It is possible that something like the analysis above can be applied to any or every country, but that is not my concern. I am interested, first and foremost, in demonstrating that, as far as Ireland is concerned, the ‘pandemic’ was a complete fraud, a hoax and a damp squib that only unprecedented levels of media corruption managed to keep airborne for the past 14 months. A real pandemic would not have required the blanket promulgation of propaganda and suppression of alternative views, just as a real downpour does not require umbrellas to make it real.

I believe I owe an apology to Dr Wodarg for (though very briefly) doubting his Emperor’s New Clothes analogy. I did not register at the time that, in 2009, he had been among the first to call out what was planned as a very similar operation appropriating swine flu. Dr. Wodarg had been watching the spread of swine flu in Mexico City  — where the virus was first recorded — and was puzzled at the reaction of the WHO. What he was seeing was ‘a very mild flu which did not kill more than usual — which killed even fewer people than usual.’ The WHO had declared a pandemic, even though the death rate was no higher than usual. In his capacity as Head of Health with the Council of Europe, he launched an inquiry into the ‘pandemic’ and the WHO’s dealings with the pharmaceutical industry in the lead up to it. At a council meeting, Dr Wodarg declared that ‘all the business deals that had been prepared between individual countries and the pharmaceutical companies were about to be triggered by the WHO’. Precisely as was occurring, as he spoke, in the spring of 2020, except this time they got away with it. [Dr. Wodarg is currently working  to support Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in pushing a class action suit for crimes against humanity  against the scientists and WHO members responsible for perpetrating the Covid-19 crime. They are using the PCR tests as the main ground in proving the invalidity and illegality of all governmental Covid measures. He has also described the urgent vaccine scam being rolled out around the world, which he describes as ‘the pinnacle of the crime’: ]

In that March 18th, 2020, video, describing events throughout the West after the virus appeared to erupt violently in China, Dr Wodarg said:

‘Politicians had to deal with it, had to take a stand. Then the virologists came into play again. The governments asked their own virologists and they confirmed that this virus is a thing to worry about, and proposed to develop tests to help measure the virus like in China. Something was woven around this. A network of information and opinions has been developed in certain expert groups, and the politicians turn to these expert groups who initially started all this. And they really absorbed this network and moved within it. This led to politicians who now are just resting on these arguments, while using these arguments to evaluate, to determine who has to be helped to develop safety measures or what has to be permitted. All these decisions have just been derived from these arguments, which means that now it is going to be very hard for critics to say, “Stop! There’s nothing going on!”  And this reminds me of this fairytale about the king with no clothes. And just a small child was able to say, “Hey! He is naked!” All the others in the courtyard, surrounding the government and asking the government for advice, because they can’t know themselves, they all played along and joined the hype. And, like this, politicians are being courted by many scientists, scientists who want to be important in politics because they want money for their institutions. Scientist who just swim along in this mainstream and also want their part. “We can help too!” “Oh! We made an app!” “Oh, We have a programme for this!” So many people saying they want to help too, because they want to earn money with it and become important. And what is missing at the moment is a rational way of looking at things. We should ask questions like, “Have you found out that the virus is dangerous?” “How was it before?” “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?” “Is it even something new?”

‘That’s missing. And the king is naked.’


Support My Work