As you’ll have probably heard by now if you tend to stay up to date with the nonsense spewed out by this asinine culture, the Tom Jones song ‘Delilah’, highly popular amongst Welsh rugby fans, will no longer be performed at matches.
The song has been banned by the Welsh Rugby Union on the grounds that its murderous theme will leave Welsh sports fans with no other option but to go on a wild killing spree directly after the game. And if Wales lose it will be even worse.
Halfwit Labour politician Chris Bryant has applauded the decision, an almost cast-iron guarantee that it’s a bad idea.
Quarter-wit Chief Constable Dr. Richard Lewis also weighed in with the following tweet:
To which I couldn’t help but reply with a tweet of my own:
This, then, is the latest development in the the war against context. Previous skirmishes include Zara Sultana bizarrely claiming that famous professional comedian Jimmy Carr’s famous professional joke was in fact a mere ‘joke’. The deadly inverted commas intended to condemn Carr to the role of racist commentator rather than comedian.
Jeremy Clarkson suffered a similar fate, when we were all supposed to be believe his crude Game of Thrones joke about Meghan was an incitement to violence – and not just against Meghan, but women in general.
In this same depressing vein, ’Delilah’ is assumed to be a terrorist manifesto for murdering wayward Welsh women.
Aside from the mind-numbing stupidity, and the unfathomable implications of choosing to take all art literally, one also detects, in this grim policing of community spirit, a suspicion of the organic bonds that naturally develop between the good people of Britain during national pastimes like rugby matches.
The same thing happened recently in football, with the Mirror claiming: “The start of 2023 has seen an explosion in homophobic incidents throughout the game.”
What seemed an unlikely assertion about the least homophobic year on record turned out to be simply a new level of concern over a song fans have been singing for decades, regarding Chelsea players and their mythical affection for male prostitutes. Perhaps not the most edifying of fan songs, but the goalposts had clearly moved.
I tend to put such cases down to the woke middle class sneering at working class culture. A culture depicted with mournful beauty by Morrissey in his song ‘We’ll Let You Know’. “And the songs we sing, they’re not supposed to mean a thing,” Moz reminds us. And in this case we actually can take his song at face value, even as he implores us not to do the same when it comes to terrace chants.
With rugby union it’s a bit more complicated, as it’s a sport mainly played by large posh men whose ancestors hogged all the nutritional resources. But essentially it is the same thing.
These songs, whether ‘Swing Low Sweet Chariot’ or ‘Delilah’, both of which have now failed to meet woke purity standards, take on new meanings when sung in a sporting context.
Rather than a proclamation by rugby fans that they’re going to murder their cheating girlfriends somewhere in Wales, ‘Delilah’ is an anthem of togetherness, shared values, and ancient bonds. As well as a conduit for the benign playing out of rivalries, so that we no longer have to poke each other to death with swords.
Ultimately, the conflict over these harmless songs is the same one we see happening across global politics. On one side the quirks of a nation – what a friend of mine calls our “tribal gods” – that strange, unrepeatable, yet undeniable communal magic that emerges over generations. On the other, the ‘Davos man’. The rationalist top-down planner in his Maoist tunic, banning all the weird little things you like, because they don’t fit into his utopian schemes.
“Why, why, why, Delilah?” the central planner asks.
Because we like singing it, we reply. And that is enough.
Stop Press: Welsh rugby supporters sent a clear message to the Welsh Rugby Union on Saturday, belting out ‘Delilah’ as Wales took on Ireland in Cardiff. The Telegraph has more.
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.
And for a pretty good history of it.
Just read “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And for living proof of the known bad effects of the jab thus far :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
Just in case you thought that circulatory problems were the only thing to worry about.
The problem (discounting for a moment any evil intent) is that the geneticists behind the mRNA jabs don’t understand much of the little we know of both innate and acquired immunity and have to rely on the computer coders and subsequent algorithms being correct as regards ie “blast”.
All the experts in different areas have to rely on all the others being correct.
And the chances of that in such complex systems?
I would also add to your last paragraph ‘NO drug to be released to the general public without an exhaustive ten year follow up’
Ignoring the obvious elephant in the room, I believe there was also the swine flu vaccine (rolled out after four years, then found to cause narcolepsy) and SSRI anti depressants, which were rolled out long term after only a six month trial, and now known to have horrific withdrawal effects.
As to awareness of ARR and RRR, it took me about two minutes to understand that, and a further two minutes to work out, based on the results I got, that I should give AstraZeneca a miss, but I don’t know how you go about educating the masses on that one.
A little known fact, that I got from my best friend, who was head nurse in a doctors practice at the time….is that even knowing that some of these side effects were becoming clear from The Swine Flu Vaccination, the Government used it for the flu vaccine that year without making it clear what vaccine they were using…this was to use up the vast ‘overstock’ they had left…my friend outright refused to vaccinate people without giving them this important information….the doctor relented and in that one surgery people were informed…but how many weren’t?
Suck it and see? That would indeed seem to be pfisser et al.’s view of their drugs. Do they not have a judicial track record a mile long of concealing bad data? This article to a great extent ignores the whole obscene situation with the current global trial of a highly experimental drug for no reason.
Suck it and see may apply when someone has a very debilitating ailment or a terminal disease – most people would probably be willing to take experimental medication, primarily from the perspective that there isn’t much to lose.
That is not what is happening now. Literally hundreds of millions of healthy people have been injected with chemical garbage so that the pharma companies can rake in money while their victims get to “suck it and see”, even though they never needed this garbage in the first place and both the medical profession and pharma knew this full well. They have now managed to make “suck it and see” the new safety trial, while still lying to people that the garbage they are peddling has been fully tested and found safe. If they literally said “suck it and see” I suspect the uptake would drop significantly. From what I gather mRNA drugs for all sorts of ailments are now being developed based on the lie that this stuff has been tested to the nth degree and found safe (and effective). Repeated pokes of the covid poison are being shoved into people without any trial whatsoever, even with the knowledge that not only does this garbage not do very much for very long, but the side effects that are already visible are beyond the pale.
In relation to the latter point, I suggest that those who have not yet done so have a look at Igor Chudov’s substack and an article he posted yesterday. He quotes a prediction written by someone on another substack back in September 2021. It is almost verbatim what we are witnessing now, quite frightening. If that person could figure this out back in September and we are in fact seeing what he predicted play out, only a moron or a psychopath would still have any faith in pharmaceuticals at this point in time.
Yes..it’s been made even clearer with the FDA giving permission for two jabs for babies, yesterday…even though the evidence for any ‘efficacy’ is negligible…..
utterly shocking…
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-omg-the-pfizer-data-for-kids/comments?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F12729762-alex-berenson&utm_medium=reader2
Igor Chudov also pointed out that if a pregnant woman has her two initial jabs, then a booster, then has the baby, when the baby’s six months old it can have its two jabs…so by that time it’s been exposed to FIVE doses of toxic spike protein!!! Who can possibly tell anyone that that is ‘safe’?
Things are even worse than feared for the babies & future generations. The CDC are going for the youngest age group first.
[Forwarded from UK Medical Freedom Alliance]
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/breaking-news-cdc-launches-sneak?s=r
“National Vaccine Advisory Committee. Melinda Wharton gave her update from CDC… and they have scheduled a special two day meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for TOMORROW (Friday, June 17) and Saturday (June 18). The agenda is here:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/agenda-archive/agenda-2022-06-17-18-508.pdf
Friday they will discuss safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of Moderna in kids 6 months through 5 years of age AND Pfizer in kids 6 months through 4 years of age. Saturday they will vote. The entire process is set up to rubber stamp the VRBPAC meetings from yesterday.
CDC is going to hold off on debating Moderna in kids 6 to 17 years old until next week (they have another meeting scheduled for June 22 and 23). The CDC has decided to target the littlest kids first.”
PLEASE SHARE FAR AND WIDE
This article reads to me like someone defending a serial killer by giving examples of good things he’s done. He held the door for an old lady, he always smiled and said hello to his neighbours, he was good at his job and never missed a day.
No doubt they do some good things. But they ruthlessly push to have their products administered often knowing they don’t necessarily help much, they actively sabotage effective competing products at the expense of human life (so I know they don’t care about people’s lives if they get in the way of their profits) and they are now at the centre of an effort to impose a global biomedical surveillance system that would result in forced or highly coerced administration of their products.
I wouldn’t care so much about them and would be more open to the “nuances” if they weren’t trying to force themselves on me.
A lot of them probably like dogs too
But great anology, it is a defence of serial killers. Quite a few of these ‘mad professors’ probably have the same disdain for human life as any bog standard serial killer, the only difference would appear to be the diploma on the wall.
Yes, I don’t like being violated myself.
My attitude towards chemicals I would be ingesting, or having injected into me is “buyer beware.” I don’t trust the Pharmaceutical companies at all, and following the last 2 years’ disgraceful behaviour by the Government/medical profession, I don’t trust them either.
I’m in my early 60s. The last time I saw a GP 3 yrs ago (apparently essential before the nurse would clear wax from an ear) he asked what medicines I was taking and when I said “none” his response was “we’ll get you eventually.”
And that appears to be the objective – drug pushing. The Pharmaceutical companies push their drugs to the medical profession. The medical profession then push the drugs to vulnerable and poorly-informed patients.
Ignoring data and just changing the finally presented numbers to fit the narrative is rife at all levels, in my experience.
Time and again, I have spent hours producing self-serve reports which are based on the data available, rigorous testing of my backend SQL routines, clear caveats detailing database quality issues, and so on, only to have very senior managers export to excel and edit everything to suit. Which would be fine for them perhaps, if they didn’t then come back to me three weeks later and tell me,
“Your numbers are wrong.”
Little did they know that I could see very well that they had ‘adjusted’ my work.
Certainly if pharma patents were abolished, the way drugs are developed and the funding for their testing would have to change; that in itself is not a strong argument in favour of patents. Germany had a flourishing pharma industry in the 1930s before pharma patents were introduced. Ways would be found to fund development and testing, people and charities would likely crowdfund research. A major problem with patents is that they encourage pharma companies to develop the wrong kind of drug, namely one that is “novel” (i.e. with an unknown safety profile, hence needing a lot of expensive testing) and where cost and efficacy are secondary considerations. Scarce technical resources are misdirected into securing monopolies rather than delivering value to patients. Patents and the money they bring in also mean that undue influence is brought to bear on universities, journals, the media, governments and the entire medical establishment in order to drive out competition, including competition from low-cost repurposed drugs, which universities don’t dare to progress beyond the pre-clinical stage for fear of losing grant money.
Dr Bamji makes a good case but after the last couple of years my view of the pharma industry has been completely undermined. Basically I don’t trust it one bit.
Owing to ticker trouble going back twenty five years I have for most of that time been taking statins. A few years ago I started to notice that after a cardio work out my mood changed and I would feel violently angry shortly after leaving the gym. It became so bad I genuinely feared I might hurt someone.
A look on Dr Google revealed I was not alone. And what did we all have in common?
Statins.
I reported this to more than one GP. The assistance from one doctor was a few pages from the computer on anger management which got FIB.
Since then I have been “encouraged” by various doctors and cardiologists to go back on statins. Hardly surprising that my faith in both is all but non-existent.
An addendum – I am off statins and will never go back on them.
I don’t blame you! Sebastian Rushworth MD published an article on overprescribing of drugs on his substack.
Re statins I wouldn’t worry, you’re only statistically going to die 4.96 days sooner than if you didn’t take them
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2022/06/14/should-the-patient-really-get-the-drug/
Thanks for the good news BB
Dr Maryanne Demasi exposing the statins con and her personal experience of being censored and silenced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2dHQSj90-A
(Similar conclusion as BB mentions statins may give 4 days more life potentially for some people who are at higher risk. So majority are taking them for no benefit and risking side effects).
Drug companies could be made to publish risk / benefits for anyone to make a reasoned assessment of whether taking a medicine is better for them or not. Those could be included in places like the British National Formulary (BNF).
Thanks
The main thing to take away from this article is that most of modern medicine is really nothing but an enormous body of witchdoctor lore: Create a random concoction. Give it to people. See what happens. If it’s good, claim the concoction caused it, if not, blame it on something else. Times a 100,000 or so.
Many thanks for providing some balance to Driver’s earlier article.
They’re still bloody crooks and they are only interested in the bottom line.