Does the United Kingdom still get to decide whether it goes to war or not? It’s no longer so ridiculous a question. Everyone now seems to approach the subject with a kind of pious resignation. Whether with Ukraine or Palestine or Taiwan; the whole thing appears to be out of our hands, and we can only be carried dutifully along by our own abstract obligations and commitments.
So we are informed that the British ‘may soon be at war’ if Russian arms happen to cross over into certain eastern provinces of Ukraine. Last month, the absence of a plan on the books to mobilise the nation for an entirely hypothetical world conflict caused a minor scandal. Britain is now, according to General Sir Patrick Sanders, also in a ‘pre-war’ state; and is in fact already ‘at war’ with Iran, and should now just act as such.
Something in me declines to be addressed in this way. And all of it seems oddly familiar. The honour of the army. The independence of the generals from party or faction. The peals that we live in a dangerous world that civilians can scarcely understand. The casual contempt for domestic politics in the face of wider ‘strategic considerations’. The primacy of treaties. The primacy of military planning – planning, which soon takes on a life of its own, and so becomes itself a spur to belligerence and mobilisation.
We once had a term for this: militarism. Everyone General Sanders’s age has been taught about the origins of the war of 1914-18 in the same way – of general staffs, systems of alliances and military schedules spinning totally out of control, taking from statesmen any real powers of decision during those fateful weeks in July 1914.
Preventing this from ever happening again meant abolishing the last of these powers. By the end of the century the old sovereign right to wage war – in many ways the essential characteristic of the nation state – had been virtually done away with. Military action, where it was allowed, was outsourced to a frame and edifice of international treaties, laws and obligations.
The result has been a system of military commitments that’s deeper and more binding than the secret pacts of the 1910s ever were. These rose and fell out of diplomatic expediency, but the system of treaties in the 2020s has something like the force of law behind it. Article 5 of NATO absolutely commits British, Canadian and American troops to answer any infringement on the sovereignty of Estonia or Turkey.
International law now demands an armed fealty that would’ve shocked even those living through the fever pitch of militarism a hundred years ago. The German General Staff of 1914, in all its bulimia and hysteria, would never have accepted such a constraint on its actions. Nor indeed would the British cabinet, which hummed and hawed endlessly over whether to come to the defence of Belgium – a country that is 50 miles from the coast of Kent.
And there’s a domestic side to this as well. If the authority of the central government has withered in favour of international law, then this has only increased the prestige of the military: the stately enforcers of this law overseas. To its leaders, the honour, prestige and esprit de corps of the British military has become inextricably bound up with international law, and the ‘commitments’ that it entails.
And so we arrive at that other characteristic of militarism: the escape of the army from civilian control. As central democratic authority has declined, both the military and military priorities have begun to intervene in public life in ways that would’ve seemed downright bizarre just 30 years ago.
Notice it once and you’ll start to see it everywhere. The British armed forces are now, apparently, allowed to refuse orders if a clash with some idea of international law is implicit. In 2022, the Royal Navy rebuffed a request from the Home Secretary to patrol the channel for illegal migrants. The RAF then ruled out the idea of flying them to Ascension Island.
Or see it in how the British are also now expected to settle the military’s personal debts of honour. The country’s centre-Right normally has to at least gesture towards immigration restriction; but all this goes out the window when it comes to the army’s old mercenary colleagues – like Gurkhas and Afghans – and the obligation to settle them among the civilian population after their contracts expire.
Nor do the British now scruple to put military men at the head of public life. The country’s political and media class now almost demands their leadership. Dan Jarvis MP, a virtual cipher, was held out for years as the natural alternative to Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn simply by dint of military experience. The same is true of Ben Wallace, Tom Tugenhadt, Penny Mourdant and Tobias Ellwood – where a vague ‘Forces’ frisson was enough to earn them a ringside seat in national politics.
More than anything else, we see it in the breeziness with which people now talk about conscripting the young in the name of ‘Our Obligations’. Owen and Sassoon could write about the squalor and futility of the Great War, but even in this case one might have plausibly said that the safety of the home islands was in some way at stake. And even then, this society baulked at mandatory service until 1916 – two whole years after hostilities began.
But in the 2020s, pre-emptive conscription is now being seriously discussed for the sake of two eastern oblasts in Ukraine. Forget Flanders, this would be the actual “corner of a foreign field” where young lives are squandered in an obscure cause. It’s a callow and adolescent bloodthirstiness, and in it we can see how strong the idea of the rules-based order and its defence has become – so strong, indeed, that it can now overawe all the anti-war cultural tropes that each of us grew up with.
But there is nothing hard and fast about any of these supposed international commitments, and honouring them has nothing to do with patriotism. The British military, and the pundits who plead its cause, are too willing to trade in these pieties, and, worse still, in the sinister idea that there are deeper obligations that transient and frivolous civilian politicians cannot appreciate. They should be reminded that the British Army has no independent honour, commitments, priorities or obligations of its own; it is a tool in the hands of the British people – and nothing 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.
A Ratner moment, let’s hope.
It’s possible
The rich powerful and evil often eventually fall due to hubris
The important thing to remember about pharma company ‘profits’ is that they’re necessary to be able to recoup costs involved in developing their products in the first place — not just the successful products but this profit also needs to be shared to cover their unsuccessful drug candidates.
But the important thing to remember about the covid vaccines is that their research and development was fully funded by governments worldwide. What’s more, these governments also did the pharma companies a favour by extensively promoting (sometimes mandating) that the vaccines be used. This changes the dynamic completely — at this point there’s a very good argument to say that the pharma companies have now covered their investment costs (and then some) and that the vaccines should be offered at cost.
I’ve left out the problem of whether the vaccines work or not from the above argument — given that there is still a substantial demand for the vaccines it is a moot point.
And from who did the governments acquire their assets from, making it possible to fund the product development? The other point to remember is that the pharma firms have been granted financial immunity for this product.
Unless fraud or criminality can be proven, you’d hope at least.
If there was any justice pfizer would be out of business already.
If there was any justice then Pfizer should have been out of business in the mid 1970s
A most important point indeed. Yes, huge piles of taxpayer money were thrown at the vaxx makers – our money being used to produce products to
poisonsave us. When handing over those eye-watering amounts for ‘research’, governments should have been the ones stating the terms, not thedrug pushersvaxx manufacturers. When governments started signing those ultra-secret contracts with the vaxx makers, the governments should have stipulated the terms – and the contracts should have been open and available for perusal by everyone – the government is our representative, our agent, we, the people who pay for all of it, have every right to know what is being agreed in our name. Even to this day our own parliaments are not allowed to see these secret documents, or only heavily redacted versions. Why?If we had anything like a functioning media and real journalists rather than whorenalists, this would have been a major press item for months.
Another good point for investigation is why pfisser was the number 1 favourite even before they got out of the gates. Good PR, natch, but also the incestuous ties between big pharma and so-called regulators, particularly in the States. A real journalist would, for example, start delving into Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, since mid-2019 member of the pfisser board of directors, and see how much of a role he and his undoubted contacts at the FDA and the US government had to do with pfisser being given what looks like the role of favoured supplier even before it had a product. Fraudci and his disturbing geilheit to push mRNA into everyone also played a big role in this. Hundreds of millions of free guinea pigs to test his favoured toxin – guess he knew the human rights brigade would put up less of a fuss than the animal rights brigade.
The important thing to remember about pharma company ‘profits’ is that they’re necessary to be able to recoup costs involved in developing their products in the first place
Yes, and also there’s all that outlay they needed to gain control of governments and regulatory bodies – that has to be recouped as well.
They also need profits in order to meet criminal fines.
Bextra – Pfizer fined 2.3 billion dollars in 2009.
They’ve got some way to go though to catch Merck – 4.85 billion dollars in 20007.
I think one would be therefore correct in calling them criminal organisations.
The important thing to remember about pharma company profits is that they come from government-granted monopolies. Pfizer can chose to charge whatever they want for their products in their most important markets, because neither need to worry about customer satisfaction nor about competition. They also don’t really need successful drugs in the sense that they actually benefit people, the only required property of a modern medical product is that it kills only a few people on the spot.
It’s very telling that this guy talks about a franchise here, ie, essentially about sales-by-virtue-of-branding.
What surprises me is that I’ve yet to hear anyone in/close to power suggest a windfall tax on Pfizer & Moderna. There’s been a huge transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders, when it’s happened in the past in the oil & banking sectors we’ve seen windfall taxes, why not for these rapacious pharma multinationals?
And the windfall taxes can be used to pay “reparations” to the families of those murdered and injured by the Pfizer (and the others) poisons.
Nice. Defective products which kill and injure and now will be mandated to comingle with the useless yearly flu stab. Millions dead and injured worldwide. Long term immune system collateral damage slowly unwinding and will be massive but covered up. Outbreaks of SADS and heart issues across all age groups. Rona average death was 84.
Can all of us play this defective-product game or is it just for a criminal industry which has bought most governments ?
All planned. All prepared long in advance as given by the hundreds of Rona patents stretching back 10 years.
Yes companies like Pfizer are laughing all the way to the bank, at the expense of the global population and due to their indemnity against liability. Although they come out on top financially we know this gene therapies business is not purely profit driven. If it were then Big Pharma could have made their products all saline. Nobody would ever have known because there would be no safety signals, the virus would have done it’s thing and herd immunity would have eventually happened, just like with all other respiratory viruses the frailest would sadly succumb, and the fake “vaccines” would take the credit for what would happen organically. Pfizer and the rest would still make huge profits, if not more.
However, looking at everything that’s come to pass thus far, including the behaviour of Pfizer, the lack of transparency, the lies, fraud, the many analyses of the contents of the vials and vaxxed people’s blood and the mammoth amount of data and real world evidence demonstrating these things are the polar opposite of “safe and effective” then it seems obvious to me that this entire project was brought forth with the achievement of the following aims; depopulation, transhumanism and, if you go for the 5G theory, mass surveillance and control. This is supported by information I’ve shared previously regarding this being entirely a US government and military operation, with DARPA being at the centre of this gene therapy research for years now, and the regulators are just pure theatre and play no meaningful role.
These shots were never intended to be effective or safe and anyone who still believes otherwise is incredibly gullible and silly indeed. They will never get taken off the market because they are not vaccines, medicines, nor are they intended for health improvement/protection. It’s a global experiment alright, just not one with public health as the focus.
Welcome aboard Mogs. You have arrived, almost. This is not an experiment though. The depopulation is baked in. Public health is the focus – destruction of.
Haha yes well…better late than never and all that. All the things I’m reading/listening to just puts the puzzle pieces together as to why these products are still on the market, still being pushed and why they will never be taken off the market, but more regular vaccines will morph into mRNA – based clot shots instead. What I’m not aware of however is if this will be done in a covert fashion. For instance, the article I shared yesterday about the RSV jab Pfizer are working on, so that pregnant women can immunize their unborn babies. Nothing about mRNA was mentioned in the article, but seeing as we’re talking about shady AF Pfizer here, and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, I honestly don’t know if it’ll end up being another mRNA product seeing as how there’s apparently over 100 vaccines being trialed currently using this platform. Will they all eventually merge into clot shots??
Is this going to be how they capture the likes of us and babies in utero, newborns etc? The ones who have thus far escaped the toxic gunk? Perhaps I’m being paranoid but I wouldn’t put anything past them given the out and out corruption and wickedness we’ve been witness to and the evidence of nefarious shenanigans that are all out in the open now. I think they want to mop up the “control group” by turning standard vaccines into toxic clot shots. It’s hardly beyond the realms of possibility is it? It’s not like they’re even being secretive about wanting to expand their reach with mRNA technology. They love it because they can churn these things out now in a fraction of the time of regular vaccines that rely on several years of thorough research, then they get to rake in max profits. 7 years vs 100 days, what’s not to love when you’re a greedy, profit-hungry entity such as Big Pharma, that wouldn’t know bioethics or informed consent from a hole in the ground?
Absolutely agree. The pandemic was created for the vaccines, not the other way round.
Nope. Not me. I saw the scam from the start. And anyone who wanted to look could have too.
Now be fair to Pfizer. They are killing off their customers. The fewer remaining need to pay increasingly more.
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to do something about overpopulation.” HRH Prince Philip, 1988.
”I cannot understand why nobody is doing anything about overpopulation.” Boris Johnson, 2007.
The writing has been on the wall for a long time.
Yes, it’s staring us in the face but very few are brave enough to see it.
Let nobody claim Bozo is not a hypocrite, after all he has done far more than the average man in his efforts to overpopulate.
Pfizer Chief Covid Multi-Billion Dollar Franchise
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Thursday 10th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3408 London Rd &
John Nike Way, Binfield
Bracknell RG42 4FZ
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Reparations
Windfall taxes
On
Big pharma
Hat tip Hux.
Why thank you LS.
This is an excellent analysis of Pfizer’s phase 3 clinical trial. Basically they did more things wrong than they did right! But these trials could afford to be done half-cocked because these products were always going to get authorized no matter what. It’s just a paper exercise.
“Here we analyse data from the November 2020 interim analysis performed by Pfizer during their Covid19 vaccine phase III clinical trial. We show that the raw numbers, as provided by Pfizer, suggest that the vaccine causes about two to three SAEs per single case of severe Covid19 reduction. We also present (in the Appendix) statistically strong evidence that the vaccine indeed increases SAE rates. Assuming that SAEs and severe Covid-19 cases are clinically comparable, and that the main purpose of the treatment is to reduce the number of severe cases, the trial has demonstrated that the vaccine causes more harm than good.
Furthermore, we show that Pfizer’s analyses deviate from the trial’s protocol in at least two important respects: (a) the timing of the data cutoff date for the interim analysis does not follow the timing defined in the protocol, and (b) the inclusion criteria for participants in the safety analysis are arbitrary. These are severe breaches of the standard drug approval process, as they allow for an artificial inflation of efficacy assessments whilst hiding potential safety signals.”
https://www.pandata.org/covid-19-vaccine-trial-review/
The question in my mind is whether it’s possible for the Covid crime to be (a) an emergent phenomenon caused by a multitude of bad incentives, or (b) something with central planning and implementation.
I lean towards (b) but the bit I find difficult to explain is how so many Pharma scientists could take part in this disgusting experiment whilst telling themselves and us they were serving the common good.
It was patently obvious that we were being lead into a situation where forced vaccination would become a condition of normal life. This was painfully obvious as far back as spring 2020. This whole thing was all about the so-called vaccines.
..so we need to get to the bottom of why they wanted that stuff in all of us, who ‘they’ are, and whether this objective succeeded or failed.
Yes the theories abound as to the “why” part. Look at the EU that still haven’t ditched the vax passes. They’re still waiting in the wings to be wheeled out on a whim if anyone fancies manufacturing another ”crisis”. Emergency legislation is now written into permanent law for the same reasons, which is why no country’s leader has declared there will never be any more restrictions brough back. They should be able to look at the massive amount of evidence that these were very harmful failures and publicly state “never again. We got it wrong.”, but fat chance! It’s like all the infrastructure is being put in place strategically and we’re being left wondering when the inevitable assault will happen, and will it be another orchestrated ‘lock step’ type of scenario…? They didn’t spend all that money for nothing, including on the jabs.
Mike Yeadon has probably mentioned in one of his many videos why so many scientists are taking part. But there’s always been these sort of people with zero ethics and a broken moral compass hasn’t there? People are easily bought, influenced or manipulated, with the awful things that went on during WW2 being an obvious example of how people could just look on apathetically, turn on one another or participate in the actual crimes against humanity which took place. Weak people are malleable people. I just want some security and confidence when I look to the future but, at this point in time, I can’t trust that more shit isn’t going to hit the fan before winter’s end.
That’s the million dollar question really isn’t it. Did the whole thing stall? I get the feeling that it did, it just seemed to collapse under the weight of its own nonsense; most of the world ultimately got bored of it (including thankfully the country I now live in) I can see why you might fear a return but it feels to me like a dead horse. No one’s going to buy an another pandemic and Covid has lost its mystique. That cowering, homogenised, faceless, powerless transhuman zombie slave class they seemed to want to turn us into ain’t happening, back to the drawing board…
Ha, yes I’m in agreement with you. Too many suffered due to the restrictions and too many have suffered due to the jabs. Or they know someone who has, or they saw everyone getting Covid anyway and the scales fell from their eyes as a result. Either way too many have woken up now to tolerate more bogus engineered virus hysteria. Omicron put paid to that.
I’m stuck in the EU though and I wouldn’t trust these shysters as far as I can spit. I’m too afraid to relax properly as I’m waiting to see what stunt they’ll pull next. A good indicator will be if I can finally get back to visiting the German Xmas markets as previously it was only open to those with a Nazi pass. That’ll be a positive sign.
Franchise is such an ominous choice of words. Let’s hope there isn’t a Covid 2: Beyond Thunderdome.
Covid Part Deux
And strangely, nobody’s talking about a windfall tax for pharma companies.
I have mentioned on here that a windfall tax on pharma could be used in order to pay the reparations due to those killed and maimed by their poisonous injections.
I noticed that and thought it a nicely worded barb.
The point of my remark was supposed to be that, to the people who want windfall taxes, Pfizer profits due to Corona policies are not ill-gotten gains, despite they very much look like this, the crucial difference being that they were politically desired by these people themselves. I strongly suspect that there’s also some climateering involved here: Windfall taxes are applied to bad companies (like electricity providers) who burn stuff and thus, generated CO2 as side effect, ie, the motivations is higher electricity prices, possibly temporarily hidden by state interventions to shield (some) consumers from them.
Unless this is specifically prohibited, taxing companies harder just ends as price increases for customers, ie, it’s not really the companies which pay the taxes.
“I noticed that and thought it a nicely worded barb.”
Thanks RW. Glad you spotted it.
Why do people keep taking something that doesn’t work? Who does that? All GP’s just rec’d a letter from their medical director, asking them to use the yellow card system to report suspected covid vaxx injuries. What took so long?
Wrecked immune systems and ADE is so beneficial for these criminals.
Calling it a “franchise” is really rubbing people’s noses in it!