• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Three Generations of Waughfare: Alexander Waugh (1963-2024)

by James Alexander
27 July 2024 7:00 AM

So Alexander Waugh has died, aged only 60. He was, as I wrote a few months ago, third in the line of great Waughs. His father, Auberon, died aged only 61. His grandfather, Evelyn, died aged only 62. Sixty two, 61, 60: diminishing returns, perhaps, at least in age. There is no question, I think, that Alexander was less famous than Auberon, who was less famous than Evelyn. But, remarkably, there was no loss of quality. Alexander was as perfect an embodiment of a classical, catholic and coruscatory sensibility in literature and the arts as was his father and his grandfather. I cannot think of a comparison. Amis fils was a lesser figure than Amis père. Adam Nicolson writes well – his Homer book was a marvel (the best single thing written on Homer apart from Weil’s essay and some of Gladstone’s speculations) – but whatever Nigel and Harold were, they were not capable of Waughfare. It is hard to think of any example of similar sustained activity across three generations as the three Waughs managed, or such continuity of critical and satirical assault – always manifested in the highest of styles.

For those of us who know, Evelyn Waugh has some claim to be the greatest novelist of the 20th Century. I myself would say that he was the equal only of the very different D.H. Lawrence. Lawrence was the master of the exploratory novel: the novel that went within, venturing into the inarticulate aspects of subjective experience, freed by the innovations of the ‘free indirect style’, invented by Jane Austen, explored by Flaubert and others, but brought to its highest art in Women in Love. On the other side, there were the novels of Waugh – the only novels I can reread in my fifties – which, as he himself knew, refused to venture within, and remained stoically, bitterly, without: achieving astonishing penetration by saying something about everything on the surface and sketching great satires of ‘bright young things’ and ‘vile bodies’ as they aged. The great exception in Waugh’s oeuvre is Brideshead Revisited. Some readers of Waugh greatly disliked this book – Norman Stone was one of them. But I think it was a great achievement in a different manner: the first-person as opposed to third-person manner. But this aside, Waugh was, by and large, the master of the third-person novel, the exterior view, whereas Lawrence was the master of the third-person novel, interior view. Woolf and Joyce, to my mind, come nowhere. Waugh’s only rival was Wodehouse: who was practically a different species of writer: as Waugh himself wrote, innocent.

Auberon Waugh was a keeper of the flame. In Books and Bookmen – that great review of books of the 1970s – he wrote some great critical pieces about his father. The last time I was on sabbatical I spent an entire summer reading back numbers of that magazine, just for Waugh’s pieces, along with the occasional thing by Richard Ingrams. But Waugh was not only the keeper of the flame: he became, in the diaries published in Private Eye and later collected as Four Crowded Years and A Turbulent Decade, the author of the most sadistic and downright amusing commentaries on the social and political affairs of the 1970s and 1980s. He also wrote essays for the Spectator, the New Statesman, and the Telegraph (taking over the Way of the World column), which offered the least painless political philosophy sketched in the 20th Century. The Oxford political philosopher Jerry Cohen more than once commented that the greatest political philosophers of all time were Plato, Hobbes and – [pause] – Rawls. Cohen was obviously an idiot, not noticing the diminuendo. (Alexander Waugh, student of music, would have noticed the diminuendo.) Plato – of course. Hobbes – why not? Rawls – Rawls? Rawls was nothing compared to Auberon Waugh. Rawls wrote one very poor, very long and very humorous try at a novel entitled A Theory of Justice in which he put a ‘man of no qualities’ into an ‘original position’ and derived all sorts of earnest and fanciful rubbish about him/her/it, his/her/its foolish principles, and the narcissism of his/her/its looking in the spuriously spirit-levelled mirror of reflective equilibrium. Whereas Auberon Waugh told us that politicians were people who were in the grip of a psychological abnormality as terrible as a sexual fixation: obsessed with power, bullying and bossiness. I remember thinking, as I read it, that even Machiavelli and Nietzsche did not say anything as penetrating. Polly Toynbee’s epitaph, in time, will be her humourless epitaph on Auberon Waugh.

Alexander Waugh was also, inevitably, a keeper of the flame. He recently was in the process of editing the 40-volume Oxford University Press edition of his grandfather’s works. And he wrote quite possibly the best single biographical or autobiographical study ever written by someone writing out of the middle of something: his book Fathers and Sons, which was a study of four or five generations: Alexander, the brutish doctor, Arthur, the sedate publisher, Evelyn, the victim of jazz age futility who reinvented himself as a sardonic observer of it, Auberon, the boy who lied and shot himself and then wrote a few failed novels before mastering the art of the satirical sketch, and reaching Alexander himself, who was born early enough to have been dandled on Evelyn’s knee in some photographs. Some of the greatest literature in the world is a literature of the apprehension of others: Orwell on Dickens, Lawrence on Hardy, Shaw on Ibsen (Gladstone on Macaulay, Carlyle on Johnson, etc). But in Fathers and Sons there was a circle relating the inheritor of the style to the inventors of the style and inviting reflecting on the nature of the style by extending it into the world of fact.

What is distinctive about the grandson is that he ventured further than grandfather or father into non-fiction: apt, since, as everyone observes, our age satirises itself; and, certainly, the sort of satire Evelyn or Auberon wrote might not work so well in a world which has elevated its own absurdity into a heightened kitsch of statistics, bureaucracy and shape-shifting uppers, downers and blockers so remarkable that Juvenal would pull the gravestone over his head were he to see it. And Waugh was, at first, not satirical, in the music journalism, and the book on opera: and consecretary or exploratory in the study of the Wittgenstein family and then the study of the Waugh family: though, the latter, at least, was a circling back to satire.

I have read Fathers and Sons. Alas, I have not yet read the other books – God or Time or the musical writings, though I suppose I will. But I rediscovered the third Waugh, and finally acquired a sense of his singular mastery of tone and style in the spoken YouTube ‘presentations’ he published on the subject of Shakespeare. Here was his final and true métier. The tone was highly polite, and hence perfectly merciless when critical of ‘the professors’. This is not the place to rehearse the arguments: about John Dee, about ‘Gematria’, about Thomas Thorpe, about Ben Jonson, etc., except to point out that Waugh managed to be extremely knowledgeable and suggestive about the sort of 16th Century literature which, until I heard his presentations, was an obscure bundle of sticks to me. I learnt from Waugh that the Elizabethans were not only politically but also literarily extremely conspiratorial, paranoid, allusive and brilliant. They all shook like spears: one of them more than others. It was the last era in which science and magic were intertwined. I had no idea. For someone like me, who started in the 19th Century, it was already difficult enough to venture into the commercial and orderly and sententious 18th Century and then into the scientific and revolutionary and religious 17th Century: I found a natural limit at Hobbes. But Waugh taught me to see that Shakespeare was not just the author of plays and poems but typical of his age, while surmounting it, in writing in a complete associated sensibility in which in and out, in which logos and mythos, in which Hamlet-type subjectivity and Coriolanus– or Macbeth-type objectivity jostled together in continual sound and fury. Shakespeare, for instance, in Troilus and Cressida, explains more brilliantly than Pascal or Schopenhauer or Thucydides (and they are the masters) what would happen if might became right. He declares, and I paraphrase, that the world would become a universal wolf and eat itself. Well!

Isn’t the world becoming a universal wolf and eating itself?

None of the academic books can explain this: this undissociated or associated sensibility. It is difficult. T.S. Eliot invented the phrase “dissociation of sensibility”, by which he meant the fragmentation of mind when sentences and science coerced our minds into a language in which we could no longer – except in novels – sketch an entire human sense of the world. R.G. Collingwood in Speculum Mentis argued that the medieval mind had been complete: and had fractured into categories thereafter: into the categories of art, religion, science, history and philosophy. Alas. Well, I read it in Collingwood, and Eliot: but Waugh, the youngest Waugh, has done as splendid a work in embodying the thought, displaying it, as anyone I have ever heard or read. His YouTube presentations are masterful works of imaginative reconstruction: indicating just how we dissociated moderns can attempt to think our way back into the undissociated or associated minds of the past, such as, exemplarily, Shakespeare’s.

Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.

Tags: Alexander WaughAuberon WaughEvelyn WaughFathers and SonsShakespeare

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Live and Let D.E.I.

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rtaylor
rtaylor
3 years ago

They own the judges and appointments, look at the plant in Maxwell’s pedo trial. They’ll be allowed to kill shot as many as they have to.

Last edited 3 years ago by rtaylor
37
0
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
3 years ago
Reply to  rtaylor

What plant?

1
0
Otacon
Otacon
3 years ago
Reply to  TheyLiveAndWeLockdown

The judge in the Maxwell case just got put up for promotion by Chuck Schumer and Sleepy, Creepy Joe. The lead prosecutor in the case is FBI Director James Comey’s daughter, the same one who let Hillary destroy evidence in the whole emails scandal and was an instrumental part of the Trump-Russia hoax

6
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
3 years ago

It “may” turn out to be a big mistake? Talk about understatements.

There was never any reason to set aside scrutiny and accountability for medical products that are put into people’s bodies. What is the point of finding a short-term solution for a medical emergency, if it could end up causing a long-term medical emergency?

The fact that even now, with 1 year’s worth of data pfisser won’t accept any liability completely destroys the disingenous mewling of governments and health authorities across the world that “we would know by now if there were going to be long-term problems”. It is precisely because of those unknown long-term problems that pfisser et al. will not accept liability. If they will not stand behind their own products, there is no way anyone should be forced into taking these products.

107
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  JaneDoeNL

💥 Damn straight! Criminals with utter contempt for humanity.

32
-1
FrankFisher
FrankFisher
3 years ago
Reply to  JaneDoeNL

I’d like to know why the emergency temporary licences in place for the vax in the Uk are still there, given that we also have treatments now. MHRA falling down on their one and only job.

22
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
3 years ago
Reply to  FrankFisher

Absolutely, the same applies to the FDA and the EMA. The EMA has just said people can get a booster 3 months after their last shot. It more and more seems to me that they are fully aware that ADE or something like that is occurring. After spending the better part of a year first saying how wonderful the vaxx is, then saying it’s wonderful but does need the odd booster, they are now in essence admitting it’s got a 3-month effectiveness and getting vaxxed people to get that 3rd shot asap, including those who they are still claiming have at least 6 months of effectiveness since the 2nd shot.

Nope, definitely something they now know and are not telling us. This cannot be hidden forever, no matter how stupid people have been and many still are. And then these lying sacks of unscrupulous garbage had better run.

Making a mistake in the heat of pressure is one thing, continuing to enforce the same mistake to try and keep people from finding out – disgraceful and worthy of extreme punishment.

14
0
Gregoryno6
Gregoryno6
3 years ago

If Ford or Boeing tried that on, the MSM’s shrieks of outrage would shatter glass.

51
0
Jo Starlin
Jo Starlin
3 years ago

Pfizer didn’t develop the coofshot. They market and distribute it under licence from BioNtech, who along with Moderna had never brought a product to market before last year. This is not a Pfizer “vaccine”. They provide brand name cover.

https://dossier.substack.com/p/miracle-or-mirage-mrna-moderna-biontech?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

39
0
Vxi7
Vxi7
3 years ago
Reply to  Jo Starlin

It’s also a way out for Pfizer. If trouble will raise they will throw Biontech under the bus.

14
0
Shirlgirl
Shirlgirl
3 years ago
Reply to  Jo Starlin

I heard the US government own a chunk of Moderna ?

6
0
Jo Starlin
Jo Starlin
3 years ago
Reply to  Shirlgirl

I have seen something just today to that effect but I really don’t know.

0
0
mishmash
mishmash
3 years ago
Reply to  Jo Starlin

Dr David Martin – The names and faces of the people killing humanity.

3
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago

It is becoming clearer by the day that this is the new imperialism, complete with its own array of human rights abuses. (and don’t forget the old imperialism was driven by big business too).

Those who stand in future elections to parliament must commit to reign in the pharmaceutical companies. If they don’t, they don’t deserve our vote.

48
0
NonCompliant
NonCompliant
3 years ago

Hesitant ???

I didn’t think the risks of taking an experimental ‘vaccine’ were less than the risks of the virus itself.

Caught the coof. Survived. 100% within 2 weeks of catching it.

I WILL NEVER TAKE THE “VACCINES”.

59
0
Vxi7
Vxi7
3 years ago
Reply to  NonCompliant

Caught or not. No one should be forced to take a medical procedure one does not need.

31
0
FrankFisher
FrankFisher
3 years ago
Reply to  Vxi7

No one should be forced to take a medical procedure one does not want

20
0
Moderate Radical
Moderate Radical
3 years ago

‘If Pfizer is so confident that its vaccine has been proven safe in rigorous trials, why is it unwilling to take responsibility for any problems? And if it is unwilling to take the risk with its own product, how is that going to persuade the vaccine-hesitant to take the risk themselves?’

I know it has been said numerous times, but if you’ll allow me to demur once more, I and countless others are emphatically not ‘hesitant’ with regard to this ‘vaccine’. We are utterly decided on our position, and have reached a definitive decision.

Can we finally dispense with this misnomer? It implies that those who haven’t had the injection are unsure, tentatively weighing things up and agonising over the issue. Now, while this may apply to some, I think it is safe to say that by now the vast, vast majority of people know whether or not they’re going to be injected.

Last edited 3 years ago by Moderate Radical
85
0
Sandra Barwick
Sandra Barwick
3 years ago
Reply to  Moderate Radical

Yeah, Will’s a good lad, and should note this.
Ban “vaccine hesitant as a phrase”.

31
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  Moderate Radical

Excellent point. In my experience, the ones who refuse the vaccine are the ones who actually know something about it and what it does to the body. The “vaccinated” appear to know nothing about it other than it is “just an ordinary vaccine” ( which it is not) and it allows you to go on holiday to Corfu.

55
0
sjonesy1999
sjonesy1999
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

Yes they think they have been injected with the dead Covid virus. That’s what the doughnuts I know think it is anyway.

21
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

Very, very true. It’s hard not to develop the mindset that they deserve what they’ve got coming to them.

7
0
CynicalRealist
CynicalRealist
3 years ago
Reply to  Moderate Radical

Indeed – it’s very clearly a government propaganda term (probably originating in the nudge unit) which is used to imply that anyone who hasn’t been spiked is just a bit ‘hesitant’ but will see the light eventually.

That really is not the case for probably nearly everyone who has got this far without being spiked – we are absolutely, definitely opposed to the whole concept and will never agree to it.

What do we think would be a good alternative? Vaccine Refusers gets the message across but implies both that we agree that it is a vaccine and refusing implies something subversive. Injection Decliners? Bit crap! Anyone got a better suggestion?

22
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  CynicalRealist

Clot shot realists.

23
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  CynicalRealist

Pfizer decliners

14
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  CynicalRealist

Rejectionists
Rejection gives us more agency than refusing. We’re not just refusing them, we’re rejecting everything about them, the people pushing them, the grounds on which they’re pushed, the politics behind them, the companies making them, the people defending and apologising for them. I reject it all.

33
0
Susan
Susan
3 years ago
Reply to  CynicalRealist

Informed dissenters. The t-shirt should read:
Informed Dissent

Last edited 3 years ago by Susan
23
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  Moderate Radical

Yep. My family are Vaccine Adamant and have been since before they pretended to invent them. It’s one thing having to suffer the endless lies of the parasite ruling class, it’s quite another allowing yourself to be poisoned with them.
They can, in the words of many protesters I have witnessed, stick their poison vaccine up their arse.

25
0
LonePatriot
LonePatriot
3 years ago

MSM is trying to make fun of people wanting to protect themselves with cheap and proven drugs. Ivermectin has been FDA approved for human use since 1996. It also beats Pfizer’s new wonder drug hands down, and costs next to nothing. Ivermectin doesn’t make tons of money. So they know the Covid shot is on its final gasp, so they take it add something different to it, rebrand under another name and charge 20 times what they would for ivermectin. I cannot wrap my head around this nonsense. When I explain this to my relatives they label me as crazy and ask me if I know better than science. I don’t make up these information out of my ass. All this information is true and proven. For some people it is near impossible for them to wake up. They are comfortable in their clown world life. If you want to get Ivermectin you can visit https://ivmpharmacy.com

39
-2
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  LonePatriot

Amazing what you can achieve with total control of the Media and the use of Psy-ops professionals to terrify and hypnotise most of the population and conceal so much truth so easily .

Is there any point in mentioning the ‘real agenda’, which has been laid in front of us all in the WEF Schwab “Great Reset” and the many interviews given by Bill Gates over the years from the very start?

So far every single “Conspiracy Theory’ projected has turned into fact – so the future looks grim… so long as the sheep sleep.

28
0
sjonesy1999
sjonesy1999
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

Full on Stockholm Syndrome where I live.

20
0
twinkytwonk
twinkytwonk
3 years ago
Reply to  LonePatriot

From what I’ve seen the molecular structure of ivermectin is not replicated in these new antivirals. However, they all block the same viral enzyme. Can anyone addto this?

5
0
BeBopRockSteady
BeBopRockSteady
3 years ago
Reply to  twinkytwonk

Look up Dr John Campbell on YouTube and his comparison of the pills. Pfizers uses the same protease inhibitor mechanism as Ivermectin.

7
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago

A reading of just a few sections of RFK J’s fully documented book ‘The Real Dr Fauci ” and his 50 year career of forcing through vaccines he advocates produced by companies he has an interest in, after the insistence on achieving indemnity for the producers from any prosecution for damage they may do and the ruthless suppression of opposition and qualified professional medical opinion that ever challenged his judgement, should convince even the least sceptical of the unknown dangers we now face for ‘trusting’ those charged with ensuring our protection from unsafe products to be acting in our best interests and not those of the powerful Pharma industry .

The fact that, without the indemnity from prosecution so casually granted to Big Pharma the experimental and un-trialled ’emergency use only’ mRNA vaccinations (2023 trial end date) would never have been ‘trialed’ on the public, should tell us all we need to know about the alarming absence of comprehensive data on their action on the body and ultimate safety and the real financial interests of the Pharma companies and their agents and investors which have driven this unprecedentedly rushed programme.

37
0
bringbacksanity
bringbacksanity
3 years ago

My MP assures me that the “Vaccines” are safe. And I am guilty of “disinformation” as all them deaths they report are not linked in anyway to the “vaccine” despite being in the Gov’s own vaccine reporting (and three days after I pointed this out to the dumbo a Tory MP stood up in Parliament and said the same as me).

here is the quote

“Thank you for your email.

As it states directly after the quote you have selected, “this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.”

If you would like my assistance on another issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. However, I have made my views clear on the vaccines, and the scientific data shows that they are clearly safe. While you may have your personal views on this, they are not in line with the evidence, and I will not be responding to any further disinformation”

the vaccines are so safe that anyone under 40 is not allowed an AZ “vaccine”. So safe that Pfizer is not prepared to distribute unless having zero guilt ahead of the roll out.

mean while the good old U.K. trusts the AZ so much that they are letting this happen.

https://www.pharmatimes.com/news/report_uk_disposed_of_600,000_az_vaccine_doses_after_they_passed_expiry_date_1383593

Last edited 3 years ago by bringbacksanity
25
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

Your MP needs deselecting for spreading dangerously false information.

30
0
bringbacksanity
bringbacksanity
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

I was absolutely livid at the superior tone of reply. I am nothing but polite and respectful to her, all I ever said was that because there was a risk a vaccination programme for Children should be with GP’s to decide not the school vaccine programme. And I end up with her crap. Hate her so very much.

26
0
Aleajactaest
Aleajactaest
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

all they react to is your vote. I had exactly the same response from my wringing wet Tory MSP. They are 100% on message. No deviation, no personal or constituent issues allowed to permeate this stance. They have all been got at.

What shakes them is the retort that you will never, ever vote for them or their party again AND will actively campaign against them at every and all levels of politics they stand in.

17
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

And trying to suppress free speech and close down debate.

15
0
CynicalRealist
CynicalRealist
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

Well, I suppose at least he gave you a straight answer (albeit one which is clearly wrong)! My MP absolutely won’t answer any straightforward questions, and won’t provide cost-benefit analyses for any of the government measures (or refuse to provide them – he simply will not address the questions at all).

11
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

I got one similar to that when asking when this first started why we needed to wear a mask, he said why was I moaning when it was temporary? Can’t be bothered to write now so don’t know if he’s changed his tune, although have to say, a lot of these are written by their staff

Last edited 3 years ago by DanClarke
6
0
FrankFisher
FrankFisher
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

I love the way that simple unsubstantiated assertions by govt agencies are now taken to be scientific fact, that over-ride basic statistics.

8
0
186NO
186NO
3 years ago
Reply to  bringbacksanity

Ask him to supply links to the “scientific data shows that they are clearly safe”

Keep asking him until you are deemed vexatious – at that point go public with the proof – a list of the emails – that he is unable to prove his assertion.

If only to ensure your continuing sanity. Good luck.

7
0
Cristi.Neagu
Cristi.Neagu
3 years ago

Hmm… why would you require legal protection for the most tested and safest medication in the history of medication…?

/s

29
0
Waffle
Waffle
3 years ago

Omicron significantly reduces Covid antibodies generated by Pfizer vaccine, study finds.
Early data suggests people who have had Covid have more protection that just those who have been vaccinated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/omicron-significantly-reduces-covid-antibodies-generated-pfizer/

16
0
twinkytwonk
twinkytwonk
3 years ago
Reply to  Waffle

I have no idea why any sane person would think antibodies produced against one viral protein would be superior to antibodies against all viral proteins.

13
0
BeBopRockSteady
BeBopRockSteady
3 years ago
Reply to  twinkytwonk

Because boosters. Or something.

9
0
crisisgarden
crisisgarden
3 years ago
Reply to  BeBopRockSteady

Yes because get your booster when it’s your turn to get your booster.

4
0
JohnK
JohnK
3 years ago
Reply to  Waffle

It appears that those of us who have dealt with the infection naturally are likely to be better equipped to deal with other variants, such as Omicron. Nothing to do with antibodies further out in time – they are junk, but we should then have a batch of T-cells that can detect similar invaders in future.

1
0
Milo
Milo
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnK

That was always my take – that my NI would detect variants, mount an immune response, and might give me some low-level symptoms while it did so, and then I would have also boosted my NI in the process, by being exposed to and mounting an immune response to the variant.

If I am incorrect in thinking that – by all means, educate me.

0
0
Cecil B
Cecil B
3 years ago

Met Police Responds To 900,000 People ‘Attending’ Christmas Day Rave At Downing Street (ladbible.com)

6
0
Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago
Reply to  Cecil B

Haha! Like I said, let’s have a big Christmas party at Downing Street…

5
0
Norman
Norman
3 years ago

I see Andrew Neil is ranting about the unvaccinated in the Mail. I wonder if he has asked himself why so many of the unvaxxed have not succumbed in the last two years, or how many have succumbed and recovered and are now immune.

21
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago

A subject, one of many, MSM is not allowing comments on now. Why did our own governments allow the population to be jabbed with something that requires no liablity?

8
0
Hester
Hester
3 years ago

People have this strange idea that Pharmaceutical companies are in a benevolent business, there to produce products that cure and save lives, these people are fooling themselves. The Pharma Industry is akin to the Defence Industry, only the latter does not try and hide what it does. Pharma is there to make money for its executives and its Shareholders. period, its a business, If they were for example to make a cure for Cancer that would take away billions in revenue of drugs which Cancer victims have to live on, so its a reoccuring income stream, likewise vaccinations, especially these ones which are nice and cheap to produce, ran off a computer programme not years of trials and tests, and of course free from all liability. Plus if you can supress a cheap drug that cures the disease through your friends in politics, then you have many years of liablilty free guines pigs who you can stick your newest “Vaccine” into.
Curing a disease, an illness a condition is not profitable, but producing drugs which keep the symptoms at bay and to which the patient becomes addicted, whilst not being cured, now that is an extremely profitable business,
Ask Mr Gates and Dr Fauci

13
0
JASA
JASA
3 years ago
Reply to  Hester

I totally agree. Conventional medicine is all about disease management and nothing about cure.

6
0
Milo
Milo
3 years ago
Reply to  JASA

disease management at best – creating repeat business at worst

3
0
FrankFisher
FrankFisher
3 years ago

The trials absolutely did NOT demonstrate the Pfizer vaccine was “safe”. For one thing, all causes mortality was worse in the treatment arm than the control arm. And in the FDA submissions there were more deaths reported than in the original trial results, 21 vs 17 I think, from memory. lousy efficacy, lousy safety – all in the TRIALS, still approved. Thousands of deaths in the real world afterwards. Such Success. Much victory over nature.

9
0
Otacon
Otacon
3 years ago
Reply to  FrankFisher

Not to mention that Pfizer manipulated the trials, according to the BMJ whistleblower. Improper storage of materials, removing subjects from the trial when they displayed adverse events, including one 12 year old boy who subsequently ended up in a wheelchair

3
0
marebobowl
marebobowl
3 years ago

I will never regret declining the koolaid. Sad my husband was brainwashed by his kids to take it, but he is now declining the booster(s). Seeing so many friends with problems post vaxx. Heart attacks, neurological issues, cardiac and lung issues, bleeding issues and one helluva lot of cancers, aggressive cancers, myocarditis.

The only people we know with COVID right now, have been “double jabbed” some boosted. Fascinating that gp’s and nurses working in practices are seeing none of this. Same for paramedics. Because if they were you would expect them to speak out. They are silent. So everything must be okay. Probably all the above “adverse events” are coincidental.

11
0
ewloe
ewloe
3 years ago

re: the company has come under fire for “war profiteering” by making huge profits during the pandemic.

Pfizer’s dividend yield is 3%.

1
0
Julian
Julian
3 years ago

Pfizer and governments and “scientists” and “regulators” know it’s not nearly as safe as other vaccines e.g. flu – these people are not stupid. They just don’t care because they know they can get away with it because no-one is questioning anything and they have manufactured consent with their Big Lie, and frankly a lot of ordinary people probably realise it’s not as safe as other vaccines but have such an exaggerated idea of the risks covid that they are happy to roll the dice.

7
0
SimCS
SimCS
3 years ago

So the government’s “safe [and effective]” moniker for the (not-)vaccines is an outright lie. But then we knew that.

4
0
DoctorCOxford
DoctorCOxford
3 years ago

No problem with them making money. Good for them. But if you won’t take the liability how dare you say “jab your already safe kiddies and have another two yourself.” This is what creates distrust, a type of crony capitalism.

Why, I have this product I can sell to fix you up from Covid and it only costs £20 a pop, but, can you protect me from any…issues? That is where we are at. Own it Pfizer, that’s all we ask!

5
-1
Milo
Milo
3 years ago
Reply to  DoctorCOxford

when there is the very real risk that it is going to be mandated for people who actively DO NOT WANT to have it the contention that you make is nowhere near good enough.

1
0
Shirlgirl
Shirlgirl
3 years ago

…… comments on the Daily Sceptic are all that keeps me vaguely sane. Just wondering if we should think about some kind alternative contact arrangement…… I don’t believe I am even having to write this but since dark forces are on the rampage, we have no idea as to what assaults on our lives will come next.

7
0
JohnK
JohnK
3 years ago

They have looked at their balance sheets, and no doubt the accountants have told them what to do. They must know the financial risks involved.

0
0
Richard Austin
Richard Austin
3 years ago

I got to wondering why David Malpass, head of the World Bank, would be talking about vaccines. It’s hardly banking and spreadsheets, is it? So, lo and behold, he is hand in hand with the Bill and Melinda Killya Roadshow. Quelle surprise, Rodney, petis pois.

Last edited 3 years ago by Richard Austin
3
0
Richard Austin
Richard Austin
3 years ago

The reason why Pfizer won’t release the documentation is exactly the same as why Fauci cut the trial short at 6 months: it kills people. Read Kennedy’s book, he talks about how Pfizer hid 5 heart attacks in the small print and removed them from the data.
Fauci had used the same tactic before. Cut disastrous trials short and strong-arm the killer drug through the FDA. He did it with AIDS and he did it with Ebola.
Remdisiver is commonly known by American Nurses as “Run Death Is Near” with good reason. Fauci cut the trials short because over 50 people died. He then proclaimed it to be a miracle drug. The first independent tests of it were by the Chinese who concluded that it had no discernible positive effect and was dangerous. Remdisiver is still one of only two recommended treatments for Covid in the USA.

3
0
Richard Austin
Richard Austin
3 years ago

Something to bear in mind: OfCom still has a gag on the press, after nearly two years, which means they cannot criticise Government Covid “policy”. Do ask your MP why.

https://www.writetothem.com/

3
0
Richard Austin
Richard Austin
3 years ago

Two more pieces of the puzzle: the head of the World Bank is hand in hand with Big Bills Wild West Killing Show. Guess who is the paymaster for Eurosurviallance, the company which passed the testing for Covid using PCR? Yep. The test that every country has relied on and doesn’t work. Everywhere I look there are three names: Gates, Fauci and Soros. I am struggling to find anything they are not influencing – sorry – assisting, out of kindness to mankind. Murdering bastards.

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/12/pcr-test-for-coronavirus-questioned-by-prominent-scientists/

Last edited 3 years ago by Richard Austin
3
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

15 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

16 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

29

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

26

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

19

News Round-Up

18

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

27

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

‘Why Can’t We Talk About This?’

15 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

POSTS BY DATE

July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jun   Aug »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences