Skripals, Austrians, hoaxes and redemptions -- Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 10:54:59AM +1100, Zig the N.g wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 05:28:46PM -0600, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > > > > > 2- It's an Ill Wind > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 > > > > > > So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately > > > trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, > > > on their figures, 400,000 deaths. > > > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > > to infect them. > > > > Kurt > > Skripal hoax > > Did I mention "ahem"? If not, let me be unmistakably clear: "AHEM!", as in > "A!" followed by "HEM!" > > FTFY Ahh, the wicked web weavers, wantonly weaving wicked Web Weaver Webs of w.ggardly wicked webs o' bull sheeit! Seems some the brown stuff is finally getting exposed: Austria Confirms OPCW Report On Skripal-Faking By The British, Exposes FT Lies & Cover-Up John Helmer via Dances With Bears blog, http://johnhelmer.net/austria-confirms-opcw-report-on-skripal-faking-by-the-british-vienna-exposes-financial-times-lies-and-cover-up/ https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/austria-confirms-opcw-report-skripal-faking-british-exposes-ft-lies-cover … The London newspaper appears to have cropped the published picture so as to hide the barcode. That concealment — proof of the Austrian source – allowed the newspaper reporters to claim the source of the document was unknown, probably Russian, as the headline implied: “Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek touted Russian nerve gas documents.” A British military source was reported as claiming “the documents were ‘unlikely’ to have come from OPCW member states in western Europe or the US.” ... So, to our "friendly" MI5 doofuses: Was whatever the hell it was you were trying to achieve with this ridiculous allegation of "RUSSIAN" spys running around London with nerve poison bottles, really worth it? Was it worth the obvious embarrassment that you must have had no doubt would be exposed (as it is now, see just above) sooner or later? And to really slam home British Western dignity, now we have Andrew running around in a bald faced and similarly sad attempt to try sounding like a commoner. Seriously moronic! Now yes, family ralations, stiff upper lip and all, doing what you can for your burdened cousin, brother or whatever - yeah we get it, and yes there is some real dignity in that, but sheesh, could you pull this off any worse? So what's the tab these days on a flood of Westerner's starting to emmigrate to Russia out of sheer embarrassment? If the UK parliament wants to reclaim some real dignity ---in the eyes of the people---, and whilst they're at it give a genuine lift to their own spiritual standing, AND raise the public profile (and similarly, moral standing) of the British Royals whilst they're at it, the simplest and most obvious "low hanging fruit" is to pass the power of pardon clearly and firmly to the Crown in its own right, at least in the case of international matters, so that said crown may dutifully deliberate on this issues at hand and consider the genuine public interest in relation to the matter of the incarceration of Assange and whether this public interest (and the interest of the press, and free speech etc), outweighs any outstanding political interest in keeping Assange incarcerated. And the parliament can be seen to uphold actual and genuine democratic values of a balance of powers, honouring the rightful place of duty which the Crown ought carry in ralation to such complex matters as the Assange case, the public's need to see an ethical/moral reality to their parliament and their royals, dignity in international relations, and no doubt other bits of legal goodness your wigs would come up with. -That's- the kind of win win which could create a strengthening of substance and a lasting relevance to the public's relationship between the various authorities of the Crown, the houses of parliaments, Lords Temporal, and Lords Spiritual etc. If it ain't real, it ain't real. Fundamentally if you want substance behind "looking good", there must actually be some actual substance behind that attempt to raise standing - the public might be less than highly edumacated at times, but
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 2:30 PM grarpamp wrote: > On 3/15/20, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > I slightly misspoke - the mission of government is to prosecute crime > > If that were in fact true, then govts would have to prosecuted > themselves out of existance, not least of which for some of their > own crimes against humanity below. You are preaching to the choir. > > unfortunate becomes defined as a tragedy, and therefore legitimizes > > all government intrusion into the private sphere. > > Yes that is one obvious game govts play. > And you suckers keep falling for it time after time. You suckers? You don't include yourself in the psyops game? > > War, that is, invasion by a foreign power, is a species of crime. > > Their own govt power is, as often and more, and in many > ways, in fact the initiating invader. Stop framing your > minds away from that fact. Again, preaching to the choir. > > Illness is not. > > Here a lots of illness crimes done by sick government... Focus, man, focus. Yes, biowarfare is real, and has been practiced by governments and individuals. In this case, the evidence isn't there, any more than was evidence in 1918. > > Indeed yes, but not in this case. > > It is exactly the case. Doesn't matter if govts created > virus or not. They're still on TV 24x7 leveraging their > propaganda game, FUD trolling for your worship, cutting favoritive > licenses over free market competition, etc. Govt plays game > for itself to some extent in *every* case. Let's keep this on target. The US government, at least, did not, and probably the Chinese did not either, absent better evidence, deliberately create the virus or infect anyone. We can take lots of issue with how it's been handled, but we've seen no evidence in this case that the infection is deliberate. Nor do we see, at least in the US (China is up for debate on this point), the government withholding care. Poor planning and execution, yes, and Trump trying to downplay it, yes, and Trump trying to keep proceedings secret, yes, but not much else. > Government is standalone competing entity, a virus, > one that you should not let win, lest you succumb. I don't know how old you are, but I've been studying and teaching freedom for a long, long time. Don't teach grandpa to suck eggs. Kurt
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 3/15/20, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > I slightly misspoke - the mission of government is to prosecute crime If that were in fact true, then govts would have to prosecuted themselves out of existance, not least of which for some of their own crimes against humanity below. Government rule... #x: Do not prosecute self. #x: Keep inner DNA workings secret against inspect. #x: Protect self at all costs, including in own hardened bunker-spores. #x: Replicate, distribute, mutate. #x: Broadcast FUD pheromones attracting victims into trap. #x: Insert numbing agents allowing proboscis to suck. > unfortunate becomes defined as a tragedy, and therefore legitimizes > all government intrusion into the private sphere. Yes that is one obvious game govts play. And you suckers keep falling for it time after time. > War, that is, invasion by a foreign power, is a species of crime. Their own govt power is, as often and more, and in many ways, in fact the initiating invader. Stop framing your minds away from that fact. > Illness is not. Here a lots of illness crimes done by sick government... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 > Indeed yes, but not in this case. It is exactly the case. Doesn't matter if govts created virus or not. They're still on TV 24x7 leveraging their propaganda game, FUD trolling for your worship, cutting favoritive licenses over free market competition, etc. Govt plays game for itself to some extent in *every* case. Government is standalone competing entity, a virus, one that you should not let win, lest you succumb.
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 2:18 AM grarpamp wrote: > On 3/14/20, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > > to infect them. > > Governments murder people all the time, literally on news every day. > Doesn't matter whether it's via spy poison dart umbrella, > spraying humancide from a lorry in the streets, > carpet bombing the "enemy", > shooting sleepy people, > stealing and starving them to death, > etc. > > Rest assured, if govt has a gameable angle on plague, > they're going to leverage it. History full of game examples. Indeed yes, but not in this case. Accuracy in speech and thought is the desideratum, and Peter failed to meet it. Kurt
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 2:18 AM grarpamp wrote: > > On 3/14/20, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > > to infect them. > > Governments murder people all the time, literally on news every day. > Doesn't matter whether it's via spy poison dart umbrella, > spraying humancide from a lorry in the streets, > carpet bombing the "enemy", > shooting sleepy people, > stealing and starving them to death, > etc. > > Rest assured, if govt has a gameable angle on plague, > they're going to leverage it. History full of game examples.
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:55 PM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > On 15/03/2020 02:46, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > The point of government is to prevent crime, > > not tragedy. > > There I must disagree. The point of government is precisely to prevent > tragedy. > > As in protection against invasion by foreign hordes, or for that matter > viruses. I slightly misspoke - the mission of government is to prosecute crime, not prevent it, because ultimately prevention is impossible. But here we see the problem with your scope of government - everything unfortunate becomes defined as a tragedy, and therefore legitimizes all government intrusion into the private sphere. War, that is, invasion by a foreign power, is a species of crime. Illness is not. Kurt
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 3/14/20, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > to infect them. Governments murder people all the time, literally on news every day. Doesn't matter whether it's via spy poison dart umbrella, spraying humancide from a lorry in the streets, carpet bombing the "enemy", shooting sleepy people, stealing and starving them to death, etc. Rest assured, if govt has a gameable angle on plague, they're going to leverage it. History full of game examples.
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 3/14/20, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > The point of government is precisely to prevent > ... > tragedy > ... > invasion by foreign hordes > ... > viruses Track record of history appears to suggest some fair number of both facts and correlations that governments have not only failed at substantively limiting, but consistently participate in, such things. Perhaps quite to the point of them being moot.
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 3/14/20, John Young wrote: > Deft analysis. Positive infection salutory to > clear out senior royal and political and > governmental and military and finance and spies > and media and intellectual and celebrities and > predators and environmental damagers and drug > pushers, allowing angelic ethical fair-minded > under-60s to take over the reliquaries in hazmat > gear without guillotining, merely shovel the > disinfected carcasses into the Thames to be > encased in plastic waste and frozen into revived > icelands. Until boarded by circumnavigating polar > bears with plastic sails sniffing fresh meat down south. Said skew in age distribution of deaths a quite interesting game regarding herd of geriatric population making up overloaded imbalance across most governments. Then the stories of which moles shook who's global hands. Could result in massive wipeouts and unpredictable political change within such bodies. Already started are post-scourge reworking projects to "stress test" and prepare their own assemblies for next one. This bug hardly nasty enough, seemingly not design or ops limited to governments as Anthrax, and govts already sequestered their dastardly bodies in continuance plans, ready to roll out fresh propaganda when Corona clears. Corona2, will it be the maker of wind, an ill flatulence upon the earth. >>2- It's an Ill Wind >> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 15/03/2020 02:46, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: The point of government is to prevent crime, not tragedy. There I must disagree. The point of government is precisely to prevent tragedy. As in protection against invasion by foreign hordes, or for that matter viruses. Peter Fairbrother
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:06 PM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > On 14/03/2020 23:28, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > >> > >> 2- It's an Ill Wind > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 > >> > >> So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately > >> trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, > >> on their figures, 400,000 deaths. > > > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > To my mind it is; "Trying to" is to deliberately do something in order> to > obtain a desired effect. If the "something" happens to be "nothing", > it doesn't change that IMO. The limits of an impoverished mind, I suppose, incapable of differentiating between action and inaction. > Remember those philosophy problems with a train and someone on the track > and a set of points? Yes, a classical false dilemma. > Well to my mind one way is clear and the other way has a million bodies > on it, and just because the points are presently set to the million > bodies doesn't mean that deliberately choosing not to change the points > avoids being responsible for the outcome. > > Especially when changing the points is your responsibility. Ever hear the phrase "Not my monkey, not my circus"? It applies here, or at least it should. The point of government is to prevent crime, not tragedy. > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > > to infect them. > > But there's more, they won't let others change the points: head teachers > want to close schools, but the government is planning to send them to > jail if they do. > > To my mind that pretty much IS the equivalent of chasing down their > subjects on the streets with spray bottles of viral concoctions. Too much government, not enough freedom. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies. > Maybe I took too much poetic license. But I don't think so. And I do think so. Kurt
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 14/03/2020 23:28, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: 2- It's an Ill Wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, on their figures, 400,000 deaths. Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That is not the same as "trying to infect" To my mind it is; "Trying to" is to deliberately do something in order to obtain a desired effect. If the "something" happens to be "nothing", it doesn't change that IMO. Remember those philosophy problems with a train and someone on the track and a set of points? Well to my mind one way is clear and the other way has a million bodies on it, and just because the points are presently set to the million bodies doesn't mean that deliberately choosing not to change the points avoids being responsible for the outcome. Especially when changing the points is your responsibility. Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order to infect them. But there's more, they won't let others change the points: head teachers want to close schools, but the government is planning to send them to jail if they do. To my mind that pretty much IS the equivalent of chasing down their subjects on the streets with spray bottles of viral concoctions. Maybe I took too much poetic license. But I don't think so. Peter Fairbrother
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 05:28:46PM -0600, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > > > 2- It's an Ill Wind > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 > > > > So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately > > trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, > > on their figures, 400,000 deaths. > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > to infect them. > > Kurt Skripal hoax Did I mention "ahem"? If not, let me be unmistakably clear: "AHEM!", as in "A!" followed by "HEM!" FTFY
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > 2- It's an Ill Wind > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 > > So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately > trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, > on their figures, 400,000 deaths. Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That is not the same as "trying to infect" Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order to infect them. Kurt
Re: It's an Ill Wind
On 03/14/2020 03:14 PM, \0xDynamite wrote: >>> Corona is a Biblical event. >> >> YESSS >> >> That's the perfect conclusion for this fine mailing list, whose >> content is mostly : > > Did you have an explanation for the failure of the whole world, > including yourself, in making it better with all of your freedom? There's no "failure", unless you're expecting something different. Which, at this point, is arguably unrealistic. > I think not. > > One of us is trying. For sure.
Re: It's an Ill Wind
Deft analysis. Positive infection salutory to clear out senior royal and political and governmental and military and finance and spies and media and intellectual and celebrities and predators and environmental damagers and drug pushers, allowing angelic ethical fair-minded under-60s to take over the reliquaries in hazmat gear without guillotining, merely shovel the disinfected carcasses into the Thames to be encased in plastic waste and frozen into revived icelands. Until boarded by circumnavigating polar bears with plastic sails sniffing fresh meat down south. At 09:29 AM 3/14/2020, you wrote: 2- It's an Ill Wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, on their figures, 400,000 deaths. The reason given for this is to develop "herd immunity", where there are so many people who have had the virus that there is nobody for someone who later contracts it to give it to, as everybody has already had it and is immune. But the Chinese didn't do that. They implemented strong containment and stopped the virus dead. They didn't "lessen the peak", they obliterated the peak. There is no reason why we can't do that too. But the Government insists on buying herd immunity at the cost of at least 400,000 (more likely a million [1]) deaths. Why? The question arises, what good would herd immunity, bought at such a terrible cost in deaths, do? The reason given is that the Government believes that COVID-19 will turn into a seasonal disease, and herd immunity might protect us from it's return next year. There are three big problems with that - First, we don't know that it will return at all. Second, if it does return next year, it will have mutated - and like flu, it is likely that the herd immunity, so dearly bought, will not be effective against next year's version, if it happens. There is also concern about people in China who seem to have gotten the disease twice. We don't know why that is, whether it is two different strains of the virus (there are several hundred known varieties of the COVID-19 virus, it mutates fairly rapidly) or people getting the disease twice - however in either case that would lower the usefulness of any herd immunity. So, I don't see why the UK Government are killing 400,000 people. Apparently it isn't because the UK has a large proportion of older people. Older people who need extensive healthcare, expensive pensions, who tie up a lot of wealth and property - of the predicted 400,000 (million) deaths the vast majority would be of older people. This clearing away of unproductive and expensive (and wealthy) older population would more than balance the budget, releasing £10 billion per year in state pensions, £20 billion per year in heathcare costs, and so on. It would stop the disease in the UK fairly quickly, and it would be the cheapest option (ignoring the actuarial but not-real-pounds cost of the deaths). It would release several hundred thousand badly-needed homes (and cause a property price crash; the UK needs about 1 million homes, which is why UK property is so expensive) and would provide a more balanced population pyramid. So for the UK as a nation it would not be a bad thing (ignoring the deaths), and I fear some politicians may think "Hey, it's just the useless oldies, who cares?". But no. There is probably a sensible reason we don't implement strong confinement and stop the virus in its tracks, rather than letting it have its way. Unfortunately I don't know what that reason is. Peter Fairbrother [1] I calculate around a million deaths, but that is a bit of a back-of-the envelope calculation based on known death rates elsewhere and comparative population age spreads. Exact figures also depend on some assumptions about things we do not know about the disease. I have made what I think are reasonable assumptions. I don't know how reasonable the Goverment's assumptions are, or how they came up with the 400,000 figure.
It's an Ill Wind
2- It's an Ill Wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, on their figures, 400,000 deaths. The reason given for this is to develop "herd immunity", where there are so many people who have had the virus that there is nobody for someone who later contracts it to give it to, as everybody has already had it and is immune. But the Chinese didn't do that. They implemented strong containment and stopped the virus dead. They didn't "lessen the peak", they obliterated the peak. There is no reason why we can't do that too. But the Government insists on buying herd immunity at the cost of at least 400,000 (more likely a million [1]) deaths. Why? The question arises, what good would herd immunity, bought at such a terrible cost in deaths, do? The reason given is that the Government believes that COVID-19 will turn into a seasonal disease, and herd immunity might protect us from it's return next year. There are three big problems with that - First, we don't know that it will return at all. Second, if it does return next year, it will have mutated - and like flu, it is likely that the herd immunity, so dearly bought, will not be effective against next year's version, if it happens. There is also concern about people in China who seem to have gotten the disease twice. We don't know why that is, whether it is two different strains of the virus (there are several hundred known varieties of the COVID-19 virus, it mutates fairly rapidly) or people getting the disease twice - however in either case that would lower the usefulness of any herd immunity. So, I don't see why the UK Government are killing 400,000 people. Apparently it isn't because the UK has a large proportion of older people. Older people who need extensive healthcare, expensive pensions, who tie up a lot of wealth and property - of the predicted 400,000 (million) deaths the vast majority would be of older people. This clearing away of unproductive and expensive (and wealthy) older population would more than balance the budget, releasing £10 billion per year in state pensions, £20 billion per year in heathcare costs, and so on. It would stop the disease in the UK fairly quickly, and it would be the cheapest option (ignoring the actuarial but not-real-pounds cost of the deaths). It would release several hundred thousand badly-needed homes (and cause a property price crash; the UK needs about 1 million homes, which is why UK property is so expensive) and would provide a more balanced population pyramid. So for the UK as a nation it would not be a bad thing (ignoring the deaths), and I fear some politicians may think "Hey, it's just the useless oldies, who cares?". But no. There is probably a sensible reason we don't implement strong confinement and stop the virus in its tracks, rather than letting it have its way. Unfortunately I don't know what that reason is. Peter Fairbrother [1] I calculate around a million deaths, but that is a bit of a back-of-the envelope calculation based on known death rates elsewhere and comparative population age spreads. Exact figures also depend on some assumptions about things we do not know about the disease. I have made what I think are reasonable assumptions. I don't know how reasonable the Goverment's assumptions are, or how they came up with the 400,000 figure.
It's an ill wind...
Consider, if you will, a possible outcome of the current bio-crisis. (I want it over, swiftly, and with as little damage to humanity as possible, I really do, but it doesn't look promising at the moment) We're seeing some congress critters self-quarantining. I think it likely that more will do the same. And yet, they (and some of you, even it not not so much me) want the work of the Congress to continue. How to resolve this? One solution is teleconferencing. Votes, meetings, etc., could be carried out this way, and work (such as it is) can get done. Think of the transparency (if not voluntarily achieved, perhaps attained with the help of some volunteer work by technologically sophisticated persons of flexible morals). If this goes on for a while, there's no reason why they (the accumulated they of Congress and staff) wouldn't become acculturated and accustomed to this new way. At that point, what's to stop the congress critters and their remoras, with suitable encouragement, to permanently relocate to their own districts. It would certainly make lobbying more difficult, being in view of their constituents, rather than sequestered in the summer hellhole that is DC. I have a dream... Kurt
