Is It Really Dangerous?

(I shouldn't be so dire! I know, I know. I'll get back to the calm, cute stuff soon).

There is a brilliant Australian academic, one time head of China analysis for the Australian Defense Department, Paul Monk - and one of the things he says about analysis that has to be made from only very limited clear facts, or at some distance of time, particularly, from the thing or the people being looked at, is that you have to have an accountable conclusion; when you reach it.

And that is a very important thing.

The Hollywood 'imaginators' call this
a 'biomask.'

There are too many people at highest levels these days who are simply not accountable, realistically, they are not - and their decisions suffer from the arrogance which comes from that level of personal comfort.

The very idea of accountability is manifold. One can be 'accountable' in terms of the process itself that one is using, but then, one can also be accountable in terms of the actual results of the mistakes in reaching a wrong conclusion.

In academic discussions about risk (and this applies equally to economic risk evaluation), one always considers the weight (the value, or the depth of losses) of the outcome when looking at the 'odds,' or the 'chances.'

So, although the odds might be long against something happening, that may not be a sufficient reason not to assume that 'risk' if the outcome itself (the favorable one) were really exorbitantly huge and the 'ante up' not very big. (Leaving aside for the moment the other aspect of 'comparative risk assessment:' the question of making choices between two or several different things).

EG 'Poor soldier risks his head to uncover the mystery of the dancing shoes' - in that fairy tale. If he 'wins,' he will effectively become a prince and get to marry the princess of his choosing.

He is too old to fight in any more wars, he doesn't have many marketable skills, and he is more or less coming to the end of his life anyway...

You gotta love that! Ferrari 375.

Going back to the thing in view here - if an advanced intelligent species were to make overt threats to kill just one person, the 'accountability' question resolves quite neatly and easily to an assessment of the influence spread of that target, and an outright moral assessment over one person's death.

But if they were to make overt threats to literally massacre a lot of people, the moral dimensions shift to well, why? Why actually kill so many individual living people?

If you go back to the ancient traditional narrative, by example (we have to leave out the so-called 'Battle of Kurukshetra;' it's too complicated for the moment to consider that), of Sodom and Gomorrah, was there ever a point where those people were warned at all? That doesn't appear to emerge clearly from the narrative at all. All it says is many people complained for a long time about the behavior of the rulers of S & G.

I actually was listening to a real 
'analyst' (yes, one of those; a female too)
just today and I'm fascinated that she 
thought she was so smart she knew what 'louche'
meant, having repeated what is everywhere
across the internet about what it is supposed
to mean. ...Thought, she knew, anyway.
I never said anything. I'm telling you I don't
believe what the on-line definitions say. And
I don't care they claim some Latin word origin.

It never says that any 'prophet' was ever sent there and told them 'oh you'd be watch out, because otherwise you're gonna get smashed!'

LOL

Actually, funny because the New Testament says 'it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day... ...than for that city.' Meaning various places that are not doing whatever it is that they are supposed to be doing.

Well how is it going to be 'more tolerable?' How much worse intolerable are things expected to be now??

There are a bunch of places in the Jordan Valley, notable now Tall el-Hammam, where there is nothing but sulfur and salt crystals and smashed silicon from what might have been a meteor collision and massive heat damage.

Well I personally cannot condone slaughtering 6 million people or anything from '1' innocent naive person up to that many (6 mil) - in say, oh, um, some island place like Singapore.

So my vote will not be cast for anything like that.

...On the other hand, it wouldn't be beyond the thinking to do something a whole lot worse still.

My my though, what could even be 'a whole lot worse?'

I don't know! Why don't you ask those who deeply probe the Bible. LOL

They must surely know something, at least.

'It will be more tolerable in that day for the land of Sodom...'

Wow. Really?

Not scared at all, anyone, right?

You see these creatures emerging from out of the depths of the abyss wearing their 'biomasks' and we shall see who's tough then. Won't ever happen, you say?

Uh-huh.

Let me see, where shall we cast the lot.

So, what would even be the point of hitting some 'innocent' place like Singapore with HAARP-style weaponry?

Even now, the US State Department is floating some damn silly nonsense about people literally pumping the sound of 'Indian crickets' into those embassies to distract attention from what they were really using to knock down a couple of people.

You can't stop them, see.

Singapore - very pretty colored lights at nighttime.

They will go and go and go and they will suck the blood right out of you even while you're still alive.

Because they are simply not accountable. If you don't know something, then just say it: 'I don't know.' But don't manufacture stories (leave that kind of stuff to people like me, please!) in order to have the public believe you are on top of things, and can handle them, and have things 'under control.' 

These guys totally do not have things under control.

And it is going to get worse.

You gotta understand something, right - you fellas in Washington (forget the UK, you people are lost) - if China wants to send a hundred jet planes near, right up near, to Taiwan's face, then you had better wake up to the fact, the fact mind you, that they have already fully compromised places like Singapore, right under your noses.

More pretty colored lights in Singapore
at nighttime.

So yeah Singapore is 'under the gun.' ...If you go by the 'theory' that Washington was severely warned in no uncertain terms in 1967, regarding the further and future use of nuclear weapons, then you had better plan for, 'things happening' where neither you nor 'they' (being the CCP Chinese) have supposed that you were actually vulnerable. And where you are both mucking around with nukes. And that would be Singers.

The trouble is, I guess people really do want the pain and the suffering and the hurt.

Human cultural, folkloric narratives are replete with this kind of thing. But every single time, you get the same band of leaders - well, actually, they're not 'leaders,' they are rulers and overlords, falling for the same stupid trap. There's nothing really all that mysterious, or occult or even 'esoteric' about it: some guy at the top does not have any limits, and he goes and does ten stupid things more than he might have stopped at and gotten away with - and because he is manipulating a huge underlying web of things, when somebody turns on him, like, oh um, a spider bites his leg and he gets sick and weak, then those around him attack him in order to take over themselves. The whole web falls apart because the spider in the middle is not weaving the strands now. And then, that is when the earthquakes and eruptions and lava and magma - and all of that drama - follow.

When did we post this pic here?
Can't remember. I'll have to go back and look...
Wonder why we did that?

What's 'mysterious' about that? Since when ever did such a thing not happen? Right now today there are MEK people conspiring inside Iran, but we can't talk about that because we might set the cat amongst the pigeons there. Right now today... Well, maybe let's not say any more.

Historians have never thought about the relative 'success' of Mao. What they never factor in is that China was not any kind of geopolitical, economic threat to anyone back then. They'd had a dirty war with Japan, and the world was occupied with smashing the Nazis. Stalin and Mao 'got away' because of the particular historical context. Not because they were smart and not because they were right. When people talk about 'false flags' they always want to pin that on the CIA - but the guy who will make that mistake is Xi. Except he doesn't appreciate that the Germans have several lines direct into his bathroom. And they know what his every single next move is.

So. Whatever happens, you have a bunch of people to 'pin it on.' LOL

Sure I'd love it to be the case that super-dooper technology could be provided like people provide parks - everyone goes to them and enjoys them: Muslims wearing cricket gear play English cricket, Sudanese and Senegalese play soccer football, mothers take their li'l kids to the swings and slides and sandpit, angry old men and self-involved young women take their dogs around.

But racehorses, you don't train on these wide open spaces with lots of lush green grass. They get small round lunge yards, and very restricted compounds and narrow training strips...

But when they get onto the big wide open bowling-green racetrack... Well...