Re: Even as infections are surging in Europe...

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/23/2020 7:08 PM, tregroes wrote:

> This pinpoints a major part of the problem, the sense, amplified to
> the level of ridiculous conspiracy theory, that this is something
> being imposed on people. How different if people had taken it upon
> themselves to restrict their own movement and socialising for a period
> of time, assisted by the government with furlough schemes and whatever
> else could ease the burden. When anti-government feeling and rhetoric
> reaches a point where people get resentful and suspicious about
> actions that are clearly to their own benefit things are bound to go
> wrong. Somehow a proper and deep sense of community has to be
> re-established so that people will be voluntarily responsible for
> themselves and others when these large-scale, population-wide events
> occur. At the moment the momentum seems to be all in the opposite
> direction.

In recent memory, in the UK a proper and deep
sense of community was established during the
Falklands war so that people were voluntarily
responsible for themselves and others when
these large-scale, population-wide events
occur. Prior to that, it was WW II. But
peace-time general mustering can only last a
few months. People read about the deaths,
and about the agony of the disease, but the
fear fades when personal liberties are
sacrificed for more than a few months.

Tang Huyen

[tregroes]

The Falklands war is not a good example of community spirit since it
didn't directly affect the UK population and produced an ugly
jingoistic antagonism towards Argentina and Argentinians pumped up, as
ever, by the tabloid press.

WW11 is a better example because it did affect the entire population
and people had to suffer food and other rationing, maintain blackouts,
and observe other restrictions, not to mention the deaths. But even
after that, well into the 60s, Britain was just a kinder and safer
place to live in than it feels now. Part of that, I think, is because
everyone was poorer. Just as an example, when fewer people had cars it
was just part of life that you could hitchhike all over the country,
knowing you'd get lifts. And if you had a car or drove a truck,
sharing with those who didn't seemed natural. As a child I used to
wander all round London on my own without any sense on my or anyone
else's part that I might be in danger. That sense of being naturally
free in one's own land has certainly diminished if not disappeared.

I'm not suggesting it was a golden age without crime, abuse,
corruption or any other of the apparently inherent failings of the
human species. Of course it wasn't. But I don't think it's just
rose-tinted nostalgia on my part to say that when I was growing up
people were much less self-encased, even when being in the main more
socially conservative.

[Ansaman]

I was in the military with pretty good access at the time of the
Falklands War and the attitude war that Argentina had bitten off
more than they could chew. Any jingoistic response by the UK populace
was more than eclipsed by the junta's stirring up of their people.
As it was, Argentina did some pretty fancy flying and the famed
Royal Navy found that some of their anti-aircraft, anti-missile,
and damage control systems were seriously flawed.

>
> WW11 is a better example because it did affect the entire population
> and people had to suffer food and other rationing, maintain blackouts,
> and observe other restrictions, not to mention the deaths. But even
> after that, well into the 60s, Britain was just a kinder and safer
> place to live in than it feels now. Part of that, I think, is because
> everyone was poorer. Just as an example, when fewer people had cars it
> was just part of life that you could hitchhike all over the country,
> knowing you'd get lifts. And if you had a car or drove a truck,
> sharing with those who didn't seemed natural. As a child I used to
> wander all round London on my own without any sense on my or anyone
> else's part that I might be in danger. That sense of being naturally
> free in one's own land has certainly diminished if not disappeared.

In hurricane land, I have seen people who have never even spoken to
their neighbors reach out to each other and help substantially. It
seems that one's own sense of fragility makes us more sensitive to
the needs of others. As things get tough, many of us become less
selfish rather than more.

> I'm not suggesting it was a golden age without crime, abuse,
> corruption or any other of the apparently inherent failings of the
> human species. Of course it wasn't. But I don't think it's just
> rose-tinted nostalgia on my part to say that when I was growing up
> people were much less self-encased, even when being in the main more
> socially conservative.

You are correct. My experience is that people DO pull together.
When I was training in the USAF, they purposefully cause hardship
and difficulties and it results in troops bonding together and
looking out for each other and helping each other: esprit de corps
and unit cohesiveness.


--
Ansaman: It may not be a good answer, it may
not be the right answer, but it is an answer!

[Julian]

The Falklands was was the decisive factor
in turning a certain general election defeat,
Thatcher's job approval rating fell to 23%
by December 1980, lower than recorded for
any previous prime minister, into the most
decisive election victory since that of the
the Labour Party in 1945, with a landslide
majority of 144 seats within around 30 months.

Your opinion of the public mood was not supported
by the actual facts of the election.

Perhaps you think it was the record, 12%,
unemployment that won Thatcher the landslide?

Oops.. forget it, You think that the UK public
are mere children, imbeciles or domestic animals
that obey their programming and masters slavishly.

Obviously anything I say is to be dismissed on
the basis that I am also one of the public you
despise.

[Julian]

On 24/10/2020 17:58, tregroes wrote:

The Falklands was was the decisive factor
in turning a certain general election defeat,
Thatcher's job approval rating fell to 23%

by December 1980,lower than recorded for

any previous prime minister, into the most
decisive election victory since that of the
the Labour Party in 1945, with a landslide

majority of 144 seats all within a mere 30

months.

Your opinion of the public mood was not
supported by the actual facts of the election.

Perhaps you think it was the record, 12%,
unemployment that won Thatcher the landslide?

Oops.. forget it, you regard that the UK public
are mere children, imbeciles or domestic animals,

that obey their programming and masters slavishly.

Obviously anything I say is to be dismissed on
the basis that I am also one of the public you

despise so I'll waste no more breath for now.

[Julian]

Someone forgot to amend the systems to show the French
Super Étendards and their Exocets in hostile red rather
than friendly blue. Sigh.

[tregroes]

The facts you provide rather tend to support my assertion than defeat
it. It would seem Galtieri and Thatcher were both using military
adventurism to boost their sagging popularity. If all it takes is an
unnecessary conflict over an insignificant bit of land to sway a
population's opinion to that extent it goes to show how easily swayed
they are. Something that has been demonstrated again by more recent
events.

[Julian]

Except to note that, unsurprisingly, it is the
very same cohort that objected to the war with
the Argentine junta that would be on the streets
if the UK gov had friendly relations with the
very same junta.

The issue is always irrelevant.
Complaining about the public's choice of
government is simply what that cohort does.

If there is no pleasing someone it is crucial
that one does not even try.

There is no point in paying attention to

[Julian]

Again you despise the UK public as being easily fooled.
You are a member of a public. Who is pulling your strings?

That is rhetorical because as a member of a public
you would, obviously, be oblivious of your manipulator.

[Ansaman]

That is part of the talking points. For some political
persuasions, all wars are for profit or for some other
nefarious purpose. Was the Falklands War a **necessary**
war? Perhaps not, but it was indeed Argentina that resorted
to force first and had ample opportunity to back away as
the UK sailed south.

[Ansaman]

I never saw that and I have done some reading on the subject.
I saw there was a "system reset" at a critical moment for
the automatic systems. Is there a source for that?

[Julian]

On 24/10/2020 21:13, tregroes wrote:

OK, for the sake of argument I accept that the public
are as you describe, barely sentient, easily led, morons.

That raises the question of why the Leftwaffe have
not exploited that "quality" of the public for the
public's own good. Why haven't they created a number
of popular and influential newspapers to counter the
right's machine?

It is hardly Rocket science to fight fire with fire.
There is enough money in Leftwaffe pockets to finance
a similar media machine..... Uh-oh! I have stumbled
on the flaw in my plan. Of course it would never work
because the Leftwaffe are not keen on using their own
money when other people have any left. So there is an
ongoing chicken and egg situation.


The Leftwaffe can't win power in the current circumstances
but they can't change the circumstances without winning
power. I, pretend, to feel your pain.

[Julian]

I can't remember. I might have invented it.

But it is not too far fetched that the Royal Navy defense
systems are able to distinguish between allied aircraft
and their missiles and hostiles otherwise the automatic
anti aircraft and anti missile systems might takes out
allied aircraft and ordnance.

It would make sense that at some point Etedards and Exocets,
if there were such identifying systems, as French toys
were listed as friendly.

[Ansaman]

On 10/24/2020 7:00 PM, Julian wrote:

"Leftwaffe!" (chuckle)

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/24/2020 12:44 PM, Julian wrote:

> Someone forgot to amend the systems to show the French
> Super Étendards and their Exocets in hostile red rather
> than friendly blue. Sigh.

Clump's internal radar lights up the Russian
spies in friendly blue and US intelligence in
hostile red.

Tang Huyen

[Ansaman]

I see you have finally reached the point where
you just post without any thought to content.

[Noah Sombrero]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 04:12:36 -0400, Ansaman <ans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/25/2020 1:20 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>> On 10/24/2020 12:44 PM, Julian wrote:
>>
>>> Someone forgot to amend the systems to show the French
>>> Super Étendards and their Exocets in hostile red rather
>>> than friendly blue. Sigh.
>>
>> Clump's internal radar lights up the Russian
>> spies in friendly blue and US intelligence in
>> hostile red.
>
>I see you have finally reached the point where
>you just post without any thought to content.

Oh, yes, he is thinking something.

Noah Sombrero

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/25/2020 5:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> Ansaman:
>
>> Tang Huyen:

>>> Clump's internal radar lights up the Russian
>>> spies in friendly blue and US intelligence in
>>> hostile red.

>> I see you have finally reached the point where
>> you just post without any thought to content.

> Oh, yes, he is thinking something.

Only a Republican like Nixon could open
up to China. Only a Republican like Clump
can welcome Russia. The actions vary in
their results, but Republicanism offers a
cover.

The Republicans would revolt if the
Democrats tried the same.

In Clump's case, Moscow Mitch is an
accomplice. He has a rich Chinese wife
who has lots of power in China. One would
think of a Communist plot to sell the US
for cheap. A few billion for the US. Not
too shabby.

Tang Huyen

[Julian]

On 25/10/2020 14:07, Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 10/25/2020 5:03 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> Ansaman:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen:
>
>>>> Clump's internal radar lights up the Russian
>>>> spies in friendly blue and US intelligence in
>>>> hostile red.
>
>>> I see you have finally reached the point where
>>> you just post without any thought to content.
>
>> Oh, yes, he is thinking something.
>
> Only a Republican like Nixon could open
> up to China. Only a Republican like Clump
> can welcome Russia. The actions vary in
> their results, but Republicanism offers a
> cover.
>
> The Republicans would revolt if the
> Democrats tried the same.

Rightly so since the Democrats would welcome
taking the knee to their political and spiritual
gurus, China and Russia.

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/25/2020 7:21 AM, Julian wrote:

> Rightly so since the Democrats would welcome
> taking the knee to their political and spiritual
> gurus, China and Russia.

One would stretch one's imagination a
little if one wanted to think so, and
thankfully it has not happened yet,
but the imagination is not needed for
the present reality of the Republicans
as an aggregate doing so. Clump, Moscow
Mitch, his wife Elaine Chao, etc.

The US as a country is cheap. A few
billions will do.

Tang Huyen

[Julian]

My imagination is somewhat elastic.
If I ever have a problem it can usually
be attributed to my imaginations at the
zenith or nadir of my bungee.

[Noah Sombrero]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 07:07:12 -0700, Tang Huyen <tang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I was thinking along the lines of baiting outrage, inciting upset.
This is still vintage tang, Ansa.

It helps that there are legitimate tRump concerns. He simply needs to
amplify them a little to get the desired effect.

>Tang Huyen

Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:10:36 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>
wrote:

Adding to this tang's "words on a screen" idea, one might amplify it
to suggest that the entire world (including the outrages of tRump,
Ranier, etc) are merely words on the screen of our sensory input about
which we should maintain the sternest serenity.

No deal tang. If a person is going to have serenity, it can't depend
on ignoring the world or anything else. You either have it or you
don't. It seems to me that ignoring the world so you can feel serene
would be a huge exercise of contempt, not conducive to serenity.

>>Tang Huyen
>
>Noah Sombrero

Noah Sombrero