A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer.

18 views
Skip to first unread message

B.H.

unread,
May 16, 2022, 10:19:12 AMMay 16
to

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-has-blood-cancer-oligarch-recorded-saying-50gx8mk6j

I don't know if various parties have ways of confirming that Putin has blood cancer. Although I cannot be sure, I present as a "guess" that he does not have blood cancer. For one thing, he would very likely have highly competent and highly threatenable doctors who would not fail to catch the condition very early, halting the lethality of the disease.

The purpose of my guess, which could be wrong, is self-serving: I am hoping that: a) My guess is correct, b) Biden takes a position, adamantly insisting that Putin really does have the disease and is near death (it's what he wants to hear, that "ol' Joe has still got it, he's still the/a dominant guy in DC"), and c) That weeks or months later, it is demonstrated that the guess was wrong and Putin is alive, establishing, again, that I am more accurate and competent, even merely guessing and thinking of the probabilities of events, than the CIA, Congress, and Joe Biden.

Putin is not such a big deal as an international bad guy leader. He is essentially the Russian Joseph Kony with more press, not someone to obsess over; the current leader of Russia, he is a vicious and evil instrument of the political and economic forces that created and sustained his leadership career, not an indispensible innovator or strategist. His death would be a plus, but mainly a publicity stunt designed to distract from toxic and anti-American (i.e., unhelpful to America and its values) economic conditions in Russia, China, and their puppet states (I am referring to Iran and North Korea).

So, we'll see if Lying Joe Biden is wrong again. Putin's life or death are largely irrelevant; he can be replaced by the team, the real target is the elimination of the vastly more powerful and more evil and destructive American political careers--those of Obama, Biden, Trump, Bush, and to some extent Hillary Clinton. By having a good enough reputation, media access, and a certain career history, the fake liberals and fake conservatives pose a much greater threat to American values and the spirit of "honesty about how Americans conduct themselves and what they really believe" than some Russian autocrat who is, I believe, not particularly innovative or creative or brilliant, but instead simply a well-known person in Russian politics that some people like. Biden is like that too, to an extent, but I would imagine that Biden is more educated in art and communication in particular than Putin or Xi Jinping.

-Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

B.H.

unread,
May 16, 2022, 10:35:07 AMMay 16
to
By the way, it seems less likely to me now that the Russians would nuke us; it's possible that a detonation in Ukraine could happen, e.g., something related to Chernobyl, but I figure that if the Russians had wanted to nuke the US over not getting the desired Russian outcome in Ukraine and it was physically possible for them to do it, they would have done weeks ago.

At this point, unless the Russian leadership is essentially suicidal, the US economy, whatever state it is in, is going to be more essential than ever to helping the Russian economy not collapse completely. Of course, my strategic actions, including the 0's, which I've now explained more fully, and the disclosure about how to "notify the market to get it to help you" were both very likely very helpful actions that helped to damage. Cynic Joe Biden will of course sigh and try to take credit for my work, even as he keeps trying to kill/ruin me, but the smartest actors in the country and the world know the truth--that Biden would likely have failed completely and Ukraine would already be in Russian hands if not for my help, particularly with my 0's system. I can't prove it, but if you look at my actions, you can see that, according to me at least, I haven't missed damaging even one target of my 0's...all of them got hit properly just as I planned. (And no, it wasn't illegal, and I didn't shape any illegal activity that happened, like violence; I'm a law-following resource depriver, not a criminal.)

In particular, the fact that I don't get thanked with my freedom, which should already be mine, is tremendously damaging to the make-up-your-own-reality squad, which includes Biden, VP Harris, and all Congressional Democrats. What they've shown is a desire to exploit, torture, and try to kill STEM workers to steal credit for their achievements, acting intransigent and trying to use humanitarian crises as a must-listen-to device to draw compassionate STEM workers like me into doing service.

I did, and of course they won't thank me...the economy will devastate, and their dream of winning the election in a landslide based on having adriotly manipulated Philip White into slave-working for them is almost certainly a delusion; I helped to stop the worst version of the crisis, but Democrats don't look good. No one accepts that Biden's "Russia can't invade Ukraine, he just can't" was a "brilliant strategic lie" designed to fool Putin while the trap to kill thousands of Ukrainians, including children, in order to "make Putin look bad and damage his economy again." Biden/Harris and the Congressional Democrats simply received an F instead of an F-...and it was thanks to me, their slave.

-Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)



B.H.

unread,
May 17, 2022, 7:04:40 PMMay 17
to
At 1:36 p.m. today, Garry Kasparov wrote an op-ed about Putin. His two key disagreements with me are:

- Putin is a key target, according to Kasparov.
- Ukraine must definitely not be allowed to fall into Russian hands.

I don't know Russia like a Russian would know Russia, but I stand by the claim that Putin isn't that important. Note, by the way, I have my own psychological bitterness and jadedness and detachment from the Ukraine conflict, so don't expect my emotional reactions to necesarily be "typical" or like the reactions of others in the US. (I feel fine though, except for still being held in captivity.) What I think objectively is: The "Putin brand" isn't that important. Putin as a successful leader says, according to my opinions, "There is a strategy and approach and irrelevant face and set of preferences to the current manifestation of Russian aggression, and it is known as 'Vladimir Putin.' This entity's perseverance at causing harm is a sort of 'shocking non-losing streak' for the current Russian political fashions that hasn't gone away for over 20 years."

An important comment about democracy that I maybe ought to have mentioned sooner is (I never thought of this even in my twenties, even going to school in the US): Democratic elections could be seen as a form of peaceful revolt. In one sense, the US has "revolutions" and "overthrowings of its government," partly or wholly, every 4 years in particular; every Presidential election is a chance for American voters to not only edit their government leadership, but also to destroy and replace it without the required attention-demading drama or bloodshed of non-modern revolutions.

The point of that for Russia is that even democracy is not game over. If Russia were a sick patient, getting it to hold down democracy as a medication or food is not enough to heal it; even America, which hasn't been seriously threatened with true revolt or invasion at all since the 1860s, still has extreme trouble following its own rules and actually performing the law enforcement and other tasks that it "must" perform properly and as its founders and subsequent instructed it to.

Anyway, to return to my main point: The death of Putin is essentially another "non-democratic revolution," changing the Russian system to being led by another leader, who would be held accountable, sort of, by some Russian citizens for the health of the economy. The end of Putin is the end of a bad-guy winning streak, and one concern could be that it might become a "vaccination against ending evil Russian winning streaks." If we had: Communists, then a brief period of Gorbachev then Yeltsin, then Putin, then dead Putin and let's say Medvedev for 20 years, and then some other guy who takes over for 30 years and is more violent than Medvedev, then the world might at least become demoralized and concerned the Russian autocracy and violence are not going away any time soon.

The best approach is: Tread water with current technology and leadership improvements to stop Russia (unless a high-tech invasion desired--I could theoretically run for President if I were released and do it, but I would really prefer not to at this point, although my mind might be changed later), then support "economic strategy" to appeal to certain targeted segments of Russia, essentially offering "financial benefits in exchange for embrace of different political ideology" (this could take the form of a certain kind of education, e.g., one that "kind hearted people" would absorb more quickly), while also developing new technologies, such as websites, communication technologies, and other advanced high-tech products, to influence and manipulate Russian society to cause it to support different political values and decrease its citizens' tolerance for autocratic rule, oppression by security forces, and violence taken against foreigners for the sake of promised/desired economic benefits at home.

I think the economic approach is better; it is more natural and more "smooth" and "close to being guaranteed" to someday work than some "high-tech land-and-capture" mission, followed by an occupation that wouldn't be well-understood.

I don't know about what should happen to Ukraine; realistically, what will make Putin leave? Begging him and screaming at him and punishing him with sanctions does not kill him or remove his mechanism of power or his ability to stay in power; I tend to think that the conflict is going to be lost if Putin cannot be deterred with economic threats to get out of the country.

I am probably not going to sell my diff eq tech to foreign governments any more; if world leaders had wanted it, they had plenty of time. I probably don't have anything else tech-wise that would help, other than the ability found my own AI web-based news service, which I might do.

In short, I kind of think the Ukrainian government should give up for the sake of its people. The continuing conflict isn't going to lead to anything great; if the Russians leave, the clean-up of the devastation would have to begin. Why kill more Ukrainian citizens over it? Perhaps I am revealing my "anti-Ukrainian system" bias; admittedly, I don't think much of the Ukranian political system, not that I know much about it, compared to the US system. I would want America to find to the point of destruction to stop Russian invaders, but I see Ukraine as less worthy as a system of government.

Feel free to ignore that last paragraph if you think it's wrong; I've never traveled out of the US, and have barely left the East Coast. (My total time away from the East Coast has probably totaled less than 6 months.) My suggestion, which is not totally well-informed but instead my opinion, is based on prioritization of humanity over pride, and a sense of practicality--Putin is evil, but what more can be gained from fighting him? I would recommend that the Russians surrender too; it sounds like neither side is rational, which is causing a lot of death and sadness.

-Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

B.H.

unread,
May 17, 2022, 7:09:44 PMMay 17
to
I said, "to fight to the point of destruction."

B.H.

unread,
May 18, 2022, 5:57:56 PMMay 18
to
This news story was in my Yahoo mail inbox; typically the stories I comment on are found on the Yahoo news website.

https://news.yahoo.com/russian-talk-show-retired-colonel-184207547.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04

My basic reaction is: Don't get too excited, it's probably a "vaccine" from Russian authorities, indicating that Putin wants to get control of narratives that are being aggressively spread to Russian citizens; he and his team want to show, I believe, that the conflict is "having its ups and downs." If this publication is out, it probably means he is more determined than ever to defeat Ukraine.

The disclosure isn't anything new to the rest of the world; it's mainly an indication, "Russia is focusing on minding its propaganda apparatus at the moment."

Note, none of this commentary of mine is authoritative; I talk about news events like an ordinary citizen, and now that my system is published, there is nothing really "secret" for me to add other than physics disclosures later, which might impact this conflict but that's not the point. Remember, my big "screw the US economy for over-supporting human trafficking and terrorism" physics disclosure is coming on May 31, and it would appear that the CIA and Congress are essentially begging for it, deluding themselves again into "thinking they can learn lessons from me" like I'm a novel. There are many excellent, cheap sources for learning lessons, especially textbooks. This is still stupid and self-destructive, and the CIA/Congress weirdos don't care.

Anyway, don't expect the Ukraine conflict to end any time soon. I say that based on common sense.

-Philip White




Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages