Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Farewell Postie

Lord Patel passed away today

I'm gutted

and not in the mood to post up any testimonial right now

Craig Murray has had a good stab

as has The Antagonist

as has The Canadian Spectator

as has William Bowles

as has Spy Blog

I'll be making a brief post in Lord P's own blog sometime today when I can bring myself to use the log-in details he left with me. So, if anyone has anything to add please hold fire and post comments there

Stef

.

16 comments:

Alfred Burdett said...

Stef,

My own off-the-cuff and slightly wild commemoration of Edward is here.

http://canadianspectator.ca/stuff/Edward%20Teague.html

It provides some idea of the breadth of Edward's interests and endeavors.

Merkin said...

The depth and breadth of the Postman's writings will be what I remember and I certainly 'grabbed' a lot of reference material from him.

Sorely missed hardly scratches the surface.

Anonymous said...

sorry to hear of the death of Postman P.I considered his blog essential reading

Parabellum said...

I have lost too many people close to me, really good people, people who were making a difference. Every loss leaves a painful breach. Life is not fair. It's simply not fair.

Anonymous said...

All the really nice people die prematurely it seems. What a guy.

stef from north london said...

Henry Kissinger b.1923
Prince Philip b.1921
GHW Bush b.1924
David Rockefeller b.1915

etc etc

They have different medicine to the rest of us

oh, yeah, and they're pan-dimensional, shape-shifting, alien lizards as well

stef from north london said...

...and, though I've never been into astrology much myself, they're all Geminis as well

stef from north london said...

/ apophenia grand master

Anti_NWO said...

I'd imagine they also have private organic farms, purified water taken with them everywhere, various surpressed cancer treatments, you name it.

That said, my great-grandparents lived well into their 90s, despite being in a third-world craphole. Might have been their diet (they were farmers) and physical activity? :p

Anti_NWO said...

(cont.) Modern medicine has probably only shortened lifespan, not increased it. We haven't seen that much of an increase post Victorian-era here.

Apparently chemotherapy aka radiation (highly dangerous of course) and surgery (which seems to be used for just about anything) are better than alternatives for treating cancer...

Anyway I'll stop commenting on this post, I've taken two mourning posts off topic now.

Stef said...

In my extended family, my Gt Grandparents' generation made it into their 90s, late 80s

My Parents' generation is barely reaching their 70s

My relatives who stayed close to the land lived longer than those who moved to the city

Supposed advances in modern medicine are one of the benefits advocates such as Richard Dawkins claim for the triumph of Rationalism over Superstition

The Big Fibber

the truth is a little more complicated than that and the lion's share of the increase in life expectancy is due to reduced infant mortality and better standards of drains and hygene

and the Romans, for example, managed to figure out the benefits of clean drinking water whilst still worshipping more gods than you can shake a stick at

everyone I know who was diagnosed with cancer died from cancer; usually after suffering a very unpleasant few months of being systematically poisoned and/or having a succession of bits sliced off them until there was nothing left to slice

personally, I'm unimpressed

otoh western medicine has undoubtedly made huge progress in trauma surgery - the treament of gunshot wounds and motor accidents - which, I think, says a lot about western society

Stef said...

I once heard a stand up comedian say

'Do you want to find a cure for cancer? If you want to find a cure for cancer give the ten richest men in the world cancer and a cure will be found in five years, tops'

The audience chortled in appreciation

What the comedian didn't ask was

'But would they share it?'

Given that the richest men in the world are all more or less unanimous that there are too many plebs in the world already, somehow, I doubt it

See also Free Energy. If someone discovered it, someone else would lose it.

Another issue also worth pondering is the overlap of interests between the financial elite and hardcore environmentalists.

As The Antagonist said over a cup of coffee the other day - The best way to lead is by example. Give all the fuckers who bang on about there being too many people in the world a revolver and suggest that they show the way with a practical example of noble self-sacrifice

Anti_NWO said...

the truth is a little more complicated than that and the lion's share of the increase in life expectancy is due to reduced infant mortality and better standards of drains and hygiene

Indeed. You've pretty much nailed the gist of my point there.

and the Romans, for example, managed to figure out the benefits of clean drinking water whilst still worshipping more gods than you can shake a stick at

Although in some cases their slaves lived longer due to the nobility's use of lead-lined cups.

everyone I know who was diagnosed with cancer died from cancer; usually after suffering a very unpleasant few months of being systematically poisoned and/or having a succession of bits sliced off them until there was nothing left to slice

personally, I'm unimpressed

I once heard a stand up comedian say

'Do you want to find a cure for cancer? If you want to find a cure for cancer give the ten richest men in the world cancer and a cure will be found in five years, tops'

The audience chortled in appreciation

What the comedian didn't ask was

'But would they share it?'

Given that the richest men in the world are all more or less unanimous that there are too many plebs in the world already, somehow, I doubt it

See also Free Energy. If someone discovered it, someone else would lose it.


You wouldn't make much profit curing people and them rarely ever coming back. Of course the elitist agenda of population control factors in as well. While I'm not going to make any guarantees for obvious reasons (I'm in no way an MD) there are reportedly alternative treatments with a 90%+ success rate for those who have tried them. That post you made about the Sun and plants is particularly relevant here.

Another issue also worth pondering is the overlap of interests between the financial elite and hardcore environmentalists.

They practically back the movements through their foundations, hell you'd be surprised who backs Greenpeace for example...

The principle of controlled opposition, which you mentioned during G20, is key.

As The Antagonist said over a cup of coffee the other day - The best way to lead is by example. Give all the fuckers who bang on about there being too many people in the world a revolver and suggest that they show the way with a practical example of noble self-sacrifice

Of course they won't, they're selfish cunts who get off on forcing their crap on others.

Anti_NWO said...

Oh, and I'll throw in some seemingly unconnected words for research: John D Rockefeller, 1920s\30s, cancer research, vaccines.

Stef said...

Funny you should raise these subjects as I've spent the better part of the last fortnight in UCLH sitting in on a relative who's had a few bits sliced off her to prevent them getting cancerous

well, they certainly won't now

what a long way we've come since the butchery of 18th century field medicine when bits were sliced off people to prevent them turning gangrenous

UCL, and lots of associated institutions nearby, are absolutely dripping with money from benevolent institutions set up by caring people such as the Rockefellers, as well as big pharma

It's a good job that people like the Rockefellers and big pharma are such good eggs, otherwise I'd find the whole thing quite sinister

Anti_NWO said...

Well it seems cancer treatment hasn't (in the mainstream) advanced for about 300 years since stuff like masectomy was happening before the US existed.

As for UCL, heh, its pretty much to healthcare what LSE is to finance (Rhodes scholars anyone?)...