Russian colony of the United States

[Karl]

Oh yeah, and the globalists stayed totally out of it. Nothing to look at here, folks, move on. Everything just happens, nothing about capitalism needs to be planned, it's the most natural state of the human animal, it comes ziran.

 

And the 10,000 "consultants" from the US in Moscow alone in the early 90s (I've read a book by one of them, incidentally) were free entrepreneurs all of them. What else could they possibly be?..

 

This is a funny world. 99% of folks are willing to believe that the remaining 1% have more money than they do. But ask them to believe that 1% also have more information and you can take your pick between "idiot" and "conspiracy theorist" if you make a peep to that effect.

 

So, every time I delete, on second thought, whatever I feel like saying, it's only because I shouldn't have spoken to impenetrable walls to begin with. Must respect the architect of these constructs. Whoever the motherfucker is.

Well you are conflating several terms so it becomes difficult to produce a coherent argument when you have already come to a conclusion based on that conflation.

 

Capitalism in its unsullied form is simply the voluntary transaction of trading, or barter. So, it's organic in form and we have been practising for ever. It doesn't matter if that exchange is carried out across borders and natural barriers, it's still the same activity. That activity definitely doesn't need experts, its second nature to us.

 

We have to distinguish between that natural form of capitalism and the sort you refer to as 'global'. Usually that refers to corporate or mercantilist businesses. Some of these are relatively benign despite getting a bad press. Walmart for instance is a corporate entity that is generally not The recipient of Government privilege. However banks and central banks aren't benign-particular Goldman Sachs and, as you mentioned 'other' consultants closely related to these goons.

 

Now the question which must be asked therefore is what were these consultants doing in a sovereign country in the first place ? Who was it that brought them over and for what purpose ? They had to have been invited by Russians to advise them and they must have brought investment and expertise to those Russians that owned or intended to own sizeable portfolios of productive wealth and other assets. They wanted there own Wall Street and their own corporate giants just like ultra wealthy US owners.

 

So there are facts to these things. Someone is filling their pockets full of cash and finding ways of getting into power on the back of state/government privilege and that's a world wide problem. There is no conspiracy as such, that's just what's happening.

 

What was the book by the way ?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Taomeow]

"Russia Becomes You," by Jeffrey Wilgus.  it is not well-written, and it is not really recommended -- except for a glimpse of a perspective gained by an American businessman who actually did live in Russia in the 90s.  (And chose to stay there permanently, "gone Injun.")  I only mentioned it because I remembered that a book written by one of them might at least indicate that they did exist, those consultants, after reading a few entries in this-here thread mocking the idea with utmost sarcasm.

 

I respectfully disagree with absolutely everything you had to say, with the would-be exception of the questions you asked -- 

 

"Now the question which must be asked therefore is what were these consultants doing in a sovereign country in the first place? Who was it that brought them over and for what purpose?"

 

-- which would have been an excellent starting place for a real inquiry if you didn't hasten to immediately dismiss them and fire off your ready answers.  However, I've no time or incentives to argue. 

 

Oh, and I didn't say "global," I said "globalist."  "Global" and "globalist" don't mean the same thing, not even close.  "Global" refers to geography, history, economics, culture, national identities and interests, etc.; "globalist" -- to government-corporate chimeras that have nothing to do with geography, history, economics, culture, national identities and interests.  If you have missed the global foray into globalist developments, you've missed pretty much everything worth analyzing.  The rest is arguing about whether to trade a sheep for an ax (as in Das Kapital's favorite example) is fair or two sheep for an ax is, or two axes for a sheep, and arriving at the conclusion that the trade that looks fair to you is good natural capitalism, and that that's what we've been doing all along, to everybody's delight.  Whereas what's really going on is, the same owner owns the sheep and the ax, and can (and does) educate the sheep any which way he likes, and ax it if it bleats out of tune. 

 

Over and out, the subject is too vast and all I really wanted to say is, nothing at all.              

Edited August 19, 2015 by Taomeow

[Lois]

 

 

 

 

 

It's much easier - the only country that opposed the USA is the USSR. And this is no accident. The Russian mentality is the opposite of the West and it's not communism. China is more Communist than the USSR, but he's an assistant United States. Case in Russian philosophy. To understand this it is enough to read Victor Pelevin, the largest Russian writer. All Western machine against Russian philosophy

 

[Karl]

"Russia Becomes You," by Jeffrey Wilgus.  it is not well-written, and it is not really recommended -- except for a glimpse of a perspective gained by an American businessman who actually did live in Russia in the 90s.  (And chose to stay there permanently, "gone Injun.")  I only mentioned it because I remembered that a book written by one of them might at least indicate that they did exist, those consultants, after reading a few entries in this-here thread mocking the idea with utmost sarcasm.

 

I respectfully disagree with absolutely everything you had to say, with the would-be exception of the questions you asked -- 

 

"Now the question which must be asked therefore is what were these consultants doing in a sovereign country in the first place? Who was it that brought them over and for what purpose?"

 

-- which would have been an excellent starting place for a real inquiry if you didn't hasten to immediately dismiss them and fire off your ready answers.  However, I've no time or incentives to argue. 

 

Oh, and I didn't say "global," I said "globalist."  "Global" and "globalist" don't mean the same thing, not even close.  "Global" refers to geography, history, economics, culture, national identities and interests, etc.; "globalist" -- to government-corporate chimeras that have nothing to do with geography, history, economics, culture, national identities and interests.  If you have missed the global foray into globalist developments, you've missed pretty much everything worth analyzing.  The rest is arguing about whether to trade a sheep for an ax (as in Das Kapital's favorite example) is fair or two sheep for an ax is, or two axes for a sheep, and arriving at the conclusion that the trade that looks fair to you is good natural capitalism, and that that's what we've been doing all along, to everybody's delight.  Whereas what's really going on is, the same owner owns the sheep and the ax, and can (and does) educate the sheep any which way he likes, and ax it if it bleats out of tune. 

 

Over and out, the subject is too vast and all I really wanted to say is, nothing at all.              

 

I would pretty much agree with all of that if you are calling globalist-government-corporate chimera then we have the same definitions. Equally though, these chimeras have been readily accepted by those in power within Russia in a similar way to what happened in Greece prior to joining the EU.

 

The sarcasm was in response to an argument that contained no concrete facts beyond conjecture. I'm still none the wiser to who these consultants were, who they were working for, or how they worked ? Maybe that would have been a better place to have started. I think, ultimately it's an interesting question-not one that gets asked very often beyond the fact that communism failed-and you seem to have broadened it out and filled in the blanks that were missing in the original post.

 

There wasn't any need to have withdrawn your post, it was valid.

[Karl]

 

 

 

 

It's much easier - the only country that opposed the USA is the USSR. And this is no accident. The Russian mentality is the opposite of the West and it's not communism. China is more Communist than the USSR, but he's an assistant United States. Case in Russian philosophy. To understand this it is enough to read Victor Pelevin, the largest Russian writer. All Western machine against Russian philosophy

 

That's clear enough, but for a long time the USSR has had world domination through communism as its aim. This state murdered, tortured, worked to death and starved many millions of its own people-many were ethnic. Western states are no angels either, but let's not pretend the USSR are an innocent party-even today in the UK we have the springing up of socialist movements from political parties, feminist and environmental groups which are ignoring the real story of the failed communist ideology.

 

We have Western state vs Eastern states but not people against people.

[Taomeow]

I would pretty much agree with all of that if you are calling globalist-government-corporate chimera then we have the same definitions. Equally though, these chimeras have been readily accepted by those in power within Russia in a similar way to what happened in Greece prior to joining the EU. The sarcasm was in response to an argument that contained no concrete facts beyond conjecture. I'm still none the wiser to who these consultants were, who they were working for, or how they worked ? Maybe that would have been a better place to have started. I think, ultimately it's an interesting question-not one that gets asked very often beyond the fact that communism failed-and you seem to have broadened it out and filled in the blanks that were missing in the original post. There wasn't any need to have withdrawn your post, it was valid.

 

Thank you.

 

OK, if you want to look for the real answers, you may want to start digging somewhat deep -- way deep...   the underwater part of this iceberg is 180 years old by a very conservative estimate -- so it's hard for me to tell where exactly one needs to start waving one's hands before one's mind's eye to dispel the fog.  Maybe start with a few key figures in the making of the new capitalist Russia and work it out backward?..  Here's some of them (by far not the only ones, just the ones that came in handy via a bookmark I happened to have saved):  (The honorable Arthur Hartman, in case the face is not familiar, was the US ambassador to the USSR under Reagan.  The Russians are a couple of movers and shakers who neither moved nor shook anything of their own accord.)

 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Taomeow

[Karl]

Thank you.

 

OK, if you want to look for the real answers, you may want to start digging somewhat deep -- way deep...   the underwater part of this iceberg is 180 years old by a very conservative estimate -- so it's hard for me to tell where exactly one needs to start waving one's hands before one's mind's eye to dispel the fog.  Maybe start with a few key figures in the making of the new capitalist Russia and work it out backward?..  Here's some of them (by far not the only ones, just the ones that came in handy via a bookmark I happened to have saved):  (The honorable Arthur Hartman, in case the face is not familiar, was the US ambassador to the USSR under Reagan.  The Russians are a couple of movers and shakers who neither moved nor shook anything of their own accord.)

 

 

That's a very deep rabbit hole and not one that is entirely new to me. These groups aren't all pulling in one direction though. It isn't a team effort. Indeed my current book-fictional- attempts to show how individual ambitions coalesce into disparate groups with similar aims and can just as easily break apart. The black and white version is the NWO/illuminati but it seems to me that there are many NWO group sets with entirely different ideologies and agendas. If individuals within these groups see the possibility of furthering their own aims by working with a rival group then they will slide across regardless of ideology. It's easy to pick sides, but I'm concluding as I get older that all we can do is watch our own backs and those of our direct family. I have the feeling that supporting any movement you either become a pawn of someone's ambition or you become what you most despise.

[Taomeow]

double

Edited August 19, 2015 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

That's a very deep rabbit hole and not one that is entirely new to me. These groups aren't all pulling in one direction though. It isn't a team effort. Indeed my current book-fictional- attempts to show how individual ambitions coalesce into disparate groups with similar aims and can just as easily break apart. The black and white version is the NWO/illuminati but it seems to me that there are many NWO group sets with entirely different ideologies and agendas. If individuals within these groups see the possibility of furthering their own aims by working with a rival group then they will slide across regardless of ideology. It's easy to pick sides, but I'm concluding as I get older that all we can do is watch our own backs and those of our direct family. I have the feeling that supporting any movement you either become a pawn of someone's ambition or you become what you most despise.

True, there's few noble causes left and fewer still are impossible to distort and thwart even if they start out as noble. 

 

But the NWO is an absolute realistic vector of global developments and an absolute, not relative, evil at that (I don't know what current role the illuminati play in it, I do know that they were a major thwarting force at one point in history, e.g. infiltrating 90% of masonic lodges which originally started out with a noble cause!) --

 

and in Russia specifically the situation is very peculiar -- the noble ones don't get it, the ignoble ones who don't buy it are selling something that is not palatable at all as an alternative.  The distinctions blur when a fascist opposes a nazi who opposes a racist who opposes a religious fundamentalist who opposes a NWO pawn.  The latter being the worst, but his opponents are so far removed from noble that he is often chosen as their champion by people who should know better but don't.  And very little of this mess is local in nature.  Russia's wealthiest have 500 billion dollars' worth of investments in Western corporations, and it's anyone's guess where their loyalties lie.  Hardly with mother Russia. 

 

Which is my point all along, has been all along.  Countries don't matter anymore.  One has to investigate the activities of global corporations and, especially, their origins and historical roots to understand anything at all.  The main thing to understand for a private citizen is how to protect himself/herself and the loved ones.  You say it's the only thing that matters.  But places get set on fire and it becomes the hardest thing in the world for people there.  Ordinary people not looking to support or oppose causes.  Causes find them, that's the thing...

[Karl]

My view on this is that we have succumbed to cowardice and irrationality. I cannot unilaterally change things, only myself.

 

If I had to pick what I believe to be the problem I see it as Governments. We have abdicated all our rights and received privileges in return. We gave away freedom for security and allowed states/governments to control us out of fear of something worse. We were so frightened that some warlord or other would rise up to murder and loot us, that unwittingly we allowed one to voluntarily exist. Now we reason that the one we have is better than the one we could get instead. 'Better the devil you know' quite literally. This has meant we have multiple warlords all under state protection. They can do what they like with impunity because we allowed it to happen.

 

I see the need for governance, but not government and we can do away with states completely and institute proper private property ownership with the requisite laws and force to protect it. Beyond sending that message like a lighthouse-on a personal level I can do very little more except protect self and family as best I can in the face of tyranny.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[thelerner]

My view on this is that we have succumbed to cowardice and irrationality. I cannot unilaterally change things, only myself.

 

If I had to pick what I believe to be the problem I see it as Governments. We have abdicated all our rights and received privileges in return. We gave away freedom for security and allowed states/governments to control us out of fear of something worse.

Just for clarification. 

What freedoms have you given away?  

Have you really lost all your rights? 

[Karl]

Just for clarification. 

What freedoms have you given away?  

Have you really lost all your rights? 

 

All freedoms and all rights. Everything is a state privilege.

 

 

[Stosh]

Yes , those things, which are social fabrications,, have always been a consequence of the social situation. Alone on an island, it becomes more obvious, Where are rights then? Recognizing this, one could decide that the complaint is really about the extent of impact ,of the larger social construct on the individual. We can travel, or interact with things from around the globe, or family members in other states. We can resource materials on almost anything, learn or do a thousand things. Capabilities have been expanding therefore as progress marches on. Yesterdays imagined and beloved rights have been traded for greater actual freedom. Whether one embraces this is up to them.

[Taomeow]

Yes , those things, which are social fabrications,, have always been a consequence of the social situation. Alone on an island, it becomes more obvious, Where are rights then? Recognizing this, one could decide that the complaint is really about the extent of impact ,of the larger social construct on the individual. We can travel, or interact with things from around the globe, or family members in other states. We can resource materials on almost anything, learn or do a thousand things. Capabilities have been expanding therefore as progress marches on. Yesterdays imagined and beloved rights have been traded for greater actual freedom. Whether one embraces this is up to them.

 

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2015/06/26/kids-hypnotized-by-television/

[thelerner]

All freedoms and all rights. Everything is a state privilege.

??  Is this short hand for 'I can't think of any?'

 

Rights, you don't have any- religion, free speech (can you talk against the government, have you ever?), is there a free press that can criticize the government?  Are they taking away your guns, your cars, your home, your land?  Are you William Wallace where they can take away your lives, but they'll take away your freedom.  Geez, you have freedoms, you just don't appreciate them. 

 

Are you angry you need a state (sanctioned) license in order to drive?  Do you really want anyone, any age to be on the road.   You may disagree with many laws but they were by groups who wanted to save lives, like raising drinking age to 21, it was done and it has saved lives.  Many such state privileges were created that way.  Not so much draconian as people looking to solve  social problems.  Versus your philosophy which often boils down to, they'll learn after they're dead.  I.e. you sell bad meat (or whatever), after enough customers die, people will stop buying from you.   

 

Yes, there are taxes, but they've always been around.  Yes there are regulations, some intelligent to protect the public, others admittedly are stupid.  There even confiscation (w/ payment) through eminent domain, but that not done very often, nor is it new.

 

I was recently reading an article about growing in a dictatorship (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1856-arrested-clapping-6-realities-life-under-dictators.html); where people didn't have rights, they disappeared,  property taken at the whim of bureaucrats.   Karl you write like your living under a dictatorship or communism and your not, not by a long shot, except in your imagination.  Its not 1/100 as bad.

 

Where others starvation, they complain there soup has too much pepper in it.  Such first world problems.  I find it myopic and wonder if these people understand what true repression is.

Edited August 21, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

?? Is this short hand for 'I can't think of any?'

 

Rights, you don't have any- religion, free speech (can you talk against the government, have you ever?), is there a free press that can criticize the government? Are they taking away your guns, your cars, your home, your land? Are you William Wallace where they can take away your lives, but they'll take away your freedom. Geez, you have freedoms, you just don't appreciate them.

 

Are you angry you need a state (sanctioned) license in order to drive? Do you really want anyone, any age to be on the road. You may disagree with many laws but they were by groups who wanted to save lives, like raising drinking age to 21, it was done and it has saved lives. Many such state privileges were created that way. Not so much draconian as people looking to solve social problems. Versus your philosophy which often boils down to, they'll learn after they're dead. I.e. you sell bad meat (or whatever), after enough customers die, people will stop buying from you.

 

Yes, there are taxes, but they've always been around. Yes there are regulations, some intelligent to protect the public, others admittedly are stupid. There even confiscation (w/ payment) through eminent domain, but that not done very often, nor is it new.

 

I was recently reading an article about growing in a dictatorship (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1856-arrested-clapping-6-realities-life-under-dictators.html]http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1856-arrested-clapping-6-realities-life-under-dictators.html[/url]); where people didn't have rights, they disappeared, property taken at the whim of bureaucrats. Karl you write like your living under a dictatorship or communism and your not, not by a long shot, except in your imagination. Its not 1/100 as bad.

 

Where others starvation, they complain there soup has too much pepper in it. Such first world problems. I find it myopic and wonder if these people understand what true repression is.

Just because the shackles are less visible than in some more explicit dictatorships makes little difference. It was created as a boiling frog system.

 

Freedom is freedom. A bigger hen run isn't freedom. If you can't see it then it's because you refuse to see it, not because the cage isn't there. Maybe that's because you are remote from it ? Eventually it will come for you, just like a tide eventually gets to the top of the beach. Sit and wait, it will be with you sooner or later.

 

All you are offering is straw man arguments.

 

It isn't that there should not be a method of ensuring safety on the road, but the way in which the current system does not provide it whilst creating an income from it.

 

Taxation did not always exist. It's theft, there is no other word for the coercive appropriation of the productive means by force of arms.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Karl

[Stosh]

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2015/06/26/kids-hypnotized-by-television/

Family pix of yours?

But If my post is so boring , I did keep it short, then its the sort of thing which brings no surprise, and that would indicate its a no brainer and I must be correct. If you mean something else, I dont know what that is and the ridicule is lost on me.  I guess the point of my thing is lost on Karl, if he moves on to taxation being theft, I guess he is in a mood to rail against injustices. 

Edited August 21, 2015 by Stosh

[zerostao]

karl, i enjoy reading your posts and not only becoz you are saying some things i had posted(using different words and phrases)on this forum in previous years. but my position is always in flux and fluid, where your's and caseys' remains unchanged. despite the fact that we are living in an ever changing environment, fastly changing in fact.

thelerner made a very thoughtful precise response to your posts and you try and dismiss his post as talking to a strawman.

i get why you threw the non sequitur at me, as i do wander into the abstract and not everyone can follow my logic.

which i why i bring this up, logic, and your view of how you have a handle on logic. that is a mental illusion of yours.

imo you are not helping your argument/position by trying to dismiss other's posts by adding some label, ie strawman, non sequitur etc, you have done this since your arrival here. it is annoying and aggressive

i see your use of these terms as a lame way out of continuing to engage in a real conversation

why not just drop this lame tactic?

and keep up your sharing of your views allowing that there are other valid views

[Karl]

karl, i enjoy reading your posts and not only becoz you are saying some things i had posted(using different words and phrases)on this forum in previous years. but my position is always in flux and fluid, where your's and caseys' remains unchanged. despite the fact that we are living in an ever changing environment, fastly changing in fact.

thelerner made a very thoughtful precise response to your posts and you try and dismiss his post as talking to a strawman.

i get why you threw the non sequitur at me, as i do wander into the abstract and not everyone can follow my logic.

which i why i bring this up, logic, and your view of how you have a handle on logic. that is a mental illusion of yours.

imo you are not helping your argument/position by trying to dismiss other's posts by adding some label, ie strawman, non sequitur etc, you have done this since your arrival here. it is annoying and aggressive

i see your use of these terms as a lame way out of continuing to engage in a real conversation

why not just drop this lame tactic?

and keep up your sharing of your views allowing that there are other valid views

I don't dismiss his post I'm saying it's sloppy thinking. Saying its a 'straw man' fallacy isn't an attack on the other party, you should get that out of your head, it isn't an insult or an attempt to look clever. It's simply what it is.

 

'Do you want unlicensed drivers on the road'? Is a straw man. It is the equivalent of the old 'do you still beat your wife' question. There isn't a good answer. Say 'no' and it implies beating your wife. I won't engage with that type of argument and will simply say so. If that appears aggressive to you then it doesn't to me. I have no care in it. It's no different to picking the colour of a pair of trousers. The aggression is your head.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

Family pix of yours?

But If my post is so boring , I did keep it short, then its the sort of thing which brings no surprise, and that would indicate its a no brainer and I must be correct. If you mean something else, I dont know what that is and the ridicule is lost on me. 

I think her point was that much of modern "progress" is "programming" -- the photos capture the trance state of children plugged into the boob-tube. My wife and I found it very disturbing and sought to limit exposure to electronics when our son was growing up.

 

[zerostao]

I don't dismiss his post I'm saying it's sloppy thinking. Saying its a 'straw man' fallacy isn't an attack on the other party, you should get that out of your head, it isn't an insult or an attempt to look clever. It's simply what it is.

 

'Do you want unlicensed drivers on the road'? Is a straw man. It is the equivalent of the old 'do you still beat your wife' question. There isn't a good answer. Say 'no' and it implies beating your wife. I won't engage with that type of argument and will simply say so. If that appears aggressive to you then it doesn't to me. I have no care in it. It's no different to picking the colour of a pair of trousers. The aggression is your head.

my view is it is "sloppy thinking" on your part

there is a good answer>>we do not need unlicensed drivers on the road, and i say this, being a major violator myself, often driving without tag, insurance, license.  that is in fact irresponsible and foolhardy those actions.

Edited August 21, 2015 by zerostao

[thelerner]

Just because the shackles are less visible than in some more explicit dictatorships makes little difference. It was created as a boiling frog system.

 

Freedom is freedom. A bigger hen run isn't freedom. If you can't see it then it's because you refuse to see it, not because the cage isn't there

 

All you are offering is straw man arguments.

 

Taxation did not always exist. It's theft, there is no other word for the coercive appropriation of the productive means by force of arms.

Are you in cage now?  Shackled invisibly?  Can you literally not move to another state or city if you wanted?  Do you realize there are places that where you can't.  That there are places without freedom of press, religion, free speech or travel.  

 

Honestly I think you can't appreciate the freedoms and rights you have.   Ironic since the OP here is about Russia where such freedoms were suppressed for generations and still constrained.   In my mind, not listing the Freedoms and Rights 'stolen' is because they'd look petty; not because because its straw man.  

 

Truthfully I dismiss it as the belly aching of wealthy first world privilege, as well as the age old human instinct that our generation has it so bad, it used to better in the past.   Exemplified by pretty much every generation. 

 

I digress, even though its undoubtedly straw or tinny, please list all the rights and freedoms you live without. 

Edited August 21, 2015 by thelerner

[Stosh]

I think her point was that much of modern "progress" is "programming" -- the photos capture the trance state of children plugged into the boob-tube. My wife and I found it very disturbing and sought to limit exposure to electronics when our son was growing up.

 

Oh, well thats a leap I wouldnt have made in a million years , My sister has a lazy eye, and when we were little and tired , many of our home pix of her looked like that. I guess I was a bit defensive for her. 

[Karl]

my view is it is "sloppy thinking" on your part

there is a good answer>>we do not need unlicensed drivers on the road, and i say this, being a major violator myself, often driving without tag, insurance, license.  that is in fact irresponsible and foolhardy those actions.

 

Only if you cannot think of another possibility. If you always think that this is the only way it can be, then you will approach everything from that perspective.

[Karl]

Are you in cage now? Shackled invisibly? Can you literally not move to another state or city if you wanted? Do you realize there are places that where you can't. That there are places without freedom of press, religion, free speech or travel.

 

Honestly I think you can't appreciate the freedoms and rights you have. Ironic since the OP here is about Russia where such freedoms were suppressed for generations and still constrained. In my mind, not listing the Freedoms and Rights 'stolen' is because they'd look petty; not because because its straw man.

 

Truthfully I dismiss it as the belly aching of wealthy first world privilege, as well as the age old human instinct that our generation has it so bad, it used to better in the past. Exemplified by pretty much every generation.

 

I digress, even though its undoubtedly straw or tinny, please list all the rights and freedoms you live without.

Just because we live in comparative wealth is not an excuse to except the status quo. I don't live in Russia and it would have been worse had I lived there, or Iraq or Syria. I can think of hundreds of places that are worse, what of it ? I don't think of the past.

 

I don't have any rights, I have privileges. It's not a matter of which rights I have, because that number is clearly zero. Rights are all negatively implied as opposed to privileges that are all positive. I find that most people just haven't considered it. No one ever does until they find themselves on the wrong side of the state. Try not paying your taxes. Just tell the state you have decided you don't need their services and you will fend for yourself-see if they will accept your proposal.

 

Neither am I belly aching, I'm simply telling it as it is. As the oncoming collapse comes closer and the sabre rattling continues against towards the East maybe it will begin to dawn on you. It's like insurance policies-you never need them until you do.

 

You are really trotting out the old statist line that you should be glad of what you have. Frankly that makes me disappointed.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Karl