utopian

I think it may be because governments and corporations are now getting into quantum computers, which renders encryption useless. Anyone who has one of these computers can now print all the bitcoins they want, thereby giving these institutions the power to regulate bitcoin at will. Shit, they don't even know if these things actually work, and Google bought 5 of them at a million dollars a piece.

It's ok man, I may have screwed it up before it even started, having introduced a metaphorical scenario instead of the actual one. I do appreciate your contribution of Engles writings, I will have to get to reading it when I have time. Thank you. That might have been the case, except the actual scenario I am talking about is the economic system. and the train coming is the crash that left lots of people homeless and jobless.

I am afraid I don't understand. Perhaps I need to learn more about what Engles wrote about the political struggle. What the bankers do is largely done without the consent of the general public. As Henry Ford once said, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Considering that, I feel there should be a philosophical issue with siding with the banking system.

I have somewhat had this discussion before. I was planning to post my argument towards this when it was more well cited, but I also have another post I am mainly working on, so my incomplete post will have to do until then. I have concerns that their may be psychoactive drugs out there that may be able to induce these feelings of wanting to be the opposite gender, though I can't prove that. I only have circumstantial evidence for that idea so far. I think there is some kind of agenda that is interested in making men more feminine, because females demand and spend more money on products like makeup, clothes etc. Also, women seem to be more influenced by media, and the controversy surrounding transgender males, or perhaps unoperated men who simply go around dressing as a woman, allows them to go places like woman's bathrooms, and potentially protects them from being kept from other situations. There is some kind of infiltrative quality there. Specifically in the case of Bruce Jenner, I would not be surprised if it turned out one or all of those materialistic, manipulative poor excuse for human Kardashians are secretly putting hormones in Bruce's food. Now the thing about "transgender" females, is that they cannot self lubricate. This is because they never get an actual vagina: it is so far impossible to surgically graft a functioning vagina to a man who has his genitals removed. The truth about what is happening, is that a man, who "wants" to be a woman, has his penis surgically removed, and has the bodily material that is left shaped into a vagina. Although it is arguable that it may be possible to surgically graft a functioning penis to a male or female; http://www.bbc.com/n...health-31876219 The fact remains that a functioning vaginal system cannot be installed on a human body. Transgenderism is merely the surgical removal of the male genitals, with hormones and plastic surgery used to have a male body imitate that of a female. With all this, the "female" still has the bone structure of a man, prevalent bodily hair, and many of the fleshy compositions. But so what if any and all of this is true? Who does it hurt? Well, for one, the transgender in question: http://www.irishtime...icide-1.1613871 Studies show 80% of transgenders want to kill themselves, and 40% actually act on it. Now arguably, there is still a case to be made that no one should still care if these people kill themselves, but if there is indeed a chemical reason why more people are prone to transgenderism, it lends weight to the case that some part of the medical community may want to sneak these drugs into people, in order to profit from performing the very expensive transgender and plastic surgeries, as well as sell more hormone manipulating drugs. It means, the average person could be getting used as an ends for more money. The medical community is no stranger to manipulative information for profit. Just take a look at the well known story of Doctor Farid Fata, who told patients they had cancer just so he could collect on the money required to prescribe cancer treatment; http://www.clickonde...counts/28087698 Consider also that big industries, like big pharma and big media, have a collective interest in making money, and it makes sense that the media would like to spin a cover story about anti-transgenderism being hate motivated, so that big pharma can profit from surgery and pills. A media cover story like, say, Bruce Jenner's transgenderism. Also, there is the conflict of philosophies between the gay community and the transgender community. The philosophy of the gay community is that you should be happy with being yourself, happy and accepting of being born how you were. Fundamental to the gay philosophy is the idea that you cannot choose to be gay or straight, it is something you are born with. This is in conflict with the transgender philosophy, you see, because transgenderism supports the idea that YOU SHOULD NOT be happy with how you are, and that it is ok to want to be different with how you were born, as a male or female. That it is OK to try and be a woman, which would not actually be possible (and I argue, is still not possible) without human advances in the medical field, whereas homosexuality is naturally possible. If that kind of philosophy were to be applied to homosexuality, the equivalent would be "its ok to try and religiously convert yourself from homosexuality to heterosexuality". Either transgenderism follows a valid path of logic, or homosexuality does. I support homosexuality. Also, and this is where I can't find my source, but I remember reading an article several months back about a Johns Hopkins PhD publicly stating that transgenderism is a mental disorder. Johns Hopkins has since ceased performing the surgeries as it finally begins to delve into the research it should have been doing before wreaking havoc with people's lives when they do not know if these transitions are healthy. Finally, and this is probably the biggest one yet, your body knows definitively if you are supposed to be male or female. David Paige, Professor of biology at MIT, displays clearly in the following TED talk that, whether you feel like a woman or not, your being male or female is clearly defined in your DNA, if your 23rd chromosome is an "XY" pair. I have seen it argued that transgenders simply have a "feeling" that they should be one gender or the other. "Having a feeling" is not a legitimate reason to perform surgeries or take drugs. Indeed, many feelings can be induced BY taking drugs, which lends weight to the idea that whoever it is having these feelings, might be having drugs fed to them, or may be consuming drugs without knowing it. Think about that for a second. Think about the chemicals in our food and water, in our every day products. It is a well known fact that there is BPA in plastic bottles and lining tin cans, which is in fact a hormone. Who is to say it is impossible, that a small percentage of people may be having extreme reactions to these chemicals, resulting in feelings of being the wrong gender? Chemicals are so prevalent in our day to day lives, that ocean fish living near our shorelines can be studied and found to be full of chemicals that have gone through us just from our urine. Entire species of some of these fish are even being changed completely female and dying out because of the chemicals going through us. I doubt we will ever see any real research or data on the issue in the public eye, unfortunately. Corporations stand to make too much money from the brainwashed, chemically altered misled masses. Anyone actually admitting this is a giant fuck up would face, or stand against a corporation, with evidence for a massive class action law suit. But who cares right? Society will ignorantly claim its all hate rhetoric as it usually does, whether it is wrong or not.

Very interesting! I have heard about Marx and the Manifesto, but not of Engels. It does seem very much related to my issue. Profiting from created conflicts is certainly at the heart of this issue with banking. The banks are profiting from creating strife in the country I love, America. As an American, I should probably be fighting against this. Americans simply never give me a reason enough to care about them long enough to try and help them. In fact I would say I have more reason to side with the bankers, as I understand what they are doing, and can profit from it. But so, I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. Is there a well known fallacy which nullifies any legitimacy for being on the banker side of the struggle? A predetermined argument for supporting the unwashed, perhaps?

Mostly nothing positive. The best examples have always been fictional tales. My own parents were certainly a mess. My sister is pretty, and she pussywhips all of her boyfriends, reinforced by the craziness learned by my parents. She even sometimes treats me as if I will be just another pussywhipped guy, not seeming to realize her act does not effect guys not physically interested in her. I never let anyone push me around or fool me though. Once, I slept with this girl who seemed all too eager to get with me. She kept alluding to some kind of secret, and I just had a good feeling about what it was, so I "accidentally" told her about how well I do with the court system and legal battles, and that if she was in trouble I could probably help her. She spilled the beans, and sure enough, she was pregnant from another guy, and planning to trick me into thinking it was mine so I could take care of it. It has pretty much all been that level of craziness in one way or the other in my life, every time I have involved myself with a woman. I have no real examples of functional, loving relationships. For as problematic and crazy as women seem to be you would think men would be the ones to have to choose what women to allow relationships with, but women are too prude to initiate interactions with men, and think they are the prize. On top of all that, women never really care to get to know me, or are interested in what makes me a valuable guy. They're all dependent on wellfare programs trying to single handedly raise kids from relationships failed from their own stupidity, and/or prude materialistic older children expecting entitlements from me and never thinking they should give anything back. And some people may read what I write and think, you are just a misogynist. Completely not true. I have a lot of respect for women like Rhonda Rousey, the MMA champion. Marissa Meyer, the CEO of Yahoo. Even self described feminists like Nancy Friday, who wrote "My Secret Garden". But where are the functional relationships? Where are the woman who can love? Where are the women who see the value in men, respect them and care about their feelings? I am so used to prudes, bitches and gold diggers that if I ever do meet a real sweetheart, I won't know how to treat her.

Look, Stef is talking about this stuff as soon as 3 days ago. About how boys are institutionally brainwashed into denigration from young ages. Stef is out there trying to get this into the public eye, we should be too.

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't expect to find my unicorn. But I feel like my philosophy concerning relationships is well thought out, and that if she is not a woman worth having kids with, she is only good for playing. Sure, I will play the game, I may buy her a drink or so if I think I can get somewhere with her. My philosophy dictates I enjoy my life in every way possible while I have it, and that includes having sex. But I will certainly never sign up with any of these women with any real investment. I will look for the unicorn while I play. My issue is, when I do find the unicorn, I don't know if I will know how to handle it.

I pretty much stopped reading after the second time you called me god, since your related comments are more about satirically responding to a conclusion you have an emotional reaction to. Don't waste my time with this drivel. Give me a respectable and well thought response, or I will have you trolling yourself by me not reading your post and thereby having you waste all that time making a post you meant for me to read. Perhaps I have, I have no knowledge of this Engles. Care to summarize?

Ahahahaaaa! Ooh MMX, I am not sure what you posted to get everyone so pissed at you, but I saw this coming a long ways off. There is a good reason you are so downvoted, and it is well deserved. You're a troll. You debate without consideration for truth, if debating is what I would actually call what it is you do. You insult people based on your insane justifications of trolling. I bet you went and backed yourself into some horrible corner of trolling, trying to argue for child abuse or racism or something that really got people mad. I told you when I first started chatting with you, I was not the only one who recognized your trolling, and now you have gone and proven it. The thing that amazes me is that you are so delusional, so convinced of your own righteousness. I have never seen someone so without introspection. You seem to have this insane desire for recognition, for people's attention, even long after they have let you known they arent paying attention to you. As if you could just become such a great debater or something that, even if someone is completely right, you will feel proud of yourself for making every argument possible to negate a person's topic. Not once do you seem to ever stop and take a look at yourself and see what everyone else sees. So much of your time and energy wasted trying to convince me and others of your capabilities, and now you have gone and ostracized yourself. You're still trying to do it, even though you are blocked by the forum from anyone ever having to be bothered by your foolishness again. It's pathetic. Fortunately for me, I don't have to be bothered by having to scroll past your wall of text any more, all I will ever see of you again is what I have quoted. But do post again... every time I see you in the quote, I will get a little chuckle. I would argue people have put themselves into classes, as most of them do not strive to understand the thorn that is creating pain in their side, as well as angrily attacking anyone who is trying to remove it for them.

We seem to be pretty much in agreement and on the same page, except that you see the philosophical issues and have resigned to it, and I have not. For god's sake, we are philosophers. Should we resign to a life unfulfilled? Should we resign to issues that exacerbate child abuse and loneliness? Should we allow humanity to go on undeveloped? The idea of resigning to a "relationship" where I pay a woman's way while she prudely avoids getting to know me to see my qualities and makes a philosophical mess of herself while her value declines and yet still expects entitlements from me, is insane. If so many women are like this that I have such a hard time finding anything better, than I have no problem "playing" these women. I certainly would not want to have the children of a woman like this. The sad thing is that, if I ever did find a unicorn, I would not know what to expect or how to treat her... which is why I made this thread.

We seem to be getting away from the point here. This is the basis of my argument, that the masses are so stupid, they are signing up for institutions that are destructive and harmful even to themselves, just like you said about the cigarettes. Perhaps its time to talk about the real issue. The real issue is the banking system. I am still working on a condensed history of banking I mean to post on this forum. Central banks have enslaved just about the entire world, and they did it in such a sneaky and complex way that most people would never be able to even figure out how it works, much less comprehend its existence. So when I began to study the system, it was more or less my goal to save myself from it, and everyone else in the process. But as I studied the banking system I realized that people did not seem to have the capacity to even understand that this is the source of most of their problems. So you tell me that, for wanting to save people from a problem too complex for them to understand, I should be rightfully hated. Well, if saving people gets me hated, then I have no problem suppressing those very people who indulge in such stupidity. I get money and power and my way with humanity. If haters are gonna hate either way, then I would rather have all the bonuses. The struggle comes when I consider, that this is not necessarily virtuous or philosophical, but I cannot justify being either, when people are so generally stupid.

Inflation may refer to several different mechanics, but basically inflation can be explained in the following example. You create a money supply to represent 100 loaves of bread, by creating 100 paper dollars. Each loaf is worth one dollar. This "economy" is stable at a set rate of 1 dollar per 1 loaf. Now, if you maintain that 100 loaves of bread, but you print 100 more dollars, you now have 200 dollars to represent 100 loaves of bread. That means each dollar is now only worth half of a loaf of bread. This is inflation, and can be used as a mechanic of thievery if you trade away your dollars at an assumed value of 1 dollar for 1 loaf of bread, and later make it so that the dollars you gave away are now only worth half a loaf of bread. This is only half the equation, however. Lets say you do not print any more dollars, and maintain that 100 dollars. If you eat 50 loaves of bread, those dollars now also represent half a loaf of bread, thereby making it possible to inflate a currency without ever printing more of it.

But surely you can see that people would not need to even congregate to be destructive. Any five year old, who are inherently unintelligent, can pick up a pair of scissors and start running around with it, endangering you and possibly injuring you or himself. Other 5 year olds may see this and think it looks fun, and choose to do it as well. It should be no problem for you to extrapolate this example into every day life. What about the heaven's gate cult? What about organized religion? Drunken college frat parties? What other examples do you need to be convinced that yes, people do indeed congregate naturally to participate in stupidity? I agree that governments can be gangs in disguise, but I still don't see how either organization would be giving people control. Perhaps an actual government would, if it had an established method for the common man to change it.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” -Albert Einstein

This is a good platform to start from for what I have been trying to get at, but what I am looking for as far as my original post, is what a woman can expect from a fulfilling, equal, philosophical relationship. A "universally preferable" model of relationship. Because a prevalent issue with women today is they all think they deserve way more than they do, especially for being generally anti-philosophical creatures who get used to getting things handed to them and often never think about self development because of it. Studies from okcupid.com show that 80% of women go after only 20% of men, where as men have a more evenly distributed bell curve of who they go after. Women are the more shallow gender. Can hot women lay back and do nothing and become nothing and just let gifts get trucked in while not having to work for it? Sure. It happens. There are plenty of women on youtube who do several videos that are just about opening packages they get cause theyre so hot men everywhere just send them free stuff. That is a philosophical NIGHTMARE however, where women are encouraged to become nothing and do nothing with themselves, and not only that, but they are so saturated with instant gratification, they never get to thinking about how unreal their situation is. What I am asking is, if situations like this did not exist, and women actually sought men on an equal basis, what would the women be putting forth in a relationship, and what would a man be putting forth? Because before considering modern situations, equal value for equal value obviously makes sense. Our biology is experiencing a philosophical crisis, however. Female biology was built to seek out and please men so that she could have someone to get her resources, because her biology was not created for acquiring resources, it was made to birth and raise children. The crisis has developed in modern times with the introduction of technology, because now a woman can satisfy pretty much all of her own needs without ever having a man around. Men have created this environment for women, and now that we have, women no longer appreciate men, or see value in them. This is especially problematic if they ever have children and have no husband or father figure around, which develops a plethora of problems in the children as cited several times by Stefan. Our biology was made to have two parents each teaching children values as they grew up with a man and a woman, and now our modern society is developing children that will be growing up developing problems because we have messed up the biological environment we were supposed to be raising children in. And THEN, you add in things like feminist bullshit, media brainwashing, technological desensitization... where is the hope for humanity? I agree about biology on the survival level of the paleocortex, and the emotional level of the lymbic system. The neocortex, however, is a different beast entirely. Where as sex satisfies our paleocortex and emotional connections satisfy our lymbic system, the neocortex is fulfilled by higher qualities such as knowledge and philosophy. Without fulfillment on this level, how could a relationship ever have any real quality? Without it, a relationship is nothing but sex and food and emotions being robotically stimulated. Yes, plenty of women get by on just that. They also tend to find themselves unfulfilled, never satisfied and looking for something they don't even realize they are fighting against. The hot chicks I alluded to earlier screw whoever they want, get all the free stuff they want, and live in this... matrix. A matrix of unreality where they never have to strive to make something of themselves, work for anything, earn anything. It is to the point where they do not even realize their environmental matrix exists. The only time they do realize it, is when these women get older, and the value of their hotness begins to diminish, and eventually fades entirely. Too late they realize that the world they became used to will no longer be there, and now that they have spent all this time not building something of themselves, not becoming a quality person, these women go crazy and turn into entitled nags who do not care for anyone they hurt, not unlike Stefan's mother, or my own. This contributes to the development of damaged women and damaged children that Stefan finds himself attempting to clean up after. If women were treated with the more universally preferable treatment that I am looking for in this thread, it would lead to better human development for all of mankind. Agreed, the problem being that women are entitled to men caring about their emotions and expect to not have to care about a man's emotions. Men will go along with this until the woman loses her sexual value, creating the philosophical problem described above. Leaving a woman who does not care about your emotions when she loses her sexual value is justified in this situation, if there is no philosophical basis in the relationship. A philosophical relationship, I argue, would include the woman caring about the man's feelings as well, because that would still be there when the woman lost her beauty. Well first off, society itself and at large judges women for doing this, I am far from the only one. I might be more accepting of it if this exchange was more widely accepted between the two parties, but women want to be whores and not accept responsibility for being so. God forbid, they make their own money and sleep with a guy they want to sleep with, instead of only sleeping with a man they dont like for money. We can't have women becoming philosophically fulfilled now can we? Then they might actually age gracefully and stop abusing their children because of their developed craziness.

"the collapse" is largely a culmination of a string of failures in several established institutions reaching the end of their capabilities. I would argue it has already begun, only because of the current monetary system, third world countries that no one cares about or pays attention to are mainly the people who are seeing it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasafunded-study-warns-of-collapse-of-civilisation-in-coming-decades-9195668.html The link provided describes a large aspect of the collapse of society as we discover the end of providable resources and begin to fight over the scraps. The problem will magnify once everyone who is holding paper or other money supplies discovers that their money supply can no longer buy them anything.

Your argument does not seem very clear to me. Are you assuming that the foolish masses would not be able to congregate into a destructive force without the state? In what way do you think that the current US capitalist system is GIVING people power as opposed to suppressing them? Your theory that the stupid masses are aloof and idle disregards the drug cartels operating just over the border I live buy, as well as operating within the city and country I live in. It doesnt take much intelligence for people to grow and sell drugs, shoot innocent people, traffic children and plenty of other crimes that are far from aloof and idle.

Medicine may be a good route to consider, perhaps nursing, because the baby boomer generation is very large and getting old and creaky, and is going to need a lot of help passing on. We don't have the manpower to handle them all. Technology is a great field if you can learn super fast, but if you can't dont bother, because as soon as you learn something something new comes out that replaces it. Customer service is projected by the government to be the fastest growing field in the future, as technology takes over more and more jobs. Also, any jobs that require empathy. Personally, I think teaching will also be a very lucrative field, as less and less jobs become available and more and more people who do not know what to do with themselves decide to go to college to see if they can make something of themselves. I aim to be a professor in maybe a decade as a career.

Before I go on, I want to denote how much I appreciate the clarity and thought you have provided me. It has been very helpful, and given me food for thought on things I have not yet considered. I don't think I meant to play devil's advocate, just provide an example of the feeling I get when I try NOT to impose statist mechanics, and warn people against them. I find that doing this tends to justify my imposing of statist mechanics. If people are so stupid that they will not strive to get out of the way of a train, and/or learn about the statist mechanics that enslave them in order to dismantle them, then I see no reason why I should strive to prevent either of these situations, much less refrain from joining in on imposing them and profiting from it. I have my own issues to deal with, but never have I ever found people to be worthwhile. They rarely have been kind and inviting to me. They have rarely been useful to humanity, people involved in their lives, or even themselves. They rarely seem to be able to comprehend higher education. Furthermore people on average are rarely virtuous and moral, and I rarely see a reason to treat the average person morally, or even as human. I am largely here to see if there is a reason to justify not being a money hoarding statist. I can't find any. Your argument supports the idea that the stupid masses that could ruin everything for us, requires a responding institution which can control, mitigate and/or prevent the masses destructive tendencies. Because if there is no such institution, then the masses will continue to be the proverbial 5 year old running with scissors, until he or someone else gets hurt. The "charge people for saving them" seems to work fairly well. Although I am more poised to profit from the masses panics.

The thing is, stupidity is a trillion dollar industry, and I want a piece of it. Most of the money happens from train wrecks. Ask Rainbow Jamz, he has seen pics that are testament to my profits. The thing is, stupidity is a trillion dollar industry, and I want a piece of it. Most of the money happens from train wrecks. Ask Rainbow Jamz, he has seen pics that are testament to my profits. And what if it was people that I loved? My wife, children, family? Good friends? Sure, I don't HAVE to be responsible for any of them. That's some cold philosophical truth. It is also true that, that is very inhuman. Would you expect me to just let the train run these people over? The people I choose to cooperate with, is part of my struggle. My example is beginning to reach the extent of its usefulness... I take it you are a fairly dedicated libertarian? What if I told you, I "cooperate" with statists in reducing your liberties, because I find it very profitable? I could choose to cooperate with libertarians exclusively, but this forum is full of examples on how the libertarian side is the losing side. And yet, despite my statist profits, I do have a moral conflict, seeing as how my liberties and the liberties of those I love are reduced. The more statist profits I acquire, the more capable I am of reinstalling liberties... if my countrymen were my responsibility. Do you still argue, they are not? This argument goes to support the idea of a state controlling the stupid masses. I agree with it, but if the state is not managed responsibly, as in comparison to you saying "people are not my responsibility", then the state becomes an institution to suppress the masses and not take care of them. Which of course manifests in reduced liberties for you and me. As well as my philosophical conflict of interest, making money off the stupidity of the masses and being disturbed by the loss of liberties.

You know how I justify my game playing? I turn off the music of the game, and in the background, I listen to youtube videos concerning anything academic. Banking, history, and of course, our dear old philosopher Stefan. It's not a total waste I suppose. Still... I always tend to leave out my "concentrated academics".

You should check out Kabbalah some time, it has some very interesting information on luck and wishes. And yes, you can make your own luck and fulfill your own prophecy. There is no such thing as "luck" when considering inanimate objects, because if you could ever freeze time and do the math on the variable forces at work, you could always determine exactly what would happen, providing you knew the exact measurements. Now of course you can't freeze time and stuff, but you can largely determine the mechanics of the universe. What falls under the realm of "luck" is consciousnesses other than yourself acting upon the universe to create opportunities that would not have been there if another person had not interacted with the universe. Now as far as wishing goes, according to string theory (and actually Kabbalah) the universe consists of nothing but vibrating strings. The universe consists only of varying levels of vibration...of music. So, if you were to create vibrations in the world...hum, whistle...sing...PRAY...your thoughts would influence the world with your vibrations. Your song would join the song of the universe. Your wish would become part of the world, and just might have a chance of creating enough influence to make it true.

Well, if I know people are going to get injured or die, I might invest in bandages and caskets, knowing people will be needing them soon, and being able to sell them at double the price. People will only be needing these things (in this situation) because they were too dumb to get off the tracks when I told them to get off. I am in the process of this. Last time this event happened, I tried telling people about it, and I could not quite rally the crowd, or the individual. I went to college and got an award from one of my professors for best speech in the class, among other things I have so far accomplished. Despite my improvements, there is still a problem on the other side of the coin, where people are simply unwilling to listen. Partially, I argue, because the media and other entities have made them that way. I have absolutely no time for any of that. I spend enough time working to support myself as it is, I don't have time to listen to people's unimportant daily lives. Especially when they could be dead in a moment, like in the case of the train. There is a certain urgency here in my issue. I have enough time to explain things to people, the problem being no one wants to listen until it's too late. And if people are not my responsibility anyway... then I would rather work on profiting from their death. This is exactly my point! If people are gonna do things they know will kill them, well shit, I will be happy to be the one selling them cigarettes! How can these people's lives be justified? As Stef sometimes says, it is important the way you conduct yourself in the world, because his children are gonna grow up in the world you exist in. An old lady is easy to write off. Your sentiment here reminds me of a very relevant quote from someone who also thought others were not his responsibility; http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemoller The problem with your sentiment is, unfortunately, yes, these fools I am surrounded by are my responsibility. Because a train is coming. And if I am not there to help them when they need me, no one will be there when I need them. I certainly can't stop this train by myself.

Other than what?