Is the world freer now than it ever was? Consider this...

[pitbul]

the way i generally measure how free a society is, is to look at how much influence corporations have. the more influence a corporation has, the less free the society is.

Wise. Good litmus test.

Any ideas where corporations have less influence?

generally speaking, any government accused by the united states regime of "human rights violations" would have less influence. these governments have comited no human rights violation. the only violation they comited was to prevent corporations from devouring their country. if youre miserable in a western country, then i think it would make sense to go to the exact opposite direction that the western media directs you to. i know that some regimes that the western media claims to be paradise are canada, switzerland, and norway. do a quick search for "best countries" on the internet, and you find such regimes like south korea, japan, australia, europe, singapore, etc. the reason they get such high rankings is because they make it extremely easy for corporations to operate within their boundaries, and rob their citizens. these lists are usually made with the blessing, and funding of the corporations who oppress mankind, therefore, it would be wise to go as far away from these types of countries as possible. there is no truth to these countries being the "best countries". when i look at the search results on the internet of people asking "where is the best country"? you get all these answers from paid trolls saying japan, south korea, australia, canada, new zealand, and europe. but here is my question, if youre going to get out of the usa, or a western country, to go to one of these countries, then whats the point? if you are unhappy in a western country, going to another western country or one of its pupets will not bring about significant change. if you eat at mcdonalds everyday, and you say to yourself, "thats it, i'm going to make a change, and eat healthy. i'm going to switch to burger king". you can see that changing to burger king isnt a real change. you are still eating junk food, and it will still kill you the way mcdonalds does. yes, switching to burger king would be an easier transition because your taste buds are used to mcdonalds, but for the purposes of eating more healthy, it really doesnt work. this also reminds me of when people voted for 0bama. he claimed to represent change, and many people were fooled by it. it turned out 0bama wasnt all that different from bush. in fact, many would argue that he was worse. it just goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping peoples opinions. the reason why so many people fell for 0bama's act was precisely because the media portrayed him in a positive way. at the same time, the media can actually make europe, australia, and canada look like heaven, but in reality, i think it isnt that much different from the 0bama hype. anyone, or anything the media tries to sensationalise is dodgy, thats why i think julian assange, and wikileaks is not what they claim. a real activist (against the west) would not be hosting tv shows, he would be dead. if the west wanted to give assange, or wikileaks any credibility, they should have just put a hit on him, to make wikileaks look more legitimate. last month, there was a Chinese guy who also fit this profile. he claimed to be an "activist", but he was u.s backed. first thing i thought was, why is the u.s regime backing an activist? i have never known the u.s regime to give a dam about anyone's human rights, and now theyre backing this blind guy. why are guys like leonard peltier, and mumia abu jamal rotting away in prison? why do Palestinian activists get silenced on a daily basis, and cnn never reports about them. there are confirmed routine incidents that occur in israel, yet the u.s regime never brings them to light. so why this Chinese blind guy?

[Jester]

the way i generally measure how free a society is, is to look at how much influence corporations have. the more influence a corporation has, the less free the society is.

Wise. Good litmus test.

Any ideas where corporations have less influence?

generally speaking, any government accused by the united states regime of "human rights violations" would have less influence. these governments have comited no human rights violation. the only violation they comited was to prevent corporations from devouring their country. if youre miserable in a western country, then i think it would make sense to go to the exact opposite direction that the western media directs you to. i know that some regimes that the western media claims to be paradise are canada, switzerland, and norway. do a quick search for "best countries" on the internet, and you find such regimes like south korea, japan, australia, europe, singapore, etc. the reason they get such high rankings is because they make it extremely easy for corporations to operate within their boundaries, and rob their citizens. these lists are usually made with the blessing, and funding of the corporations who oppress mankind, therefore, it would be wise to go as far away from these types of countries as possible. there is no truth to these countries being the "best countries". when i look at the search results on the internet of people asking "where is the best country"? you get all these answers from paid trolls saying japan, south korea, australia, canada, new zealand, and europe. but here is my question, if youre going to get out of the usa, or a western country, to go to one of these countries, then whats the point? if you are unhappy in a western country, going to another western country or one of its pupets will not bring about significant change. if you eat at mcdonalds everyday, and you say to yourself, "thats it, i'm going to make a change, and eat healthy. i'm going to switch to burger king". you can see that changing to burger king isnt a real change. you are still eating junk food, and it will still kill you the way mcdonalds does. yes, switching to burger king would be an easier transition because your taste buds are used to mcdonalds, but for the purposes of eating more healthy, it really doesnt work. this also reminds me of when people voted for 0bama. he claimed to represent change, and many people were fooled by it. it turned out 0bama wasnt all that different from bush. in fact, many would argue that he was worse. it just goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping peoples opinions. the reason why so many people fell for 0bama's act was precisely because the media portrayed him in a positive way. at the same time, the media can actually make europe, australia, and canada look like heaven, but in reality, i think it isnt that much different from the 0bama hype.

Very good points. I agree about Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.

Guess you may be right about Japan, Korea and and perhaps even Singapore.

Accusations of "Human rights violations" as a contra-indicator. !!!!

I guess Thailand's king, for one, has worked to keep Thais on the land, owning the land, and free of debt.

Seems like countries with a strongman or military junta may be more resistant. Venezuela, Ecuador, maybe Peru and Bolivia. Belarus. Syria. Iran. Cuba. Laos and Burma (Myanmar).

The problem is that when does a strongman or socialist junta become too much of a nuisance themselves? But I suppose that it's conceivable that a country like Venezuela or Bolivia that is socialist in name, and very nationalistic, might prove to be quite libertarian in practice.

Did you mean to recommend any of these countries, or some others?

[Jester]

the world is alot less free than it was even 30 years ago. i remember 20 years ago, you could sell whatever bootleg stuff you wanted in taiwan, and hong kong. you could sell fake nike shirts. hong kong used to have bootleg videos all over the place. you could get microsoft windows for $1. fast forward to today, and taiwan has nearly stomped out all bootleg industries. they dont sell fake gucci hand bags, or anything like that. no bootleg dvds, no bootleg windows, no nothing. the corporations have total control. you cant even upload hollywood films onto mainland Chinese websites anymore. only a couple of years ago, you could upload whatever you wanted onto youku, and tudou. it becomes obvious that western multinational corporate reach has extended to as far as mainland China now. and if the western multinational corporations had their way, mainland China will become as fascist as hong kong and taiwan. 30 years ago, you could sell stuff on the street in america, and other western countries without getting arrested by the cops. today, you cant sell things on the street.

On re-reading this, it sounds like you are interested in a country that leaves you free to make a buck. So you would choose Mexico over the US? And you would chose Guatemala over Mexico? And you would choose Paraguay, with its smuggling and counterfeiting businesses, over Brazil or Argentina?

[Winston]

One more thing to add to my article:

Of course, we are all slaves to money, just as we have always been since the barter system was replaced with money. However, consider this: No one is making you buy that expensive house or car. No one is making you take that stressful job to make ends meet. No one is making you accrue debt. Of course, our materialistic culture attempts to condition you to do those things. But you can always choose not to accept this conditioning by exercising your free will. Instead, you can make wise choices to live simply, and more spiritually, with less expenses and little or no debt. You can make smarter decisions that will lead to LESS financial burdens and thus become LESS enslaved to money. No one is forcing you not to.

Another sensible option is to live overseas in countries where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in the Western world. Although this is a taboo option that may appear unpatriotic, in reality there are already millions of Americans living happily overseas with a lower cost of living and less financial burdens. Living outside of the Western world may sound extreme and unconventional, but it works for many. It's just that you never hear anything positive about it in the mainstream media, which isn't surprising anyway since the media feeds on negativity and are out to portray everything in the worst possible light. Therefore, they are the worst source available for info on life and the world.

[Winston]

In response to my article, someone on the David Icke forum said:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 528&page=3

It's collective amnesia. In the late 70s US you could buy a house working full time at a grocery store. Depending on where you lived of course. A nice-sized house. You can't do that anymore really. You need a working couple getting paid decently. It's more cost-effective to rent a house considering the market hasn't bottomed out and foreclosures keep on coming.

We've been conditioned to think we're better off. Technology makes people dumber and tasks easier. Because we don't know what true freedom is like, we think this is good and as others have pointed out it is an some ways. But that's mostly an illusion. Class slavery is worse than ever and our freedom is in general more limited than it has ever been. Depends on where you live in the world though.

What do you think?

[ethan_sg]

Excellent points pitbul, I agree in particular with measuring a society's freedom by the degree of MNC penetration (with the exception of other extreme regimes such as North Korea).

When one looks at freedom and quality of living, one needs to look at the economic aspects as well.

For instance, 35 years ago in Singapore a flat/apartment cost 1/100th (or 1 percent) of what it costs now. Median incomes in Singapore 35 years ago were about 1/3th (or 33%) of what they are now.

So although median incomes have tripled over the last 35 years, the cost of an apartment has gone up by 100 times. What does that say about your relative purchasing power now? And isn't wealth all about purchasing power?

In the 1970s in Singapore, a housing loan of 1-3 years was the norm, even a 5-year loan was considered to be dauntingly long, burdensome and risky.

Currently, a normal housing loan is about 20-30 years long, which is essentially a lifetime loan, or in other words, a lifetime of debt.

What does that say about quality of living? What does that say about purchasing power? Why have they created a system where the norm is to be indebted all our lives?(sure makes for conforming wage slaves)

Why does everyone believe we have gotten wealthier when in fact the cost of living has gone up far more than median incomes over the last 30 years, meaning that purchasing power, or actual wealth has actually gone down?

In fact what really often happens with development is that a small elite benefits exponentially from the asset appreciation brought about by MNC penetration and globalization but the vast majority suffer from a cost of living that goes up many more times than their median incomes. This is why when I talk about average incomes, I prefer to refer to the median rather than the mean.

the way i generally measure how free a society is, is to look at how much influence corporations have. the more influence a corporation has, the less free the society is.

Wise. Good litmus test.

Any ideas where corporations have less influence?

generally speaking, any government accused by the united states regime of "human rights violations" would have less influence. these governments have comited no human rights violation. the only violation they comited was to prevent corporations from devouring their country. if youre miserable in a western country, then i think it would make sense to go to the exact opposite direction that the western media directs you to. i know that some regimes that the western media claims to be paradise are canada, switzerland, and norway. do a quick search for "best countries" on the internet, and you find such regimes like south korea, japan, australia, europe, singapore, etc. the reason they get such high rankings is because they make it extremely easy for corporations to operate within their boundaries, and rob their citizens. these lists are usually made with the blessing, and funding of the corporations who oppress mankind, therefore, it would be wise to go as far away from these types of countries as possible. there is no truth to these countries being the "best countries". when i look at the search results on the internet of people asking "where is the best country"? you get all these answers from paid trolls saying japan, south korea, australia, canada, new zealand, and europe. but here is my question, if youre going to get out of the usa, or a western country, to go to one of these countries, then whats the point? if you are unhappy in a western country, going to another western country or one of its pupets will not bring about significant change. if you eat at mcdonalds everyday, and you say to yourself, "thats it, i'm going to make a change, and eat healthy. i'm going to switch to burger king". you can see that changing to burger king isnt a real change. you are still eating junk food, and it will still kill you the way mcdonalds does. yes, switching to burger king would be an easier transition because your taste buds are used to mcdonalds, but for the purposes of eating more healthy, it really doesnt work. this also reminds me of when people voted for 0bama. he claimed to represent change, and many people were fooled by it. it turned out 0bama wasnt all that different from bush. in fact, many would argue that he was worse. it just goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping peoples opinions. the reason why so many people fell for 0bama's act was precisely because the media portrayed him in a positive way. at the same time, the media can actually make europe, australia, and canada look like heaven, but in reality, i think it isnt that much different from the 0bama hype. anyone, or anything the media tries to sensationalise is dodgy, thats why i think julian assange, and wikileaks is not what they claim. a real activist (against the west) would not be hosting tv shows, he would be dead. if the west wanted to give assange, or wikileaks any credibility, they should have just put a hit on him, to make wikileaks look more legitimate. last month, there was a Chinese guy who also fit this profile. he claimed to be an "activist", but he was u.s backed. first thing i thought was, why is the u.s regime backing an activist? i have never known the u.s regime to give a dam about anyone's human rights, and now theyre backing this blind guy. why are guys like leonard peltier, and mumia abu jamal rotting away in prison? why do Palestinian activists get silenced on a daily basis, and cnn never reports about them. there are confirmed routine incidents that occur in israel, yet the u.s regime never brings them to light. so why this Chinese blind guy?

[PeterAndrewNolan]

In response to my article, someone on the David Icke forum said:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 528&page=3

It's collective amnesia. In the late 70s US you could buy a house working full time at a grocery store. Depending on where you lived of course. A nice-sized house. You can't do that anymore really. You need a working couple getting paid decently. It's more cost-effective to rent a house considering the market hasn't bottomed out and foreclosures keep on coming.

We've been conditioned to think we're better off. Technology makes people dumber and tasks easier. Because we don't know what true freedom is like, we think this is good and as others have pointed out it is an some ways. But that's mostly an illusion. Class slavery is worse than ever and our freedom is in general more limited than it has ever been. Depends on where you live in the world though.

What do you think?

Winston,
true enough. My dad was a clerk at the local council. Rates, water, electricity, gas etc. I think he finished on about $A45,000 after 45 years or so on the job. On that he raised three boys and made a nice house. In the early days he did work as a barman and also at the races each weekend with bookies. However, as he got older he was able to provide for the family without the bar work. Once I left home, the last one, he was still only 45 and mum and dad lived very comfortably on his salary after that.

In contrast when I left Australia I was on a base of $A175K and on quota so I could over achieve. In 99 I made $A210 and paid $A96K in direct income taxes. Those income taxes were enough to keep 4 more families of 4 on welfare. And, of course, in divorce everything I owned was stolen from me.

The "system" is set up to steal from those men like me who make the effort. And no one seems to care. So those of us who could do such things as stop drugs coming into Australia (on of my projects) have no incentive to do so. Those of us who could leverage our skills to improve the quality of life of millions are discouraged from doing so...even by those who would benefit.

Look at MBA. If a few thousands of men joined it they could collaborate and improve their own quality of life and then other mens quality of life. But what do men do instead. They take the position they want to compete. What does competition bring you? It brings you many more losers than winners.

The REASON that the system produces impoverishment and destruction of men is because men compete with each other in a mindset of scarcity rather than create "win-win" situations where collaboration brings abundance for all those who are collaborators. Then, on a national level people collaborate to try and take stuff off some other nation...more competition in the mindset of scarcity to produce poverty rather than collaboration on a win win basis to produce abundance.

The mechanism by which this is done is the "mono-eye" or "money". By creating fiat currencies that can be controlled the Illuminati has the ability to produce perceived scarcity. But scarcity of "money"..that is all.

Another sad indictment of men is the fact they will not lift a finger for another man unless that lifted finger is paid for. And then they wonder why other men want to be paid to help them. As I have noted I have spent nearly 4,000 hours and USD500,000 on assisting other men now. Yet I can not get them to even post the link to my free ebook in facebooks or on web sites. The latest suggestion by one man was to pay poor indian men to put such posts into the public.

Now...consider this. There is barely a man on the spearhead who does not know my case and does not know about the new book TTBT. Yet NONE of them are willing to post the intro into web sites or send it around their email lists. No one in the MRA area are doing critiques of it. No one is challenging it. No one is condemning it. The Man-o-sphere is attempting to suppress TTBT by ignoring it all together.

Questions.

Do men in the man-o-sphere deserve justice? No.

Do men in the man-o-sphere deserve the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness? No.

Do men in the man-o-sphere deserve the slavery in which they live? Hell yes.

Do men in the man-o-sphere deserve to have their children stolen from them? Hell yes.

Do men in the man-o-sphere deserve the collapse of their society? Hell yes.

Men in the west are getting what they deserve. No more. No less.

They deserve it because they tolerate it. They are too gutless to do what I am doing.

And since no men in the man-o-sphere have been bothered to PAY ME for what I have done I am winding back my activities in order to sell my software so as to ensure my income.

If men in the man-o-sphere wanted a champion for their cause they had one. I went away and spent two years of my life creating and testing the remedy that will work for FOUR HUNDRED MILLION MEN.

Then those very abused him and slandered their champion and attempted to silence champion. Gee. Real smart.

As someone noted on the spearhead, men in the man-o-sphere ATTACK any man who comes along with a solution so as to retain their problems so they can complain about them. There is almost NO ONE in the man-o-sphere who actually wants to SOLVE THE PROBLEMS of men. They want to complain about their problems while keeping the problems.

[pitbul]

the way i generally measure how free a society is, is to look at how much influence corporations have. the more influence a corporation has, the less free the society is.

Wise. Good litmus test.

Any ideas where corporations have less influence?

generally speaking, any government accused by the united states regime of "human rights violations" would have less influence. these governments have comited no human rights violation. the only violation they comited was to prevent corporations from devouring their country. if youre miserable in a western country, then i think it would make sense to go to the exact opposite direction that the western media directs you to. i know that some regimes that the western media claims to be paradise are canada, switzerland, and norway. do a quick search for "best countries" on the internet, and you find such regimes like south korea, japan, australia, europe, singapore, etc. the reason they get such high rankings is because they make it extremely easy for corporations to operate within their boundaries, and rob their citizens. these lists are usually made with the blessing, and funding of the corporations who oppress mankind, therefore, it would be wise to go as far away from these types of countries as possible. there is no truth to these countries being the "best countries". when i look at the search results on the internet of people asking "where is the best country"? you get all these answers from paid trolls saying japan, south korea, australia, canada, new zealand, and europe. but here is my question, if youre going to get out of the usa, or a western country, to go to one of these countries, then whats the point? if you are unhappy in a western country, going to another western country or one of its pupets will not bring about significant change. if you eat at mcdonalds everyday, and you say to yourself, "thats it, i'm going to make a change, and eat healthy. i'm going to switch to burger king". you can see that changing to burger king isnt a real change. you are still eating junk food, and it will still kill you the way mcdonalds does. yes, switching to burger king would be an easier transition because your taste buds are used to mcdonalds, but for the purposes of eating more healthy, it really doesnt work. this also reminds me of when people voted for 0bama. he claimed to represent change, and many people were fooled by it. it turned out 0bama wasnt all that different from bush. in fact, many would argue that he was worse. it just goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping peoples opinions. the reason why so many people fell for 0bama's act was precisely because the media portrayed him in a positive way. at the same time, the media can actually make europe, australia, and canada look like heaven, but in reality, i think it isnt that much different from the 0bama hype.

Very good points. I agree about Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.

Guess you may be right about Japan, Korea and and perhaps even Singapore.

Accusations of "Human rights violations" as a contra-indicator. !!!!

I guess Thailand's king, for one, has worked to keep Thais on the land, owning the land, and free of debt.

Seems like countries with a strongman or military junta may be more resistant. Venezuela, Ecuador, maybe Peru and Bolivia. Belarus. Syria. Iran. Cuba. Laos and Burma (Myanmar).

The problem is that when does a strongman or socialist junta become too much of a nuisance themselves? But I suppose that it's conceivable that a country like Venezuela or Bolivia that is socialist in name, and very nationalistic, might prove to be quite libertarian in practice.

Did you mean to recommend any of these countries, or some others?

yea, and i like the wording contra indicator. the countries you mentioned are quite good. here's some other ones Siere Leon, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan (the southern part, the part with the oil is overun by u.s backed terorists), Zimbabwe, North Korea, Somalia, Tajikistan, Albania, Kazaksatan, Ukraine, Uganda, and Nepal. Strong man socialist juntas are nothing like what the western media make them out to be, in fact, most of the time, they are seen as liberators rather than opresors. Take for example Korea. By most accounts, north korea was seen as a liberator throughout korea, but the way the western media paints it, it makes them look like the bad guy, when in fact it was, and still is south korea that is always stiring up trouble. The western media censored out all the aggression used by south korea to oppress its own people. They carried out massacres, and imprisoned thousands of people. israel is another example. The u.s, and western regimes give billions of dollars to israel to oppress the Palestinian people, and destabilise the middle east. Often times, the western media paints israel as the good guys, and the Palestinian as the bad guy, but if you do a little more digging, you find out it is the exact opposite. That's why using a contra indicator is a good idea. When it comes to subjective things, the western media generally flips things upside down.

[pitbul]

the world is alot less free than it was even 30 years ago. i remember 20 years ago, you could sell whatever bootleg stuff you wanted in taiwan, and hong kong. you could sell fake nike shirts. hong kong used to have bootleg videos all over the place. you could get microsoft windows for $1. fast forward to today, and taiwan has nearly stomped out all bootleg industries. they dont sell fake gucci hand bags, or anything like that. no bootleg dvds, no bootleg windows, no nothing. the corporations have total control. you cant even upload hollywood films onto mainland Chinese websites anymore. only a couple of years ago, you could upload whatever you wanted onto youku, and tudou. it becomes obvious that western multinational corporate reach has extended to as far as mainland China now. and if the western multinational corporations had their way, mainland China will become as fascist as hong kong and taiwan. 30 years ago, you could sell stuff on the street in america, and other western countries without getting arrested by the cops. today, you cant sell things on the street.

On re-reading this, it sounds like you are interested in a country that leaves you free to make a buck. So you would choose Mexico over the US? And you would chose Guatemala over Mexico? And you would choose Paraguay, with its smuggling and counterfeiting businesses, over Brazil or Argentina?

I am simply saying that if you're going to claim to be capitalist, then you should live up to it, not claim to be capitalist, and practice protectionism like the u.s/european regimes do. I don't mind a government taking away my right to sell stuff, as long as they give me free housing, education, food, and healthcare after I put in 7-8 hours of work. The way the u.s works is that, not only do they take away your right to sell watermelons on the street, but theyre also NOT giving you free healthcare, education, and housing. So, what choice does that leave a lot of people, other than to go out and comit crimes. This is why crime rates are so high, because the u.s regime doesnt leave people many choices. I can care less about buying an iphone, ipad, or starbucks coffee. To me, that stuff is meaningless. I am more interesting in collectivism, and a sense of community, the kind that you do not find in usa, canada, european union, australia, nz. But this is just my opinion. Yea, I would choose Mexico over the u.s.. Even if you meet some Mexican people in the u.s, they seem nicer, and kinder than their white counterparts, particularly in california. I don't know enough about Guatemala, Paraguay, Brazil, or Argentina to comment, but considering I havent heard about any "human rights violations" going on there, I am guessing they are mostly compliant with the western multinational corporation agenda.

[pitbul]

One more thing to add to my article:

Of course, we are all slaves to money, just as we have always been since the barter system was replaced with money. However, consider this: No one is making you buy that expensive house or car. No one is making you take that stressful job to make ends meet. No one is making you accrue debt. Of course, our materialistic culture attempts to condition you to do those things. But you can always choose not to accept this conditioning by exercising your free will. Instead, you can make wise choices to live simply, and more spiritually, with less expenses and little or no debt. You can make smarter decisions that will lead to LESS financial burdens and thus become LESS enslaved to money. No one is forcing you not to.

Another sensible option is to live overseas in countries where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in the Western world. Although this is a taboo option that may appear unpatriotic, in reality there are already millions of Americans living happily overseas with a lower cost of living and less financial burdens. Living outside of the Western world may sound extreme and unconventional, but it works for many. It's just that you never hear anything positive about it in the mainstream media, which isn't surprising anyway since the media feeds on negativity and are out to portray everything in the worst possible light. Therefore, they are the worst source available for info on life and the world.

they are forcing us to live a consumerist lifestyle. When the u.s economy was doing poorly after 9/11, the u.s govt, and media came out and told people to spend more money. When the 2008, Wall street crsis hit, the u.s regime, and media, again came out and said, we need to spend ourselves out of the recesion. When I read news about China in western media, they say that "Chinese are not doing enough domestic consumption". So what exactly does this mean? We need to read between the lines here. What the western oligarchs mean by this is, "you need to buy more of our over priced foreign crap". When the Chinese don't spend enough, then the west punishes China by accusing China of selling things with lead, or poison. This in effect, forces Chinese people to buy expensive crap from the west. This is why I do not particularly like capitalism in its current form, because, here you have these multinational corporations. They make all this junk, like iphones, starbucks, and ipad, and their goal is to sell it, and if they can't sell it, they will resort to dodgy, and extreme actions. It is not that people are demanding iphones, and ipads, and then they make it. First they make it, and then convince people that they have to have it. Do you think that apple corporation will simply accept that no one wants to buy their products once they made it? Of course not. Once they make it, they will do everything in their power, both legal, and illegal, to make sure those ipads sell. There are probably hundreds of trolls at any given moment on the internet convincing people why they need an ipad to be cool. Most people that own ipads do not need ipads, and NO ONE needs starbucks coffee, or any coffee. Look around britain at these idiots wearing abercrombie shirts. Often times, they are double the cost in the u.s, and these clowns would order it from the usa. Why the hell do you need an abercrombie shirt in britain when you can buy one for $3 at primark instead? There were also alot of canadian idiots who would travel to the u.s to buy abercrombie shirts. mind you, abercrombie clothes dont even look good. I can find clothes at second hand shops that look better than it. That just goes to show you how deep the brain washing is in western countries. They sensationalise these idiots like justin beiber, and lady gaga, making them out to be gods, when in fact they are nothing more than clowns. They blow them up, and then you have all these idiots going to see their concerts. They are certainly not forcing anyone to go to these concerts, but i think it would definitely qualify as deception, and just being around all that deception makes me sick. Why the hell should I be subjected to believe that justin beiber, or lady gaga is any better than the garbage man, or mail man? This is where I believe communism has done the right thing, because for once, the worker can be placed on a pedestal, instead of some elitist freak who has made no contribution at all to the good of man kind. What the hell has wayne rooney ever done for man kind? What has andre agasi done for the common man? We live in a world where cia agents like the dalai lama are given nobel peace prizes for trying to create a civil war. i wonder how long it will be until the cybercom trolls come to try to difuse this conversation

[PeterAndrewNolan]

pitbul,
dude....punctuation? Spacing?

[Winston]

pitbul, it's hard to read your posts. Can you separate your words into paragraphs?

[pitbul]

the way i generally measure how free a society is, is to look at how much influence corporations have. the more influence a corporation has, the less free the society is.

Wise. Good litmus test.

Any ideas where corporations have less influence?

generally speaking, any government accused by the united states regime of "human rights violations" would have less influence. these governments have comited no human rights violation. the only violation they comited was to prevent corporations from devouring their country. if youre miserable in a western country, then i think it would make sense to go to the exact opposite direction that the western media directs you to. i know that some regimes that the western media claims to be paradise are canada, switzerland, and norway. do a quick search for "best countries" on the internet, and you find such regimes like south korea, japan, australia, europe, singapore, etc. the reason they get such high rankings is because they make it extremely easy for corporations to operate within their boundaries, and rob their citizens. these lists are usually made with the blessing, and funding of the corporations who oppress mankind, therefore, it would be wise to go as far away from these types of countries as possible. there is no truth to these countries being the "best countries". when i look at the search results on the internet of people asking "where is the best country"? you get all these answers from paid trolls saying japan, south korea, australia, canada, new zealand, and europe. but here is my question, if youre going to get out of the usa, or a western country, to go to one of these countries, then whats the point? if you are unhappy in a western country, going to another western country or one of its pupets will not bring about significant change. if you eat at mcdonalds everyday, and you say to yourself, "thats it, i'm going to make a change, and eat healthy. i'm going to switch to burger king". you can see that changing to burger king isnt a real change. you are still eating junk food, and it will still kill you the way mcdonalds does. yes, switching to burger king would be an easier transition because your taste buds are used to mcdonalds, but for the purposes of eating more healthy, it really doesnt work. this also reminds me of when people voted for 0bama. he claimed to represent change, and many people were fooled by it. it turned out 0bama wasnt all that different from bush. in fact, many would argue that he was worse. it just goes to show how powerful the media is in shaping peoples opinions. the reason why so many people fell for 0bama's act was precisely because the media portrayed him in a positive way. at the same time, the media can actually make europe, australia, and canada look like heaven, but in reality, i think it isnt that much different from the 0bama hype.

Very good points. I agree about Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.

Guess you may be right about Japan, Korea and and perhaps even Singapore.

Accusations of "Human rights violations" as a contra-indicator. !!!!

I guess Thailand's king, for one, has worked to keep Thais on the land, owning the land, and free of debt.

Seems like countries with a strongman or military junta may be more resistant. Venezuela, Ecuador, maybe Peru and Bolivia. Belarus. Syria. Iran. Cuba. Laos and Burma (Myanmar).

The problem is that when does a strongman or socialist junta become too much of a nuisance themselves? But I suppose that it's conceivable that a country like Venezuela or Bolivia that is socialist in name, and very nationalistic, might prove to be quite libertarian in practice.

Did you mean to recommend any of these countries, or some others?

As far as I know, thailand is fairly compliant to western multinational corporations. They are notorious for hosting cia torture sites. In that aspect, they are the worst. I don't know any other south east Asian country that allows the cia to get away with what they get away with. The way I see it, if they give americans, europeans, canadians are australia visa free access, then the country is suspect. Let's face it, thailand's claim to fame is transvestite prostitutes. No responsible govt would allow that to happen. A few years ago, an hiv positive german illegal immigrant was purposely infecting 450 under age thai girls with aids. If I were the president of thailand, I would have executed him immediately, but this guy actually got away with it. I don't think that Venezuela, or Bolivia is only socialist in name. Chavez was overthrown and imprisoned by u.s backed thugs. They then installed some u.s pupet. If they were both far right capitalists, then they might as well accept the u.s pupet, but what ended up hapening was the Venezuelans broke Chavez out of prison and put him back in power. I am going to assume they broke him out, because Chavez did things like affirmative action, and gave free housing, healthcare, etc, things that benefited the populace. Bolivia is also looked up to by other socialists. Obviously, none of them are fully socialist, but I still think they do a better job at taking care of their people, given what resources they have, than any western country I can think of. latin american countries are expanding their social programs, while europe, and other western regimes are cutting their welfare budgets, in exchange for bloated military budgets.

[Jester]

As far as I know, thailand is fairly compliant to western multinational corporations. They are notorious for hosting cia torture sites. In that aspect, they are the worst. I don't know any other south east Asian country that allows the cia to get away with what they get away with. The way I see it, if they give americans, europeans, canadians are australia visa free access, then the country is suspect. Let's face it, thailand's claim to fame is transvestite prostitutes. No responsible govt would allow that to happen. A few years ago, an hiv positive german illegal immigrant was purposely infecting 450 under age thai girls with aids. If I were the president of thailand, I would have executed him immediately, but this guy actually got away with it. I don't think that Venezuela, or Bolivia is only socialist in name. Chavez was overthrown and imprisoned by u.s backed thugs. They then installed some u.s pupet. If they were both far right capitalists, then they might as well accept the u.s pupet, but what ended up hapening was the Venezuelans broke Chavez out of prison and put him back in power. I am going to assume they broke him out, because Chavez did things like affirmative action, and gave free housing, healthcare, etc, things that benefited the populace. Bolivia is also looked up to by other socialists. Obviously, none of them are fully socialist, but I still think they do a better job at taking care of their people, given what resources they have, than any western country I can think of. latin american countries are expanding their social programs, while europe, and other western regimes are cutting their welfare budgets, in exchange for bloated military budgets.

You have a unique perspective. i appreciate the input.

You make a good point about Thailand.

I have specifically been looking a countries with visa-free access, so family could easily join me if SHTF in U.S. Interesting to hear your contrary opinion.

Incidentally, re Chavez, I read that he banned the Simpsons show from Venezuelan Tv - for being anti-male.

[pitbul]

I understand why you may be looking within the u.s. orbit, but if you are unhappy with the u.s, or the west, then the idea is to get out of their sphere of influence. That is the first step of liberating yourself. Banning the simpsons for being anti male, sounds out of character for Chavez. I don't doubt he banned the simpsons, but perhaps for other reasons. If anything, the simpsons was being racist, or portraying someone or something unjustly, which western cartoons such as south park, frequently do. In fact, just by allowing western cartoons into his country at all is being very generous.

Not only does importing cartoons bring corrupted values, but it also prevents development. Remember that each time a sovereign country allows filth like the simpsons into their country, it is directly competing with the local cartoon industry. If everyone is watching imported cartoons, then there will be no local cartoon makers. Take hong kong and taiwan for example. All of their cartoons are either imported from japan, or the west. hongers, and taiwanese have no idea how corrupt and screwed up their own govt is, and does not know that their govt is depriving them of jobs. Most hongers, and taiwanese are preoccupied by their hatred towards the mainland. By hating mainlanders, the hongers, and taiwanese will never rise up against their own crooked regimes, nor will they ever question the economic policy being executed in their own land. It works the same way in the west, by hating hispanics, illegal immigrants, blacks, and muslims, the public will have a hard time turning against their own governments.

taiwan used to be a so called Asian tiger, now they are deindustrialised, because their japanese and white masters told them so. Trust me, taiwanese, and hongers need the jobs desprately. hong kong's only industry is money laundering. Today, taiwan is worse off than it was 20 years ago. That shows how incompetent the taiwanese govt is. I am not saying the mainland is perfect, or that anyone should go there, but consider this. If you want to import films into the mainland, you have to cooperate with local film makers. This both gives local film makers a job, and also gives them an international presence. One example is iron man 3. This is being co produced with China, because the greedy american film makers want to sell their filth in China.

An irresponsible, and incompetent government would say, hey, why don't you come here and sell whatever you want, just bribe our corrupt politicians, and you won't have any conditions on selling your crap here. This is precisely why taiwan, and hong kong are flooded with imported crap. They don't even produce anything. Even if a taiwanese or honger wants to sell their films in the mainland, they have to put several mainland actors in their films. This is why you will see many mainland stars in tw, and hk films. If you watch the film IP Man, you will notice there are several mainland actors featured in that film. It's not because hong kong likes mainlanders, it is that hong kong film produces are drawn in by greed, so they can sell films in the mainland. Another good example set by China is limiting the number of hollywood films imported into China. I believe China only allows 20 films per year coming from outside. This protects the Chinese film industry. If China just imported films like japan does, then it would severely cripple the Chinese film industry.

Regarding the airplane industry, mainland China is the only non white country in the world to make commercial airplanes. japan, south korea, and taiwan, have all made attempts to make commercial airplanes, but they were all stopped in their tracks by their gwailo masters.

This is where being an independent country, not a pupet regime, benefits you. A few days ago, China sent their first manned spacecraft into orbit. Some may argue against socialism, but being socialist has its advantages, for it was socialism that enabled China to send humans into space, build its own commercial airliner, is the only country in the world with a capability to sink an aircraft carrier, has its own stealth fighter, have its own cell phone frequency, and satelites. If they just went along with whatever the west told them to, they would not be able to accomplish half the things that they do. japan had been a purely capitalist, u.s. pupet regime since 1945. Where has this gotten them? Nowhere. First the u.s regime built them up, and then tore them down. This was aparent when the u.s regime forced japan to sign the plaza accord, sending them into a 20 year recesion. No, they dont have their own cell phone frequency, satelite, commercial airlines, or manned space shuttle. They are only allowed to advance as far as the west will allow them to.

By giving westerners visa free access, they are essentially saying, we are your subordinates. If you can't even do what's right for your country, and take orders from the west, why should I respect you as a country? I am not advocating China, but simply pointing out things that countries can do to empower themselves, and show that doing things in your country's own interest is possible, and what amazing achievements you can make when you break free of your shackles, by not being a pupet of the west. If you think that being a pupet will bring about opportunities, then think again.

Look at how much the GDP of taiwan, and japan has grown. Ask a honger about the certainty of hong kong's economy. A solid example of the rise and fall of a western pupet is the United Arab Emirates. They were built up by the west as a money laundering centre. Since the crooks and thieves have been allowed to continue to operate in hong kong, this has made the UAE irrelevant, just like hong kong and singapore will be one day. This is precisely why mainland China will hold onto its manufacturing base at all costs, because industries like money laundering is not reliable. These days, or any day, I suppose, multinational corporations just use a country, or a city like it's nothing. It's nothing more than a shell. Take ireland for example, they were used as a tax haven by the corporations. Once they served their purposes, the corporations kicked ireland to the curb, and now it's a basket case at the mercy of the IMF, and world bank. The corporations move on, while the irish people suffer.

Sorry for my writing style. I don't have any fancy degrees from Harvard, Oxbridge, La Sorbonne, or the school of the americas. In the words of William Hung, I've never had any formal training.