Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.
That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also
unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.
Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.
He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.
It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.
He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.
Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.
Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?
That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says
you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.
Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?
I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.
The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.
They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.
