CityHermit!

And yet Laozi had three treasures

Strict or loose definitions aside, I've almost always seen such things eventually balanced out through consequence or compensation.

Nope

What school?

Lots of people fell to the Cultural Revolution in China, didn't they? Who is left from the purge of the Qigong movement?

So in light of more recent comments regarding Taoism and Christianity, any thoughts on Tianshi?

So you being conceived and born into this world is not an objective fact?

From my personal experience and view, these things don't worry me. They did for a time, ironically before I really immersed in Taoism, and then they didn't. I won't give away all the reasons why but I can say some things. For one, I don't let myself get wrapped into the dialectic, I let the dialectic work for me. I don't waste my energies picking sides or expose myself to situations that make me targeted. In the event I do get targeted or monitored, I control what information of me is accessible as well as the circumstances in which I may be approached. Furthermore I create the circumstance where it would be ridiculous to consider me worthwhile for any further action, or make the possibility of further action unfeasible. Meanwhile I look out for loved ones and my locality, making them all impossible to breach, while I watch the rest of the world just to make sure it won't go all to shit in a moments notice. I watched for foreign threats, check foreign adversaries, and keep a clear view of what's around the corner and ahead. After so much watching, things are not surprising anymore, for a long time things just to came to me naturally so that I wasn't caught off guard by events as they happened. I look into history to see how things came to be how they are now, and I use that and my foresight to plan ahead for years or decades to come. I am in a very comfortable position, I do fine.

And yet, he grew disillusioned and left for Westward lands.

Seems like you may have missed the Ayn Rand loving Floridian Illuminati during the 00's

More importantly, I'm not anti-Russian, which I think was the implication that you may have missed. There is propaganda playing out in Russia that tries to depict policies in the West as particularly anti-Russian when they could be more accurately described as anti-Putin. Putin likes capitalize off of perceived sentiment against Russians and mobilize a nationalist response.

I just thought of stimulating the conversation to see what would happen. I'm not surprised at the result, though I don't mean that regards to your responses particularly. I don't deny governments, virtually all if not every one, do that but I don't think its right and my stance and efforts in life are always going to be opposed to it. I do agree about keeping an edge, and it being unfortunate where its dulling for the US. I'm definitely not for outsourcing. I think the US could improve its manufacturing base again.

What I'm saying is that I don't go off of only my own views, but I ask those of others who might be closer to the situation than I. This is bit different than say people who want to support Trump's stance on Russia who have no connection to Russia or Russians themselves and don't know how to view what's in their good interest but toe the line because it supports Trump. Besides this there are some objective facts to go off of. There are people who get targeted by the state in Russia, and people die. Is that a state you would want to live in?

It's your call what you do and don't respond to, but again you've been the one approaching me each time and you cop out on answers to things while simultaneously making criticisms on mine or other's familiarity on topics. You're not looking so knowledgeable yourself. You're also making the presumption I or others could care what you think, as if your viewing or response to a topic means anything. Is there a reason why your view matters regarding to these topics out there in the real world? It's fine to vent in a forum, but that's quite a difference from dealing with these topics in other ways. I really wanted to hear your views and approach to China, too bad, I can only assume ignorance about it from you then.

Anyway, I have to be on call soon and I'm not even going to bother with my typos. I am still waiting for an answer as to how many Russians you know and how well. Better yet, I want to hear your approach and stance to China, what you do regarding them. I'll give you all day to answer that one.

As far as things with Browder is concerned, it's called the Magnitsky and act and not the Browder act in as far as how the death of Magnitsky occurred, hence "gangster" state.

But a strong Russia, or rather Soviet Union, was put together by the same agenda to begin with just to built up to that purpose. And now it's not longer strong USA and strong Russia but strong USA and strong China, as Russia is declining so much as to not even fit that role anymore except in the context of an arm of China. So is the CCP justifiable in as far as it somehow appears to be an "independent" force apart from western inspired globalism? But that's already addressed and shown to be not the case as Sutton's research and later empirical events have shown. The dialectic is happening anyway and it doesn't seem to revolve at all around Russia anymore if not for Putin not giving way to other Russians to lead Russia.

I've heard some make the argument that taking a position against another country's leader as far as overthrowing them in against national sovereignty and some would go as far as to argue for national sovereignty over the ethics of how governments treat their citizens, but that aside what about refusing to do business with such regimes? In some cases, and I've heard this argued on the Russian end, some say that this too is illegal under international law or some such. Wouldn't that be according to entities like the WTO, or perhaps the UN, which are about as globalist as can be? So how is it that Russia would need to rely on globalist entities to discuss the legality of a refusal to do business yet on the note rely on domestic views among Americans that are anti globalist? Why presume to want to have it both ways?

I would have thought it more obvious but I guess I should spell it out. China really wants Taiwan, China might be prepared to take Taiwan by force. If the US were involved, China would have a difficult time to escalate it through anything on US soil if NATO were still intact. A dissolution of NATO would embolden China to move on Taiwan, or elsewhere. I'm interested in containing China. I have a strong stance against China. Apparently Trump agrees with me somewhat, but just might not be as informed on the issue. Do you presume to give Trump better advice on how to deal with China?

Ready to talk Sutton yet or are you going to break down some more and assume I could give a rat's ass if you attack me personally? Is it not clear to you I couldn't care less if you do that? Yes in all seriousness, how is China going to take on NATO?

China is a perfectly good reason. How is China going to take on NATO?

Didn't you say you would respond to something I would post when someone else quoted me first and only then if you considered it worthwhile? What happened? This is the third time you've gone out of your way to respond to me by the way, I've never cared to quote or respond to anything you've said. Let it be known who is starting the contact. That aside, again the protests against Putin were before Crimea. Putin's move on Crimea was very much in response to the perception that the West was trying to overthrow him with protests, entirely neglecting the possibility that Russian citizens might actually be displeased with him and would express it more freely if there weren't state "gangster" tactics preventing them from doing so. Out of curiosity, how many Russians do you know personally and how well?

Let me add, the usefulness of NATO can go in more than one direction geographically. China would be a lot more emboldened to strike the US or a US ally without NATO than with it.

Now if you think about, Trump is actually almost with me on that, except he's probably not too familiar with important details about it. He looks at it from a position of trade, and probably not particularly in terms of dual use technology transfers until people like me mention it. He's not as familiar with the South China Sea, or the land disputes with China's neighbors, as much as he is about trade deficits. So with the knowledge he has, and the (in)ability to keep others around him, his policy can only go so far. If he supports a Putin led Russia that will cozy up to Xi, then all he is doing in terms of trade warring with China will be offset even if successful with the latter. If he doesn't stand firm with Taiwan then his position on China is near worthless. I don't care what you all think, a president with a weak stance on China is worthless to me.

Even putting aside all ethical concerns regarding Russian citizens, just looking at it from American national security alone in long term context it makes sense. It's more about China than anything. Russia is already in decline, but China and Russia together is more a tough case on military terms. Xi is going to be in power for a while. Putin is very cozy with Xi. If there were another leader of Russia besides Putin, that might be different. So part of the confusion is interpreting antagonism towards Putin as antagonism towards Russia. The whole issue with Russia to begin with is Putin very stubbornly clinging to power, and then "favoring" circumstances that will in turn keep him in power. Arguments that try to deflect from those very obvious points have become more and more devolved into things that are very hard to demonstrate to say the least. Again, it comes back to standing up to China, but I already see where people's hearts are on that here.