Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.
How is that worse than name calling or arguing in bad faith? You flat out said that no armed revolution has ever been successful, you even went so far as to throw down the gauntlet and dare me to name one that is. You opened that doorway, not me.

If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.
Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com. Didn't see anything about economics, except via a stretch to bribery which could be for anything. Corruption is:
moral perversion; depravity
dishonesty, esp bribery

So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?


You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed.
The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
You're right, I am preparing. It hurts no one.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".

On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.
I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.
I said that I don't care what he does and that I think it's all a setup.

Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.
Why would the powers that be be any less than bold than they were before? We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions? No, not even an apology from the president for not adequately supervising her. Hell, if anything, the results of wikileaks will encourage them to more corruption because they have seen that they will not be held accountable!!!!