Reply #58: seychelles once considered

[sweetheart]

For individual living, it is great, just very remote (off the east
coast of africa). Proximity to other developed economies is a distinct factor for economic development, and this factor works against the Seychelles. It is quite a stable nation of the british
commonwealth (that blair has holiday'ed there a year or 2 ago).

My meditation master considered going there when the congress when
nutters and started to use the RICO statutes to destroy our religious group in New York. One of the primary concerns was not having extradition to the US, where law is not about justice. When the american forces of government declare you illegal, even when you're not at all, the only hope is to be beyond their reach.... or
the second choice my wise guru chose... sepukku.

have you tried this new http://www.americanforum.net/ ? It is less
childish than DU, but it is no playpen either. It is open political chat with ALL persuasions... and can be rather ugly. I've been moonlighting a bit over there.

Accidents don't happen in british commonwealth nations, without
serious repurcussions in diplomatic realtions between america and the commonwealth. The likelihood of being "disappeared" is lesser outside the USA than in... and the seychelles could at least HQ a
liberal news org.

I live in scotland for more life-reality reasons.. proximity by air
transit to my dad in seattle and mum in minnesota, sis in LA. Also,
the scottish highlands are the least populated region of europe... that i live today with the space-standards of people in northern montana, yet with above freezing temperatures and no american government. The highlanders hate bush. To disappear me here would involve convincing the british MI5 that i was a criminal terrorist... which is gonna be a bit hard, given my only weapons are words and that i don't own firearms. Were they to come and search the house and hard disk from top to bottom, they'd look like fools.

I'd bring in the media overnight and anyone who opposed this liberal author would be an asshole for the world, and the british government would similarly have to sack anyone who messed around with a private citizen speaking freely, in relative anonymitiy on the internet.

However, scotland is too close to the USA for comfort, and i myself would suggest the seychelles for even further distance... as given
the kind of news that said org would produce... likely it will be
unpopular with republican criminals. They have a long reach in zones where they occupy, war, and make law by the gun, but in established democratic countries, they are not welcome... and i am grateful that nations of the world are wiser that the US... much wiser than the media pretends. No matter who wins in 2004, the
20th century goodwill of post ww2 america will never return... and the evil bush family has now driven the world to re-organize, to re-swarm and assemble around a multi-national consensus without washington. Clearly this is no longer the washington consensus, and rather a more intelligent global consensus to dump the USA in the sewer where the government belongs.

Anywhere in the world, there are 1000's of people who will support news media to break the bush iron curtain of fear. The world ia a friendly place to all americans except those criminals in the white house. It is not quite as dark as the media pretend. blah blah...

In short, i did consider the sechelles, and opted out for geographical reasons (same with NZ and AU). Yes, commonwealth, and
yes to a good home for such a business as you mention... mauritius
is a second idea... the carribean is simply too close for american war ships to invade under some pretext like grenada.

peace lovely hannah, i've missed you,

-sweetheart