> funny thing is that ceos are maybe top 5%. the 1% are major shareholders who sit behind the ceo. those are they guys who should get most of their assets repossessed. if you cant target the primary evil (because it has subverted the system and is abusing it to grant itself immunity), then target the secondary evil in order to starve off the primary evil. your idea of repossession of (societally relevant) assets is impossible to realise due to the rules of a system that is dominated by those whose assets you mean to repossess. as you can see, legal change is being prevented this way. and moral arguments a l oy vey, they are just doing their jobs and have wife and kids is preventing extralegal action. both argument strategies lead the entire notion of the possibility of societal change as absurdum. this is exactly why glowies are so massively seething while their masters are scared, because this one incident exposes the actual dichotomy in society between the controllers (top 0.1% + their useful idiots) and the controlled ones (at least 99% of the population) while the casual made up dichotomies left-right, in-out, even criminal-unpunished stop working.
Germany