Or you know, find alternatives to revolution...
Hey I'm all ok for an alternative. I just haven't found any. What do you have in mind? |
|
|
|
Globalism is the synthesis of the right vs the left. You pick whatever words you want to call it (since you are doing that anyway changing my words). It is two opposing sides using a false pretext to achieve the synthesis of globalism.
Ok. So? If globalism is the synthesis of right vs left it means it is not the left no? If I swing a hammer and a sickle at you to try to force you through a door, do they become any less of a hammer or a sickle? I'm sorry I try but I don't understand. I honestly try. I'll go simple question by simple question. Are you saying that communism = globalism? |
|
|
|
Very good question. The problem is no one can be sure. Is that a game of Russian roulette you want to play?
Honestly I think so. I mean clearly current state of things means certain doom. With a russian roulette game at least you're supposed to have a chance. I'd rather take a chance over certain doom. Just hope my chances are high xD |
|
|
|
l'affaire est portée en justice, c'est le juge qui tranche.
Aucun besoin de loi.
ahahahahahah xD Oh non mais t'es formidable toi. "le juge tranche, aucun besoin de loi" xD Edit: pour te montrer la connerie du truc, donne moi n'importe quelle situation où tu aurais besoin de passer devant un juge |
|
|
|
Globalism is the synthesis of the right vs the left. You pick whatever words you want to call it (since you are doing that anyway changing my words). It is two opposing sides using a false pretext to achieve the synthesis of globalism.
Ok. So? If globalism is the synthesis of right vs left it means it is not the left no? |
|
|
|
Bien sûr. Elémentaire. Ca va pas du tout donner lieu à de la corruption ça. Tout ira très bien.
Par définition, il n'y a pas corruption s'il n'y a pas de loi. Et bien oooooooooooooooui Holalalala la faille du système bien sûr!!! Bon Rocou t'es rigolo, mais c'est pas très intéressant de t'avoir dans un débat. Tu veux des juges mais pas de loi, une police mais pas de loi, une liberté totale dans les contrats mais qu'un juge puisse dire quand une des deux parties est lésée... Bref ça n'a aucun putain de sens, merci au revoir. |
|
|
|
Ahahah xD
Well I do have the hope that the use of the army would lit the fire of the revolution. But what do I know?
And what better time to take control of a nation than when it is experiencing chaos and bloodshed? Who would take this control? |
|
|
|
So it's from this post of TECSHARE: There is both a misunderstanding and a conspiracy, but not a theory, a fact. You seem to think that the corrupt Capitalists and the corrupt Communists are different factions, they are not. They are literally the same people and groups. It is a big puppet show. It is controlled opposition and they have a flavor of shit sandwich for each of us. Western Capitalist bankers LITERALLY CREATED COMMUNISM. They planned it, they engineered it, they funded it, they fostered it, they created it in every sense of the word. It is nothing more than red vs blue, us vs them, republican vs democrat on a global scale. This is straight out of the Hegelian Dialectic. THESIS - ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS also known as PROBLEM - REACTION = SOLUTION In this case during world war 1 and 2, it was Communism - Nazism = Globalism They are creating the extremes on both sides so they can pick through the corpses and accumulate control and power by systematically stripping us all of rights, our lives, and our property. We are talking about the same people, you just don't realize it yet. Also if you actually take the time to look over The 10 Planks of Communism I think you will have to admit the world has largely adopted these policies, even if they have a different name for it. Additionally China is arguably the most important economy in the world, and they most certainly have goals for global Communism, and the resources and potential to achieve it. If you were to take a hard look at all of these facts I think you may agree. Just felt it would be a bit off topic there so I started another thread. If I understood well, the point of TECSHARE and this site is to show that communists managed to get their policies enforced worldwide. Lets go through the 10 planks, which is an awesome political manifesto still very up to date in my opinion. 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
So, not at all. The first plank isn't enforced anywhere to my knowledge. There is no abolition of private property only restrictions and taxations. It's quite different to have abollition of private property or land taxes no? 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The problem to dispute this point is that "heavy progressive" doesn't mean shit. Let's say that there is indeed graduated income tax and not only flat taxes, but that was clearly not what Marx was saying, he thought about a REALLY HIGHLY GRADUATED income tax. Like from 0 to 100. Which is not the case. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Ok so clearly no, there are various inheritance taxes but there is NO WAY we can call that abolition of inheritance rights. Worst case scenario in countries with heavy left history like France you can have up to 40% taxation after 2M€ of inheritance. And if you have more than 2M€ of assets you have the lawyers to prepare your succession so you pay less than 10% taxes. Most inheritance will go through something like 10 to 20% taxes. That's not exactly "abolition of all rights of inheritance" right? 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Ok this just never hapens. I agree that most countries have the laws that allow the state to seize private properties under certain conditions, those laws were mainly made after WW1 or WW2 to get back the property of the traitors, but that just never happens. At all. Period. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Here the site is self contradictory. This step is about nationalization of bank and credit, and as the site state all banks and federal reserves are privately owned. So clearly point 5 isn't enforced at all. Europe is in the same case, gods even the "Banque de France" is in fact a private company... 6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
So there are regulations in communications and transportation but clearly no state monopoly. I don't know for USA but in France 95% of media are owned by 10 individuals. Not really state owned... 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
I don't know enough about USA here. I can say it is slightly enforced in EU as there is a heavy subidizing of agricultural activities directly under control of the EU. But none of it is enforced in the industrial sector and there is no common plan. Clearly this step is about nationalizing industrial and agricultural power and plannification of production which is not done anywhere. 8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
This is a complete nonsense. This step is litteraly "all works pay equally". All those measures say that "all works must be paid at least this". There is no equal liability of all to labor anywhere in the world. There is just a minimum wage that's all. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. There can be incentives but there is no direct control of population relocation by the government anywhere else than in China. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. This one is slightly enforced. There are still private schools every where and there is no combination of education with industrial production but free public education is a thing yes. So out of all those policies: 1/ Not enforced at all 2/ Slightly enforced 3/ Not enforced at all 4/ Not enforced at all 5/ Not enforced at all 6/ Not enforced at all 7/ Very slightly enforced 8/ Not enforced at all 9/ Not enforced at all 10/ Let's say partially enforced That's not what I would call a communist policies enforcement... Feel free to contradict me on one or more points. I would love to see those policies enforced. But they are not. A bit in China yeah. But that's all. |
|
|
|
And exactly what has you convinced that they wont do this?
Oh I've never said such thing! They can definitely do this. They just haven't done it yet that's all I'm saying. And I don't think that they will because recent political events showed us that they had a civilian mafia working for them so I don't see why they would send soldiers when they have civilians that can do the same. But that's not really better honestly...  Ahahah xD Well I do have the hope that the use of the army would lit the fire of the revolution. But what do I know? |
|
|
|
Well, literally every revolution ends up the same way but leftist revolution are the craziest ones. I just want to att a couple examples:
1. In Russia communist got their power after the revolution. Then during the civil war they killed everyone who supported any other ideology (even the ones that are very close to communism) despite the fact that those people fought along them during the revolution.
2. Revolution in Cambodia gave power to one of the most insane retards that humanity has ever seen. The point is that Cambodgian commies were building a community that was very close to the one represented in Marx's books. No one could build a more exceptional communism. This ended up with a genocide of their own people (up to one third of the population) and fast degradation of society.
Yeah well it's not like we don't have examples of crazy right wing revolutions. 1/ In France the French Revolution of 1789 led to motherfucking Napoleon and the biggest war until WW1 2/ The 1871 French failed revolution led to a right wing total control where right wings gave up their own country to the German and actively helped the ennemy country to destroy their own army. This was so surprising that the Keiser didn't understand what he could do. The same thing happened after Hitler invasion. Every revolution tends to lead to dictatorship and political opponent massacre. |
|
|
|
Wahou wahou wahou. Ok this is heavy. I'll try to go bit by bit. There is both a misunderstanding and a conspiracy, but not a theory, a fact. You seem to think that the corrupt Capitalists and the corrupt Communists are different factions, they are not.
No I agree with that. It just that I call both of them globalists because that they are left wing corrupted bitches or right wing corrupted bitches don't really matter. But they're not capitalists or communists. They're just assholes who obey banks and big corporations. They are literally the same people and groups. It is a big puppet show. It is controlled opposition and they have a flavor of shit sandwich for each of us. Western Capitalist bankers LITERALLY CREATED COMMUNISM. They planned it, they engineered it, they funded it, they fostered it, they created it in every sense of the word. It is nothing more than red vs blue, us vs them, republican vs democrat on a global scale.
This is straight out of the Hegelian Dialectic. THESIS - ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS also known as PROBLEM - REACTION = SOLUTION
In this case during world war 1 and 2, it was Communism - Nazism = Globalism
Wtf? I don't get your point. You're trying to say that globalism is the evolution of capitalism and nazism? They are creating the extremes on both sides so they can pick through the corpses and accumulate control and power by systematically stripping us all of rights, our lives, and our property. We are talking about the same people, you just don't realize it yet. Also if you actually take the time to look over The 10 Planks of Communism I think you will have to admit the world has largely adopted these policies, even if they have a different name for it. Well no, not at all. And you site shows well how it hasn't. Maybe we need another thread to discuss it though as it's not really on topic. Additionally China is arguably the most important economy in the world, and they most certainly have goals for global Communism, and the resources and potential to achieve it. If you were to take a hard look at all of these facts I think you may agree.
This is highly debatable. Especially when you consider that China hasn't really a communist economy. You seem to say that globalism = communism 2.0. Ok but I can in the same way say that globalism = capitalism 2.0. Globalism is an evolution where poors and small companies are taxed to be sure that rich people and big corporations don't take any risk. That's neither capitalism or globalism. That's the worst of both world. Here is what communism is: A system where everything can be owned or controlled by the people. Now please show me a country where it is the case. Here what capitalism is: A system in which freedom of market is as absolute as possible. Again there is nowhere where it is done. None of those ideas have been put in practice ever. Saying that globalism is communism is as false as saying that globalism is capitalism. |
|
|
|
This is a very good point that I don't think the little kiddies waving Communist flags and playing revolutionary understand. Historically in leftist revolutions, the first thing they do after taking power is to kill all the revolutionaries that got them there. Don't forget when they start building that pile of bodies, the "revolutionaries" will form its foundation.
In all revolutions. The side doesn't matter. What you're talking about is the transformation of a revolutionnary state into a dictatorship. One of the leader of the revolution, whatever the revolution, will seize the power in the hand and the country will go from revolutionnary state to absolute rule of this person and his group. It has been the case with French revolution of 1789, with Hitler, with Staline, Iran... Revolution tends to lead to dictatorship. |
|
|
|
And exactly what has you convinced that they wont do this?
Oh I've never said such thing! They can definitely do this. They just haven't done it yet that's all I'm saying. And I don't think that they will because recent political events showed us that they had a civilian mafia working for them so I don't see why they would send soldiers when they have civilians that can do the same. But that's not really better honestly... |
|
|
|
I find it hard to blame those with the boot of these institutions on their throats for simply fighting to survive.
There seems to be a major misunderstanding or a mind blowing conspiracy theory here. You seem to believe that communists, or at least let's say socialists have the power? My friend visited Paris 3 times in different years and every time something went wrong because he faced different protests. France has always been one of the most leftist countries in EU. It seems to be a long French tradition to come out to the streets and scream different bullshit. Now it is pretty clear that you faced a political crisis.
Your current government is obviously bad but it is definetely a bad idea to support the opposite faction that would like to see you dead / in jail in case they get power in their hands. That's how it often happens after revolutions.
Because in the last 50 years France has seen nothing but more and more globalist policies. So both extreme right and extreme left are more and more angry as our country gets stolen from us by banks and big corporations. Knowing our history, it won't go better. |
|
|
|
I think again you are missing my point. Why do you believe a single syllable from the mouths of these people? You have agreed they have clearly established themselves as having no reputability regarding the common wealth of the people of France, yet you are still willing to accept their statistics and their "pinky promise" to not use the troops directly on the protestors.
No, I believe it because no one in Saturday's protests has seens a soldier. That's all. Misdirection and disinformation is a primary if not THE primary strategy of warfare, and whether you are willing to admit it or not, war is what you have there, albeit in the earliest stages. Combine this with the roll out of European internet censorship, and you should be able to feel the rope around your neck tightening with a little critical thought. I am of the opinion that you are being carefully lulled into a false sense of security before the floor drops out and there are much harder choices to make.
That worse is coming doesn't change the fact that they haven't used soldiers against the protest Saturday. Of course the problem is more that the president has the right to do so rather than him doing so. |
|
|
|
I am done. I will get excited when we will cross $5k $4k is boring now. Just wish it's not now. Still have far too much bills to pay following the house buy. Please stay between 4k and 5k for 3 or 4 months so I can accumulate like I want. |
|
|
|
Donc oui contrairement à toi, moi je reste évasif sur les solutions, car contrairement à toi je ne prétends pas avoir la science infuse qui me permettrai d'avoir des réponses précises à tous ces sujets extrêmement complexes.
Non non non non! T'es pas évasif, tu ne dis RIEN. C'est différent. Evasif c'est "il me semble qu'il serait nécessaire d'apporter plus de démocratie, le RIC est un outil mais peut-être pas le plus adapté". Toi tu ne dis rien. Alors finalement tu me reproches quoi ? De dire que notre système c'est un peu comme le SIDA, que je suis conscient que c'est un virus qui tue beaucoup de gens et qu'il faut faire des recherches sur plusieurs années pour trouver un vaccin qui soit durable  Bah oui, c'est tellement plus simple d'abandonner la recherche et d'utiliser tes solutions qui ne marchent pas, ou qui repousse tout simplement nos problèmes. Enfaîte ce n'est pas plus logique de faire comme avec l'écologie, de conscientiser le peuple, pour ensuite chercher des solutions ensembles à tous ces problèmes écologiques ? Bien sûr. Conscientisons le peuple. Formidable. On fait ça comment pépito? Je te reproches d'être non seulement mou, mais aussi lâche. Tu veux conscientiser le peuple sans lui donner de pouvoir. Tu veux changer les choses sans modifier notre système. Tu veux te débarasser du capitalisme mais uniquement quand le monde entier sera prêt. En clair tu veux le changement sans le danger. Minimiser le danger c'est sage. Et je manque peut-être de sagesse. Mais ne rien faire et le fuir c'est juste de la lâcheté. Arrête de te voiler la face. Donc soit tu dis exactement ce que tu penses qu'il faut faire, soit tu admets ta lâcheté. Et je ne te demande pas "une solution miracle". Je te demande quelle action on met en mouvement? Moi ma réponse c'est la démocratie directe parce que ça nous débarasse instantanément de la corruption et ça retire les leviers de commande à ceux qui les ont et ça donne aux gens l'occasion d'avancer en étant responsable de leur destin. C'est quoi ta solution? Tu veux dire quoi par "conscientiser le peuple"? Concrètement? Et arrête de m'emmerder avec le SMIC, tu dévies sans cesse le sujet c'est insupportable. Je suis pour une démocratie directe ça veut dire que par essence je ne suis pour l'augmentation du SMIC qu'à hauteur de 1 voix sur 55 millions. C'est dérisoire et ce n'est certainement pas le centre de mon combat. |
|
|
|
snip- You have any thoughts regarding how alts are contributing to your attempts at fractal analysis? Hi JJG. In short, alts do not contribute in any way. All alts, including ether, are captured by Bitcoin’s gravitational pull. Most alts orbit around Bitcoin like asteroids. As Bitcoin progresses across the heavens, sometimes the asteroids appear to precede her and sometimes the asteroids appear to lag behind, but that’s just an optical illusion. Some asteroids fall towards the surface and burn up, others go spinning off into the void never to be seen again. Bitcoin gives no fucks and makes her own way in the stellar firmament. That's the best analogy of Bitcoin and alts I've read I think. |
|
|
|
L'essentiel de la corruption est le fait de tout un chacun. J'ai vécu dans pas mal de pays d'Afrique ainsi qu'en Asie. La corruption c'est du quotidien pour tout le monde; toute réglementation est prétexte à racketter et le racketté corrompt systématiquement le fonctionnaire qui n'attend que cela. Par conséquent, plus il y a de règles et de lois, plus il y a de corruption.
Tu as manifestement une vision très particulière de l'état français... Une vision qui n'a aucun sens et n'est basée sur aucun fait. Tu confonds complètement deux choses.
La sanction et le jugement.
La sanction est parfois (souvent) encadrée par la loi mais laissée libre à l'appréciation du juge. C'est les fameux seuils dont tu parles.
Le jugement est ENTIEREMENT DEFINI par la loi. Le jugement c'est dire si une personne est coupable des chefs d'inculpations. Un juge n'a normalement aucune marge de manoeuvre sur la question et c'est bien pour ça que les cours de cassation existent, parce que le juge doit appliquer la loi à la lettre, point. Ensuite, une fois qu'il a appliqué la loi pour décider de la culpabilité, à lui d'apprécier la situation pour adapter la sanction.
Mais non, enfin! Il y a des milliers de jugements en France (et ailleurs) qui ne sont pas "définis par la loi". Par exemple, un type porte plainte contre son voisin parce que la lampe de sa porte d'entrée de ce dernier est trop puissante. Ya-t-il une loi qui détermine la puissance des lampes de porte d'entrée et la distance entre cette lampe et la propriété du voisin? Non bien évidemment et c'est au juge de trancher. Non. Le juge ne va pas trancher parce qu'il n'y a pas de loi qui interdise au voisin d'avoir une lampe sur sa propriété. Justement parce qu'en tant que particulier il a le droit d'acheter une liste d'ampoules réglementée qui ne peuvent pas gêner son voisin... Le juge va littéralement dire "il n'y a pas de loi contre ça". Donne moi un seul exemple de jugement rendu sans application direct d'une loi. Tu as manifestement aussi une idée très particulière de ce qu'est la justice française. Une vision basée sur aucun fait encore une fois. Donc je répète ma question, pourquoi faudrait-il dédommager les victimes s'il n'y a pas une loi qui réglemente la sécurité à appliquer dans une centrale nucléaire? S'il n'y a pas réglementation, qui peut dire que la sécurité était insuffisante et que l'entreprise est coupable, ou qu'il y a eu une catastrophe naturelle imprévisible et que l'entreprise avait fait tout ce qu'elle pouvait?
Parce qu'il existe ce que l'on appelle le Droit Naturel, c'est à dire le droit inhérent à la nature de l'Homme. Le droit de propriété en est un, il est le premier de nos droits, celui qui est affiché en premier sur tous les frontons de mairie, celui qui fait partie de la devise de notre république: " Propriété, égalité, fraternité". Par conséquent, une centrale nucléaire qui fait des dégâts doit dédommager les victimes. Pas besoin d'établir mille règles, une seule suffit. Comme je doute fortement que tu connaisses ce dont il s'agit, voici le lien wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_naturelBien sûr. Donc je construit une centrale nucléaire dans un endroit certifié sans secousse sismique, avec les meilleurs matériaux du marché, les meilleurs spécialistes en sécurité. Pas de bol, il y a une secousse sismique, ma centrale fait des dégâts. Je suis coupable? Mais coupable de quoi? Je construit une maison. C'est les meilleurs matériaux, la crème de la crème. Pas de bol, une tuile tombe de mon toit et blesse quelqu'un. Je suis coupable? Mais de quoi? Avec ton raisonnement complètement archaïque ça veut dire que tout peut arriver, et de toute façon c'est le juge qui tranche. Bien sûr. Elémentaire. Ca va pas du tout donner lieu à de la corruption ça. Tout ira très bien. Il n'y a RIEN qui soit à risque 0. Les lois permettent de faire la différence entre ceux qui font au mieux et ceux qui sont négligents. Sans loi qui décide quand il y a négligence ou quand il y a juste pas de chance? |
|
|
|
C'est faux mais même en l'admettant, c'est toujours un gros progrès.
C'est... Un progrès... On va dire que c'est pas un recul quoi... Mais bien sûr parce que c'est connu, ce sont les pauvres qui sont corrompus ou qui corrompent les autres parce qu'ils ont besoin de ça pour vivre. Ca c'est un fait très connu ça, plus on est riche moins on corrompt ou on a de chance d'être corrompu.
Oui. C'est politiquement incorrect de le le dire mais c'est un fait. Ah ben oui mais là... A ton avis, qui a les moyens de corrompre un député? Un riche ou un pauvre? Et un député? C'est riche ou c'est pauvre? C'est pas politiquement incorrect, c'est débile. Ben oui mais juste... C'est faux... Qu'est-ce que tu veux que je te dise d'autre? Si tu crois qu'aux prud'hommes les juges décident sans se référer à la loi je peux rien pour toi moi. C'est comme si tu me disais que la gravité n'existe pas. Ben oui ben c'est faux et je vois pas trop comment te le dire autrement.
C'est pas comme si j'avais préalablement précisé que certains seuils avaient été récemment fixés par la loi...  Fort heureusement toute notre vie n'est pas réglée au millimètre par des lois et des règles, c'est la raison pour laquelle il existe des magistrats. Tu confonds complètement deux choses. La sanction et le jugement. La sanction est parfois (souvent) encadrée par la loi mais laissée libre à l'appréciation du juge. C'est les fameux seuils dont tu parles. Le jugement est ENTIEREMENT DEFINI par la loi. Le jugement c'est dire si une personne est coupable des chefs d'inculpations. Un juge n'a normalement aucune marge de manoeuvre sur la question et c'est bien pour ça que les cours de cassation existent, parce que le juge doit appliquer la loi à la lettre, point. Ensuite, une fois qu'il a appliqué la loi pour décider de la culpabilité, à lui d'apprécier la situation pour adapter la sanction. Donc je répète ma question, pourquoi faudrait-il dédommager les victimes s'il n'y a pas une loi qui réglemente la sécurité à appliquer dans une centrale nucléaire? S'il n'y a pas réglementation, qui peut dire que la sécurité était insuffisante et que l'entreprise est coupable, ou qu'il y a eu une catastrophe naturelle imprévisible et que l'entreprise avait fait tout ce qu'elle pouvait? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
