8.000 prisonniers libérés
Le meilleur truc à faire dans ce cas c'est d'aller encore plus loin qu'elle.
"8000 prisonniers libérés, c'est un bon début. Mais il en reste 70.000. La plupart ne sont pas en prison pour des choses si graves que cela : viols, cambriolages, drogue. Il n'y a aucune raison de les y laisser. La France est un pays ouvert, accueillant, qui prend soin de ses enfants. Je suis certain que si on les libère, tous se réinséreront vite."
Et si elle émet un doute, tu l'attaques avec des arguments de gauche.
Voir La méthode écossaise.
-------------------------
Deimos, [09.04.20 11:51]
Oui c'est vrai, mais je préfère utiliser le sophisme en dernier recours si je peux privilégier des chiffres ou des faits je trouve que ça les pique bien.
Klovs
Sauf que leur logiciel n'est pas fondé sur la logique et les faits.
Il faut arrêter de croire que "si ils voyaient ce que nous on voit, ils changeraient d'avis".
C'est des conneries. Tu peux leur filer 1000 pages de faits incontestables ça ne changerait rien pour la plupart d'entre eux.
Car clivage politique n'est pas une question de faits et de logique. C'est une question de valeurs morales et intérieures.
Ceux qui ont des valeurs de droites (effort et communauté) vont trouver des faits pour soutenir leurs valeurs.
Ceux qui ont des valeurs de gauche (confort et libertarisme) vont trouver des faits pour soutenir leurs valeurs.
Tu ne peux pas changer le bord politique de quelqu'un juste en lui présentant des faits sociaux.
Le seul moyen de faire changer quelqu'un c'est de changer le hardware, sa programmation mentale, pour le ramener vers le corpus opposé.
Or tu ne pourras jamais donner le sens de l'effort à un parisien qui a été élevé dans un studio climatisé, avec Uber Eats, des Vélib', un bullshit job et Netflix.
Et tu ne pourras encore moins le faire à travers un écran, en lui parlant de Mahmoud qui veut sortir de prison.
Le seul intérêt du débat c'est donc de tester tes propres opinions. Ou de faire souffrir les gauchistes en le forçant à vivre avec des valeurs auxquels ils ne peuvent renoncer (par faiblesse) mais dont ils savent pertinemment qu'elles sont fausses.
Et parfois, de très rares fois, tu vas repêcher quelques personnes qui n'avaient rien à foutre à gauche, comme notre camarade @sn1488 et qui du coup se libèrent. Mais ces rares personnes étaient déjà, à l'origine, de droite moralement. Ils étaient juste égarés.
Pierre Biret, [09.04.20 12:09]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
Passer quelques semaines dans les ghettos ça te change un libéral comme jamais
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 12:15]
[In reply to Pierre Biret]
C'est tout le principe oui.
Les valeurs d'un homme sont le fruit de son expérience. Expérience de vie j'entends.
Sauf que quand tu dis à un gauchiste sur Facebook que "la cité c'est bof" ce n'est pas une expérience. Ça ne va pas le changer. Il faudrait qu'il le vive. Ou plutôt il aurait était nécessaire qu'il le vive avant de se faire une opinion sur le monde.
sn, [09.04.20 12:17]
[In reply to Mat🇮🇹]
As long as there is no violence, the gov wont listen
Anthony, [09.04.20 12:30]
[Forwarded from Irish Patriots]
February 26th. Hundreds of deaths and total economic devastation could have been prevented. The public must not forget the government's criminal negligence.
https://www.thejournal.ie/we-cant-ban-travel-health-minister-rules-out-screening-at-irish-airports-as-covid-19-spreads-5022235-Feb2020/
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:46]
[In reply to Verrückte Stille]
> blabla prison is hard
That's the purpose of sacrifice. It's hard. If it was easy it would not be sacrifice.
> blabla accelerationism is causing mass repression
That's the point of accelerationism. That's precisely the only point... Reaching a situation where we have nothing left to lose.
> blabla lift weight, find a job and find a wife
That's pure useless moralism. Of course it would be the objective, but it does not work like that. Half of this chat will never have a wife, kids etc. Half or more. The purpose is to find what to do of all these young males who have no social value. Terrorism is ones of the path they can chose. Others exist. But the one he is naming is by definition the only one who is not possible.
+ Let me add that having kids in this system is pure egoism and pure cowardice if you don't want to change the rules.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
James N., [09.04.20 22:54]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
You've made good points. But how is having kids pure egoism and cowardice? Isn't that what all white people need to do right now?
Verrückte Stille, [09.04.20 22:55]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
Well, I agree with the last part. It's totally unnecessary moralising and ad hominem attacking.
I'm only reticent about the first two points because people who are willing to fight for a fair world are not so many. Better be more tactful especially when the whole planet is already on a blind mission to demonise them, with or without these acts of "terror".
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:56]
[In reply to James N.]
You get me wrong : having kids *if you don't want to change the rules [of the system] is pure cowardice.
If you just say "I want a family and I'm happy they will thrive in this world" you are a political enemy.
If you are lucky enough to have a family, and you do what is needed to change this world, then it's good.
That was my point.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 23:06]
[In reply to Pierre Biret]
It was unprecise.
We have social roles (pay for other people kids, for women abortions, for immigrants welfare, for other people confort).
But by definition, as this role is not awarded with recognition but with despise and hatred, we have no social value.
We = European men.
Gait-Jan 🇳🇱, [09.04.20 22:05]
Hitler wasn't anti christian per se but he didn't have fond opinions of it for the most part m8
Komodo, [09.04.20 22:07]
In his Diary, Goebbels notes at the time of the invasion of Greece, that the Führer:
"hates Christianity, because it has destroyed all that is noble in humanity. Schopenhauer says that Christianity and syphilis have alienated mankind and have caused its misfortune. What a contrast between a Zeus smiling with wisdom and goodness and a crucified Christ grimacing with suffering! What a distance between such a dark cathedral and an ancient, light and free temple! ...] The Führer doesn't want to know anything about the Gothic. He hates the dark and the creeping mysticism. He wants brightness, light, beauty. It is also the ideal of our time" (Joseph Goebbels, Tagebuch, April 8, 1941).
In his diary, Rosenberg notes:
"When it was pointed out to him that posterity would not know the Führer's religious position, since he did not speak, he said: but yes, it can be known. He never allowed a member of the clergy to attend a party meeting, or a funeral of a party member. The Judeo-Christian plague, he said, is now probably coming to an end. It is literally dreadful that a religion has come into being which, in the Last Supper, literally eats its God" (Alfred Rosenberg, Diary, January 19, 1940).
In his book In the Heart of the Third Reich, Albert Speer writes:
"Hitler used to conclude this account with the following consideration: 'We are unlucky not to have the right religion. Why do we not have the religion of the Japanese, for whom sacrifice to one's homeland is the supreme good? The Muslim religion, too, would be far more appropriate than this Christianity, with its softening tolerance. Today, he continued, sometimes curiously, even before the war, Siberians, white Russians and men of the steppe live in an extraordinarily healthy way. They are therefore able to evolve and, in the long run, to acquire biological superiority over the Germans. "This remark he often repeated in the last months of the war, but in more green terms."
Komodo, [09.04.20 21:58]
"Our battle is more ungrateful, but it is more beautiful because it forces us to rely only on our strengths. We have shattered all revealed truths, we have spat on all dogmas, we have rejected all paradises, we have scorned all the charlatans - white, red, black - who introduce into commerce the miraculous drugs that will give "happiness" to the human race. We do not believe in programs, plans, saints or apostles, and above all we do not believe in happiness, salvation and the promised land." (Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932)
"8000 prisonniers libérés, c'est un bon début. Mais il en reste 70.000. La plupart ne sont pas en prison pour des choses si graves que cela : viols, cambriolages, drogue. Il n'y a aucune raison de les y laisser. La France est un pays ouvert, accueillant, qui prend soin de ses enfants. Je suis certain que si on les libère, tous se réinséreront vite."
Et si elle émet un doute, tu l'attaques avec des arguments de gauche.
Voir La méthode écossaise.
-------------------------
Deimos, [09.04.20 11:51]
Oui c'est vrai, mais je préfère utiliser le sophisme en dernier recours si je peux privilégier des chiffres ou des faits je trouve que ça les pique bien.
Klovs
Sauf que leur logiciel n'est pas fondé sur la logique et les faits.
Il faut arrêter de croire que "si ils voyaient ce que nous on voit, ils changeraient d'avis".
C'est des conneries. Tu peux leur filer 1000 pages de faits incontestables ça ne changerait rien pour la plupart d'entre eux.
Car clivage politique n'est pas une question de faits et de logique. C'est une question de valeurs morales et intérieures.
Ceux qui ont des valeurs de droites (effort et communauté) vont trouver des faits pour soutenir leurs valeurs.
Ceux qui ont des valeurs de gauche (confort et libertarisme) vont trouver des faits pour soutenir leurs valeurs.
Tu ne peux pas changer le bord politique de quelqu'un juste en lui présentant des faits sociaux.
Le seul moyen de faire changer quelqu'un c'est de changer le hardware, sa programmation mentale, pour le ramener vers le corpus opposé.
Or tu ne pourras jamais donner le sens de l'effort à un parisien qui a été élevé dans un studio climatisé, avec Uber Eats, des Vélib', un bullshit job et Netflix.
Et tu ne pourras encore moins le faire à travers un écran, en lui parlant de Mahmoud qui veut sortir de prison.
Le seul intérêt du débat c'est donc de tester tes propres opinions. Ou de faire souffrir les gauchistes en le forçant à vivre avec des valeurs auxquels ils ne peuvent renoncer (par faiblesse) mais dont ils savent pertinemment qu'elles sont fausses.
Et parfois, de très rares fois, tu vas repêcher quelques personnes qui n'avaient rien à foutre à gauche, comme notre camarade @sn1488 et qui du coup se libèrent. Mais ces rares personnes étaient déjà, à l'origine, de droite moralement. Ils étaient juste égarés.
Pierre Biret, [09.04.20 12:09]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
Passer quelques semaines dans les ghettos ça te change un libéral comme jamais
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 12:15]
[In reply to Pierre Biret]
C'est tout le principe oui.
Les valeurs d'un homme sont le fruit de son expérience. Expérience de vie j'entends.
Sauf que quand tu dis à un gauchiste sur Facebook que "la cité c'est bof" ce n'est pas une expérience. Ça ne va pas le changer. Il faudrait qu'il le vive. Ou plutôt il aurait était nécessaire qu'il le vive avant de se faire une opinion sur le monde.
sn, [09.04.20 12:17]
[In reply to Mat🇮🇹]
As long as there is no violence, the gov wont listen
Anthony, [09.04.20 12:30]
[Forwarded from Irish Patriots]
February 26th. Hundreds of deaths and total economic devastation could have been prevented. The public must not forget the government's criminal negligence.
https://www.thejournal.ie/we-cant-ban-travel-health-minister-rules-out-screening-at-irish-airports-as-covid-19-spreads-5022235-Feb2020/
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:46]
[In reply to Verrückte Stille]
> blabla prison is hard
That's the purpose of sacrifice. It's hard. If it was easy it would not be sacrifice.
> blabla accelerationism is causing mass repression
That's the point of accelerationism. That's precisely the only point... Reaching a situation where we have nothing left to lose.
> blabla lift weight, find a job and find a wife
That's pure useless moralism. Of course it would be the objective, but it does not work like that. Half of this chat will never have a wife, kids etc. Half or more. The purpose is to find what to do of all these young males who have no social value. Terrorism is ones of the path they can chose. Others exist. But the one he is naming is by definition the only one who is not possible.
+ Let me add that having kids in this system is pure egoism and pure cowardice if you don't want to change the rules.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:35]
[In reply to Jaww]
You should put all German statements of WW2 as ideology-based.
The fact Germany made some alliances with Ukrainian, Bretons, Muslims, Indians or Siamese is not a proof that Hitler loved Islam, Siam, or Britany.
It's just geopolitical decision to ensure a victory in the war.
Germany loved Indians so they can challenge English leadership in the Raj.
Germany loved Muslims and especially Arabs as it was a mean to challenge English leadership in the Middle-East and Egypt. And to challenge russian outposts in the Caucasus.
Germany loved Bretons as it was a way to put pressure on France using independantism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Most of Germany decisions were not an embodiment of the NSDAP ideology. It was only shaped by geopolitics. And German geopolitical school is called Realpolitik, "pragmatism is king".
If there was a Jewish state in the middle East who was opposite British colonialisl or a powerful Gay State north of the US, Hitler would probably have make an alliance with both of them to win the war.
TL;DR : don't interprate to much German decisions during WW2, and especially don't turn them into general rules or ideology. It was mostly applied pragmatism to win a desperate situation and change the world balance.
James N., [09.04.20 22:54]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
You've made good points. But how is having kids pure egoism and cowardice? Isn't that what all white people need to do right now?
Verrückte Stille, [09.04.20 22:55]
[In reply to KL0V1S Gallia Daily]
Well, I agree with the last part. It's totally unnecessary moralising and ad hominem attacking.
I'm only reticent about the first two points because people who are willing to fight for a fair world are not so many. Better be more tactful especially when the whole planet is already on a blind mission to demonise them, with or without these acts of "terror".
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 22:56]
[In reply to James N.]
You get me wrong : having kids *if you don't want to change the rules [of the system] is pure cowardice.
If you just say "I want a family and I'm happy they will thrive in this world" you are a political enemy.
If you are lucky enough to have a family, and you do what is needed to change this world, then it's good.
That was my point.
KL0V1S Gallia Daily, [09.04.20 23:06]
[In reply to Pierre Biret]
It was unprecise.
We have social roles (pay for other people kids, for women abortions, for immigrants welfare, for other people confort).
But by definition, as this role is not awarded with recognition but with despise and hatred, we have no social value.
We = European men.
Gait-Jan 🇳🇱, [09.04.20 22:05]
Hitler wasn't anti christian per se but he didn't have fond opinions of it for the most part m8
Komodo, [09.04.20 22:07]
In his Diary, Goebbels notes at the time of the invasion of Greece, that the Führer:
"hates Christianity, because it has destroyed all that is noble in humanity. Schopenhauer says that Christianity and syphilis have alienated mankind and have caused its misfortune. What a contrast between a Zeus smiling with wisdom and goodness and a crucified Christ grimacing with suffering! What a distance between such a dark cathedral and an ancient, light and free temple! ...] The Führer doesn't want to know anything about the Gothic. He hates the dark and the creeping mysticism. He wants brightness, light, beauty. It is also the ideal of our time" (Joseph Goebbels, Tagebuch, April 8, 1941).
In his diary, Rosenberg notes:
"When it was pointed out to him that posterity would not know the Führer's religious position, since he did not speak, he said: but yes, it can be known. He never allowed a member of the clergy to attend a party meeting, or a funeral of a party member. The Judeo-Christian plague, he said, is now probably coming to an end. It is literally dreadful that a religion has come into being which, in the Last Supper, literally eats its God" (Alfred Rosenberg, Diary, January 19, 1940).
In his book In the Heart of the Third Reich, Albert Speer writes:
"Hitler used to conclude this account with the following consideration: 'We are unlucky not to have the right religion. Why do we not have the religion of the Japanese, for whom sacrifice to one's homeland is the supreme good? The Muslim religion, too, would be far more appropriate than this Christianity, with its softening tolerance. Today, he continued, sometimes curiously, even before the war, Siberians, white Russians and men of the steppe live in an extraordinarily healthy way. They are therefore able to evolve and, in the long run, to acquire biological superiority over the Germans. "This remark he often repeated in the last months of the war, but in more green terms."
Komodo, [09.04.20 21:58]
"Our battle is more ungrateful, but it is more beautiful because it forces us to rely only on our strengths. We have shattered all revealed truths, we have spat on all dogmas, we have rejected all paradises, we have scorned all the charlatans - white, red, black - who introduce into commerce the miraculous drugs that will give "happiness" to the human race. We do not believe in programs, plans, saints or apostles, and above all we do not believe in happiness, salvation and the promised land." (Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932)
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire