Yes, at this point it’s quite amusing. I await his answers, too my criticism.
I don’t think we should be mean to him, but then again I can understand why. He did offer an explanation on how an egalitarian society works. I believe that’s better then being vague and saying “it’s going to come, the revolution is here”.
I don’t really understand how he’s against capitalism, since capitalism is oppressive?!! An egalitarian society is incredibly totalitarian, I have no idea how he can’t see that.
“Qu’est-ce que” le droit d’auteur historique “?”
André Franc-Shi écrit n’importe quoi. (Il débute depuis la fin de décembre en tentant de vous escroquer en feignant d’être l’auteur de thèses dont il n’est qu’un contrefacteur. (Je vais faire une mise au point incéssament)
Dans ma théorie, il n’y a pas de "droit d’auteur historique».
Il s’agit d’une confusion entre "la productivité historique " et les “droits d’auteur ancestraux”. -( Je parle aussi de productivité ancestrale)
La productivité historique est augmentée en réduisant le délai qui nous conduira vers un monde où TOUS les Humains sont devenus des Innovants (membres de la strate des Innovants)
Newton qui fut un GRAND INNOVANT a eu une PRODUCTIVITE HISTORIQUE extrêmement élevée.
Einstein, quand il raconte n’importe quoi a une productivité historique qui est négative.
De même, es Alexandre le Grand, des Hitler ont RETARDE le moment où nous seront tous des Innovants.
Les droits d’auteurs ancestraux sont le FRUIT des INNOVATIONS de nos ancêtres.
Les escrocs ont construit une idéologie qui NIE la valeur productivé ACTUELLE de toutes les INNOVATIONS de nos ancêtres (DECOUVERTES, INVENTIONS, CREATION artistiques).
Puthagoras est volé tous les jours par les SACEM, les BMI et autres organisation de racket.
Ces structures REFUSENT de PAYER LES DROITS d’AUTEURS ANCESTRAUX.
Quant à la “productivité ancestrale” elle est la partie PASSEE de la productivité historique.
Andrew Frank-Shi wrote wrong thing. (He starts since late December while trying to scam you by pretending to be the author of theses which he is a counterfeiter. (I’ll be focusing incessantly)
In my theory, there is no “copyright history.”
This is a confusion between “the historical productivity” and “ancestral copyright”. - (I also talk about ancestral productivity )
The historical productivity is increased by reducing the time that will lead us towards a world where all humans have become Innovatings (members of the stratum of Innovatings)
Newton was a great Innovating who had an extremely high historical productivity.
Einstein, when he says stupidities has a negative historical productivity.
Similarly, are Alexander the Great, Hitler had delayed the moment when we will all be Innovative.
The ancestral copyrights are the FRUIT of the INNOVATIONS of our ancestors.
Fraudsters have built an ideology that denies the value of current production of all the innovations of our ancestors (discoveries, inventions, artistic creations).
Puthagoras is stolen every day by the SACEM, the organization BMI and other racketeering.
These structures refuse to pay ANCESTRAL COPYRIGHT .
As to the “ancestral productivity” is the past part of the historical productivity.
Bonjour,aux contributeurs de ce site.
Je viens de découvrir que vous avez des débats avec un contrefacteur.
Je suis - Yanick Toutain - l’auteur des véritables théories (néo-marxisme et post-marxisme) dont les OMBRES fausses sont débattues ici. Et je suis l’un des deux auteurs (avec Julie Amadis) du programme libéral-égalitariste qui en découle.
Nous travaillons ensemble à son amélioration depuis l’année 2000.
(Le projet d’investissement démoratique datant de 1999, la délégation révocable par délégués de conseils -que je révendique depuis 1973 - étant la suite de la Commune de 1871 (délégués-députés révocables par 15000 délégateurs) et de 1905 (délégués de conseil révocables par 1000 délégateurs), l’ajout des délégués de base datant de 2004.)
Il suffit de lire nos blogs Monsyte (voila d’abord et blogspot), le blog d’actualité Révolisation Actu (#RevActu) et le blog théorique Révolisation pour co
Depuis la fin du mois de décembre, André Franc-Shi fait semblant de partager nos idées, nos analyses, notre programme.
Une apparence que ses derniers écrits viennent de faire voler en éclat.
Et je viens de prendre conscience que, depuis la fin décembre, il passe son temps à donner à ses lecteurs l’illusion d’être l’auteur de concepts et d’objectifs - à peine il a fini de lire en diagonale un des nos textes.
Sans même qu’il ait pris la précaution de demander des précisions ou même (simplement) d’émettre des OBJECTIONS sur tel ou tel détail.
André Franc-Shi n’objecte JAMAIS.
Je viens de comprendre POUR QUELLE RAISON.
Tenter d’argumenter avec nous aurait permis à ses lecteurs de découvrir qu’il ne comprend quasiment RIEN !
Il vous raconte n’importe quoi, il ne comprend pas le quart de notre programme, et même pas 5 % des concepts qui en sont les briques.
Il ne COMPREND RIEN DU SOCLE du NEO-MARXISME :
Depuis dimanche, il se prend pour le Père Noel en promettant de distribuer 3000 dollars par mois à chaque Canadien.
Ce qui - de notre point de vue - est complètement stupide sur une planète où le PIB est égal à 600 euros par mois et par personne.
Il distribue à chaque Canadien 5 PARTS appartenant aux Terriens du Sud.
Une preuve qu’il n’a RIEN compris au concept de FORMOISIE.
Il vous parle d’“investissement démocratique” en vous décrivant une société dans laquelle des propriétaires de pavillons se comporteraient en délinquants (en piquant dans la caisse) pour financer des capteurs solaires sur leur toit (quand le B. A. BA du programme libéral-égalitariste est l’ABOLITION DEFINITIVE de toute PROPRIETE IMMOBILIERE).
Et quand l’investissement démocratique ne peut être fait, par le citoyen qu’à la LA STRICTE CONDITION que celui ne puisse avoir AUCUN AVANTAGE personnel de quel ordre que ce soit !
Ce monsieur André Franc-Shi - je le découvre aoujourd’hui - a le culot de s’approprier des thèses dont non seulement il n’est pas l’auteur, mais de surcroit qu’il ne comprend même pas.
Les libéraux de cette page peuvent s’amuser à coup de citations de Marx.
Je découvre en effet, que non seulement André Franc-Shi tente de FAIRE CROIRE qu’il CONNAIT LE PROGRAMME LIBERAL EGALITARISTE, mais de surcroit qu’IL CONNAIT LE MARXISME.
Vous pouvez RIRE !
A juste titre !
Et je FELICITE MEME les auteurs ici qui ont eut l’INTELLIGENCE de lui OPPOSER les VERITABLES citations de Marx.
Je vais vous donner un aperçu de l’épistémologie dans une autre contribution.
Julie Amadis, qui vient de lire ce qui précède va s’inscrire pour faire une déclaration.
Hey guys - from best I can tell by their facebook comments, Yannick is sort of like the guru of this whole operation - he is a big fan of Trotsky.
@Yanick
This is an english forum, it would be nice if you could edit your post and translate it with google.
google translates well, but not that well… this may be worth of deletion
Hello, contributors to this site.
I just discovered that you have discussions with a counterfeiter.
I am - Yanick Toutain - the author of the true theories (neo-Marxism and post-Marxism) which are discussed here (theories whose - false - SHADOWS are shown here).
And I am one of two authors (with Julie Amadis) of liberal-egalitarism program that follows.
We work together to improve it since 2000.
(The democratic investment project dating from 1999, the revocable general delegation by council delegates - I claims since 1973 - as a result of the Commune of 1871 (delegates-deputies revocable by 15,000-delegators) and 1905 (Council-delegates revocable by 1000 delegators), the addition of basis-delegates since 2004 )
Just read our blogs Monsyte (first and voila blogspot) the news blog Révolisation News (# RevActu) and the blog for theoretical “Révolisation”.
Since the end of December 2010, André Shi-Franc pretends to share our ideas, our analysis, our program.
An appearance that his later writings come to shatter.
And I just realized that since late December, he spends his time giving his readers the illusion of being the author of concepts and goals - he just finished reading one of our diagonal texts.
Without even took the precaution to seek clarification or even (just) to make objections on any particular detail.
André Franc Shi-never objects.
I just understand why.
Trying to argue with us would have allowed readers to discover that it does almost NOTHING!
It tells you anything, he does not understand a quarter of our program, and not even 5% of the concepts that are the bricks.
It does UNDERSTAND NOTHING ABOUT THE BASIS OF THE NEO-MARXISM:(Une théorie whose beginning date since 1993.)
Since Sunday, he thinks he is Santa Claus and promised to distribute $ 3,000 per month to every Canadian.
Which - from our point of view - is completely stupid on a planet where GDP is equal to 600 euros per month per person.
He distributes - to every inhabitant of Canada -, 5 parts of the consumption of the Inhabitant of the South of the Earth.
THE PROOF that he did NOT understand the concept of FORMOISIE.
You speak to you of “democratic investment” by describing a society in which the owners of flats behaves as in offender (by biting into the fund) to fund solar panels on their roof (when the 1° “lesson” of liberal-egalitarist program is the final abolition of any real estate).
And when the democratic investment can be made by the citizen to the the strict condition that it can not have any personal benefit of any kind whatsoever!
This André Franc-Shi - I discovered today - he has the nerve to appropriate theories which not only is it not the author, but in addition it does not even understand.
Liberals in this page can play at once quotes from Marx.
I discovered in fact that not only André Franc-Shi tries to pretend he knows the program LIBERAL-EGALITARIANISM, but in addition he knows does not know the MARXISM.
You can laugh!
And rightly so!
And I congratulate the authors EVEN here who have had the wit to OPPOSE him the REAL quotes from Marx.
I’ll give you an overview of the epistemology in another contribution.
Julie Amadis, who just read the above will register to make a statement.
This is an english forum,
Yes ! I’ve seen !
I was working on it.
But the Democratic Investment project is in a hurry. Neither Google translate, nor Systran Altavista Yahoo are able to give to us a useful tool.
I have change many parts of my texte
it would be nice if you could edit your post and translate it with google.
I do. I write in french version on the left part of Google page.
Seeing if Google doesn’t do too much stupidities.
Then I keep the tranlation by copy and I put it on the left column.
And I change the English version.
The main part of the theory, you can find it on the other theorical blog “Revolisation”
Revolisation and Strates struggles (in French, original texte REVOLISATION ET LUTTE des STRATES
The theoric basis of our program is NOT the NEO-MARXISM ! (André Franc-Shi explains stupidities !!!)
It is fully stupid : NEO-MARXISM GIVES NO PROGRAM !!!
The basis of LIBERAL-EGALITARISM is the Strates Struggle and the PROJECT to GIVE THE LEADERSHIP of the SOCIETY to the INNOVATINGS, the MEMBERS of the STRATE of the INNOVATINGS (Discoverers, inventors, and (artistic) creators)
The project’s goal is to bring in the stratum of innovative all human beings.
Or to be more precise, to prevent turning children who are Innovators (members of the strate of Innovatings) in member of the strate of Repeatings orr the strate of Parasites.
(The Répeatings WORK to reproduce the world as it is. (their “HISTORICAL PRODUCTIVITY” EQUALS TO ZERO)
And Parasites has a NEGATIVE HISTORICAL PRODUCTIVITY.
I don’t understand. Ancestral copyright, I understand that’s your point, but to whom must this money go to and why? Who is the descendant of Pythagoras?
By the way, aren’t you a socialist, as in the" I don’t support private institutions, like profit and property" type? Why are you supporting private property(copyright) when you subscribe to an ideology that dismisses it? I’m lost.
I don’t think the aggressive attitude in this thread is conducive to discussion.
(Cool. But I do.)
For starters, swearing at him, calling him names, etc. will lead readers to believe our (the austrian/libertarian) stance is logically unsound and we have to resort appealing to riddicule in order to win an argument.
(Will it? My opinion is different. I am of the mindset that those who read critically can form their own conclusion regardless of what some asshole named Valject is sputtering at some poor schmuck. And those who show up with no willingness to challenge their own convictions will not gain anything from any discussion, no matter how many buckets of logic are poured onto their burning idealism. In turn, I believe that the best method is combine logical refutation with ridicule. Make the enemy of logic a glowing beacon of disdain, I say. And why not? I was shunned by grown men and women, and made an outcast in elementary school, all because I was able to outsmart my teachers. Petty revenge, perhaps, but it suits me fine. I am not above calling someone an idiot. Of course, in this particular case, I’m only attacking the specific ideal of the person in question. I’m fairly certain that many intelligent people are capable of making logical blunders and supporting ludicrous ideals.)
Also, he is unlikely to come back and discuss (or maybe even read) this thread if everyone is just being “mean” rather than constructively discussing ideas.
(But I’m not one for caring about that sort of thing. Especially when all the mean criticism was, nonetheless, constructive criticism. )
I do not personally agree with his stance for a number of reasons but that doesn’t mean I am going to rudely yell at him as my means of proving him wrong.
(But is anyone truly doing that? I would enjoy throwing down some “your mom” insults, yes, but not as much as building a sarcastically indignant refutation.)
We will get a lot further by arguing points logically and calmly.
(I was never able to put sense into a fools brain. I tried. Many, many times, I tried. Seventy-six hours of destroying the foundations of any argument a fool might make…and it turns out a good backhand does the trick in seconds. On the other hand, it’s nice to know there’s a fair few people like you to offset people like me. I am, and I make no bones about it, a bastard. I tip my hat to those who are patient enough to be nice. I burned that fuel long ago.)
"
Just kidding, Drew. Relish being unique. Use logic ruthlessly and take no prisoners. And girls dig that, too.
Good work on your debate, btw"
Yeah, the girls at my high school were all over the Lincoln-Douglas squad. Resolved: It is morally correct to tap that."
Good gravy, it’s like watching the November revolution, only with significantly more parents’ basements.
After two days of waiting, my last comment is still censored.
I can be patient, while people use ironic jokes about my comments and while a fascist censorship is exercised against my explanations.
Mises is turning in his grave.
Après deux jours d’attente, mon dernier commentaire est toujours censuré.
Je peux être patient, alors que les gens utilisent des plaisanteries ironiques quant à mes commentaires et pendant qu’une censure fasciste est exercée contre mes explications.
Mises se retourne dans sa tombe !
I see two posts from you in this thread:
Neither of them appear to be censored at first glance, are they somehow incomplete or did you have another post that was removed?
interesting information!!! thank you!!!
The forum software here is a bit screwy sometimes, I’ve had some significant problems myself in the past.
I’m pretty sure there isn’t any sort of “approval” period for posts, so I think maybe it’s a technical problem?
If you’ve got something, try posting it again.
I recently had trouble with trying to post from a text file–had to run it through a txt-to-html webpage tool to get line breaks to show up.
Make sure the “console” (you know, with stuff like font selection) shows up in the text posting window.
@ Micah71381 replied on 03-31-2011 9:47 PM
I see two posts from you in this thread:
Get a hold of this debate??? - #129 by Yanick_Toutain
Get a hold of this debate??? - #128 by Yanick_ToutainNeither of them appear to be censored at first glance, are they somehow incomplete or did you have another post that was removed?
Just after the LAST one, a message appeared :
The message says that my message must wait to be approved.
(When I posted the first ones, they appeared immediately.
It is strange that YOU ASKED me.
All my messages ARE in you sute.
Even the last one I am waiting for.
This is proof that someone has cleared it.
If this is not you who committed it, you certainly skills necessary to display the entire history of my connections on your site and the history of all my items comments.
It should even exist a memory that stores all originals. (even those “moderates” who do not appear on the public page).
(written with a little help of my … “Google translate”)
If I had to guess, it is some kind of automated anti-spam mechanism. My guess is your message was lost when you received that alert and you will have to post it again. I doubt it was stored or saved anywhere. Since you are able to post it sounds like your account has been “approved” so you shouldn’t get that message anymore.