Search

🇨🇳 Limited Upside Seen for #China Home Prices Under New Rules - Securities Times ➡ China’s housing market remains well supplied and lacks the conditions for a sharp increase in home prices, the Securities Times reports, citing industry experts. ➡ Responding to concerns that #ChinaHousing #RealEstate #MarketTrends #CN

Cette séquence est lamentable. Alors qu’Aurélien rappelle l’importance et la pertinence du projet SkyShield, qui n’a pour but QUE de PROTÉGER DES CIVILS UKRAINIENS, on lui répond, sans aucune substance, qu’il s’agirait « d’une guerre avec la Russie ». Le tout sur un ton détestable, moqueur et condescendant. Ça doit être si difficile de débattre avec un jeune de moins de 30 ans 😢 Personnellement, j’aurais honte de parler de « néoconservateur » en interrompant l’intervenant visé, avec un sourire jusqu’aux oreilles, lorsque celui-ci propose simplement de protéger des vies humaines, civiles, aux portes de l’Union européenne. Je pensais que vouloir protéger des civils sans entrer en conflit avec la Russie, ça s’appelait « la responsabilité de protéger », principe du droit international que l’on cite à tort et à travers pour servir son discours. Mais apparemment, c’est du méchant néoconservatisme. C’est particulièrement croustillant d’entendre cela venant de Girard, qui s’est trompé sur l’invasion russe, et qui, comme le montre son récent papier dans le Figaro, n’a toujours rien compris au monde dans lequel nous vivons, ni à ce que représente la Russie de 2026 et SON REFUS de négocier. Quand on ne connaît pas un sujet, on fait profil bas et on se tait. Si aucun des trois intervenants ne comprend SkyShield, alors ils doivent laisser Aurélien présenter ce projet, sans se jeter sur lui. Sans parler « d’escalade », de « guerre avec la Russie », « d’entrée en conflit » ou « d’envoyer ses fils combattre en Ukraine ». C’est du grand n’importe quoi. Le bingo des poncifs à côté de la plaque. Aurélien a surtout raison de rappeler que 63% (!!!) des Français sondés précisément sur ce sujet se disent FAVORABLES au projet SkyShield. Nos experts de plateau n’ont évidemment pas bossé leur dossier, alors ils contestent ce chiffre. Un référendum pour venir en aide à l’Ukraine… Qu’on me cite au moins UN exemple historique à ce sujet. Le soutien aérien à Israël et aux pays du Golfe contre les projectiles iraniens, là, par contre, ça ne dérange personne. Une vie ukrainienne vaut moins, apparemment. L’Ukraine est en train de vivre une période extrêmement difficile. En cinq jours, 58 alertes aériennes ont retenti dans la capitale. Des drones attaquent le pays à toute heure, dans plusieurs régions. Des centres logistiques, des supermarchés, des stations-service, des entrepôts et des quartiers résidentiels sont détruits QUOTIDIENNEMENT dans la capitale et sa région. Des drones russes frappent près de la frontière roumaine, se retrouvent à proximité de gazoducs. Ces drones russes sont aussi dangereux pour nous, pays de l’OTAN et de l’UE. #SkyShield est une protection pour les civils ukrainiens, certes imparfaite, mais importante et nécessaire. C’est aussi une protection pour nos propres pays. Il est urgent d’agir. Le temps joue contre nous, et l’hiver sera terrible. On parle de vies humaines bon sang. L’heure n’est pas aux plaisanteries mais aux actions ! #Ukraine #ProtectionCivile #ResponsabilitéDeProtéger

Au-delà de la métaphore poético-mystique, qui est très beaucoup jolie💞, quelqu'un a compris ce qu'il veut dire ? J'imagine déjà les débats budgétaires... « Monsieur le ministre, votre amendement sur le budget des armées est rejeté : il demande trois tonnes de lithium de trop à la Terre... » « 1,2 milliard pour l’hôpital ? Avis défavorable. Les scanners contiennent du cuivre et l’amendement 568, avec ses 5 000 véhicules électriques pour l'État, en a déjà consommé plus de 300 tonnes. La Terre a donné ce qu’elle pouvait. » Question d'experts : quel taux de TVA fixer...? La Terre va-t-elle préférer qu'on taxe davantage les importations de pétrole, ou celles de tomates hors-saison... ? #Budget #Environnement #DébatPublic

The Age of Experts Is Over If the past two decades—COVID-19, the 2008 financial crisis, and the net-zero charade—have taught us anything, it is this: the age of unquestioned experts is over. Authority issued by corrupt, bloated institutions no longer commands automatic respect. We are entering an era in which trust must be earned, not assumed. Credentials matter less than results. Expertise can become conformity wrapped in a credential; status is no substitute for trustworthiness. The future belongs to those with proven track records, not merely letters after their names. Friedrich Nietzsche warned of this more than a century ago. He distrusted experts who served the spirit of their age—those who mistook consensus for courage and conformity for principle. To Nietzsche, many authorities were functionaries of the status quo: too timid to challenge the sacred assumptions of their time. University professors, state philosophers, and moral enforcers wore obedience as a badge of honor. They did not think; they repeated. They did not challenge; they conformed. They made the ordinary seem profound through jargon, complexity, and ambiguity. Nietzsche saw these not as signs of insight, but as camouflage—cowardice in disguise. He also distinguished knowledge from wisdom. Knowledge can be taught, measured, and tested. Wisdom must be earned through suffering, struggle, and brutal self-examination. Nietzsche admired those who forged their own paths rather than simply climbing institutional ladders. Even in science, he saw a danger. He respected its methods but feared their sanctification. Science, he argued, still required justification; materialists confused method with meaning and data with truth. Experts who presented science as the only path to knowledge were, in Nietzsche’s eyes, dogmatists in lab coats. So the question is no longer, “What are your qualifications?” It is: What have you done? What have you risked? What have you proved? We must recover the courage to think for ourselves—and place our confidence only in those who have earned it through action, not appointment.

Milton Friedman Exposed the Fatal Flaw of Socialism Milton Friedman exposed the fatal flaw in socialism: the assumption that inequality proves capitalism is morally broken. Inequality isn’t automatically injustice—people differ in intelligence, ability, effort, and circumstances—and “greed” isn’t uniquely capitalist. The deeper issue is human nature. Thomas Sowell contrasts visions where humans are inherently self-interested and society must channel those traits through institutions, versus visions where people are malleable enough for experts to remake society. Civilizational breakthroughs rarely come from central planning; central control doesn’t erase flaws, it relocates them. The businessman’s greed can become the bureaucrat’s, and the desire to manage markets can become the desire to dominate whole industries. Hayek warned that central planning tends toward coercion: redistributing wealth requires taking it, and enforcing plans requires people willing to use force. The result can be “mercy” that demands submission—comfort and certainty traded for freedom. The question is simple: where are the angels who will run society for us?

The End of Blind Authority If the past two decades—through COVID-19, the 2008 financial crisis, and the net-zero charade—have taught us anything, it is this: the age of unquestioned experts is over. Authority granted by corrupt, bloated institutions no longer commands automatic respect. We are entering an era in which trust must be earned, not assumed. Credentials alone are not enough. Results matter more. Expertise can become conformity wrapped in a credential. The age of trusting people solely because of their status is fading. What matters now is trustworthiness, not titles. The future belongs to those with proven track records, not simply to those with letters after their names. Friedrich Nietzsche warned about this more than a century ago. He distrusted experts who blindly served the spirit of their age—those who mistook consensus for courage and conformity for principle. To Nietzsche, many authorities were not pioneers of truth but functionaries of the status quo: people too timid to challenge the assumptions of their time. He mocked the bureaucrats of knowledge: professors, state philosophers, and moral enforcers. They wore intellectual obedience like a badge of honor. They did not think; they repeated. They did not challenge; they conformed. To Nietzsche, jargon, complexity, and ambiguity were not always signs of insight. They could also be camouflage—cowardice in disguise. He distinguished between knowledge, which can be measured, taught, and tested, and wisdom, which must be earned. Wisdom comes through suffering, struggle, and honest self-examination. Nietzsche admired those willing to rise above institutional thinking. Even in science, he saw a danger. He respected its methods but feared their sanctification. He believed materialists could confuse method with meaning and data with truth. Experts who presented science as the only path to knowledge were dogmatists in lab coats. The question is no longer, “What are your qualifications?” It is: What have you done? What have you risked? What have you proved? We must rediscover the courage to think for ourselves and trust those who have earned authority through action—not appointment.