미국의 최응표 선생이 출판한 《기적의 시대: 대한민국 탄생(The Birth of Korea: Miracle Years》표지/조갑제닷컴. 건대 이주영 교수의 책을 바탕으로 대한민국의 탄생을 만화로 재구성했다. 최 선생은 "젊은이들에게 기적(奇跡)이나 다름없는 '대한민국 탄생과정' 알리고 싶어" 이 책을 제작했다고 말하고 있다.
《기적의 시대: 대한민국 탄생》 구입 안내
미국본부 연락처: 201-315-9532
한국지부 연락처(담당자 고용식 지부장): 010-8387-0089
----------------------------------------------------------------
올해 대통령 선거는 한국과 북한의 운명을 결정한다. 만일 우파 후보가 당선되면 북한은 붕괴되고 한국이 흡수 통일을 하게 되고, 좌파 후보가 당선되면 한국이 좌경화, 사회주의화 되면서 북한과 적화 통일하게 될 것이다. 하지만 지금의 대세는 좌파 후보의 승리이다. 이미 한국의 제도권 권력의 상당 부분을 좌파들이 쥐고 있다.
김평우 변호사와 조갑제나 우종창 기자처럼 법률적으로 좌파들과 싸우려는 사람들이 있지만, 이들의 노력은 아마 수포로 돌아갈 것이다. 한국은 이미 법치의 시대를 지나 권력자들이 제 맘대로 법을 휘두르는 인치(人治)의 시대로 넘어갔다.
촛불 난동 이후로 한국은 한번에 200년 전의 조선 시대로 돌아갔다. 지금의 좌파들은 당시의 유생들처럼 폐쇄적이고 명분에 집착하며, 시대착오적 몽상에 빠져 세상 어디에도 없는 헛된 유토피아를 지향하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
세월호 사고를 해난 사고라고 말하면 막말이 되는 정말 정신병동과 같은 나라에 살고 있다. 그리고 나머지 국민도 같이 미쳐 가고 있다. 조지 오웰의 말처럼 거짓이 판치는 세상에서는 사실과 진실을 말하는 것만도 혁명적인 일이 되는 것 같다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
자유의 신념과 그에 따르는 행동이 없으면 결국은 좌파들의 노예가 되고 만다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
성신여자대학교 정치외교학과 3학년
거룩한 대한민국 네트워크 회원
(사) 대한민국 건국회 청년단 회원
[출처] 여대생이 헌법재판관들에게 ... 대통령의 인권이 간첩 인권만 못하나? 왜?, <뉴데일리>
나는 박근혜 대통령을 사랑하지 않는다.
오히려 따지고 싶다.
왜 그런 저급한 아줌마랑 친하게 지내서 나라를 이 꼴로 만들어놨냐고.
주변에 믿을 사람이 그렇게 없었냐고.
애초에 최태민을 박근혜에게서 완전히 분리시키지 않은 박정희 전 대통령이
원망스럽기까지 하다.
만약 지도자에 대한 호불호가 탄핵을 결정해야한다면
탄핵 인용 결정은 백번이고 옳은 일일 것이다.
하지만 우리는 자유민주주의 법치국가인 대한민국에 살고 있다.
군중의 분노가 지도자를 끌어내리는, 그런 류의 국가가 아니다. 아니었다.
법이 탄핵을 결정한다.
탄핵인용은 부당하다. 헌재의 판결은 인민재판이었다.
박근혜를 위해 쓰는 글이 아니다.
대한민국 법치 수호를 위해 쓰는 글 이다.
박근혜는 잘못했다. 사람 관리를 못했다.
그런데 그 잘못이 과연 탄핵을 당할 만큼인가는 다른 문제이다.
그리고 탄핵 절차가 정당했는지도 따져봐야 한다.
쓰레기 더미에서 발견 됐는지, 사무실에서 발견 됐는지,
독일인지, 한국인지, 언제 발견됐는지,
정확히 누구의 것인지도 모를 태블릿 pc가 이 모든 사건의 발단이었다.
출처가 불분명하면 수사해야 하는데, 안했다.
증거가 믿을 만한 것인지, 조작된 것인지도 수사를 하지 않고
‘범인’을 구속하는 것은 대체 어느 나라 수사방식인가.
탄핵은 인용됐는데, 태블릿 pc는 땅에서 솟았는지 하늘에서 떨어졌는지. 아무도 모른다!
불법적으로 취득된 증거는 증거로 인정되지 않는다. 법 때문이다.
이 이유로 수많은 간첩들이 국가보안법에 의해 처벌되지 않았다.
“빈 사무실에서 가져왔다”는 Jtbc기자의 설명을 그대로 믿는다면,
절도 행위로 취득된 증거물이라는 말인가.
대통령의 인권이 간첩 인권만도 못하다.
사건에 관련된 모든 사람을 수사하는 것은 상식이다.
그런데 검찰은 사건의 중대한 부분을 차지하는
고영태를 수사하지 않았다.
한 나라의 대통령이 탄핵될지 말지를 정하는 것인데,
국회는 토론 없이 탄핵소추안을 가결했다.
동네 이장님을 쫒아낼지 말지 정할 때도 토론은 한다는데.
초등학교 시절, 미루고 미루던 방학일기를 개학 하루 전에 다 써야 했던 적이 있었다.
헌법 재판관들은 마치 밀린 방학숙제를 끝내려는 아이들처럼 탄핵 심판을 내렸다.
국민 과반수의 표를 받아 합법적으로 선출된 대통령의 헌법 위반 여부를 판결하는,
대한민국의 역사를 결정하는 일인데 말이다.
날짜를 미리 정해놓고, 시간에 쫒겨 판결을 했다.
참고로 미국에서는 닉슨 대통령의 탄핵 절차가 약 2년에 걸쳐 진행되었다.
밀린 방학일기를 쓰다보면, 이미 지나간 날들을 기억해 내려다 결국 없는 말을 지어내기도 하고,
상식을 뛰어넘는 짧은 길이로 하루를 채우기도 하고,
너무 급한 나머지 온갖 실수를 남발하기도 한다. 이번 탄핵절차 또한 그렇다
아니, 다 떠나서.
헌재의 탄핵 인용 결정은 위헌이다.
헌법 제111조는 말한다.
‘9인의 재판관으로 헌법문제를 재판한다.’
헌재에 따르면 부득이한 경우에는 7인 이상의 재판관이 결정을 내려도 된다고 한다.
헌법재판소법 제 23조를 인용한 것이다.
‘부득이한 경우에는 재판관 7인 이상 출석하면 심리할 수 있다.’
과연 위의 ‘부득이한 경우’라는 것이 재판관의 퇴임도 포함하나?
상식적으로 생각해보자. ‘부득이한 경우’는 재판관의 갑작스런 사고나 사망을 뜻한다.
재판관 퇴임이 부득이한 경우인가?
재판관 퇴임 이후 후임 재판관이 들어오면 해결 되는 일인데, 뭐가 부득이한가?
탄핵 판결을 자신들이 정한 시간 안에 꼭 끝내야 하는 이유가 무엇인가.
백번 양보해서 ‘재판관의 퇴임’이 ‘부득이한 경우’로 인정된다고 치자.
진짜 문제는 문장의 뒷부분이다.
‘심리할 수 있다.’ 심판할 수 있다는 것이 아니다.
왜 굳이 심판이라는 말을 두고 심리라는 단어를 썼겠는가.
네이버 국어사전을 인용한다.
심리란 ‘재판의 기초가 되는 사실 관계 및 법률관계를 명확히 하기 위하여
법원이 증거나 방법 따위를 심사하는 행위’ 이다.
헌법 재판관들은 네이버 국어사전이라도 검색 해보지 그랬나.
제일 어이가 없는 것은 따로 있다.
바로 헌재가 국회가 제출한 탄핵소추안이 아니라,
자체적으로, 다시 쓴 탄핵소추안을 가지고 탄핵인용 결정을 내렸다는 것이다.
국회가 제출한 탄핵소추안엔 총 13개의 탄핵사유가 정리되어있다.
토론 없이, 짧은 시간에, 급하게 쓰여진 만큼 그 내용이 부실하다.
강일원 재판관도 그렇게 생각했다.
그랬으니까 탄핵소추안을 ‘정리’한다는 명분 하에 새로 썼다.
13개의 탄핵사유가 5개로 재구성 되었다.
재판관이 국회대신 소추안도 작성하고, 심판도 했다. 참 친절하다.
왜 강일원 재판관은 탄핵소추안을 새로 썼나?
왜 다른 재판관들은 그것을 방관했나?
처음부터 심판결과는 정해져있었기 때문이다.
이 모든 사실을, 즉, 탄핵 절차의 모든 부분이 부당하다는 것을 국민들이 알고있을까.
아니, 관심이나 가지고 있을까.
위의 사실들 말고도, 탄핵의 부당성을 논하려면 밤을 지새워도 모자란다.
2017년 3월 10일의 8:0 탄핵 인용.
창피하다. 대한민국은 무법국가가 되었다.
박근혜 대통령은 헌법재판소 인민재판의 첫 희생양이 되었다.
탄핵결정이 무효가 되길 바라며 쓰는 글이 아니다.
이 글 하나가 모든 것을 원천무효 시킬 만큼의 힘을 가지고 있지 않다는 것쯤은 안다.
그러나 이 글을 읽고 있는 당신. 한 명이라도 잊지 말길 바란다.
인민재판을 성사시킨 역사의 역적들의 (촛불시위 배후세력, 언론, 국회, 그리고 헌재) 과오를.
정의를 외치는 이 땅의 모든 청년들이 ‘박사모’ 혹은 ‘일베’ 낙인찍기에서 자유해지길 바란다.
난 박사모가 아니다. 일베도 아니다.
무너진 법치 앞에 무기력해져 있는 대한민국 청년이다.
탄핵의 부당성을 잘 정리한 글이다.
출처: 포린 폴리시
China and America Need a One-Korea Policy
The only way to stop North Korea is by guaranteeing the peninsula will eventually be united — and non-aligned.
By Michael D. Swaine
March 21, 2017
The first serious foreign-policy crisis to confront U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has emerged on the Korean Peninsula. Tensions have been compounded by Pyongyang’s alleged assassination in Malaysia of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s half-brother Kim Jong Nam, its firing of four short-range missiles into the ocean near Japan, the U.S. deployment to South Korea of a missile defense system strongly opposed by Beijing, and most recently the impeachment and removal from office of South Korean President Park Geun-hye.
These destabilizing events are occurring as North Korea steadily moves toward the deployment of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles capable of striking not only South Korea and Japan but also U.S. territory. This eventuality has been deemed “unacceptable” by countless observers, including Trump, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raised the possibility of U.S. “preemptive action” against Pyongyang during a recent trip to Asia. Yet despite such apparent resolve, Washington, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo, and at times Moscow have thus far been entirely unsuccessful in their multi-decade efforts to entice, threaten, or cajole Pyongyang into abandoning its nuclear weapons program.
Rather than retread past failures, it’s time for the United States and China to cooperate in starting over.
Rather than retread past failures, it’s time for the United States and China to cooperate in starting over. Both sides have to recognize the reality, if not the legitimacy, of each other’s fears about North Korea and make concessions that indicate their good faith in eventually moving toward a peaceful, unified peninsula acceptable to both sides — that is to say, a Korean Peninsula that is united and largely non-aligned (i.e. without foreign forces). This would risk alienating South Korea and Japan, but it’s the only way to clear the path for China to exert its full influence against its neighbor, forcing Pyongyang to confront a true choice between extreme isolation and likely collapse on one hand and assured security, albeit absent any nuclear arsenal, on the other.
One major thing preventing China and the United States from presenting such a clear choice to North Korea is lingering but unnecessary contradictions in their strategic calculations. The Chinese leadership is deeply suspicious of Washington’s ultimate objectives and sees North Korea as an essential buffer against a future unified peninsula with U.S. forces deployed along China’s border. This is deeply reminiscent of the unacceptable situation confronting Beijing before its entrance into the Korean War in 1950. The United States, in turn, believes that Beijing will never place denuclearization of the peninsula above potential instability and hence will tolerate a nuclear-armed Pyongyang, if the alternative were a unified peninsula under U.S. influence.
Any negotiation between Beijing and Washington about Pyongyang should thus involve an open discussion about a unified Korea that would be amenable to both sides.
The concept of such a “future Korea” dialogue is unlikely to be floated in the Korea policy review the Trump administration is reportedly undertaking. Most of the ideas publicly discussed by various Trump supporters are revised versions of past practices, including more sanctions, more enticements, or some combination of the two. Those few new ideas that have been floated include more concerted U.S. threats or enticements directed at Beijing in an effort to get it to “solve” the problem by pressuring Pyongyang and preemptive strikes on Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities. But the former is unlikely to earn China’s consent, and the latter might precipitate a full-blown war on the peninsula. Tillerson’s remarks while in Asia, including a declaration that former President Barack Obama’s policy of “strategic patience” had ended, suggest that such dangerous options are now more actively under consideration.
If both sides want to avoid the terrifying risks these options would entail, they need to agree to serious compromises. On the American side, this must include the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal of all combat forces from the peninsula, an end to the U.S.-South Korean command, and the indefinite suspension of all joint military exercises and deployments, including the THAAD missile defense system. Beijing, for its part, must be prepared to indefinitely suspend all economic interactions with Pyongyang, provide clear and binding security assurances to a unified Korea (including a commitment never to employ force against it in an unprovoked manner), and eventually end its military security treaty with Pyongyang.
Such components of a “future Korea” dialogue would remain initially and for some time as just dialogue, serving primarily as a means of eliminating Chinese and U.S. fears and concerns about the future status of the peninsula while creating a strong point of leverage against Pyongyang.
Both Seoul and Tokyo, already worried by the rise of Chinese power and the shakiness of security guarantees under a volatile Trump administration, will be concerned by such a dialogue. To address this, Washington and Beijing would need to credibly reassure them that they would be fully consulted during the process and that no movement toward actual unification would occur without their formal approval and involvement.
The very existence of a Sino-American dialogue on a unified Korea would doubtless place enormous pressure on Pyongyang, facing the prospect of total isolation.
However, to be effective, it must also be combined with an alternative “way out” in the form of positive incentives, as part of an incremental, quid pro quo normalization process. These could include a peace treaty, rather than the long-standing cease-fire left over from the end of the Korean War; diplomatic recognition; the ending of all existing sanctions; economic assistance; and the partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula. Such actions would occur only in response to drawdowns in North Korean conventional forces, the gradual opening of its economy, and the capping and eventual dismantlement of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.
These incentives, along with the threat of entrance into serious talks on Korea’s future, would thus present Pyongyang with the choice of either adopting a denuclearization process with staged benefits that include virtually all of its past demands or languishing in isolation from a dialogue that, if implemented, would likely lay the foundation for its eventual demise.
The key to this approach lies primarily with China. While consistently supporting positive incentives toward North Korea, Beijing has resisted talks on Korea’s future because of a fear of Pyongyang’s reaction and its distrust of the United States. Today, however, China’s leaders might be much less concerned about upsetting Pyongyang, given their intense and growing dislike of the current North Korean leadership. Chinese President Xi Jinping has purposely avoided meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and Beijing officials and scholars barely conceal their contempt for a government that continues to reject their advice, defy U.N. resolutions, murder their North Korean supporters, and provoke Seoul and Washington into deploying the intolerable THAAD system. Moreover, and most importantly, they would almost certainly be more willing to run the risk of Pyongyang’s ire if the United States could credibly offer the possibility of a unified Korea that permanently removes the American military from Beijing’s doorstep.
The decidedly unconventional Trump administration might prove capable of providing such credibility and at the same time reassuring Tokyo and Seoul that their interests would be protected. This will require a clear, consistent Asia strategy centered on the creation of a stable region through mutually beneficial long-term arrangements among the major powers, especially regarding hot spots such as Korea. This strategy could draw significantly on Trump’s deal-making approach. But it requires the jettisoning of policymaking via impromptu tweets and a clear-headed recognition that “Making America Great Again” cannot occur on the basis of a quixotic search for permanent U.S. military and economic predominance in Asia without consideration of Chinese security needs.
While this approach would require a clarity of mind, sustained commitment, significant diplomatic (and deal-making!) skills, and some risks, the possibility of a volatile, nuclear North Korea presents far greater dangers for all parties — even Pyongyang itself.
원 코리아 정책이 현실화 된다면 한국은 중국의 속국으로 들어가게 될 것이다.
-----------------------------------------------
출처: 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------
ian bremmer
1966, 2017
Nobody does existential hyperbole like America.
1966년과 2017년의 타임지 표지. 좌파들의 상대주의적 철학과 언론의 가짜 뉴스로 인해 진실을 구분하기 어려운 시대가 되었다.
------------------------------------------------------------
zerohedge
China’s Economy Is Most at Risk of Financial Instability: Nomura
중국 경제가 재정 불안의 위기에 처해 있다: 노무라 증권
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Craig Roberts: "In America Today, Facts Cannot Compete With Lies"
오늘날 미국에서는 사실이 거짓을 이길 수 없다.
---> 우리도 사정은 비슷하다.
------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in this world is certain, except death and taxes... and $62,000 debt.
According to December 2016 data provided to Credit.com by credit bureau Experian, 73% of consumers had outstanding debt when they were reported as dead.
Those consumers carried an average total balance of $61,554, including mortgage debt.
미국 소비자의 73%가 빚이 있고, 그 액수는 모기지를 포함해 평균 $61,554이다.
출처: zero hedge
-------------------------------
사람들을 유혹하는 좌파들의 6 가지 위험한 단어들
사람들을 유혹하는 좌파들의 6 가지 위험한 단어들
SIX DANGEROUS LEFTIST CONCEPTS
Guest post via returnofkings.com
The left is intrinsically conflict-mongering. It always existed against a particular state of thing, whether real or fantasized. Early on, though, it dissimulated its conflictive essence by posing as positive or “progressive.” To this end, generations of leftists twisted language to give themselves a good appearance whereas the enemy-of-the-day looked to everyone like something really bad.
Eighteenth century libertines claimed to defend “freedom” while faith became “fanaticism” and “superstition.” Later ones came across as “intellectuals” or siding with “the people.” Some manipulated the proclivity to empathy to pretend they were “oppressed” and thus entitled to sympathy when they were actually hateful, anti-middle-class Marxist or deviant family-hating lesbians.
The whole theory of “progress” as one can find it in Marx—society ought to go from capitalism to an ideal communist society—is little more than wishful thinking, yet it worked tremendously for leftists eager to cast themselves into a self-favoring view of history. Marxist “progress” has been used to kill millions of innocent people, just like globalist or cultural Marxist “progress” serves to destroy white homelands. As long as people are entrapped into positive words masquerading and fostering grim realities, Leftism retains its grip over their minds.
Here are some pseudo-positive concepts or buzzwords that are actual ploys for sinister projects.
1. Equality
Perhaps the most massive totem pole of it all. Written, shouted, used as a talisman an indefinite number of times, “equality” has been put forth to justify various mass killings from eighteenth century terror to twentieth century Bolshevism, and closer to us served to unleash female hypergamy and alien millions of young straight-white-males from the societies they should belong in.
Equality exists in mathematics. A number can be equal to another because an abstract unit can be replaced with another abstract unit without change. Mathematical equality exists because abstract units are identical with each other. Outside from the realm of pure quantity, qualitative differences emerge, and thus equality ought to be defined negatively as the absence of difference both in quantity and quality.
It is easy to see that equality between individual beings—not numbers—is a fiction, an attempt to perceive individuals as abstractions or numbers, void of any quality, personality or specificity. Equalitarianism stems from a rather incomplete view of the beings it pretends to apply to, and gets quickly used as a mask for envy or the will to grab something or exert power over someone.
Although equality can enter into the definition of true justice as equanimity—see Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, quote—, more than often, the word is used to foster particular interests at the expense of the wider social equilibrium, to fan the flames of division and sedition, and later, to deny vocations, human biodiversity, complementarity as it implies differences in nature and functions, not to mention ugly tradeoffs where some manipulative group plays the victim or claims rights to what doesn’t belong to them.
2. “Social” “justice”
Are you a victim? Are you victim of a particular inequality? Then you are living an injustice, and this wrong ought to be compensated. This simple framing has been widely used by anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western leftists to create a feeling of victimhood among various social categories. They used this powerful feeling to mount new social identities, inspired from Marxist classes—feminism isn’t about femininity but about women identifying as a separate, adversarial group, whose interests would be antagonistic to men’s—, and perpetual charges hung over the majority’s heads—reyciss! Sexiss! And so on.
“Social justice” covers a blending of several features: an accusatory, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western narrative, that taints and darkens past history; a feeling of victimhood and class identity for so-called “minorities” integrated into the wider narrative; the systematic, and very real, disenfranchisement and displacement of the majority that finds itself condemned to play the role of the bad guy—and hence charged—in said narrative. In this sense, “social justice” is deeply divisive, defamatory, aggressive, and amounts to a Moloch that eats families, nationhood, and most men.
Actual justice, call it social or not, is of course far from such a terrible conception. Methinks true justice should acknowledge the fact that we are the sons of the Western civilizations, its human substance and legitimate heirs, and that we have a prime right over it. We should have jobs, freedom of speech, protection over violent crowds, a right to fair judgment instead of getting screwed over by HR, “minority” impunity and pussy pass, a right to chances to thick relationships with at least some women instead of clowning our ways through hypergamy… Don’t forget we need to formalize at least some of our intuitions about what’s fair or not to replace the wicked theory of “justice” the Left shatters us with.
3. “Progress” (and the “reactionaries”)
This overrated buzzword has been straightforward long ago. Its Latin root, progressus, stems from the root verb gradior (walk, advance) and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.” Since then, it has been used analogically to qualify any advancement, even purely relative or fantasised ones.
The Left, following pompous Philosophes and Marx, enshrined its own notion of progress into a general theory of history, thus making it absolute rather than relative. When various strands of modernity clash—for example, individual freedom and collective well-being—, which one is “progressive”? Each can be used to fulfill a particular notion of progress. Aside perhaps from blatant technological breakthroughs, “progress” is deeply relative. Even the most shining realizations of genius imply the sacrifice of thousands of potential choices that have been discarded during the process. The Left chose to forget this truth in order to judge everything and everyone from its own authoritarian, pedestalized perspective.
If you do some research about such characters as, say, Ayn Rand and Lothrop Stoddard, you’ll notice they have been widely labelled “reactionary.” Yet each of them was a progressive in his own right. Rand considered industrial development and individual freedom as obvious landmarks of progress: she opposed vehemently to the environmentalist and collectivist—that is, anti-industrial, anti-economic growth, anti-conservative rights—as a “return of the primitive.”
As for Lothrop Stoddard, he rebuffed Bolshevism and environmentalism as pre-scientific ratiocinations that willingly ignored human differences and the proper value of civilization. These “mistakes”, he said, are older than biological discoveries and stem from “degenerate” elements who would rather destroy civilization than letting it progress without them.
The only new thing about Bolshevism is its ” rationalizing ” of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies. (Stoddard, Revolt Against Civilization, chap.8)
I also remember an old-fashioned Marxist who claimed feminism was “reactionary” because, he said, it comes from the wealthy and urbanized bourgeoisie, and hijacks the attention and care given to working classes for the benefit of actual exploiters. This guy’s progressivism has fallen out of grace, likely because it showed unable to destroy Western countries, but he is no less right according to his own logic.
Now, of course, we could say that MRAs are the real progressives as men’s rights are a progress, or that asserting our identities and associated rights are a progress, perhaps more so than SJW savagery and unrestrained hypergamy.
4. Openness or open-mindedness
We all heard about how being “open to new ideas” and possibilities, or being “open-minded” was good. In practice, what the liberals mean when they talk about openness or open-minded is “be a Leftist and believe in our notion of progress.” You have to be uncritical, hyper-sympathetic towards the last tranny or BLM activist that whines about how mistreated and misunderstood he is—and if you are “open” to wasting your money on the latest trendy fashion, it is even better.
But try being open-minded towards what the Left tags as “far right” or “extreme”, for example men’s right, race realism, skepticism on their dogmas such as anthropogenic global warming, or tradition… and it won’t be long before they shriek at you, in a typical display of rather irrational dirtiness psychology. “These ideas are impure! They are contagious!”
Open-mindedness along their lines means being gullible to media and college propaganda. You have to let the managers and social engineers fabric your consent, as Chomsky would put it. They want your mind to be open so they can fulfill it with self-hate and garbage. When it comes to better things libtards suspend open-mindedness, to the point of refusing any objective inquiry and hiding behind their biased, accusatory rhetoric.
In itself, openness or open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. It can, and should be used by those who are intelligent or morally structured enough to toy with potentially dangerous ideas. As to the others, those who are too easily tempted or misdirect by demagogues, especially women—who by their vote always favoured an anti-family, economy-devouring Big State—, the low-IQ and the unhinged, I think they should follow the lead of more qualified individuals.
5. Modern nationhood and citizenship
Since time immemorial peoples have been ethnocultural groups. Romans used the term natio to refer to a particular people, say, the Gaul, the Goths or the Basque. They also used the term civis to refer to a man as a member of his city, thus belonging to it.
Both words have been emptied of their substantial meaning. “Nation” is now mostly used to denote an abstract, bureaucratized State whom anyone can be a national if the bureaucrats hand him a stamped piece of paper. “Citizenship” refers to the pretense to identify with a particular public responsibility or to a world under globalist power: Leftists often claim to be “just citizens” or speak “in the name of the citizens of X place” when they are actually carrying cultural warfare. Remember when a bunch of hateful swindlers tried to rob Sherry Spencer, Richard Spencer’s mom, of her real estate by forcing her to sell it at a cheap price? Complacent media said they were just citizens, or that “the town” was doing it. Yeah, sure.
Citizenship today is a mean to virtue-signal when you are an urban elf. It has become empty, fictitious—it refers to a world of nowhere and more subtly to belonging to a globalist class that abandoned its actual fellow citizens or ethnic brothers long ago.
6. “Social struggles” and “achievements”
When they referred to actually good causes, such as trade unions maintaining a high standard of living for most workers and fostering a meritocratic middle-class, these words ringed well. Today, they seem to refer more to the unwarranted privileges of State officers—when theft through taxes and economic rent are presented as something “social.”
The heroic epic of “social achievements”, which conveniently forgets that there is no free lunch and that if a particular segment of population benefits much from them it must be at the expense of the others, covers a host of barely examined ill effects. When it is used to glorify the welfare State, it forgets how such a State tends to disintegrate organic social life by taking away charity or generosity, how it fosters a big parasitic and paternalist State, how it allows females to destroy their families, or how it attracts immigrants eager to get a check and imposes unfair burdens on the productive citizens—I’m thinking about, say, the middle classes who paid for Obamacare, not about cutting taxes for Monsanto.
Conclusion
From fake smiles and cute façades to seemingly innocuous buzzwords such as “you go girl”, “sex positivity” or “self-acceptance”—which sounds better than complacency—, the culture conflict-mongerers managed to push their disruptions and degeneration into normality. One step at a time, from actual normalcy to an alien nation, all this believing they were cool or on the good side of history.
Shatter the illusion by explaining what stands behind and unveil the inner vacuity or potentially polymorphous use of the word. May progress not be “progress” and may the mainstream view of justice not be the anti-white, misandric “social justice.” They aren’t smarter than we are, just more manipulative.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기