-----------------------------------------------------------------
[앵커]
낙선한 야당 지도자의 독자적인 대통령 취임식 생중계를 이유로 전파 차단 조치를 당한 케냐의 TV 방송사들이 법원에 의해 방송을 재개할 수 있게 됐습니다.
케냐는 두 명의 대통령 취임식이라는 전대미문의 정치 혼란을 겪고 있습니다.
박재용 기자의 보도입니다.
[리포트]
케냐 수도 나이로비 도심 공원에서 대통령 취임식이 거행됩니다.
대선에서 패한 야당 지도자, 오딩가의 취임식입니다.
[오딩가/케냐 야당 대통령 후보 : "국민의 높은 요구에 부응해 대통령직을 수락하겠습니다."]
텔레비전 방송사들은 이날 취임식을 생중계하려 했으나 정부에 의해 전파 송출이 차단됐습니다.
케냐 정부가 낙선한 오딩가의 취임식 행사를 반역 행위로 규정하고 생중계를 금지한 것입니다.
[프레디 마티앙기/케냐 내무부 장관 : "광범위한 조사를 통해 법을 엄격히 적용할 방침입니다."]
하지만 케냐 법원은 정부가 방송사에 내린 전파 차단과 휴업 조치를 잠정 중단시켰습니다.
그동안 야당은 정부의 방송 중지 조치가 국민의 알권리를 침해했다고 비난해 왔습니다.
낙선한 야당 후보의 독자적인 취임식은 현 정권에 대한 저항으로 해석되고 있습니다.
케냐는 지난해 대선 이후 두 명의 대통령 취임식과 방송사 휴업 조치 등 대선 후유증을 크게 앓고 있습니다.
KBS 뉴스 박재용입니다.
----------> 아프리카 케냐의 법원이 한국의 법원보다 법에 대한 인식이 훨씬 높다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
또 2017년 10월 1일부터 정제된 석유제품의 대북 수출이 제한됐다며 액화천연가스(LNG)와 천연가스 부산물인 콘덴세이트, 즉 경질 휘발성 액체 탄화수소 등의 수출을 금지했다고 덧붙였습니다. 또 중국은 보고서에서 유엔 회원국들이 2017년 10월1일부터 12월31일까지 정제유가 50만 배럴로 제한되며 2018년 1월1일부터 휘발유·경유와 같은 정유 제품의 대북 수출이 연간 200만 배럴로 제한됐다는 대북제재결의 2375호 내용을 담았습니다.
RFA(자유아시아방송)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
글 손병호
[빅터차 미스테리]
지난 여름 빅터차가 주한 미국대사로 임명됐을 때 그의 프로필은 매파였습니다.
대북 강경기조였고 한미 FTA개정이나 폐기를 반대했어요.
명백히 자유 우파의 관점에 서 있는 사람이엇습니다.
그런데 임명을 자꾸 미루다가 트럼프는 끝내 그의 임명을 취소했습니다.
소문에 좌빨은 그와 직접 접촉이 안되자 그의 부친 고향[전남 강진 출신]인맥을 동원해 집요한 설득?[공작]을 했답니다.
심지어 그의 장인의[역시 강진 출신]지인들에게까지 집요한 접촉이 있었답니다.
그런 모든게 영향을 끼쳤는지 그의 기본적인 기조가 가을부터
북폭반대등 급격히 바뀐 것으로 보입니다.
트럼프는 그의 변화를 보고받고 지명을 철회했습니다.
트럼프는 후임으로 강경파를 찾는다는군요.
우리가 이번 사례에서 얻은 것은, 그지역 사람들의 심도에 박힌 사상을 씻어 내려면 참 오랜시간이 걸리겠다는 생각입니다
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Scruton: The Utopian Fallacy and The Planning Fallacy
https://youtu.be/Ocd9I-x1vAI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
레닌은 막스 이론에 따라, 혁명의 이상에 동조하는 사람들은 그들의 신분에 관계 없이 프롤레타리아이고, 혁명에 반대하는 시민들은 부르주아라고 결정했다.
Class Theory and Cultural Marxism
•Chris Calton
When Karl Marx put forth his theory of history, one of the primary characteristics of the mechanical historical actors was their “class consciousness.” In Marxist doctrine, the whole of humanity in a capitalist society can be divided cleanly into two classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat was the exploited working class, and their class consciousness would eventually cause them to revolt against the capital-owning bourgeoisie, whose own class consciousness compelled them to exploit the proletariat by “stealing” the product of their labor.
Fallacies abound in Marxist theory, of course, but one of the commonly pointed-out fallacies of the class theory is that the so-called “working class” is impossible to cleanly define. After all, white-collar workers that comprise modern-day middle-class employees seem to have characteristics of both classes, as described by Marx. But this critique, though valid, misses the bigger point of Marxian theory and how it played out in the real world during the twentieth century.
While critics point out the impossibility of clearly defining the two classes, they overlook the very simple method of defining and distinguishing between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that Vladimir Lenin recognized. Because Marx’s theory deterministically dictated that each class would display its respective “consciousness” – as opposed to simply asserting that they should or might — this absolutist assertion gives a very clear, if circular, means of determining which citizens fall into which class. Thus, Lenin decided simply, and in accordance with Marxist doctrine, that any Russian citizen who agreed with his revolutionary ideals, regardless of station, was a member of the proletariat, and anybody who opposed his revolution was, by default, an enemy bourgeoisie (with all the violent implications included).
This is circular reasoning, of course, but it is consistent with doctrinaire Marxism because if Marx’s class theory is dogmatically interpreted, such logical circularity is valid. This point is worth underscoring because of the swarms of modern defenders of Marx who deny that Lenin was a “true” Marxist.
Regardless, this was the interpretation of Marx’s theories that Lenin adopted and applied prior to the October revolution in 1917, and it had tyrannical implications for how the Soviet Union would be born. As the eminent Soviet historian Martin Malia points out in his great work The Soviet Tragedy:
There existed basically only two classes with two worldviews in society [according to Marxism-Leninism], the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; if any political actor, whatever his de facto class, did not have a scientific revolutionary consciousness, he was automatically a burzhui [the Russian colloquial for “bourgeoisie”] and an enemy. The Leninist Part thus represented a metaphysical, not an empirical, proletariat, and this primacy of ideological “consciousness” over real life was Lenin’s understanding of the class struggle and the driving force of all his politics.
As Malia points out, the early organization of Lenin’s party was not a “worker’s party” – although many peasant laborers did eventually join his revolution. It was, in fact, a revolutionary party that largely enjoyed the support of “petty intellectuals,” which by most standards would be considered to be part of the bourgeoisie. Only by employing this circular logic that “the proletariat will have a revolutionary consciousness; ergo, anybody with a revolutionary consciousness is a proletariat” could Lenin argue, in accordance with Marxism, that his revolutionary party represented a worker’s revolution.
But Lenin and Marx’s logical fallacy and historical determinism had darker implications that played out in the atrocities that followed during the Soviet century. As Malia continues in his description of the early days of Lenin’s Party:
Organizationally . . . the Party had the classic structure of a Social Democratic Party, with a Central Committee chosen by a Congress elected by local committees. It is these characteristics of 1917 Bolshevism that have been called “democratic.” But this democracy existed only for members of one class, the workers, and only for politics within the Party. And in Leninist ideology that pervaded this organization, the rest of society and all rival political organizations – even other socialist parties – were regarded as class enemies, as “bourgeois” or “petty-bourgeois,” who therefore would have to be eliminated once the true party of the proletariat came to power.
Lenin was doing little more than applying Marxist theory to Russia’s circumstantial particularities. To say, as some neo-Marxists argue, that this is a dishonest reading of Marx is simply false. Marx denied the possibility of a worker’s ability to deviate from his so-called “class consciousness” (though some members of the bourgeoisie, such as himself, could rise above his class consciousness and help lead the proletariat into glorious socialism). So as Lenin took power, he was quite clearly applying Marx’s ideas correctly by deeming any opposition – regardless of social standing – as being an enemy member of the bourgeois class.
This concept is also important in understanding how class distinction was made after the Bolsheviks established power and enacted their reforms. Once the State took ownership of all capital in the country, it would be impossible to distinguish any citizen as a member of the “proletariat” or “bourgeoisie” according to the ownership of capital. But by identifying people according to their “consciousness” — which is to say, by their support of the Communist Party or its opposition to it — Soviet citizens could easily be divided into these classes. After all, any true proletariat would certainly support the self-proclaimed worker’s party!
The result, of course, was to throw “kulaks” — a oxymoron describing a “wealthy peasant” — in the gulag, and to “purge” the party of any enemy who deviated from the appropriate “consciousness.” In other words, Marxist class theory, dogmatically interpreted, justifies thought control. You’re either with us, or against us.
Today, of course, many people laugh derisively at accusations of “cultural Marxism,” an ill-defined term usually levied against members of the cultural left. But as more and more people accept the notion of thought control in the form of violently protesting “offensive” speech or any expression of non-leftist cultural values, it seems easy to recognize this behavior as just a repeat (thankfully a less successful repeat, so far) of the real-world application of Marx’s revolutionary opposition against any person guilty of possessing the wrong “consciousness.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
문재인 정권은 태극기 우파에 의한 것이 아니라 바로 그를 선택한 다수로부터 심판 받게 될 것이며
그들의 분노를 이끌어내는 프로세스는 시작되엇다.
그들의 분노를 이끌어내는 프로세스는 시작되엇다.
작금 한국 내수경제는 소비지수하락에 의한 매출감소, 인건비 상승에 의한 경영위기,
인원감축, 실업율 증가, 물가 상승, 일자리 소멸 등으로 최악의 어려움을 겪고 있지만
실상 이것은 전조일 뿐 대환란의 쓰나미는 아직 오지 않있다.
인원감축, 실업율 증가, 물가 상승, 일자리 소멸 등으로 최악의 어려움을 겪고 있지만
실상 이것은 전조일 뿐 대환란의 쓰나미는 아직 오지 않있다.
이 극심한 대환란의 쓰나미가 몰아 닥칠 때 대한민국은
그를 지지한 자들의 통곡과 분노로 가득 채워질 것이다.
[출처] 트럼프의 남북한 동시 레짐체인지 작전은 시작되었다/ 일베 발췌
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
글 손병호
[임종석 북한 송금?]
임종석 총비서의 UAE 수상한 방문은 많은 의혹을 샀습니다.
자유한국당은 그 문제를 치열하게 추궁해야 했는데 김성태 원내대표란 놈이
임종석을 만난후 무슨일인지 “국익을 위해 거론치 않기로 했다”고 발표했습니다.
그 말인즉 김성태는 임종석의 설득에 넘어갔다는 말인데.
도데체 좌빨의 말을 믿는다는게 말이됩니까?
좌빨은 절대로 진실을 말하지 않습니다.
좌빨은 상황 상황마다 자신에게 제일 유리한 스토리를 창작하여
말하는 종족입니다.
당연히 임종석은 좌빨집단에 제일 유리한 내용을 창작하여
김성태에게 말했겠지요.
김성태는 그런 거짓말을 고지곧대로 믿고 UAE 방문 문제를
다시는 거론치 않기로 약속해 준겁니다.
바보천치같은 짓을한겁니다.
그런데 오늘 페북을 보니
[임종석이 UAE를 거쳐 레바논에 간 이유는,
비트코인으로 사기친 돈이든 몰래 빼돌린 나랏돈이든
거액의 돈을 레바논에 가서 김정은에게 보낸 정황이 미국에 발각됐다]는
글이 있군요.
만약 이 소문이 사실이어서
김정은에게 진짜 거액을 보냈다면 문가 집단은 확실히 파멸입니다.
단지 파국의 형태가 문제일 뿐입니다.
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
탈레브 사상의 중요성
The Importance of Taleb’s System: From the Fourth Quadrant to the Skin in the Game
Branko Milanovic - 29th January 2018
Branko Milanovic explores the impact and importance of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's work.
Several weeks ago on Twitter I wrote (in an obviously very short form) why I thought that Taleb was one of the most important thinkers today. Let me explain in greater detail. Taleb went from (a) technical observations about non-Gaussian distributions of some phenomena to (b) generalization of what this means for our perception of reality and the way we comprehend things (epistemology) to (c) methodology of knowledge and the role of inductive thinking to finally (d) a statement on ethics. To convey this he created a new type of writing. I will leave this last part undiscussed, but whoever has read Taleb knows that his writing style is absolutely original and like Borges’ can be imitated but never fully mastered.
Let me now explain each of the four points. My original acquaintance with Taleb’s writings (and this may be true for many other people) came from his Black Swan and the sudden celebrity status of somebody who has seen the Great Recession coming. But while this may or may not be true, I think that it is of quite secondary, or altogether minor, importance. What Taleb has done with his Fooled by Randomness and Black Swan is to have directed our attention to a class of phenomena that exhibit very skewed distributions to the right and fat tails. It is important to point out that there are two facts here: high-end values and their relatively great frequency (as compared to Gaussian distributions).
Following researchers like Benoit Mandelbrot (who worked a lot on Paretian distributions) Taleb argued that the number of phenomena with such asymmetric distributions is much greater than was commonly thought and that lots of our thinking errs by tacitly assuming normal distributors. Like Moliere’s Mr. Jourdain we have become Gaussian without thinking or knowing that we are. This can have nefarious consequences. Take an example that Taleb mentions. The distribution of personal weight is Gaussian; thus when we build elevators that carry people we can at most assume that there may be, at any given time, (say) eight persons weighting 250 pounds each in the elevator. Let us add another 1000 pounds for safety and we can be pretty confident that an elevator that can handle 3000 pounds will be safe. But then suppose we are constructing a flood dyke. Flood levels are not normally distributed. Moreover even the last highest flood value does not guarantee that the following flood cannot be worse. Building safeguard for floods is much harder: we can imagine that the worst future flood may be five times worse than any that we know, but it could turn out to be ten times worse: “the odds of rare events are simply not computable” (Antifragile, p. 7). The number of such phenomena like flood is huge: income and wealth distributions, size of cities (with all that it implies for urban planning), number of victims in wars etc.
These are the phenomena where the averages carry very little informational content, and even variances do not necessarily mean much (variance is often undefined in Pareto distributions). “Variance…is epistemologically, a measure of lack of knowledge about the average; hence the variance of variance is, epistemologically, a measure of lack of knowledge about the lack of knowledge of the mean” (Black Swan, p. 353). We are dealing here with what Taleb calls the “fourth quadrant”, the unknown unknowns.
From that series of observations that represent the core of Black Swan, Taleb moves to the question of how we comprehend things and learn about them. An empirically-based observational approach leads him to prefer inductive, “tinkering” approach to deductive one. Moreover, the tinkering approach was linked in Antifragile to not only robustness (that is, not being negatively affected by volatility) but to a newly defined characteristic of “anti-fragility”, that is of being positively affected (thriving) in conditions of volatility. His view is that only systems that have been created by a long process of tinkering (i.e., evolution) have sufficient resilience to withstand Black Swan events.
This has also led him to conservative political philosophy, similar to Edmund Burke’s (whom he does not mention): institutions should not be changed based on deductive reasoning; they should be left as they are not because they are rational and efficient in an ideal sense but because the very fact that they have survived a long time shows that they are resilient. Taleb’s approach there has a lot in common not only with Burke but also with Tocqueville, Chateaubriand and Popper (whom he quotes quite a lot). One may notice how a technical/statistical point made by Taleb such as “my field is error avoidance” leads to agreeing with Hayek’s critique of the “conceit of reason”. (I do not agree with this approach but my point here is to explain how I see the logic of Taleb’s system developing).
And to round off his system, Taleb moves to ethics (Skin in the Game), a topic introduced already at the end of Antifragile. Here Taleb’s view is that to be credible one must show by his behavior that he believes in what he preaches. To put it in Rawlsian terms one must affirm in daily life the principles in which he claims to believe. This is also a controversial topic: should we reject Rousseau’s view on how to raise children because he abandoned his own? Should we believe in that (unnamed) economist’s findings that happiness does not increase after $50,000 despite the fact that he avidly pursues high-paying gigs? One might wish to separate scientist’s views from his private behavior, but there is no doubt that an alternative (Taleb’s) view can be also defended and that we tend to find the correspondence of one’s life with professed beliefs to be a strong reinforcement of correctness of such beliefs.
Taleb has succeeded, as I mentioned in the beginning, in creating a full system that goes from empirics to ethics, a thing which is exceedingly rare in modern world. Whether because we are tired of grand systems or because our knowledge has been parceled due to the way knowledge is created and disseminated in modern academia, but very few people are able to create systems of thought that go across multiple disciplines and display internal coherence. This the uniqueness and importance of Nassim Taleb.
This first appeared on Branko's blog.
--------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기