趙甲濟
홍준표, 안철수, 유승민이 지난 大選 때 받았던 52%의 잠재력을 살리려면 후보 단일화에 목숨을 걸어야 한다.
---> 가능성이 있을까? 홍준표는 우파라 쳐도, 안철수는 얼치기 좌파이고, 유승민은 사이비 우파이다. 이들이 나라를 구하기 위해 단일화를 할 수 있을까?
------------------------------------------------------------------
| stargate 2018-02-17 오전 2:38 | ||
| 우리 나라에는 민주 노총 한국 노총 같은 노조 연합체가 있어서 각사별로 노사간에 건강한 대화와 타협을 할 수 없도록 하고 있습니다. 이 들 상위 기구가 쉽게 노사간 협상을 못하도록 하고 노사 상생을 유도하기 보다 어떻게 하면 회사를 자기들 제어하에 둘 수 있도록 투쟁하는 방법을 전수 하는 일에 열성이니 어느 회사가 견디 겠습니까? (조갑제닷컴 댓글) ---------------------------------------------- 10,000분의 1도 안된다 골든타임즈(조갑제닷컴 회원) 일본은 어딜 가나 사람들이 조용했다. 친절했다. 예의가 발랐다. 지하철에는 책을 보는 사람들이 대부분이었다. 빵빵거리는 자동차들이 하나도 없었다. 사람마다 자동차마다 적색불에는 서고 청색불에는 가고. 현수막들이 하나도 걸려 있지 않았고, 쓰레기도 하나 없었다. 차도나 인도를 막고 장사하는 사람도 단 한 명도 없었다. 조그만 자가용들이 많았다. 그들은 검소했다. 각자 자기 할 일을 정직하게 열심히 하고 있었다. 교회도 찾아 보기가 어려웠다. 그들은 대학교 책임자도 그저 '학장'이라고 불렀다. '총장'이라는 호칭은 지구상에서 한국이 유일하다. 중국은 그냥 '교장'이라고 부른다. 선진국 중의 선진국에서 사는 일본은인들 약속을 잘 지키고 법을 잘 지키는 사람들이었다. 조국을 사랑하고 자유민주주의를 신봉하는 사람들이 넘쳐 났다. 한국인들의 정신상태는 그들의 10,000분의 1도 안된다는 생각이 들었다. 민주주의의 쥐들만 버글거리는 한국이라는 생각이 들었다. ----> 일본에 대해 과찬을 했지만, 기본적으로는 옳은 소리이다. 한국은 사회 전체가 어딘가 나사가 빠진 듯한 느낌이 든다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 손튼 지명자 “對北 ‘코피전략’ 없는 것으로 이해” RFA(자유아시아방송)
손튼 지명자는 또 미국 정부가 이른바 ‘코피작전(bloody nose)’으로 알려진 대북 군사행동 논의는 절대 하지 않았다는 것이 사실인지를 묻는 진 샤힌(Jeanne Shaheen) 상원의원의 질문에 그렇다고 답했습니다.
손튼 지명자: 제가 알고 있는 바로는 그렇습니다. That is my understanding, Senator. Yes.
샤힌 의원은 전날 백악관 관리가 일부 의원들에게 ‘코피작전’ 논의는 한 바 없다는 점을 강력하게 주장했다며 이 같이 질문했습니다.
한편, 미국 국무부의 안드레아 톰슨(Andrea Thompson) 군축 및 군비통제 차관 지명자도 미국이 한국의 동의 없이 북한에 대한 군사행동을 하지 않겠다는 데 합의했고, 대북 군사 행동을 취하게 된다면 동맹국인 한국의 입장을 고려할 것인가라는 질문에 ‘그렇다’고 답했습니다. (발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------------
박성현
[한국 기자, 담론쟁이들이 이해하지 못 하는 것]
이들은 '친북'(=햇볕='북한도 사람사는 곳이다.
좀 찐따이긴 하지만 그럭저럭 함께 살아갈수 있는 체제다) 프레임에 갇혀 있다.
이 프레임을 깨는 순간, 스스로 "아무것도 모르는 무식쟁이이며
아무고민도 한 적없는 천박한 년/놈"임을 인정해야 하기 때문이다.
이 프레임을 깨는 순간 막강한 정치권력, 사법권력(검찰+법원), 언론권력을 상대로 개겨야 하기 때문이다.
이 프레임을 깨는 순간 인생이 고달파지기 때문이다.
그래서 이들은 친북 프레임에 갇혀 있다. 그 결과 다음 증상이 나타난다.
...
(1) 평양붕괴 부정
"미국과 북한이 '외교적 수단'으로 핵/미사일 위기를 넘길 수 있다"는 소리를
조금이라도 뒷받침하는 듯한 움직임이 있으면 입에 침을 튀겨가며 이를 떠든다.
웃기는 소리다. 미국은 이미 견적 다 끝냈다.
핵/미사일을 외교(=약속)로 해결할 방법 없다는 것을 너무나 잘 안다.
[약속(=외교)을 이행한다]는 개념 자체가 없는 놈들이란 것을 미국은 너무나 잘 안다.
그냥 무너뜨리는 수 밖에 없다.
(2) 시나리오 상상력 결여
이들은 상황이 어떻게 전개될 지에 관해 상상력이 전혀 결여돼 있다.
상황은 십중팔구 이렇게 전개된다.
*** '한미연합훈련'이든 뭐든, 온갖 구실을 내세워, 한반도 일대에 미국 전략 자산을 총집중시킨다.
(이미 눈에 보이는 '물 위의' 해군만도 60% 집중시켰다.
'물 밑의' 해군--잠수함은? 괌, 하와이, 알라스카, 카네다, 오키나와 까지 포함한 공군과 해병대는?)
*** 무지막지한 봉쇄를 더욱더 강화한다.
*** 적절한 타이밍에 "북이 심각하고 치명적인 도발 징후를 보인다"라고 주장하며 쥐어팬다.
단 15분~30분에 끝난다.
*** 이때 가장 위험한 요소는 [그날 이후] 한국인의 정치심리, 정치지평이다.
만약 '반미'를 제어하지 못 하면 '죽 쒀서 개 주는 상황' 된다.
**** 미국이 뜸들이며 시간을 보내고 있는 것은,
[휴전선 남쪽 대한민국의 정치심리, 정치지평에 관한 가늠]을 끝내지 못 했기 때문이라고 해도 지나친 말이 아니다.
----> 상당히 낙관적인 견해. 이 분은 쉽게 쓸 수 있는 글을 너무 어렵게 쓰는 경향이 있다. 그래서 대중성을 잃고 만다. 정치인 김문수처럼 단순하게 글을 써야 대중을 움직일 수 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
태블릿은 탄핵 사태의 알파요 오메가이다. 끝까지 잡고 놓치지 말아야 한다.
 변희재는 좀 문제적 인물이지만, 어쨌든 지금 그가 하고 있는 일은 우파들에게 도움이 된다. 태블릿은 이번 촛불 난동, 탄핵 사태의 핵심 증거이고 도화선이었다. 이것이 조작이었다는 사실을 밝힌다면 그 파장은 만만치 않을 것이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------   
출처: 일베
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 원문 주소 http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/15/north-korea-intelligence-trump/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- 제2차 '한반도 전쟁' 발발 이후 동아시아 정세
The Day After the Second Korean War
金泌材
뉴스위크 기사는 한반도 전쟁 발발을 기정 사실화 하고 있다. https://youtu.be/AjKjfYqKC5I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
사회주의를 단번에 자유주의 사회로 전환하는 방법
How to Desocialize
Murray N. Rothbard
The following points of desocialization must necessarily be written or read sequentially, but they need not be carried out in that manner: all the following points could, and should, be instituted immediately and all at once.
Legalize the Black Market
The first two planks are implicit in the previous part of this paper. One, is to legalize the black market, that is to make all markets free and legal. That means that the private property of all those engaging in such markets must, along with everyone else, be made secure from government depredation, secure as a right of ownership. It means also that all goods and services hitherto illegal are now to be legal, whether they are legal in the West or not, and that all transactions are to be engaged in freely, that is, that prices are to be set voluntarily by the exchanging parties. Thus, all government price control is to be abolished forthwith.
If such genuine prices for real transactions are to be higher than pseudo-"prices" set by the government for non-existent transactions, then so be it. Consumer griping should simply be ignored; any consumers who still prefer the previous regime of fixed prices for non-existent goods will, of course, be free to boycott the new prices and try to find cheaper sources of supply elsewhere. My hunch, however, is that consumers will adjust soon enough to these one-shot changes, especially since unprecedented abundance of consumer goods will quickly pour forth onto the markets.
By "legalizing," by the way, I mean simply abolishing a previous outlaw status; I do not propose to engage in semantic exercises trying to distinguish between "legalizing" and "decriminalizing."
Drastically Lower All Taxes
Another implication of our previous analysis is that taxation should be cut drastically. There is, in the literature on taxation, far too much discussion about which types of taxes are to be imposed, and who is to pay them and why, and not nearly enough on the height or amount of taxes to be levied. If the tax rate is low enough, then the form or principles of tax distribution really makes very little difference.
To put it starkly, if all tax rates are kept below one percent, then it really does not matter much economically whether the taxes are on incomes, sales, excises, property, or capital gains. It is important instead to focus on how much of the social product is to be siphoned off to the unproductive maw of government, and to keep that burden ultra-minimal.
While the form of taxation would not then matter economically, it would still matter politically. An income tax, for example, however low, would still maintain an oppressive system of secret police ready and willing to investigate everyone's income and spending and hence his entire life. Economists' opinion to the contrary, there is no tax or system of taxes that could be neutral to the market.
Whatever taxation that might exist after desocialization should, however, be as close to neutral as possible. This would mean, in addition to very low rates and amounts, that the taxation be as unobtrusive and harmless as possible, and imitate the market as closely as it can. Such imitation might include the voluntary sale of goods and services at a price, or setting a price for participating in voting. The sale of goods or services by the government would, of course, be drastically limited in our desocialized system, because of the enormous scope of privatization of government activities. Privatization will be treated below.
Abolish the Government's Ability to Create Money
There are three parts to any government's ability to generate revenue: taxation, the creation of new money, and the sale of goods or services. There can be no genuine free market or desocialization so long as government is permitted to counterfeit money, that is create new money, whether it be paper tickets or bank deposits, out of thin air. Such money creation functions as a hidden and insidious form of taxation and expropriation of the property and resources of producers. Ending counterfeiting means getting the government out of the money business, which in turn implies eliminating both government paper money and central banking. It also means denationalizing currency units, such as the ruble, forint, zloty, etc., and returning them to private market hands.
Denationalizing currency can only be achieved by redefining paper currencies in terms of units of weight of a market metal, preferably gold. When the central banks are liquidated, they could disgorge their gold hoards; as their last act on earth they could redeem all their paper tickets at the redefined weight in gold coins.
While, given the will to desocialize, this monetary denationalizing process is not as complex or difficult as it may first seem, it might indeed take longer than the one day required for the other parts of our plan. There could then be transitional steps of a few days' length: that is, the ruble or forint could be allowed to fluctuate freely and be convertible at market exchange rates into other currencies.
It would still be imperative to take the money-creating power out of the hands of the national government; a possible way of doing that, and a second transitional step, would be to make the ruble convertible into harder currencies, such as the dollar, at some fixed rate. Pending return to a pure gold standard and liquidation of the central bank, it would also be important to curb the government's power to create money by freezing permanently all central bank activities including open market operations, loans, and note issues. It need hardly be added that a law or edict limiting or freezing the government itself is not an act of intervention into the economy or society. Quite the contrary.
Just as black markets and all private markets would be set free, so too private credit institutions, for the lending of savings or the channeling of the savings of others, would be set free to develop.
Fire the Bureaucracy
A question may have occurred to the reader: If taxation is to be drastically lowered, and the government is to be deprived of its power to print or create money, then how is the government going to finance its expenditures and operations?
The answer is: It wouldn't have to, because there would be precious little left for government to do. (This will be explained further in the discussion of privatization below.)
The socialist economy is a command economy, staffed and run by a gigantic bureaucracy. That bureaucracy would immediately be fired, its members set free at long last to find productive jobs, and develop whatever productive abilities they might have, in the now rapidly expanding and flourishing private sector.
This brings us to a fascinating problem which, while resting long in the hearts and minds of the oppressed subjects of socialism, has now unexpectedly become a live political issue. What is to be done with and to the top Communist party cadre, to the nomenklatura, to the vast apparatus of the once all-powerful secret police? Should justice at last be meted out to them by a series of state-crime trials, followed by proper and condign punishment? Or should bygones be bygones, a general amnesty be declared, and ex-KGB men hired as private guards or detectives? I confess an ambivalence on this issue, in weighing the competing claims of justice and of social peace. Fortunately, the decision can be left to the peoples of the former Soviet Union and of Eastern Europe. There is not much that an economist, even a free-market economist, can say to resolve this issue.
Privatize or Abolish Government Operations
This brings us to the final, but scarcely the least important, plank of our proposed desocialization platform: privatizing government operations. Since theoretically all, or in practice most, production in socialist countries has been in the hands of the State, the most important desideratum, the crucial route for attaining a system of private property and free market, must be to privatize government operations.
But simply to say "privatize" is not enough. In the first place, there are many government operations, especially in socialist states, that we don't want to privatize, but rather to abolish completely. For example, we would not, as libertarians and desocializers, wish to privatize concentration camps, or the Gulag, or the KGB. God forbid that we should ever have an efficient supply of concentration-camp or secret police "services"!
Here is a point that needs to be underlined. The basic assumption of national income and GNP analysis is that all government operations are productive, that they contribute their expenses to the national output and the common weal. But if we truly believe in freedom and private property, we must conclude that many of these operations are not social "services" at all but disservices to the economy and society, "bads" rather than "goods."
This means that desocialization must involve the abolition, not the privatization, of such operations as (in addition to concentration camps and secret police facilities) all regulatory commissions, central banks, income tax bureaus, and, of course, all the bureaus administering those functions that are going to be privatized.
Principles of Privatization
Genuine goods and services, then, are to be privatized. How is this to be accomplished? In the first place, private competition with previous government monopolies is to be free and unhampered. This would legalize not only the black market, but all competition with existing government operations. But what about the massive accumulation of government firms and capital assets themselves? How are they to be privatized?
Several possible routes have been suggested, but they can be grouped into three basic types. One is egalitarian handouts. Every Soviet or Polish citizen receives in the mail one day an aliquot share of ownership of various previously state-owned properties. Thus, if the XYZ steel works is to be privately owned, then, if there are 300 million shares of XYZ steel company issues, and 300 million inhabitants, each citizen receives one share, which immediately becomes transferable or exchangeable at will. That this system would be impossibly unwieldy is evident. The number of people would be too much and shares too few to allow every person to have a share, and there would be shares of innumerably large numbers and varieties that would quickly descend upon the heads of the average citizen.
Much of this chaos would be eliminated in the suggestion of Czech finance minister Vaclav Klaus, who proposes that each citizen receive basic certificates, which could be exchanged for a certain number or variety of shares of ownership of various companies on the market. But even under the Klaus plan, there are grave philosophical problems with this solution. It would enshrine the principle of government handouts, and egalitarian handouts at that, to undeserving citizens. Thus would an unfortunate principle form the very base of a brand new system of libertarian property rights.
It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: "all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!" This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by "mixing one's labor with the soil" or with other unowned resources.
Desocialization is a process of depriving the government of its existing "ownership" or control, and devolving it upon private individuals. In a sense, abolishing government ownership of assets puts them immediately and implicitly into an unowned status, out of which previous homesteading can quickly convert them into private ownership. The homestead principle asserts that these assets are to devolve, not upon the general abstract public as in the handout principle, but upon those who have actually worked upon these resources: that is, their respective workers, peasants, and managers. Of course, these rights are to be genuinely private; that is, land to individual peasants, while capital goods or factories go to workers in the form of private, negotiable shares. Ownership is not to be granted to collectives or cooperatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralized and chaotic syndicalist form.
It should go without saying that these ownership shares, to be truly private property, must be transferable and exchangeable at will by their holders. Many current plans in the socialist countries envision "shares" which must be held by the worker or peasant and, for a term of years, could only be sold back to the government. This clearly violates the very point of desocialization. Other suggested plans impose severe restrictions upon the transfer of ownership to foreigners. Once again, genuine privatization requires complete private property, including sale to foreigners.
There is, furthermore, nothing wrong with "selling the country" to foreigners. In fact, the more that foreigners purchase "the country" the better, for it would mean rapid injections of foreign capital, and therefore more rapid prosperity and economic growth in the impoverished socialist bloc.
A problem immediately arises in granting shares to workers in the factories, a problem akin to the question what is to be done with the Communist cadres and the KGB: Should the managing nomenklatura be cut in on the shares of ownership?
In advising the Soviets in an address in Moscow in early 1990, the economist Paul Craig Roberts observed that the Soviet people could either cut the throats of the nomenklatura or cut them in on shares of ownership; for the sake of social peace and smooth transition to a free economy, he recommended the latter. As I wrote above, I would not be that quick to thwart the demands of justice; but I would like to point out again a third possible route: not doing either one, and freeing the nomenklatura to find productive jobs in the private sector. The philosophic point in contention is to what extent, if at all, the managers' activities in the old Soviet economy were productive, and therefore participant in homesteading-labor, and to what extent they were crippling and counter-productive, and therefore deserving of nothing better than a curt dismissal.7
A third commonly suggested route to privatization deserves to be rejected out of hand: that the government sell all its assets to the public at auction, to the highest bidder. One grave flaw in this approach is that since the government owns virtually all the assets, where would the public get the money to purchase them, except at a very low price that would be tantamount to free distribution?
But another, even more important flaw hasn't been sufficiently stressed: why does the government deserve to own the revenue from the sale of these assets? After all, one of the main reasons for desocialization is that the government does not deserve to own the productive assets of the country. But if it does not deserve to own the assets, why in the world does it deserve to own their monetary value? And we do not even consider the question: What is the government supposed to do with the funds after they have been received?
A fourth principle of privatization should not be neglected; indeed, it should take priority. Unfortunately, by the nature of the case this fourth route cannot be made into a general principle. That would be for the government to return all stolen, confiscated property to its original owners, or to their heirs. While this can be done for many parcels of land, which are fixed in land area, or for particular jewels, in most cases, especially capital goods, there are no identifiable original owners to whom to restore property. In the nature of the case, finding original landowners is easier in Eastern Europe than in the Soviet Union, since far less time has elapsed since the original theft. In the case of capital goods built by the State, there are no owners to identify. The reason why this principle should take priority wherever it applies is because property rights imply above all restoring stolen property to original owners. Or to put it another way: an asset becomes philosophically unowned, and therefore available to be homesteaded, only where an original owner, if one had existed, cannot be found.
There is one nagging remaining problem: How large should the newly private firms be? Every industry in socialistic countries is generally locked into a monopoly firm, so that if each firm is privatized into an equivalent-sized firm, the size of each will be far larger than the optimum on the free market. A fundamental problem, of course, is that there is no way for anyone in a socialized economy to figure out what the optimum size or number of firms is going to be under freedom.
In a sense, of course, mistakes made in the shift to freedom will tend to iron themselves out after a free market is established, with tendencies to break up or to consolidate in the direction of optimum size and number. On the other hand, we must not make the mistake of blithely assuming that the costs or inefficiencies of this process may be disregarded. It would be preferable to come as close as possible to the optimum in the initial privatization.
Perhaps each plant, or each group of plants in an area, may be initially privatized as a separate firm. It goes without saying that a very important aspect of a free market and of this optimizing process is to allow the market complete freedom to work: e.g., to merge, combine, or dissolve firms as it proves profitable.
Conclusion
The dimensions of the proffered Rothbard Plan for desocialization should now be clear:
1.Enormous and drastic reductions in taxes, government employment, and government spending.
2.Complete privatization of government assets: where possible to return them to the original expropriated owners or their heirs; failing that, granting shares to productive workers and peasants who had worked on these assets.
3.Honoring complete and secure property rights for all owners of private property. Since full property rights imply the complete freedom to make exchanges and transfer property, there must be no government interference in such exchanges.
4.Depriving the government of the power to create new money, best done by a fundamental reform that at one and the same time liquidates the central bank and uses its gold to redeem its notes and deposits at a newly defined unit of gold weight of existing currencies.
All this could and should be done in one day, although the monetary reform could be done in steps taking a few days.
One point we have not specified: precisely how low should taxes or government employment or spending be set, and how complete should be the privatization? The best answer is that of the great Jean-Baptiste Say, who should be known for many other things than Say's Law: "The best scheme of [public] finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest." In short, that government is best that spends and taxes and employs the least, and privatizes the most.
A final point: I have been criticized by libertarian colleagues for proposals of this sort because they involve action by government. Isn't it inconsistent and statist for a libertarian to advocate any government action whatever? This seems to me a silly argument. If a thief has stolen someone's property, it is scarcely upholding "robber-action'' to advocate that the robber disgorge his stolen property and return it to its owners. In a socialist state, the government has arrogated to itself virtually all property and power of the country. Desocialization, and a move to a free society, necessarily involves the action of that government's surrendering its property to its private subjects, and freeing those individuals from the government's network of controls. In a deep sense, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene. This is an act which can be applauded by any lover of freedom, act of government though it may be.
Excerpted from How and How Not to Desocialize, which appeared in The Review of Austrian Economics 6:1 (1992). It is available in PDF.
in earlier version was delivered at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, at a panel on "The Downfall of Communism," at San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1991.
---------------------------------
금년의 운세를 분석한 글인데, 무는 무기이고, 술을 변경이므로, 중국의 변경에 군사활동이 있을 가능성이 있다고 함.
-----------------------------------------------
쓰나미나 경제적 파탄의 발생을 예측하지 못하는 것은 용서할 수 있다. 하지만 취약한 시스템이나 방조제는 용서받을 수 없다. --- 탈레브, 앤티프래질
-----------------------------------------------------
현명한 방법은 세상을 탐욕으로부터 안전하게 하거나, 아니면 인간 탐욕으로부터 이익을 얻도록 만드는 것이다.
-----> 그것이 바로 작은 정부, 개인의 자유가 보장된 자유주의 사회 또는 자본주의 사회이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
검은 백조가 출현하는 영역은 아무리 통계가 발전하고, 위기관리학이 발전해도 예측할 수가 없다.
-----> 검은 백조가 출현하는 영역이 바로 복잡계이다. 하이에크는 이미 오래전에, 복잡계에서는 패턴 예측(pattern prediction) 밖에는 할 수 없다고 말했다.
복잡계에 대해서는, 본인의 책 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>나 <서구의학은 파산했다>를 참고.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
김여정이 평양으로 돌아간 후에 찍은 사진이다.
김여정은 목적했던 바를 모두 달성했다는 듯이 활짝 웃고 있다. 그들이 목적했던 것은, 미국의 제재에 숨통을 내는 것, 또는 미국의 북폭을 회피하는 것, 경제적, 물질적 원조를 한국으로부터 받는 것 등이다. 그렇다면 이중에 적어도 한 가지를 달성했다는 뜻일지도 모른다. 만경봉 호에는 이미 트럭 5대분의 무엇인가가 들어갔다.
그 외에 무엇을 더 주었는지도 알 수가 없다. 또는 좌파에 의한 한국의 접수 상황이나 좌파들의 충성 서약서, 낮은 단계의 연방제 준비 완료 등을 받아갔을 수도 있다. 어쨌든 그녀의 웃음은 우리에게는 불행을 의미한다.
--->거칠게 나오는 일본, "核갖는 한반도(연방제) 통일 안된다."
https://youtu.be/DHHppaMkujs
조갑제/ 일본 정부가 한국의 연방제 통일을 경계한다고 한다.
죄인이 정권이 존속할 수 있는건 반미 운동 선동해서 미군을 몰아내고 북과 연방제 통일 말고는 답이 없다.
북폭이 가까워지면 종북정권은 반드시 내전상황으로 몰고 갈꺼다
국민을 친미와 반미로 나누어서 사회 분열을 일으켜야 한다
그래야 자신들이 정권을 유지할 희망이 생기기 때문이다
이 싸움은 친미와 반미의 싸움이 되고 친미 세력의 힘이 모여야 트럼프에게도 명분이 생긴다.
우리가 베트남과 다른건 아직 태극기와 성조기를 함께 들고 투쟁하는 애국시민 세력이 존재한다는 것이다
이 불꽃이 꺼지면 한국의 생명도 꺼진다
모든 분탕들은 이 세력을 말살하기 위해 온 갖 공작을 펼칠 것이다
애국시민이여 저들의 반미운동을 완벽히 차단해서 트럼프 대통령에게 힘을 실어주자
모두가 성조기와 태극기를 들고 아스팔트를 채워야 한다
애국시민이여 이제 진정한 싸움이 시작된다.
뭉치자 힘내자!
[출처] 잠시 후 친미와 반미의 한판 싸움이 펼쳐진다/ 일베
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner: Snowed-in Muscovites—the only way certain neighborhoods in Moscow can get municipal workers to clear the snow shutting them in is by writing the name of Alexei Navalny in it, Russia’s foremost Putin critic. / ian bremmer 글
러시아에 폭설이 내리면 주민들이 Alexei Navalny이라는 이름을 써놓는다고 한다. 그는 바로 푸틴의 적수인데, 그러면 이름을 지우기 위해 시청 일꾼들이 그 눈을 모두 치워준다고 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
계몽주의의 요점은 이성을 통한 인간의 완성 가능성, 그리고 사회의 혁명적 재건이었다. 프랑스 혁명은 계몽주의의 아들이었고, 볼셰비크 혁명은 그 손자였다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
옥스팜 간부의 성추문 사건에 대해, 그 대표가 비난이 너무 심하다고 반격을 하고 있다. 뻔뻔스러운 좌파들의 예상된 수순이다. 또 선거 연령을 16세까지 낮추자는 발상도 한국의 좌파들과 별 다름이 없다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
영국 노동당 당수를 했던 코빈이 공산국가의 첩자 노릇을 했다는 폭로. 역시 좌파들은 대수로운 일이 아니라는 반응이다.
-----> 국가 정책을 북한에 물어보고 하자던 여적죄(與敵罪) 혐의자 문죄인도 대수로운 일이 아니라는 듯이, 대권까지 거머쥐었다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
구미강활탕
羌活6克 防風6克 蒼朮6克 細辛2克 川芎3克 白芷3克 生地3克 黃芩3克 甘草3克
加生薑、蔥白煎(총백은 대파의 흰부분을 말한다)。
【功效】
發汗祛濕，兼清裡熱。
【主治】
外感風寒表濕證。症見惡寒發熱，無汗頭痛、肢體痠楚疼痛，口苦而渴，舌苔白薄，脈浮緊。
외부의 風寒濕邪(풍한습사)를 맞아, 안에 薀熱이 쌓여 있을 때 쓴다. 오한, 발열, 땀이 흐르지 않고 두통이 있으며, 팔다리가 쑤시고 아프다. 입이 쓰고 목이 마르며, 설태는 白薄하다.
【方義】
本方證為外感風寒濕邪侵犯肌表，裡有薀熱所致。方中羌活辛苦而溫、發汗解表、祛風除濕、通痹止痛為君；防風、蒼朮助君藥加強發汗祛濕之力；細辛、川芎、白芷、宣散風寒、通行氣血、去除頭痛身疼；黃芩、生地清泄裡熱，可兼制約辛溫藥之燥，以防傷津，均為佐藥，甘草調和諸藥，以為使也。
【辨證要點】
1.惡寒發熱。
2.肢體痠痛。
3.口苦。
4.苔白薄
5.脈浮緊。
【加減】
1.濕重胸滿：加厚朴、枳殼、佩蘭。
2.咳喘：加杏仁、紫菀、款冬花。
3.裡熱甚：加黃連、知母。
4.頭痛甚：加蔓荊子、藁本。
5.憎寒壯熱：加桂枝、柴胡。
6.汗下兼行：加大黃。
7.熱甚者：加石膏、知母。
8.表熱甚者：加銀花、連翹。
【注意禁忌】
陰虛氣弱者禁用。
【現代應用】
感冒、流行性感冒、急性蕁麻疹、風濕性關節炎。감기, 독감, 풍습성 관절염 등에 쓴다.
출처: 醫砭-------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기