복잡계 혁명이 몰려온다

코피는 북한에 앞서 한국부터 터질 수도
證人(조갑제닷컴 회원)

트럼프의 '코피작전'은 김정은 정권에 앞서 (경제적으로) 문재인 정권을 향하고 있는 듯하다. 이 정부는 지은 업이 있다. 탄생하기 전부터 사드 배치에 대해 깐죽거리며 반대해왔고 미국 보란 듯이 의원단을 만들어 중국으로 달려갔다. 아무리 너그러운 미국 입장에서도 참을 만큼 참았던 것이다. 멀쩡히 근무 잘하고 있는 대통령을 밀어내고 정권을 가로챈 데 대해서도 내정 간섭이 될 수 있어 말은 안 해도 곱게 보일 리 없을 것이다.

한국에 있는 GM을 (미국 대통령이) 자기가 미국으로 되돌아오게 했다는 말을 늘어놓고 있는 것은 자기 자랑이 아니라 한국에 보내는 경고성 메시지로 보인다. '북한뿐 아니라 한국 당신들도 코피 터지는 수가 있어!'라고. (발췌)

白丁 2018-02-14 오후 9:56
한미동맹 혜택으로 살아온 한국인이지만 솔직히 미국이 뭐가 아쉬워서 이 작고 보잘것 없고 동맹국보다 적국을 환대하는 배은망덕한 나라에서 성조기가 태워지고 문화원이 점거되고 대사관이 포위되고 대사가 칼침 테러를 당하는 굴욕을 인내하며 남아있는지 모르겠다. 자국 이익? 트럼프 말대로 막대한 무역수지 적자 보고 있잖은가. 동아시아 방위? 군사 전문가는 아니지만 일본, 오키나와, 필리핀을 잇는 선이면 충분해보인다. 나 뿐아니라 60여년 전 미국 국무장관도 그렇게 알아봤다. 소위 애치슨 라인이다. 내가 미국 대통령이라면 당장 방위조약 파기하고 군대 철수하고 FTA 파기한다. 그런다음 문재인 믿고 용용 죽겠지 때려봐 때려봐 깐족대고 대드는 김정은 다시는 아가리 함부로 놀리지 못하게 마음껏 흠씬 두들겨 패준다. 상호관세 부과해서 무역수지 개선한다. 우리가 한국인이니까 욕하고 비난하는거지, 트럼프나 아베, 다 자국민들 입장에서는 훌륭한 지도자다. 인권, 민주, 진보 팔아먹는 문재인 패거리 및 그 교도들은 입장 바꿔 자기들이 미국인이라면 어떤 심정이겠나?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

it 대기업들(네이버, 구글, 유투브 등)이 개인의 자유를 억압하는 세상이 왔다.
---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

주사파였던 하태경은 누구보다 북한을 잘 아는 북한통이다. 그가 김일성 가면이 맞다고 말하고 있다. 그가 "신세대 우상화를 한국에서 실험하고 있다"고 했는데, 이게 정답인 것 같다.

'김일성 가면'이 아니다! 라는 비디오를 통해 조갑제 씨가 또 이상한 판단을 하고 있다. 조 씨는 상당히 합리적인 판단을 하는 사람이라고 알려져 있지만, 그는 몇번 치명적인 주장을 한 바가 있다.

노무현 탄핵 주장 ---> 법리적으로는 맞지만 정치적으로는 치명적인 오판이었다. 탄핵을 함으로써 당시 국회의원 선거에서 우파(?)들이 참패했다.

5. 18 북한 불개입 주장 ---> 자신의 눈으로 보지 못했다는 이유만으로 북한군이 참가하지 않았다고 강변했다. 하지만 정황상 북한의 고정간첩이나 (김대중 추종) 좌파 세력, 남파 간첩 등이 참가했을 가능성이 크다. 그리고 탈북자들 중에는 이미 5. 18에 내려왔었다는 증언이 나왔다.

박주신 무죄 추정 ----> 엑스레이 사진 한장만 더 찍으면 되는데, 모든 것이 밝혀지는데, 조 씨가 박주신의 변호인을 자처하며 나섰다. 그는 한국의 각 분야가 얼마나 부패해 있는지 아직 모르는 것 같다.

박 대통령 탄핵 ----> 언론의 난이라는 물정 모르는 소리를 했다. 그것은 더불어민주당이 주도한 좌파 혁명이었다. 오늘의 상황이 좌파 혁명이라는 것을 증명하고 있지 않은가? 당시 최순실 사건이 막 불거졌을 때, 그는 일본을 여행하고 있었다. 내가 매일 조갑제닷컴을 매일 보고 있어서, 이를 알 수 있었다. 그래서였는지 그는 초반에 사태의 중요성을 모르고 있었고, 사태의 성격도 잘못 짚고 있었다.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

글 William Lee

미 재무부 차관은 한국을 방문했을 당시 한국의 6개 은행이 북한과 금융 거래가 없었음을 증명하는 자료를 요구했는데 생깠고 미국에 돌아가서 해당은행 뉴욕지점에 재차 자료를 요구했는데 버티는 중이라고 함. 무사히 지나갈 가능성은 0%인 듯.

[출처] 무사히 지나갈 가능성은 0%인 듯.-페북글-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

출처: 일베/ 공산화 되어 가는 과정

나는 이번 6월 선거가 좌파들에 의해 조작될 가능성이 크다고 본다. 위의 일베 그림이 지적하듯이, 여론을 조작하고, 가짜 여론 조사를 내놓고, 가짜 뉴스를 퍼뜨리고 있는데, 선거 결과를 조작하지 말란 법이 없다. 지난 대통령 선거에도 투표 용지에 말이 많다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

교환은 혁신에 필수적이고, 혁신은 교환이 활발한 사회에서 가속도가 붙는다.

교환의 네트워크를 끊어버리면 사람들의 진보는 멈추고 오히려 후퇴한다.

역사적 사례를 살펴보면, 시장 친화적이고, 상향적인 사회는 더 친절하고 비호전적이었고, 가난한 사람들에 관대했으며, 예술을 애호했고, 환경을 생각했다.

시장은 사람들을 덜 이기적으로 만들고, 강력한 국가는 오히려 개인들을 이기적으로 만든다.

What Charles Darwin Owes Adam Smith

If the market needs no central planner, why should life need an intelligent designer, or vice versa?

by Matt Ridley

I’ve called my lecture “Adam Darwin” to stress how congruent the philosophies of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin are. The common theme, of course, is emergence — the idea that order and complexity can be bottom-up phenomena; both economies and ecosystems emerge. But my purpose really is to explore not just the history and evolution of this shared idea but its future: to show that in the age of the Internet, Adam-Darwinism is the key to understanding how the world will change.

The Common Ancestry of Evolution and Economics

Darwin’s debt to the political economists is considerable. He spent formative years in Edinburgh among the ghosts of Hume, Hutchinson, Ferguson, and Smith. When he was at Cambridge in 1829, he wrote, “My studies consist in Adam Smith and Locke.” At his grandfather Josiah Wedgwood’s house in Staffordshire, Darwin often met the lawyer and laissez-faire politician Sir James Mackintosh, whose daughter married Charles’s brother-in-law (and had an affair with his brother).The advantage of diversification in the inhabitants of the same region is, in fact, that same as that of the physiological division of labor in organs

On the Beagle, he read the naturalist Henri Milne-Edwards, who took Adam Smith’s notion of the division of labor and applied it to the organs of the body. After seeing a Brazilian rainforest, Darwin promptly reapplied the same idea to the division of labor among specialized species in an ecosystem: “The advantage of diversification in the inhabitants of the same region is, in fact, the same as that of the physiological division of labor in the organs of the same individual body — subject so well elucidated by Milne-Edwards.”

Back in England in the 1830s, through his brother Erasmus, Darwin fell in with the radical feminist and novelist Harriet Martineau, who had shot to fame because of her series of short fictional books called Illustrations of Political Economy. These were intended to educate people in the ideas of Adam Smith, “whose excellence,” she once said, “is marvelous.” I believe it was probably at Martineau’s suggestion that, in October 1838, Darwin came to reread Malthus (a person with whom Martineau was on very close terms) and to have his famous insight that death must be a non-random and therefore selective force.

Parenthetically, it’s worth recalling the role of anti-slavery in bringing Martineau and Darwin together. Darwin’s grandfather Josiah Wedgwood was one of the leaders and organizers of the anti-slavery movement, a friend of Wilberforce, and the maker of the famous medallion “Am I not a man and a brother?” which was the emblem of the anti-slavery movement. Charles Darwin’s aunt Sara gave more money to the anti-slavery movement than any woman in Britain. Darwin had been horrified by what he called, “The heart-sickening atrocities of slavery in Brazil.” Abolition was almost the family business. Meanwhile, Harriet Martineau had just toured America speaking against slavery and had become so notorious that there were plans to lynch her in South Carolina.

Today, to a bien pensant intellectual, it might seem surprising to find such a left-wing cause alongside such a right-wing enthusiasm for markets, but it should not be. So long is the shadow cast by the top-down determinism of Karl Marx, with his proposal that the state should be the source of reform and welfare, that it’s often forgotten how radical the economic liberalism of the political economists seemed in the 1830s. In those days, to be suspicious of a strong state was to be left-wing (and, if you’ll forgive the pun, quite right, too).

Today, generally, Adam Smith is claimed by the right, Darwin by the left. In the American red states, where Smith’s emergent decentralized philosophy is all the rage, Darwin is often reviled for his contradiction of dirigiste creationism. In the average British university by contrast, you will find fervent believers in the emergent decentralized properties of genomes and ecosystems, who nonetheless demand dirigiste policy to bring order to the economy and society. Yet, if the market needs no central planner, why should life need an intelligent designer, or vice versa?

Ideas evolved by descent and modification just as species do, and the idea of emergence is no exception. Darwin at least partly got the idea from the political economists, who got it from the empirical philosophers. To put it crudely, Locke and Newton begat Hume and Voltaire, who begat Hutchinson and Smith, who begat Malthus and Ricardo, who begat Darwin and Wallace. Darwin’s central proposition was that faithful reproduction, occasional random variation, and selective survival, can be a surprisingly progressive and cumulative force. It can gradually build things of immense complexity. Indeed, it can make something far more complex than a conscious deliberate designer ever could. With apologies to William Paley and Richard Dawkins, it can make a watchmaker.

Each time a baby is conceived, 20,000 genes turn each other on and off, in a symphony of great precision, building a brain of 10 trillion synapses, each refined and remodeled by early and continuing experience. To posit an immense intelligence capable of comprehending such a scheme, rather than a historical emergent process, is merely to exacerbate the problem — who designed the designer?

Likewise, as Leonard Read pointed out, each time that the pencil is purchased, tens of thousands of different people collaborate to supply the wood, the graphite, the knowledge, and the energy, without any one of them knowing how to make a pencil. Says Smith, if you like, “This came about by bottom-up emergence, not top-down dirigism.” In both cases, nobody’s in charge, and crucially, nobody needs to understand what’s being done.

Why Innovation Happens

So far, I’m treading a well-trodden path in the steps of Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and many others who’ve explored the parallels between evolutionary and economic theory. But the story has grown a lot more interesting in the last few years, I think, because of developments in field of cultural and technological evolution. Innovation is an evolutionary process.

Thanks especially to the work of three anthropologists — Rob Boyd, Pete Richardson, and Joe Henrich — we are beginning now to understand the extraordinary close parallels between how our bodies evolved and how our tools and rules evolve. Innovation is an evolutionary process. That’s not just a metaphor, it’s a precise description. I need you to re-examine a lot of your assumptions about how innovation happens to disenthrall yourself of what you already know.

First, innovation happens mainly by trial and error. It’s a tinkering process, and it usually starts with technology, not science, by the way, as Terrence Keeley has shown. The trial and error may happen between firms, between designs, between people, but it happens. If you look at the tail planes of early airplanes, there’s a lot of trial and error, there’s a lot of different designs being tried and eventually one is decided.

Exchange is crucial to innovation, and innovation accelerates in societies that open themselves up to internal and external exchange through trade and communication — Ancient Greece, Song China, Renaissance Italy, 16th century Holland, 19th century Britain — whereas innovation falters in countries that close themselves off from trade — Ming China, Nero’s India, Communist Albania, North Korea.

Moreover, every innovation, as Brian Arthur has argued, is a combination of other innovations. As L.T.C. Rolt, the historian of engineering put it, “The motorcar looks as if it was sired by the bicycle out of the horse carriage.” My favorite example of this phenomenon is the pill camera, which takes a picture of your insides on the way through. It came about after a conversation between a gastroenterologist and a guided missile designer.

Adam Smith in other words, has the answer to an evolutionary puzzle: what caused the sudden emergence of behaviorally modern human beings in Africa in the past hundred thousand years or so? In that surprisingly anthropological first chapter of The Wealth of Nations, Smith saw so clearly that what was special about human beings was that they exchanged and specialized.

Neanderthals didn’t do this — they only ever used local materials. In this cave in Georgia, the Neanderthals used local stone for their tools. They never used tools from any distance away, from any Neanderthal sites. But when modern human beings move into this very same area, you find stone from many miles away being used to make the tools, as well as local stone. That means that moderns had access to ideas, as well as materials from far away. Just as sex gives a species access to innovations anywhere in its species, so exchange gives you access to innovation anywhere in your species.

When did it first happen? When was trade invented? At the moment, the oldest evidence is from about 120,000 years ago. That’s when obsidian axes in Ethiopia and snail-shell beads in Algeria start traveling long distances. These beads are made from marine shells, but they’re found a hundred miles inland. And we know from modern Aborigines in Australia that long-distance movement of man-made objects happens by trade, not migration. So it’s not that people are walking all the way to the Mediterranean and picking up shells and walking all the way back again; they’re getting them hand-to-hand by trade.

Now that’s 120,000 years ago — ten times as old as agriculture — but I suspect it goes back further still. There’s a curious flowering of sophisticated tool kits in Africa around 160,000 years ago, in a seashore dwelling population, as evidenced by excavations at a place called “Pinnacle Point.” It came and went, but careful modeling by some anthropologists at the University College London suggests that this might be a demographic phenomenon: a rich food supply led to a dense population, which led to a rich toolkit. But that’s only going to be true if there is exchange going on, if the ideas are having sex — dense populations of rabbits don’t get better tools. Once exchange and specialization are happening, cultural evolution accelerates if population density rises, and decelerates if it falls.

We can see this clearly from more recent archeology in a study by Melanie Klien and Rob Boyd. In the Pacific, in pre-Western contact times, the sophistication of fishing tackle depends on the amount of trading contact between islands. Isolated islands, control for island size, will have simpler fishing tackle than well-connected islands. And indeed, if you cut people off from exchange networks, human progress not only stalls, it can go backwards.

The best example of this is Tasmania, which became an island ten thousand years ago when sea levels rose. Not only did the Tasmanians not get innovations that happened after this time, such as the boomerang, they actually dis-invented many of their existing tools. They gave up making bone tools altogether, for example. As Joe Henrich has argued, the reason for this is that their population was too small to sustain the specialization needed to collaborate in the making of some of these tools. Their collective brain was not big enough — nothing to do with their individual brains, it’s the collective intelligence that counts.

As a control for this idea, notice that the same thing did not happen in Tierra Del Fuego. The Fuegan Indians continue to progress technologically. The reason for this is that the Magellan Strait is narrower than the Bass Strait, so trade continued and the Feugan Indians had access to a collective brain the size of South America. Whereas, the Tasmanians had access to a collective brain only the size of Tasmania.

The Collectivism of Markets

Now for me one of the most fascinating implications of this understanding of the collective brain is just how touchy-feely liberal it is. I’m constantly being told that to believe in markets is to believe in selfishness and greed. Yet I think the very opposite is true. The more people are immersed in markets, the more they collaborate, the more they share, the more they work for each other. In a fascinating series of experiments, Joe Henrich and his colleagues showed that people who play ultimatum games — a game invented by economists to try and bring out selfishness and cooperation — play them more selfishly in more isolated and self-sufficient hunter-gatherer societies, and less so in more market-integrated societies.

History shows that market-oriented, bottom-up societies are kinder, gentler, less likely to go to war, more likely to look after their poor, more likely to patronize the arts, and more likely to look after the environment than societies run by the state. Hong Kong versus Mao’s China, 16th century Holland versus Louis the XIV’s France, 20th century America versus Stalin’s Russia, the ancient Greeks versus the ancient Egyptians, the Italian city-states versus the Italian papal-states, South Korea versus North Korea, even today’s America versus today’s France, and so on.

As Voltaire said, “Go into the London stock exchange and you will see representatives of all nations gathered there for the service of mankind. There the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Christian deal with each other as if they were of the same religion, and give the name of infidel only to those who go bankrupt.”

As Deirdre McCloskey reminds us, we must not slip into apologizing for markets, for saying they are necessary despite their cruelties. We should embrace them precisely because they make people less selfish, and they make life more collective, less individualistic. The entire drift of human history has been to make us less self-sufficient and more dependent on others to provide what we consume and to consume what we provide. We’ve moved from consuming only as widely as we produce to being much more specialized as producers and much more diversified as consumers.

That’s the very source of prosperity and innovation. We surely know by now after endless experiments that a powerful state encourages selfishness.

It’s time to reclaim the word “collectivism” from the statists on the left. The whole point of the market is that it does indeed “collectivize” society but from the bottom-up, not the top-down. We surely know by now after endless experiments that a powerful state encourages selfishness.

Let me end with an optimistic note. If I’m right, that exchange is the source of innovation, then I believe that the invention of the Internet, with its capacity to enable ideas to have sex faster and more promiscuously than ever, must be raising the innovation rate. And since innovation creates prosperity by lowering the time it takes to fulfill needs, then the astonishingly rapid lifting of humanity out of poverty that has happened all over the world, particularly in the last 20 years, can surely only accelerate. Indeed, it is accelerating. Much of Africa is now enjoying Asian Tiger-style growth. Child mortality is plummeting at a rate of five percent a year in Africa. In Silicon Valley recently, Vivek Wadhwa showed me a $35 tablet computer that will shortly be selling in India. Think what will be invented when a billion Indians are online.

In terms of human prosperity, therefore, we ain’t seen nothing yet. And because prosperity is an emergent property, an inevitable side effect of human exchange, we could not stop it even if we wanted to. All we could do is divert it elsewhere on the planet (which is what we in Europe seem intent on doing). “Adam Darwin” did not invent emergence: his was an idea that emerged when it was ripe. And like so many good ideas, it was already being applied long before it was even understood. And so I give you Adam-Darwinism as the key to the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

누란지위累卵之危
풍전등화 (風前燈火)

대한민국이 누란지위에 처해 있고
풍전등화 신세다

대통령이 가막소에 갇혀있고
삼성수장 이재용이
근 1년을 가막소에 있다가 집행유예로
간신히   풀려낫다

이번엔
신동빈이 구속되엇다
이명박이 구속 직전이다

이걸, 정의 실현이라고 생각하는가,
아니면 , 주사파    독재로 가는길이라고 생각하는가

재계,
법조계,
종교계,
기타 분야의 사람들,
언론들,
중소 상공인들
국민들,

국가가
위기에 처햇는데도
급하지가 않다
국가가 기울어지면
개인도 같이 망하는 수박에 없는데도 말이다

그건 왜일까,   그건
그들이 문제를 해결하기 위한,
지원군이   올거라고 믿고 있기 때문이다
위기 해결하는건,   그들의 몫이 아니라고 생각하는것 같다

지원군은 오지 않는다

미국이 문제를 해결해줄거라고 믿는 사람들은
잘못 생각하고 있는게 아닐까
우파를 자처하는 사람들은 잘 생각하고
스스로를 지켜야 하지 않겟나

[출처] 지원군은 오지 않는다/ 일베

------------------------------------------------------------------