작년 1년동안 1905명이 국적이탈했는데

지금 4월달 이제 1/3인데도 벌써 작년수치 3배수준이다

[출처] 한국 국적이탈자 2018년 4월 현재 작년의 전체기간의 세배수준.jpg
 ----> 조용히 한국을 탈출하기 시작했다.

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

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

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

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

자한당이 이번 선거에서 망하고, 김정은이 싱가포르 회담에서 비핵화에 합의하면, 한국은 더욱 빠르게 사회주의의 길을 가게 될 것이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

..........그리고 그는 대통령이 되고 난후 자신의 노벨 평화상과 다음 대통령 당선을 위한 가장 큰 밑밥인 북한 핵문제, 비핵화를 김정은와 문재인이 미끼를 물도록 미군사력자산을 총동원하여 곧 북폭을 할것처럼 쇼를 벌렸다. 이것에 놀란 김정은이와 문재인 북 비핵화를 하기 위해 남북정상회담, 그리고 미북정상회담으로 이어지도록 트럼프의 시나리오대로 오늘에 이르고 있다.

 

그런데 김정은이가 막판에 몰리자 중국에 두번이나 달려가고 그리고 중국이 김정은에게 트럼프 만나 회담하는거 겁낼것 하나도 없다. 나도 트럼프하고 그동안 북 비핵화 문제로 전화 통화를 해보았지만 트럼프가 원하는 것은 자신이 요구하는 회담 그 자체이다.  즉 트럼프가 요구하는 cvid이던 pvid이든 다 들어주라. 그리고 그 약속 종이 쪼가리에 서명해주라. 그리고 평화협정과 종전협정에도 딜을 하라. 트럼프도 그것은 분명히 들어 줄것이다. 그리고 온 세계가 보는 앞에서 북한은 이제 핵무장해제하고 트럼프에게 무조건 항복하는 제스추어를 멋지게 한바탕 쇼를 벌려 주어 트럼프를 세계의 평화의 위대한 신적존재임을 들어나게 해주라!

 

그리고나서 트럼프가 북비핵화 하기 위해 북의 수순을 밟으려고 하면 적어도 일년이상 시간을 질질 끌어라! 그동안에 남한의 문재인은 북에 무한정 퍼줄것이고 남한내 반미 미군철수 작업을 할것이다.

 

그리고 나면 트럼프는 북비핵화로 너 서명한 종이조가리만 들고 세계 자기 위상과 영웅적 자산은 얻어도 그는 그야말로 종이 호랑이에 불과하다. 시간이 흐름에 따라 미국의 여론이 트럼프는 김정은에게 속았다고 떠들고 대한민국이 월남처럼 되어지면 트럼프도 탄핵되고  대한민국은  나 시진핑과 북의 김정은 너하고 둘이 요리하고 접수하게 될것이다. 알아 먹겠나, 김정은아!  트럼프는 어디든 나서기를 좋아하고 자기를 띄워주면 그는 기분파고 허풍쟁이나 한방에 나가 떨어지지는 별 볼일 없는 인간 개 잡놈이다!

[출처] 미북회담은 김정은 살리는 트럼프의 장난

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

현대사 최악의 인물

지난 세기 1억 명을 죽음에 이르게 하고, 세계 인구의 1/3을 경제, 사회적 노예 상태에 떨어뜨린 막스의 200주년 탄생을 기념하는 한심한 일이 일어나고 있다.

 

The Worst Man In Modern History

 

By Alasdair Macleod

It seems extraordinary that in defiance of all factual history and philosophical knowledge anyone should celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of Karl Marx. More than anyone, through wrong-headed ideas, he bears responsibility, indirectly admittedly, for the deaths of an estimated one hundred million people in the last century, and the severe suppression through economic and social servitude of fully one third of the world’s population. And if you also include those who have suffered under the yoke of Marxist-inspired modern socialism, the philosophy that says the state is more important than the individual, you could argue nearly the whole world is influenced by Marxian philosophy today. 발췌

출처: Goldmoney.com

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

잠자는 용을 건드리지 말라. 중국과의 전쟁은 재앙을 불러온다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

문화적 자유를 위한 우파 연합

 

The Coalition for Cultural Freedom

 

BY: Matthew Continetti

 

On May 15, 1939, philosopher John Dewey issued a statement to the press announcing the formation of the Committee for Cultural Freedom. Attached were the committee's declaration of principles and the names of 96 signatories. The following day, at a meeting inside Columbia University's Low Library, the committee adopted its official manifesto. "Never before in modern times," the document began, "has the integrity of the writer, the artists, the scientist, and the scholar been threatened so seriously."

 

The committee's members included anthropologists, philosophers, journalists, dramatists, attorneys, educators, and historians. Politically, they ran the gamut from democratic socialists to New Deal liberals to nineteenth-century liberals who embraced the market without serious qualification. What unified them was their commitment "to propagate courageously the ideal of untrammeled intellectual activity." The "fundamental criteria for evaluating all social philosophies today," their manifesto read, are "whether it permits the thinker and the artist to function independently of political, religious, or racial dogmas." The basis for this alliance between such disparate persons, they continued, was "the least common denominator of a civilized culture—the defense of creative and intellectual freedom."

 

It was the existence of Popular Front groups who toed the Stalinist line in science, literature, social thought, and the arts that moved the committee's chief organizer, Sidney Hook, to action. "It seemed to me that it was necessary to challenge this massive phenomenon that was corrupting the springs of liberal opinion and indeed making a mockery of common sense," Hook wrote in his autobiography, Out of Step (1987). "I decided to launch a new movement, based on general principles whose validity would be independent of geographical or national boundaries and racial or class membership."

 

Hook's committee was the precursor of the international Congress for Cultural Freedom, convened in Berlin in June 1950, and the affiliated American Committee for Cultural Freedom organized in 1951. At that first meeting in Berlin, Arthur Koestler read from the dais the "Manifesto of Freedom," which held "as self-evident" that "intellectual freedom is one of the inalienable rights of man," and that such freedom "is defined first and foremost by his right to hold and express his own opinions, and particularly opinions which differ from those of his rulers. Deprived of his right to say ‘no,' man becomes a slave."

 

The America of 2018, needless to say, is a much different place than the America of 1939 and 1951. Nazi Germany is long gone, extinguished in a war that killed 60 million souls. The Soviet Union disappeared 27 years ago, after a Cold War that lasted some five decades. Print media have collapsed and been replaced by digital and social media that limit the power of gatekeepers and extend the reach of minority viewpoints. If the late 1930s and early 1950s are the baseline, the world of 2018 is much more free.

 

But threats remain. Totalitarian systems in Russia, China, and their former Marxist-Leninist satellites have transformed, with the exception of North Korea, into systems of authoritarian control that permit some economic liberty while maintaining state sovereignty over politics, society, and culture. The authoritarians use "sharp power" to interfere in democratic elections, bully and exploit Western corporations and universities, and influence public discourse through information warfare. A renascent Marxism competes with, and to a large extent has been subsumed by, the ideology of multiculturalism and its attendant identity politics.

 

It is this ideology and politics that have captured America's most prestigious intellectual, cultural, and media institutions. The university, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and increasingly formerly "neutral" and "objective" platforms such as the New York Times and the Atlantic have come under the sway of racial and sexual dogmas and attitudes that brook no disagreement. Membership in these institutions, which play a crucial role in elite opinion-formation, and the social networks in which they are embedded, is contingent on agreement with or silence about certain ideas of "white privilege," patriarchal "oppression," "Islamophobia," and "gender fluidity." To dissent from these ideas—to exercise one's right to say no—invites not only anathematization from polite society but also the loss of one's job and, in some cases, physical threats.

 

Just as happened in the twentieth century, an unlikely group of compatriots has emerged to resist the contemporary domestic challenge to cultural freedom. Reading Bari Weiss's recent article on the "intellectual dark web," one cannot help being struck by the diversity of opinion and partisan allegiance among the renegade thinkers challenging political correctness and its stigmatization of arguments that violate its axioms of group identity, racial strife, and transgenderism. A stultifying intellectual atmosphere, in which the subjective emotional responses of designated victim groups take precedent over style, argument, and empirical evidence, makes for unexpected alliances. Who would have thought that Kanye West would become, in the space of a few Tweets, the most famous and recognized champion of individual free thought in the world today? Who could have anticipated that New Atheist Sam Harris would find himself in a united front with Jordan Peterson, who instructs his millions of acolytes in the continued relevance of biblical story?

 

The new advocates for cultural freedom are different from their forebears. They are more ethnically and sexually diverse. Practically all of them operate outside the academy. They are not self-consciously organized as a movement. To some extent, of course, this lack of institutionalization is related to present historical conditions. The mid-twentieth century was an era of bigness, of vast bureaus, of hierarchical corporations where political life, especially on the left, was divided and subdivided into party, committee, and cell. The early twenty-first century is too fractured, disaggregated, and anarchic for such precise construction and coordination. This is a time of weak relationships, of loose affiliations. People drop in and out of movements at the press of a "like," "Tweet," or "send" button. And because our media are unbundled, and the multiple means of personal expression so accessible, no one authority has monopoly power to distinguish reasonable dissenters from cranks. This creates an opportunity for the enforcers of political correctness, who are quick to associate the enemies they unfairly deride as racists with genuine ones.

 

What has come into being is not a committee or congress but a Coalition for Cultural Freedom. This wide-ranging assembly of critics opposed to the consensus that dominates the commanding heights of culture, entertainment, and media is neither centrally directed nor unified, not precisely delineated or philosophically consistent. But they do all believe in what Gaetano Mosca called "juridical defense," pluralism in opinion and institutions to guard against conformity and repression. And the fact that Kanye's heresy and Weiss's reporting were greeted with contumely, derision, outrage, and agony is evidence for the strength of such conformity, the desire for such repression.

 

Political correctness reigns in San Francisco, Hollywood, and Berkeley, it is making inroads into New York and the permanent bureaucratic government in Washington, D.C., but its position is insecure, unstable. The ferocity with which challenges to the ideology are met signifies not power but weakness. All it takes to end the hegemony of political correctness is to combat or ignore its will to intimidation. And that is happening. The simple truth is that people do not like being reduced to their skin color, and they hate being called racists. So they tend to abandon the figures and organizations that see them as nothing but biased, sexist, bigoted dullards who belong in a basket of deplorables. They may not voice their opinion to a pollster for fear of social ostracism. But they reveal their preferences through action.

 

Hillary Clinton can tell you as much. So can ESPN, and the NFL, and the Hollywood studios whose social justice masterworks are rewarded at the Oscars but not at the box office. Google and Facebook have also felt the backlash from censoring non-woke voices. Conversely, the success of American Sniper, Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, and Roseanne has revealed the size of the audience willing to abandon the poses of political correctness for authenticity and disruption.

 

"The defense of intellectual liberty today imposes a positive obligation: to offer new and constructive answers to the problems of our time," wrote the authors of the Freedom Manifesto. "We address this manifesto to all men who are determined to regain those liberties which they have lost and to preserve and extend those which they enjoy." Those ranks included Sidney Hook and Arthur Koestler. Today they have been joined by Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and, yes, Kanye West.

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