김정은을 주인으로 모시고 韓民族을 종살이 시키겠다는 것!

문재인, 북한을 핵보유국으로 인정하고 한미동맹 無力化 목표에 합의한 셈

趙甲濟

즉 문재인 대통령이 합의해준  <완전한 비핵화를 통해 핵 없는 한반도를 실현한다는 공동의 목표>는, 주한미군 철수, 핵우산 철거, 한미동맹의 사실상 해체를 통하여 <對조선 적대시 정책과 핵위협을 끝장내는 것>을 목표로 삼는다는 의미로 봐야 할 것이다. 문재인 대통령은 김정은에게 북한의 핵보유국 지위를 인정하고 한미동맹 무력화를 약속한 셈인데. 언론은 이를 거꾸로 해석하여 김정은이 완전한 비핵화를 약속한 것처럼 독자들을 속이고 있는 것이다.


대한민국 헌법은 자유민주적 기본질서에 입각한 평화적 통일을 명령하는데 문재인 대통령은 이른바 우리민족끼리 원칙에 입각한 '자주통일'에 합의, 헌법을 정면으로 위반하면서 북한식 통일방안을 수용하였다. 즉 연방제를 받아들인 셈이다(그는 평소에도 낮은단계연방제를 소신으로 주장해왔다). 그렇다면 북한이 핵보유를 한 상태에서 주한미군은 철수하고 핵우산은 철거된 뒤 남북한이 이른바 낮은 단계 연방제로 합쳐지고, 핵을 갖지 못한 대한민국은 북한노동당 정권의 인질로 전락, 국가 자원과 국민 자산이 모조리 약탈당한다는 이야기이다. 김정은을 주인으로 모시고 한민족을 종살이 시키겠다는 것이 아닌가?  (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

드루킹이 이렇게까지 단서를 주는데도 이 사건의 전모를 밝히지 못하고, 또 이를 이슈화해서 정국을 뒤집는데 이용하지 못한다면, 자한당은 존재 가치가 없다.
--------------------------------------------------------------
하마스가 팔레스타인 민간인들 선동해서 하마스 조직원과 팔레스타인 민간인들이 뒤섞인 행동대원들이 이스라엘군과 충돌을 벌였고 50여명 사상자 발생.

그런데 하마스(반이스라엘 테러조직이자 팔레스타인의 거대 '정당')에서 발표한 '순교자' 명단에는 하마스 전투요원(테러리스트)들만 있음. 그래놓고 대외적으로는 이스라엘이 민간인을 죽였다고만 선동함.

민간인들이 군조직에 달려들면 그 배후에 특수훈련 받은 요원새끼들이 있을 거라는 건 상식적으로도 알 수 있는데 언론은 그건 절대 말 안함.

정치조직은 민간인들을 총알받이 용도 아니면 선동에 이용할 수 있는 가치만 보고 끌어들이는거고 조직에서 그나마 챙겨주는 건 자기네 사람들 뿐.

광주 폭동과 백남기 사태(제때 죽어줘야 하는데 안 죽어주니까 딸 시켜서 목숨 끊음) 등과 일맥상통함

[출처] 이번 팔레스타인 유혈사태에 대해 언론이 보도하지 않는것

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
앞서 한국의 문정인 청와대 통일외교안보특보는 이날 공개된 미국 시사 종합지 ‘애틀란틱’과의 인터뷰에서 미-한 동맹은 “국제관계의 매우 비정상적인 형태”라며, 자신은 “동맹을 끝내는 것을 최선책으로 본다”고 말했습니다.

저 망언 뒤에 "다자안보로 가야한다" 라고 말했는데, 문정인이 말하는 다자안보 라는건 한반도 안보에 중공과 러시아 끌어들이겠다는 말이고, 이는 적화통일을 가정한 얘기다.

문정인은 문재앙의 속마음을 그대로 말해주는 자고, 저 발언은 나라가 뒤집어질만한 그런 것인데, 한국어로 검색해도 안나와. VOA 한국어판 가야 저 내용을 볼 수 있어.

문재앙이 언론통제라도 하는 모양이다.

[출처] 문정인 대형사고! "한미동맹 끝내는게 최선"
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

자산 600조원이 훨씬 넘는 한국 국민연금은 현재 세계3대 연기금 중 하나입니다. 국민연금의 투자전략은 지금까지 순조로웠습니다. 국민연금의 에이스 투자직원들이 그 일을 했습니다. 그래서 국민연금은 보수적 투자로 일관했지만 매년 6%이상의 투자이익을 거둔 것으로 압니다.

국민연금은 삼성전자 현대자동차등 국내 대기업에 거액을 투자하여 주식을 보유합니다. 그러나 그 주식의 권리인 의결권을 행사하지 않습니다 만약 의결권을 행사하면 경영이 왜곡되고 정부가 기업경영을 개입하게 되기 때문입니다. 일정부분 책임이 돌아오기 때문입니다.

좌빨이 우리 대통령에게 죄를 덮어씌우기위해 국민연금이 삼성물산의 합병에 개입했다는 누명을 씌웠습니다. 그 결과 해외의 악성 헤지펀드가 국민연금의 불법개입으로 거액을 손해를 봤다며 국민연금 관리처인 한국정부에 제소한 것입니다.

그렇습니다 국민연금은 의결권을 행사하여 기업경영에 개입하면 절대 안됩니다. 의결권을 개입하지 않는데도 헤지펀드가 찍자를 붙는데, 공식적으로 개입해서 회사가 부실화 되면 모든 책임을 정부에게 물을 것이고 정부는 꼼짝 못합니다.

그만큼 국민연금이 의결권을 행사하면 위험합니다. 그런데 이놈에 좌빨들이 보유주식만큼 의결권을 행사 할 것이며 무슨 투자위원회를 구성하여 국민연금의 투자를 전임케 한다는겁니다. 이놈들이 미친겁니다. 보나마나 위원회 구성원들이란 놈들은 모두 좌빨들일 것인데 그놈들이 무얼 알아서 투자전략을 수립해서 정상적인 투자를 하겠습니까? 어림없지요.

그래서 국민연금에 투자위원회의 설치하여 투자를 맡기는 것과 의결권을 행사한다는 것이 얼마나 위험한지를 씁니다.

첫째, 투자 위원회가 만약 연기금을 북한에 투자하겠다면 어떻게 막을 수 있겠습니까? 우리의 노후를 책임지는 연기금이 날라가는 것을 두 눈뜨고 보게 됩니다. 좌빨은 개 돼지들에게 평화 여론 몰이로 그 투자를 뒷받침하게 할 것이니, 그 작전이 가능성이 없다고 말 할 수 없어요.

둘째, 투자위원회가 의결권을 행사해서 기업이 부실화 된다거나 기회손실이 발생하면, 그 책임은 온전히 정부가 감당 해야합니다. 우리 기업에 많이 투자한 헤지펀드 소로스나 엘리엇이나 론스타가 사사건건 정부에 손해배상을 요구 할 겁니다. 국민연금이 난장판이 되는겁니다.

셋째, 여러분은 불과 1년 사이에 좌빨질하는 놈들이 얼마나 부패한 인간들인지 아셨을겁니다. 그렇습니다. 좌빨치고 깨끗한놈이 없어요. 돈이 보이면 그 곳으로 몰리는 놈들입니다. 그런놈들이 600조를 운용하면서 돈을 외면하겠습니까? 그래서 각 기업에 부패가 만연합니다. 투자위원이란 놈들이 기업마다 다니며 인사에 관여하거나 협력업체와의 관게에 브로커적인 행태를 보일 겁니다.

결론적으로 좌빨은 국민연금에 절대 손대서는 안됩니다. 투자위원회니 뭐니 개같은소리하지 말고 현재와 같이 투자 전문가들에게 맡겨야합니다. 연금만은 보수적으로 운용하여 노후생활자들을 안심시켜야 합니다.

# 사족;문이 야당 당수질 할 때 수차 국민연금의 운용을 언급하며 침을 흘렸어요. 그래서 저 인간 큰일낼 놈이라 생각했는데..그게 현실화 되는 것같아 정말 걱정입니다.

[출처] (펌) 국민연금건드린 뭉가 때문에... 대한민국 대표기업들이 쓰러지노...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

문죄인 정부의 현실/  출처: 일베

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

그랜마 모지스의 그림. 75살에 그림을 시작해 101살에 작고했다.

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

미-중 대결은 이제 막 시작되었다.

The U.S.-China Rivalry Is Just Getting Started

출처: 블룸버그. 발췌

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

아메바의 가계가 계속해서 지속될 확률은?

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

실제적인 세상 경혐이 중요하지 않다고 생각하는 유일한 사람들은 실제적인 세상 경험을 해보지 못한 사람들 뿐이다.

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

경제학이 망가졌다. 하지만 이것은 해답이 아니다.

 

The Economics Profession Is Broken — But this Isn't the Answer

 

•David Gordon

 

Eric Posner and Gen Weyl claim that economics has become too timid. Posner is an influential law professor at Chicago, and Weyl is a principal researcher at Microsoft. Their article appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education on May 6. Their diagnosis of economics is accurate, but their cure is worse than the disease.

 

Economists today, they say, have become narrow technocrats. “Economists sought to develop a science on the model of physics because they believed that scientific methods were most conducive to discovering the truth.. . . Policy reforms advocated by mainstream economists were almost always what we call ‘liberal technocratic’— either center-left or center-right. Economists suggested a bit higher or lower minimum wage or interest rate, a bit more or less regulation, depending on their external political orientation and evidence from their research.”

 

The situation is even worse than that. Economists who reject this standpoint are suppressed. “Economists have maintained this narrow range of methodological and political commitment through their control of academic journals, hiring, and teaching — as well as through the informal enforcement of community norms. We see this in the treatment of the ideological extremes, the ‘Austrians’ (on the right) and the Marxists (on the left), who have been ostracized from the profession.”

 

In the nineteenth century, things were different. Economists were not narrow specialists but had the broad knowledge of the social sciences needed for visionary measures of reform. “Political economists drew on all the streams of academic speculation — they were as much philosophers as social scientists, and they recognized none of the distinctions among the various contemporary social sciences. Moreover, they saw themselves as reformists, often radical reformists.”

 

So far, so good: but Posner and Weyl soon go off the rails. The great movement in the 18th and 19th centuries was the destruction of state-controlled mercantilism and the creation of a free market economy. The struggle for laissez-faire, though never fully completed, led to unprecedented economic growth and prosperity.

 

Posner and Weyl ignore this. Instead, their notion of “vision” stresses equality, not economic liberty. To them, Marx and Keynes rank among the visionaries. They fail to see that Marxism and Keynesianism are not, as they imagine, progressive movements for social change but rather reactionary attempts to interdict the movement toward freedom and restore state control. The Keynesian system is neo-mercantilist and Marxism in practice has been marked by even more ruthless state control. On these matters, Murray Rothbard’s great essay, "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty” offers unpatrolled guidance.

 

They acknowledge that free market economists like Friedrich Hayek had a broad perspective, but these economists do not count as visionaries in the progressive sense they favor: “But unlike the political economists of old, they did not offer radical social reform or innovation. Instead they advocated a return to institutions that had prevailed in the 19th-century Anglo-Saxon world.”

 

Posner and Weyl fail to see that Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard sought to counter the statist tyranny that disfigured the twentieth century and to reinstitute the great movement toward freedom begun by the classical liberals. To those not enamored of egalitarian illusion, that is surely a vision worth fighting for.

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

소위 말하는 혐오 언론을 반대하는 사람들은 폭력적인 행동을 재정의했는데, 그에 따라 거기에 타인이 한 불쾌한 말들이 포함된다.

만일 말이 폭력이라면, 그 말을 제한하거나 삭제하도록 국가에 요구하는 것이 도덕적으로 정당해진다.

만일 감정의 상처, 스트레스, 상상에 의한 폭력 등이 “폭력”에 포함되다면, 인류의 미래를 위해 대단히 유감스런 일이다.

 

Redefining Violence: The Problem With PC Speech Codes

 

•Ryan McMaken

 

 

Last fall, the Washington Post reported on how a "chilling study" showed that college students are "hostile...toward free speech."

 

The research, author Catherine Rampell noted, showed that large numbers of students — sometimes constituting even a majority — support "snuffing out upsetting speech." Many also support the use of violence in order to do so.

 

Many defenders of free speech in response have framed this unfortunate reality as the result of an insufficient lack of reverence for "free speech," or for tolerance in general.

 

But this approach somewhat misses the point. If asked directly if tolerance and freedom of speech are good things, these same students who oppose "upsetting speech" or "hate speech" as they often call it, would surely answer in the affirmative.

 

If Speech Is a Form of Violence, It is Legitimate for the State to Limit It

 

"Of course tolerance and free speech are good things" the student would no doubt say, "but you don't have freedom to inflict violence on others."

 

When viewed from their vantage point, this claim is analogous to the old political proverb that states "my right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins."

 

In other words, behavior must be limited when it threatens the property of others.

 

Now, to the casual observer not up-to-date on current ideological orthodoxy, he might not see any connection between these two claims. How can speech be equated to swinging fists about? Words are not like fists.

 

What this casual observer has missed however is that current opponents of so-called hate speech have redefined violent behavior to include upsetting words spoken by others.

 

This is how advocates of "snuffing out" certain types of speech can reconcile their position with stated support for "freedom" and "free speech."

 

By opposing certain types of speech, one is not opposing basic freedoms, but is opposing actual violence.

 

And this illustrates the importance of the "speech is violence" narrative which is at the very core of the current controversies over so-called political correctness, and which even many leftists are uncomfortable defending.

 

However, critics of oddball theories from university humanities professors often focus too much on the theories themselves. Claims that there are dozens of genders or that "whiteness" is a social disease are problematic, to be sure. But America has certainly seen its share of aggressive ideologies before.

 

The difference now, however, is that proponents of these ideologies feel sufficiently emboldened so as to declare even mere opposition to these theories to be a form a violence. And this is an extremely important distinction. If speech can be shown to be violence, then it becomes morally legitimate to call for action by the state to limit or abolish that speech.

 

After all, in the Western mind, the restraint of violence has long been one of the few near-universally-accepted purposes of the state. For Augustine of Hippo, who took a cynical and suspicious view of the state, the state could at least do some good by retraining violence and punishing malefactors. Centuries later, even most libertarian minded Americans accept that one of the few proper functions of the state is to prevent and punish violations of property rights.

 

Thus, if merely saying things can be classified as a violation of a person's body or property, this is a major victory for those seeking to regulate speech itself.

 

And the left has been hard at work attempting to establish this connection. Last year, psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, a respected researcher at Northeaster University attempted in The New York Times to show that speech expressing unpleasant ideas by others can causes chronic stress in the hearer, and thus can lead to physical damage in the body. If speech can cause physiological damage, ought it not be considered a form of aggression?

 

Similarly, some journalists have claimed they are now suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder after being in the presence of members of the so-called alt-right, and after only listening to their jokes, speeches, and exchanges.

 

This contention that speech literally causes physical harm to the body is a somewhat new innovation, but it is only a small step from a more time-honored strategy: that of claiming that "hate speech" creates the conditions which lead to violence.

 

In this view, merely expressing disapproval of certain groups or behaviors constitutes "hate speech" because disapproval of certain groups or their actions leads to violence against them.

 

According to this theory, making the claim that, say, Mexican-Americans are lazier than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts paves the way for violence against Mexican-Americans. Thus, such speech needs to be restrained.

 

This position has been especially notable outside the United States — at least in recent years. In the United Kingdom, for example, a street preacher was arrested for reading some verses of the bible to a gay teen who had asked the preacher's opinion on the matter.

 

In Canada, in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott, the Canadian Supreme Court affirmed the province's prosecution of a man who distributed flyers condemning homosexuality. Significantly, the flyeres did not advocate for violence against persons, but portrayed certain people as "inferior" and "untrustworthy." In other words, the Court's decisions concluded that saying rude things is a prosecutable crime in Canada.

 

아래 글은 노예제와 관련한 글로, 생략 가능.

Pro-Slavery Opposition to Free Speech in America

 

In the past, this latter strategy has been employed in the United States as well. In the nineteenth century, abolitionist rhetoric was opposed and condemned in many areas on the grounds that merely opposing the institution of slavery invited insurrection and violence — and thus ought to be banned.

 

The most notorious case of this, perhaps, is the so-called "mails controversy" in which pro-slavery activists pressured the US postal service to confiscate anti-slavery tracts mailed from the North.

 

Historian Russell L. Riley describes the situation1:

 

The abolitionist strategy for affecting a change in southern public opinion through a free press - that is, by mailing publications from the North - was well into implementation by the mid-1830s. This became an especially prominent part of their strategy in 1835, when the total number of publications produced by the American Anti-Slavery Society skyrocketed in one year from 122,000 to over 1 million copies. Southern newspapers were susequently filled with stories of an invasion of incendiary matter.

 

Anti-slavery activists in the North had sent thousands of publications to South Carolina's prominent citizens. The reaction was not especially blithe, to say the least.

 

As Riley notes, before the materials could be delivered, "a mob of 3,000 Charlestonians" broke into the post office and burned the "offending materials."

 

As the local postmaster at the time, Alfred Huger wrote, "this community is too Sensitive [sic]" to allow the expression of such opinions.

 

In other words, the pro-slavery population of Charleston needed a "safe space," and it pursued that safe space by pressing for legislation — both local and federal — allowing local postmasters to censor the mails as they saw fit.

 

Blocking abolitionist opinions was not merely a matter of annoyance in the minds of pro-slavery advocates, however. The underlying feeling at work here was that any agitation for emancipation — including emancipation through peaceful means — was more or less equivalent to advocating for slave uprisings, and the total destruction of Southern civilization. In other words, advocating for emancipation was seen as essentially equivalent to advocating violence.

 

The heights to which emotion on this matter could reach can be seen in the words of President Andrew Jackson himself who became involved in the mails controversy. Writing to the Postmaster General, Jackson complained:

 

I have read with sorrow and regret that such men live in our happy country — I might have said monsters — as to be guilty of the attempt to stir up amongst the South the horrors of a servile war — Could they be reached, they ought to be made to atone for this wicked attempt, with their lives.

 

Riley notes that "[to] Jackson, what the abolitionists took as an exercise of First Amendment rights amounted to a capital offense."

 

Rarely, though, were abolitionist tracts such as these involved in calls for uprisings and insurrections. The abolitionist movement, in fact, was often closely connected to Quakerism and pacifism, and — especially in the 1830s — could be not portrayed as generally inciting violence.

 

Indeed, in the 1830s, anti-slavery pockets existed in numerous Southern states, and many anti-slavery activists hoped these pockets might grow and spread, bringing about a state-by-state renunciation of slavery. In the upper South, and especially in Appalachia where the plantation economy was unimportant, anti-slavery movement thrived in some areas, sustained largely by communities of Quakers in both Tennessee and North Carolina.

 

Northern Kentucky was also home to notable anti-slavery advocates, including William S. Bailey who was subjected to numerous cases of boycotts, harassment, vandalism, and threats to his personal safety. Employing the usual tactics of pro-slavery activists, Bailey was also accused of supporting violence against slaveowners and their families, and he was later accused to supporting John Brown — a charge Bailey denied.

 

Fear of anti-slavery ideas became so heated in fact, that no amount of hyperbole was apparently too over-the-top. By 1850, slavery apologist James Henley Thornwell would write:

 

The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders—they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground—Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake.

 

This conflating the pro-slavery cause with civilization itself would later be immortalized in the Mississippi declaration of secession which stated that "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

 

In Thornwell's comments, it's not difficult to see tactics reminiscent of what we see today from the more virulent advocates of political correctness. We might adjust Thornwell's words to read:

 

 

The parties in this conflict are not merely conservatives [or perhaps, "Trump supporters"] and progressives — they are fascists, racists, Nazis, hate-mongers, and religious zealots on the one side, and the friends of equality and diversity on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground—tolerance and hate the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake.

 

Thus we find ourselves with a serviceable summary of the current movement against speech, which in the PC view, has become a form of violence.

 

Now, some critics of my drawing an equivalence here might suggests that the paranoia of the pro-slavery activists was justified. After all, didn't the North eventually invade the South?

 

This would be a good argument if not for the fact that the war was not fought for the purposes of ending slavery — as defenders of the Southern Confederacy themselves often like to point out.

 

It was not abolitionist sentiment that lead to military action against the South, but "unionism" and a anti-Southern reaction in the wake of Lincoln's successful gambit to goad the South into attacking Fort Sumter.

 

Prior to the attack on Sumter, a great many northerners had been sympathetic to southern grievances and to secession itself.

 

It is true that some abolitionists cynically latched on to the war effort because it served their purposes. To his shame, William Lloyd Garrison abandoned decades of apparently principled devotion to disunion and pacifism when it looked like he might get what he wanted through a war. But, it would be anachronistic and absurd to blame the war on 1830s Quakers who advocated for peaceful abolition — and who were facing a federal government headed by Jackson, a pro-slavery president. Moreover, it was localized insurrection, not invasion from the North, that the pro-slavery advocates feared. As was true right up until the Southern states seceded, the slave-state voting bloc in Congress held a solid veto on any attempt to pass nationwide emancipation — which would have required a super-majority.

 

"Hate Speech" as Crypto-Violence

 

The anti-abolitionist paranoia expressed in the 1830s is echoed today in the "speech is violence" position in which any opinion that expressed opposition to the current left wing orthodoxy is a form of cloaked support for violence against innocents.

 

In this view, any opposition to transgender bathrooms is nearly as bad as support for hangings of sexual eccentrics. Any opposition to mass immigration is only one small step from advocating for concentration camps for non-whites.

 

Whether or not this strategy will ultimately succeed will depend on the degree to which speech is accepted as a form of violence. Historically, when viewed properly, a "right" — in the United States, at least — has been limited to freedom from physical violence and coercion. This has included assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment, trespassing, theft, and other identifiable physical manifestations of violence.

 

If this definition of "violence" is expanded, however, to include concepts such as hurt feelings, stress levels, or possible imagined violence at some point in the future allegedly resulting from certain opinions, then that would be revolutionary indeed. And disastrous for human freedom.

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

오늘 2014년 방송된  <이제 만나러 갑니다> 의 재방을 우연히 보았다.

그런데 거기에 당시 북한에서 유행된 말들을 소개하는데 다음과 같은 말들이 있었다.

재앙당 --- 재앙을 일으키는 중앙당을 가르키는 말.  갑자기 문재앙이 생각났다.

콩사탕 --- 공산당을 지칭하는 은어.

올해 죽지 않으면 내년에 후회한다. --- 당시 어려웠던 북한의 상황을 표현한 말.

 ----> 한국의 상황도 비슷하다. 올해보다 내년이, 내년보다 내후년이 점점 어려워지게 될 것이다.

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

경향신문에 보도된 1980년 당시 대규모 간첩단 남파 기사.

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