문재인의 나라는 ‘자유’가 사라진 인민민주주의 나라” (김용삼)

https://youtu.be/723ijvDBrQE

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

경찰이고 군인이고 모두 생계형 관료들일 뿐이다. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20대가 등돌린 까닭이 반공교육 탓이란 엉터리 구라

이념교육의 핵심은 전체주의 체제의 흉악성과 자유민주 체제의 고매한 가치와 생활양식의 우월성을 피교육자들이게 내면화 시키는 것이다. 파시즘 나치즘과 함께 볼셰비즘의 1당 독재가 얼마나 무섭고 고통스러우며 황폐한 것인가를 가르쳐야 한다. 이게 어쨌다는 것인가?

이명박 박근혜 정부가 이런 교육을 얼마나 잘 시켰는지는 알 바 없으나, 잘 시켰다고 가정할 경우 그걸 탓한다는 것은 그렇다면 아이들에게 전체주의의 위협에 대한 자유민주주의의 방어적 이념교육을 하는 것이 옳지 않다는 것인가? 그렇게 말하는 사람들은 그러면 반(反)전체주의 교육 대신 무슨 교육을 시켜야 한다고 생각하는가?

20대가 문재인 정부에 등을 돌리는 까닭은 ‘반공의식’의 발로라기보다는, 운동권 정권에의 실정(失政)에 대한 환멸이다. 이들은 우선 586 꼰대 기득권 세력에 염증을 느끼고 있다. 586 기득권 세력은 한국경제의 상승기의 과실이란 과실은 모조리 따먹고 자란 행운의 세대다. (발췌)

류근일 2019/2/24

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

파탄의 시작?

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

--------------------------------------------------------
저는 무소불위의 검찰과 마주 서야 하고, 제가 가지고 있는 무기는 없다. 영리하고 사명감에 불타는 검사들이 법원을 샅샅이 뒤지는데 거의 20여만 페이지에 달하는 정보와 서류가 저를 장벽처럼 가로막고 있다. 책 몇 권 두기도 어려운 좁은 공간'에서는 사건 기록을 제대로 검토할 수 없다.  --- 양승태

--->20만 페이지의 거짓의 산으로 전 대법원장을 압사시키는 전략
-------------------------------------------

세월* 침몰 때 선내 방송에서 '가만히 있으라, 가만히 있으라'고 했다 한다.

아이들을 비롯 많은 승객들이 그 말을 듣고 구명조끼를 입고 

구조를 기다리며 가만히 있다가 참변을 당했다. 

시간이 없었던 것이 아니었다. 선원들의 오판때문이었다. 

반대로 말했더라면 생존자가 더 늘어났을 것이다. 

대한민국이 지금 그런 상황이다. 

대한민국호가 뒤집어졌다.

이미 태극기애국민들은 처음부터 직감했고 

거기로부터 나와서 구조에 힘쓰고 있다.

많은 이들이 기분 나쁜 무엇인가를 감지하고 있지만

가만히 있다. 자신들의 운명을 누군가에게 맡긴 채.

그런가 하면 여기저기서 죽음이 코앞에 왔음을 느끼고 나오려 하고 있다. 

의사들, 택시운전사들, 소상공인들, 유치원사람들, 공주보사람들, 

탈원전반대사람들, 여성단체....

만인에 의한 만인의 투쟁의 시대가 되었다. 

품격? 지금은 투쟁이 품격이다. 투쟁하지 않는 자 짓밟힐 뿐이다.

가만히 있으면 짓밟히다가 다 죽는다. 살고자 하는 자 다 나와야 한다. 

저 미쳐 광란하는 리바이어던에 맞서 싸워야 한다. 그것이 유일한 생존의 길이다. 

세월*의 참극의 데쟈뷰가 되지 않으려면 나오라. 모두 연대하여 싸우라. 태극기가 선봉에 설 것이다.

그것만이 자신을, 가족을, 잡과 일터를, 나라를 살리는 길이다.  

또한 그것만이 자유정신의 국민이 되는 길이고 자유를 쟁취하는 길이다. 

[출처] 국민아, 가만히 있으면 세월* 데쟈뷰돼!!! 나와!!! 살고 싶어? 그러면 나오라구!!!

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

자유세계는 한국을 북한에 잃을 수도 있다. 한국의 문죄인이 북한의 조건에 따라 두 나라를 통합는데 도우미 역할을 하고 있다.

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

제재를 풀고 김정은과의 사적인 관계에 의존하는 것은 실수이다. 독재자들은 우의를 배신한다.

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

1930년대의 일본과 지금의 중국이 닮은꼴이라는 

사실에 주목해야 한다,

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

중국인에서 직업을 유지하려면 학습강국(學習强國)을 배우고 점수를 따야만 유지될 수 있다.

Some reflections on How the Red Sun Rose

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

시진핑은 트럼프가 요구하는 구조적 개혁에 응하지 않을 것이다.

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

大山侃大山：北京人讲不了广东话

https://youtu.be/tK51dlpqpSE

따샨이라는 중국 거주 20년 경력의 외국인이 중국인을 상대로 스탠딩 코미디를 하고 있다. 

광동화를 설명하는데, 광동화의 발음이 중국 고대의 발음을 따라하고 있으며, 우리의 한자 발음과 상당히 유사하다는 사실을 알게 된다.

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

중국 달(月) 나방의 변태 과정. 아름답다.
https://twitter.com/dodo/status/1094762944540360704

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
놀랍도록 영리한 문어

Steve Stewart-Williams‏ 

Your regular friendly reminder that octopus are really cool They're ridiculously smart They may have been the first intelligent animal on Earth They can see with their skin as well as their eyes Most of their neurons are in their arms, which are partially autonomous

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098877755154882563
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is capitalism that ended the stranglehold of the hereditary aristocracies, raised the standard of living for most of the world and enabled the emancipation of women.” - Camille Paglia

세습 귀족제를 끝내고, 세계 대부분의 생활 수준을 높이고, 또 여성 해방을 가능하게 한 것은 자본주의였다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

지성의 거인, 미제스

미제스는 아담 스미스, 데이빗 흄, 튀르고, 토크빌, 액튼 경, 멩거, 파레토 등과 비견되는 사상가이지만, 그의 이름을 아는 사람은 드물다.

기독교는 2천년 동안 노예제를 승인하고 이단을 불태웠지만, 자본주의는 단지 몇 백년 만에 노예를 해방하고, 여성에게 남성과 동일한 권력을 주었고, 법 앞의 평등과 사상의 자유를 선언했고, 고문을 폐지했으며, 잔인한 처벌을 완화했다.

 

Ludwig von Mises: An Appreciation

 

Ralph Raico

[This article appears online for the first time and is reprinted from The Alternative: An American Spectator (February 1975), where it appeared under the title "Ludwig von Mises."]

 

It is said that a number of years ago, when Bill Buckley was at the beginning of his career of college-speaking, he once wrote two names on the blackboard and thereby nicely dramatized the point that students in his audience were being presented with only one side of the great world-forming debate between capitalism and socialism. The name of the defender of democratic socialism (I think it was Harold Laski, possibly John Dewey) was recognized by most of those present. The name of Ludwig von Mises was entirely unknown to them. Needless to say, the situation has not basically improved since then (unless perhaps in the sense that most college students would now recognize the name of William F. Buckley, Jr.). How has it been possible that the great majority of economics and social science students, even at elite American universities, are completely unfamiliar with Mises? Even the New York Times, in its notice at the time of his death in October 1973, termed Mises "one of the foremost economists of this century," and Milton Friedman, though from a completely different tradition of economic thought, has called him "one of the great economists of all time."

 

But Mises was even more than a great economist. Throughout the world, among knowledgeable people—in German-speaking Europe, in France, in Britain, in Latin America, in our own country—Mises was famous as the great twentieth century champion of a school of thought which could be said to have a certain historical importance and a certain intellectual respectability: the one that began with Adam Smith, David Hume, and Turgot, and included Humboldt, Bentham, Benjamin Constant, Tocqueville, Acton, Carl Menger, Pareto, and many others. Offhand, one would have thought that this acknowledged position alone would have entitled Mises to being presented within the "pluralistic" setting of left-liberal Academe.

 

And then there were Mises' scientific achievements, which were extraordinary. For example, it is conceded on all sides that in the whole discussion revolving around the viability of a system of central economic planning, Mises played the key role. Quite possibly the great intellectual scandal (still unadmitted) of the past century has been that the vast international Marxian movement, including thousands upon thousands of professional thinkers in all fields, was for generations content to discuss the whole issue of capitalism vs. socialism solely in terms of the alleged defects of capitalism. The question of how, and how well, a socialist economy would function, was avoided as taboo. It was Mises' accomplishment—and a sign of his superb independence of mind—to have brushed aside this pious "one-just-doesn't-speak-of-such-things," and to have presented comprehensively and arrestingly the problems inherent in attempting rational economic calculation in a situation where no market exists for production goods. Anyone familiar with the structural problems with which the more advanced Communist countries are continually faced and with the debate over ''market socialism,'' will perceive the significance of Mises' work in this field alone.

 

How then can we account for the fact that those who managed to take a Laski and a Thorstein Veblen—or even a Walter Lippmann and a Kenneth Galbraith—seriously as important social philosophers somehow could never bring themselves to familiarize their students with Mises or to show him the marks of public recognition and respect that were his due (he was, for example, never president of the American Economic Association)? At least part of the answer, I think, lies in what Jacques Rueff, in a warm tribute, called Mises' "intransigence." Mises was a complete doctrinaire and a relentless and implacable fighter for his doctrine. For over sixty years he was at war with the spirit of his age, and with every one of the advancing, victorious, or merely modish political schools, left and right. The totality and enduring intensity of his battle could only be fueled from a profound inner sense of the truth and supreme value of the ideas for which he was struggling. This (as well as his temperament, one supposes) helped produce a definite "arrogance" in his tone (or "apodictic" quality, as some of us in the Mises seminar fondly called it, using one of his own favorite words), which was the last thing academic left-liberals and social democrats could accept in a defender of a view they considered only marginally worthy of toleration to begin with. (This would largely account, I think, for the somewhat greater recognition that has been accorded Friedrich Hayek, even before his greatly deserved Nobel Prize. Hayek is temperamentally much more moderate in expression than Mises ever was, preferring, for instance, to avoid the old slogan of "laissez faire." And it is hard to imagine Mises making such a gesture as Hayek did in dedicating The Road to Serfdom "to socialists of all parties.")

 

But the lack of recognition seems to have influenced or deflected Mises not in the least. Instead, he continued his work, decade after decade: accumulating contributions to economic theory; developing the theoretical structure of the Austrian School (which one may read about in Murray Rothbard's very lucid and intelligent little book, The Essential Von Mises); and, from his understanding of the laws of economic activity, elaborating, correcting, and bringing up to date the great social philosophy of classical liberalism.

 

Now, within the classical liberal tradition, distinctions may be drawn. One very important one is between what may be termed "conservative" and "radical" liberals. Mises belonged to the second category, and on this basis may be contrasted to writers, for instance, such as Macaulay, Tocqueville, and Ortega y Gasset. There was very little of the Whig about Mises. The vaunted virtues of aristocracies; the alleged need for a religious basis for "social cohesion"; the reverence for tradition (it was somehow always authoritarian traditions that were to be reverenced, and never the traditions of free thought and rebellion); the fear of the emerging "mass-man," who was spoiling things for his intellectual and social betters; the whole cultural critique that later provided a substantial foothold for the attack on the consumer society—these found no place in Mises' thinking. To take an example, Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, at one point cries out: "Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry interests—in a word, so anti-poetic—as the life of a man in the United States." Whether or not this judgment is true, Mises would never have bothered to make it. As a utilitarian liberal, he had more respect for the standards by which ordinary people judge the quality of their own lives. It is highly doubtful that Mises felt any of the qualms of liberals like Tocqueville at the Americanization of the world. (In fact, their attitude towards America would be a good rough criterion for categorizing a classical liberal as "radical" or "conservative.") Mises, then, was radical liberal, in the line of the Philosophical Radicals and the men of Manchester.

 

All the elements of radical liberalism are there: first of all, and most basic, his uncompromising rationalism, reiterated gain and again. (Symptomatic of Mises' avoidance of everything he would consider mystical and obscurantist in social thought is the fact that, to my knowledge, he never in all his published writings once mentions Edmund Burke except in the context of someone who, in alliance with writers like de Maistre, was ultimately a philosophical opponent of the developing liberal world.) There is his utilitarianism, taking the end of politics to be not "the good," but human welfare, as men and women individually define it for themselves. There is his championing of peace, which in the tradition of those nineteenth century liberals most closely identified with the doctrine of complete laissez faire—Richard Cobden, John Bright, Frédéric Bastiat, and Herbert Spencer—he bases on the economic substructure of free trade. And, more surprising, there is in Mises a basically democratic concern and, in an important sense, an egalitarianism, such that this requires special comment.

 

Mises' fundamentally democratic and egalitarian outlook is not, of course, to be understood in terms of belief in some innate equality of talents or in equality of income (about both of which so much nonsense is now being written and, more often, spoken). When Mises discusses the great question of the equality of human beings in society, he does not have in mind a future fantasy utopia, where each will absolutely count for one and none for more than one, but rather the empirical conditions under which human beings have hitherto found themselves in various societies. What have actually been the conditions of class, status, degree, and privilege in the history of mankind, and what difference does capitalism make? The history of pre-capitalist societies is one of slavery, serfdom and caste- and class-privileges in the most degrading forms. It is history made by slave-owners, warrior-nobles and eunuch-makers, by kings, their mistresses, and courtiers, by priests and other Mandarin-intellectuals—by parasites and oppressors of all descriptions. Capitalism shifts the whole center of gravity of society ("The World Turned Upside Down," as Lord Cornwallis' troops played at Yorktown). In the hackneyed but true and sociologically enormously important statement: every dollar, whether in the possession of someone totally lacking in the social graces, of someone of "mean birth," of a Jew, of a black, of someone no one ever even heard of, is the equal of every other dollar, and commands products and services on the market which talented people must structure their lives to provide. As Marx and Engels observed the market breaks down every Chinese Wall and levels the world of status and traditional privilege that the West inherited from the Middle Ages. It is the battering-ram of the great democratic revolution of modern times. (This is what is behind the continuing American Revolution that Revel talks about in his Neither Marx Nor Jesus, although he appears to be too superficial to be able to identify it.) Mises maintained that the pseudo-revolution which socialism would bring about would be much more likely to lead to the re-emergence of the society of status and the redegradation of the masses to the position of pawns, to be planned for by an elite which would assign itself the title role in the heroic melodrama, Man Consciously Makes His Own History.

 

As for as the caliber and quality of Mises' thinking goes, my own view is that he is able to penetrate to the heart of important questions, where other writers typically exhaust their capacities on peripheral points. Some of my favorite examples are his discussions of ''worker control" (which promises to become the preferred social system of the Left in many Western countries), and of Marxist social philosophy (which Mises deals with in a number of his books, most extensively and trenchantly in Theory and History, pp. 102–158). As an illustration of the power of Mises' thought, however, an example of greater interest to conservatives might be his clarification of the relationship of Christianity to capitalism and socialism.

 

That there is an intimate relationship between commitment to a free society and faith in Christianity is a view commonly found among American conservatives, and one that is usually argued for in the vaguest and most general terms. The thinking embodied in writings along these lines could, it seems to me, be tightened up immeasurably by a reading of the brief section in Mises' Socialism dealing with "Christianity and Socialism." For although the social philosophy implied in the Gospels is "not socialistic and not communistic,'' Mises asserts that the Gospels are of no help to the free society either being "indifferent to all social questions on the one hand, full of resentment against all property and all owners on the other.''

 

It was Christianity's very lack of close involvement with any particular social system that was in part responsible for its phenomenal success: ''Being neutral to any social system, it was able to traverse the centuries without being destroyed by the tremendous social revolutions which took place. Only for this reason could it become the religion of the Roman Emperors and Anglo-Saxon entrepreneurs, of African Negroes and European Teutons; medieval feudal lords and modern industrial laborers. Each epoch and every party has been able to take from it what they wanted, because it contains nothing which binds it to a definite social order." Interestingly, this is the same conclusion which Tocqueville finally reaches in his preface to The Old Regime and the Revolution, where he despairs of Christianity's being of any particular value for the free society, because "the patrimony of the Christian faith is not of this world."

 

Christianity, moreover, could sometimes be harmful to the free society. Mises, who had witnessed the rise to prominence of a ''Christian social thought'' and Christian social movements that tried to distance themselves equally from socialism and from horrid laissez faire, underscored the continued warfare of the churches against liberal institutions in terms which some may find surprising: "It is the resistance which the Church has offered to the spread of liberal ideas which has prepared the soil for the destructive resentment of modern socialist thought. ... It is not as if the resistance of the Church to liberal ideas was harmless. ... In the last decades we have witnessed with horror its terrible transformation into an enemy of society. For the Church, Catholic as well as Protestant, is not the least of the factors responsible for the prevalence of the destructive ideals in the world today. ... "

 

Finally, Mises contrasts the ethical achievements of Christianity over two thousand years with what capitalism has accomplished in a couple of centuries: ''Compare the results achieved by these 'shopkeeper ethics' with the achievements of Christianity! Christianity has acquiesced in slavery and polygamy, has practically canonized war, has, in the name of the Lord, burnt heretics and devastated countries. The much abused 'shopkeepers' have abolished slavery and serfdom, made woman the companion of man with equal rights, proclaimed equality before the law and the freedom of thought and opinion, declared war on war, abolished torture, and mitigated the cruelty of punishment. What cultural force can boast of similar achievements?"

 

What emerges from these pages is by no means a free-thinking attack on Christianity per se: Mises, perfectly content with his own personal rationalist and scientific world-view, looking on all forms of "fanaticism" with an almost French irony and skeptical detachment, could not be less interested in any individual's profession or religious faith. But, as a historical and sociological matter, the notion that Christianity is particularly useful to proponents of a free society (in reason, of course, and not as a propagandist's trick), and the naive Sunday preacher's idea that it is synonymous in actual practice with all elevated ethics, are rendered completely untenable.

 

We appear to be entering an age of increasing "social" concern on the part of the Christian churches: as an example, after centuries of (at best) utter indifference to mercantilist-created poverty, to imperialism, overpopulation, and other causes of world wars, Roman Catholic bishops meeting at a synod in Rome have expressed their deep concern over "structural" injustices in the international economy, including multi-national corporations and the world monetary system. While some Christian theologians engage in "dialogues" with Marxist theoreticians, others are desperately anxious to prove the relevance of their creed to current problems through all sorts of activism and "witnessing." Perhaps most significantly, in the spring of 1973, a Vatican publication expressed its profound admiration of the society that is being built in China, and noted the similarity of many of its values and aspirations to those of Christianity and the social teachings of the popes. In particular it praised that filthy anthill for its "devotion to the mystique of disinterested work for others, to inspiration by justice, to exaltation of simple and frugal life[!], to rehabilitation of the rural masses, and to a mixing of social classes." Thus, we may be seeing before our very eyes the accommodation of organized Christianity to the next social system, the emerging world state-socialist order. In any case, over forty years ago Mises provided us with a perspective on the situation: Christianity existed for many centuries before capitalism; it may well outlive it. And not only is there no reason to assume any intrinsic connection between the two, but the Christian churches in many ways prepared the ground for the twentieth century's almost unanimous intellectual condemnation of the capitalist system.

 

No appreciation of Mises would be complete without saying something, however inadequate, about the man and the individual. Mises' immense scholarship, bringing to mind other German-speaking scholars, like Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter, who seemed to work on the principle that someday all encyclopedias might very well just vanish; the Cartesian clarity of his presentations in class (it takes a master to present a complex subject simply); his respect for the life of reason, evident in every gesture and glance; his courtesy and kindliness and understanding, even to beginners; his real wit, of the sort proverbially bred in the great cities, akin to that of Berliners, of Parisians and New Yorkers, only Viennese and softer—let me just say that to have, at an early point, come to know the great Mises tends to create in one's mind life-long standards of what an ideal intellectual should be. These are standards to which other scholars whom one encounters will almost never be equal, and judged by which the ordinary run of university professor—at Chicago, Princeton, or Harvard—is simply a joke (but it would be unfair to judge them by such a measure; here we are talking about two entirely different sorts of human beings).

 

Finally, for the serious reader of politics and social philosophy who has never studied Mises my advice would be to make the omission good as soon as possible: it will save a lot of otherwise wasted effort on the road to truth in these matters. The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth or Bureaucracy would be a good place to start; or, for those with a special interest in twentieth century history, Omnipotent Government; or his Socialism, which remains for me the finest book I have ever read in the social sciences. Considering the absolutely critical place America has in Western civilization today, it would truly be a tragedy if a few establishment professors succeeded in keeping intelligent young Americans from acqainting themselves with the rich heritage of ideas left us by Ludwig von Mises.

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

이론 없이는 역사를 서술할 수 없다. 

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

역사의 모든 명제들은 사회학의 정리들을 포함한다. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
수기릉심水气凌心과  수한 사폐水寒射肺

水气凌心水寒射肺咳嗽哮喘胸闷      

 水气凌心，导致胸闷短气、心悸等心脏症状；水寒射肺，导致咳嗽、哮喘。这两个病，都是心阳虚造成的，可以单独犯病，也可以同时犯。        

心阳虚，导致水的寒气失去震慑，向上冲逆，影响到心的功能就是水气凌心，影响到肺的功能就是水寒射肺。      1、2016 12 29  郭某  女  55岁   心口难受3个月，犯病时忽然咽喉憋住，心口难受、憋闷，咽干，平时容易吓一跳，舌淡红苔干，双脉沉。           辩证为心阳虚，处方桂枝甘草汤加生龙牡：桂枝30 炙甘草20 生龙牡各30。4剂后，病就好了。       

2、2017 7 3  李某  女  44  憋气一个月，犯病时忽然觉得憋气，一股气就往上冲，忍不住得连续咳嗽，对冷敏感，在空调屋容易犯，在我面前也忍不住连声咳嗽，舌淡红苔干。         我告诉她，这个咳嗽是心阳虚造成的，她说：“我心脏没有问题，……”。看她不是很信，我先给她针灸。针完后等了一会，她就一声也不咳了。她觉奇怪：针灸这么管事吗？她老公在边上看着，也称奇。我告诉她，我就是给她针的心脏（穴位）。         处方茯苓甘草汤：茯苓45  桂枝45 炙甘草30  生姜6片 大枣6枚。3天以后，病人乐呵呵地来复诊，病基本好了，要求再巩固一下。        

3、2017 5 22  乔某  女  三十多岁，干咳半年，从冬天开始就一直干咳，咳嗽前会有一股气忽然往上顶，马上觉得胸闷短气，忍不住就连声干咳，纳呆，想吃凉的，舌暗红苔干。         辩证心阳虚水气凌心射肺，处方桂枝甘草龙骨牡蛎汤：桂枝18 甘草12 生龙牡各18。3剂后复诊：没效。         怎么没效呢？再仔细辩，辩证应该没错啊，怎么没效？再想，水气凌心射肺，不但要提振心阳，还要利水，加上一味茯苓试试：桂枝24  炙甘草12  茯苓30 生龙牡各30。4剂药，吃了一剂咳嗽好了大半，尽剂后就全好了。        

4 、 2017 7 1  李某某，女，38岁，哮喘一个多月，着急或劳累后胸闷气短，连续说话短气，经医院检查说是哮喘，舌淡红苔腻干 双脉沉。        按心阳虚针灸，患者当即觉得很舒服，然后处方茯苓甘草汤：茯苓30 桂枝30 炙甘草20 生姜6片 大枣6枚。4剂后，笑眯眯得来复诊：药后基本没犯，  一次着急后又觉得不舒服。再处方桂枝甘草汤加茯苓。         

5、 2017 6 12  韩某某，男，4岁半，一阵咳嗽一个多月，白天晚上都咳，要不就不咳，要咳就咳一阵，流清鼻涕，咳吐清痰，舌淡红水。          这种咳嗽，西医叫咳嗽变异性哮喘。处方小青龙汤，服后咳嗽好了很多，加减吃了两周，到6月26日，基本不咳嗽了，但偶尔还会猛咳几声。换方苓桂术甘汤，吃了三剂就完全好了。        用小青龙汤治这类咳嗽效果很好，也有这种开始效果很好，但久治难去根的情况，这时用苓桂术甘汤就可以很好的收工。        

6 、2017 6 27  金某某，女 ，7岁 ，一跑就剧烈咳嗽，平时一声不咳，舌淡红水，脉弦。         水寒射肺，处方苓桂术甘汤：桂枝9 白术9  茯苓12 炙甘草6。服完一剂，咳嗽就大大减轻了。        

7、2017 7  4  刘某某 ，女，39岁，空腹心下胀，前期按心下痞半夏泻心汤治疗无效。心下胀至咽喉，胆小容易害怕，舌淡红，双脉沉。         处方桂枝甘草汤加茯苓，一剂胀减，四剂后就明显减轻了。           

思考：         

一、 水气凌心会出现很多心脏的症状，病人有可能患有西医概念的心脏病，但绝大部分没有心脏病（所有检查都正常），只是心脏功能一时失常——这个一时，可能是一个月，也可能是几年。        

二、心阳虚导致水气凌心、水寒射肺，心阳虚是怎么造成的？大部分是外感造成的，治好了就好了，不会留任何后遗症，但是如果不治，时间长了会不会导致真正的心脏病呢？比如变异型心绞痛？（变异型心绞痛，心本身可以没有问题，而是心脏的神经调节功能失常）       

三、水气凌心，不一定是真有水凌心，而是水的寒气凌心，比如靠近冰水，不碰水就觉得凉。也可以是水凌心，比如心衰后肺高压导致哮喘，吐出很多清稀的痰液，可以认为是水凌心。     

四、同上：水寒射肺，可以是水的寒气射肺，也可以是水射肺，前者水的寒气射肺表现为干咳，比如上面几个例子；后者水射肺表现为咳吐稀痰，比如小青龙汤证是心下有水气，是真有水在射肺。

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