<문재인 퇴진 범국민투쟁본부>가 오늘 오후 4시 청와대 앞 분수대에서 출범했습니다. 조국을 법무부 장관으로 임명 강행한 문재인을 끌어내리기 위한 투쟁본부입니다. 한국기독교총연합회장 전광훈 목사가 대표입니다. 제가 소속된 <조국사퇴 국민행동>도 함께 합니다.
청와대 앞 분수대에서 매일 오전 11시, 오후 4시 두 차례 기자회견을 가집니다. 매주 토요일 오후 2시에는 청와대 앞 분수대에서 <문재인 퇴진투쟁대회>를 엽니다. 국민 여러분의 많은 참여 바랍니다.
-----------------------------------------
<김정은에게 충성을 맹세한 '남한의 인물 명단'> 문건과 관련하여 '주의' 요망!
김필재
요사이 국내 인터넷과 SNS 등에서 <2014년 6월15일에 김정은에게 바친 충성맹세문과 맹세자 명단 공개>라는 제목으로 급속하게 확산되고 있는 문건이 있다. 이와 관련하여 네티즌들이 ‘각별히 주의를 해야 한다’는 취지로 아래 글을 남긴다. <주>
문제가 되고 있는 기사의 출처는 일본의 저널리스트이자 전직 공산당원인 시노하라 조이치로(篠原常一郎)가 일본 잡지 '하나다(Hanada)' 2019년 10월호에 기고한 글(상단 사진)이다.
일본과 미국 언론의 보도를 적지 않게 다루는 필자에게도 문제의 기사와 관련하여 최근 다수 독자들의 제보가 있었으나, 출처가 불분명한 관계로 기사를 소개하지 않았다.
기사의 내용을 살펴보면 아주 그럴듯하다. 구체적인 내용을 소개하면 김정은에게 충성을 맹세한 남한 내 친북(親北) 활동가 40여 명의 명단과 함께 단체명(團體名)이 등장한다. 아울러 이들과 함께 '5만 명의 남조선 혁명 전사들'이 北에 충성 맹세를 하는 것으로 되어 있다.
출처를 알 수 없는 문제의 문건을 보도한 것은 일본 언론이 처음은 아니다. 2017년 6월14일
국내 A인터넷 언론사가 <40여개 종북단체, 김정은에 6.15충성맹세> 라는 제목으로 동일한 내용의 기사를 게재했다. (발췌)
국내 A인터넷 언론사가 <40여개 종북단체, 김정은에 6.15충성맹세> 라는 제목으로 동일한 내용의 기사를 게재했다. (발췌)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
황교안
“사생결단, 끝장내겠습니다”
대한민국 대통령은 없었습니다.
대한민국 공공의 적, 조국을 법무부장관으로 임명했습니다.
대한민국 정의와 공정을 무참히 짓밟았습니다.
대한민국 법치는 죽었습니다.
국민의 마지막 경고를 무시했습니다.
문재인 대통령이 국민을 기만했습니다.
문재인 대통령이 대한민국을 배신했습니다.
이제 무엇을 해야 합니까!
오직 심판만이 답입니다!
문재인 정권, 국민의 심판대에 세워야 합니다!
국민의 힘으로 심판해야 합니다
저 황교안,
이 땅의 정의를 위해, 공정을 위해, 법치를 위해,
공공의 적과 사생결단 싸우겠습니다!
국민을 위해, 대한민국을 위해,
제 모든 것을 던지고 싸우겠습니다!
끝장을 내려 합니다.
끝장내겠습니다.
문재인 정권, 완전히 끝장내겠습니다!
비상시국입니다.
지금, 함께 뭉칩시다!
우리 함께, 나라를 구합시다!
대한민국 대통령은 없었습니다.
대한민국 공공의 적, 조국을 법무부장관으로 임명했습니다.
대한민국 정의와 공정을 무참히 짓밟았습니다.
대한민국 법치는 죽었습니다.
국민의 마지막 경고를 무시했습니다.
문재인 대통령이 국민을 기만했습니다.
문재인 대통령이 대한민국을 배신했습니다.
이제 무엇을 해야 합니까!
오직 심판만이 답입니다!
문재인 정권, 국민의 심판대에 세워야 합니다!
국민의 힘으로 심판해야 합니다
저 황교안,
이 땅의 정의를 위해, 공정을 위해, 법치를 위해,
공공의 적과 사생결단 싸우겠습니다!
국민을 위해, 대한민국을 위해,
제 모든 것을 던지고 싸우겠습니다!
끝장을 내려 합니다.
끝장내겠습니다.
문재인 정권, 완전히 끝장내겠습니다!
비상시국입니다.
지금, 함께 뭉칩시다!
우리 함께, 나라를 구합시다!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"조국 임명, 국민 개돼지로 본 것"
이언주 의원 삭발
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China has lost this generation in #HongKong, and it's not going to get it back, even if it rolls every tank and armored personnel carrier it has into the territory.
중국은 홍콩의 젊은 세대를 잃었다. 탱크와 장갑차로 홍콩을
정복하더라도, 그들의 마음을 되돌릴 수는 없다.
Tom Grundy
---------Secondary school students across #HongKong
formed human chains on Monday morning to
support the pro-democracy protests, which have
entered their 14th week.
--------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China's "Confucius revolution" is stalling as campuses around the world close Beijing-funded institutes: https://bbc.in/2kD9Fkj . @pratikjakhar It's about time free societies started removing these outposts of totalitarianism.
중국의 공자학원은 전체주의의 전초기지이다. 공자학원을 문
닫게 해야 할 때이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mazanec’s liturgical nightmare
Here's what I show undergrads when I teach "Guanju," summarizing how MSS evidence strongly suggests that the binom 窈窕 actually is more sensual. I modify James Legge's translation to make it a bit more... leggy.
시경의 <관저> 시에서 "요조"의 의미가 상당히 성적인 의미를
지녔다는 증거들이 발견되었다고 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
리얼미터와 갤럽의 상관계수는 0.4~0.5 정도였는데, 이는 40~50% 정도의 왜곡이 있다고 말할 수 있는 것이다.
10일 본지는 자유한국당 김종석 의원실이 문재인 정부 출범 이후, 중앙선거관리위원회에 보고된 리얼미터와 갤럽의 '여론조사 대표성 분석 결과' 자료를 단독 입수했다. 두 여론조사 기관이 발표한 여론조사 전체를 대상으로 '여당 지지율'과 '응답률' 간 상관관계를 분석한 것은 이번이 처음이다. (출처 뉴데일리, 발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Fake!
St Augustine was a Med. He looked no different
from any Sicilian or Maltese.
Africa meant "Southern (West) Med".
가짜다!
아우구스티누스는 지중해 인이었다. 그는 시실리인이나 몰타
인과 같이 생겼다. 아프리카는
남(또는 서) 지중해를 뜻한다.
James Martin, SJ
Happy Feast of St. Augustine: "You have made us for
yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests
in you." ("Confessions"). Image: St. Augustine by John
Nava. Corpus Christi Church in Toledo, Ohio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liv
You, loser, idiot: jerk off to naked women
Wittgenstein, cool as hell, 200 iq brain genius: jerk off to numbers
비트겐스타인의 비밀 일기에 따르면, 그는 1차대전 때, 전선에
서 자위를 하며 수학문제를 생각했다고 한다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: "So what do you study?"
Interesting-seeming person: "ancient Greek poetry"
Me: "Oh, cool. Anything in particular?"
Them: "Yeah, I'm focusing on the role of sexuality and gender in Homer"
Every. Damn. Time
호머 작품의 젠더 연구라? 좌파들이 문학까지도 다 망쳐놓았
다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times just deleted this tweet and offered the following statement:
"We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context."
Apparently, The Times didn't realize that killing 65 million people was a big deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Chen
Hong Kong's liberal studies high school curriculum was first introduced by the British as an elective but is now mandatory.
Beijing’s biggest nightmare is producing engaged citizens who can think critically & freely.
China indoctrinates; HK educates.
북경 당국의 최대의 악몽은 홍콩에 자유롭고 비판적으로 사고
하는 시민들이 자라나고 있다는 점이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
다윈의 진화론 포기는 왜 잘못인가?
David Gelernter is Wrong About Ditching Darwin
So when well-known Yale professor and computer scientist David Gelernter rejected Darwinian evolution in his recent essay, ‘Giving Up Darwin,’ we can’t dismiss him simply because he’s not a biologist. Nor can we ignore his arguments because the piece appeared in a conservative journal, the Claremont Review of Books. No, we must attack his arguments head on, especially because they’ve been widely parroted by the media, as well as by conservative, religious, and intelligent-design (ID) websites.
Sadly, his arguments are neither new nor correct. Gelernter’s claim—that evolution as envisioned by Darwin (and expanded into “neo-Darwinism” since the 1930s) cannot explain features of organisms and of the fossil record—depends heavily on the arguments of ID creationists. And every one of those arguments has been soundly rebutted over the past few decades. While Gelernter doesn’t fully embrace all the tenets of ID, like the existence of an Intelligent Designer, he’s bought into virtually all its criticisms of Darwinism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
국가라는 것
정당 조직과 선거 등은 우리가 마틴 크레벨드가 말한 사적 국가라는 조건에 살고 있다고 믿게 하고 있다.
사적인 국가란 고대 국가의 형태로, 국가가 소유하는 모든 자원을 왕이나 통치가 개인이 소유하는 것이다.
사적 국가에서 국가의 복지는 한 개인(들)에 의존한다. 만일 그들 개인이 잘못 한다면, 그들을 낙선시키고 새로운 사람을 뽑으면 된다.
하지만 산업 국가에서는 사적 국가가 역사에서 사라진지 오래이다. 17세기에 이미 공적인 국가가 나타났다. 통치자는 관리자일 뿐이고, 그가 죽어도 아무 것도 변하지 않는다.
국가는 언제나 어디에서나 전체 인구의 소수로 구성되어 있다.
Learning About the State
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
[Originally published September 2008.]
What we've seen in the last week is the state at work — and by the state, I do not mean a particular set of leaders. If we watch carefully, we can gain insight into what the state is and why our fundamental problem extends far above and below the political party system.
The moment is complicated by the upcoming election, so some people are distracted by the circus of McCain vs. Obama and all the characters associated with that silly little battle. What they are looking at is really the veneer. It is a covering designed to prevent you from seeing what the state is and why it matters.
The party system and the elections lead us to believe that we live under conditions that Martin Van Creveld calls the personal state. (I'm relying here on his important book The Rise and Decline of the State.) This is the ancient form of the state under which all the resources the state owns are the personal property of the king or ruler. The ruler is the state. If he dies, the state dies with him.
It is very much in the interest of democracy to perpetuate this idea that we are living in a personal state. This way all credit for the well-being of the nation falls to one person or persons. They are elected. If things go badly, people are encouraged to blame these elected officials and vote them out of office. New people are given a new chance to do better.
But the truth is that the personal state is long gone from history in the developed world. In the 17th century, we begin to see the emergence of the impersonal state. Under this approach, the ruler does not use his own resources. He is a manager. If he dies, nothing changes. The state itself takes on a permanent form. It is not elected. It is hired and lives on regardless of the changes at the top.
The United States has never hosted a personal state. The president was always to be the manager and overseer of a tiny state that ruled with the permission of the people and the lower orders of government: the people and government are one, and this would serve as a check on power. Of course this was a mistake, a reflection of the naïveté of the classical-liberal position.
In time, the United States took on all the features of an impersonal nation-state. It developed a permanent bureaucracy, especially after the tragic end of the "spoils system." It developed a money machine and monopolized and created its own currency. It began to host its own unelected military that was a "professional" fighting force and not a citizen militia. It became home to a million hangers-on who made the state their careers and their source of economic security.
Today, the state embodies all the worst features of the unaccountable, impersonal leviathan that had been the goal of every bad-guy political dreamer in world history. We can see this in operation during the financial meltdown. The people making the decisions and conducting policy were not elected by anyone. They report to no one. They are the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Fed, and each represents certain private-sector interests among the financial elite. They conduct their policies based on their private assessment of what is good for those they represent, and they do it in cooperation with the permanently entrenched bureaucracy and financial managers who rule the country.
Only after the plans were in place and announced did the impersonal state approach the personal part of the state for codification and confirmation, which the personal state was glad to grant with conditions. We can also see this at work in the political parties. McCain and Obama were quick to endorse the entire bailout [following the 2008 financial crisis] on the grounds that it is a national emergency, so, of course, they must set aside their partisan differences.
They always set aside their partisan differences! This is the way the impersonal state works. It is not the people we elect who are in charge. They are only the human face on the machine. If they don't know this before the election, they quickly discover it after the election. They find themselves on a conveyor belt of tasks and photo-ops and duties. These consume them completely. They are in awe of the operation of the state and feel immediately powerless to do anything about it.
The same goes for those whom the new president hires to run his cabinet departments. So far as the permanent bureaucracy is concerned, they don't even need to know the name of the new secretary, except to make up silly jingles and use his or her name in jokes. The new hires might start silly new programs or make perfunctory changes, but the permanent class that runs the department knows that it only needs — if it disagrees — to wait out their tenure until things get back to normal. They know that they are the gears of the engine and that the supposed driver is just the temporary front man.
In this sense, who wins or who doesn't win the election doesn't matter nearly as much as we are led to believe. It's true that Bush started a war when he didn't have to. Someone else might have done better. It is also true that Obama could fire up a range of new regulations and programs and that McCain could start ever more wars.
It is also true that even without a sitting president and without a Congress, the state would function pretty much as it does today. That's a frightening-but-true statement.
And yet there is no reason to despair. In some ways, impersonal states are just as vulnerable as personal ones, sometimes even more so, since they rule without ideological conviction. The state always and everywhere constitutes a tiny minority of the population, Murray Rothbard argues. It is outnumbered by the people many times over. For this reason, it must rely on a false consciousness to sustain its rule.
This is why Mises writes that
In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters.
Van Creveld himself says that the state can ultimately be done in by both ideological and technological forces that race past the state and its ossified ways. The impersonal state relies most strongly on a changeless setting in which to manage its affairs. We live in times of incredible change. And state crises like the Wall Street meltdown can open up cracks in the official climate of opinion.
There is another point we learn from these observations: working within the machinery of a political party is a futile path for serious change. Real change comes from working in the world of enterprise and ideas.
-------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기