문 대통령이 나라를 베네수엘라로 만들고 있다. 입법부는 연동형 비례대표제로 좌파연대가 지배하는 베네수엘라 국회로 만들고 있고, 사법부는 대법원장이 정권에 충성 선언을 할 정도로 차베스. 마두로 정권에 예속되어 있는데 오늘 상식에 어긋난 조국 동생의 영장 기각을 보니 법원, 헌재, 선관위도 베네수엘라처럼 이미 문 정권에 장악이 되었다.
행정부는 이미 장악이 되어 있고 방송은 민노총을 통하여 장악하고 좌파언론을 선봉에 내세워 괴벨스 공화국을 만들고 있다.
베네수엘라는 국민의 50%에 달하는 하층민들에게 식품과 휘발류가 공짜인 애국카드를 지급해 사회주의 배급제도로 지지층을 확보했는데 우리도 이미 국민의 20%인 천만 명이 근로소득보다 이전소득이 더 많은 사회주의 배급제도의 수혜계층이 되었고 올해도 530조 초수퍼 적자예산을 편성해 퍼주기 복지로 수혜계층 늘리기에 혈안이 되어 있다.
경제가 망해도 나라가 부패해도 정권유지가 되는 베네수엘라처럼 그렇게 해서 20년 집권을 하겠다는 거다. 2006. 한때 좌파 교육감들이 베네수엘라를 찬양하고 배우자는 운동을 한 일이 있었다. 그것이 현실화 되어가고 있는 지금 요즘 대한민국을 코네수엘라로 부른다고들 한다. 그래서 오늘도 국민의 10%가 해외로 탈출한 베네수엘라처럼 대한민국을 탈출하고자 하는 기업과 이민자들이 줄을 이어 이민상담소를 찾고 있다고 한다.
갈 곳 없는 우리는 어찌 해야 하는가? 베네수엘라로 가고 있는 암담한 대한민국을 바라 보면서 갑자기 추워진 한글날 아침에 청와대 앞에서 노숙투쟁 중인 여러분들의 건강을 빕니다. 부디 건강 하십시오. 마지막에 이기는 자가 승리자입니다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 그동안 참고 있던 중도 회원들도 "이제야 숨통이 트인다"면서 좃국 사퇴에 동참함
3. 극성 대깨문 300명이 맘카페 여론 선동 조작한 거 폭로됨
4. 좃국과 좃국 수호 떠드는 선동집단 비판하는 신조어 '조극기부대' 등장함 / 일베
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[외신번역] 어둠 속에서 진행되고 있는 '대한민국 섬멸계획'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Birkenstock
China newspaper warns global brands stay out of politics
#WeStandforFreedom #WeStandWithHongKong #FreedomIsntFree / shame on @NBA & @HoustonRockets - freedom isn’t a ballgame but once it’s lost, game is over!
중국이 세계적인 기업들에게 정치에 관여하지 말라고 경고했다.
Hong Kong Free Press
China warns Apple against ‘unwise and reckless’ support of Hong Kong protesters
---------------------------------------------------------------
鲍彤 Bao Tong
有人问：“一个NBA俱乐部的经理发推支持香港人的抗议活
动，中国就断绝和NBA的合作。数十位美国国会议员同样公开
支持香港人，中国怎么不和美国断交。”
应该问。必须问。全世界都想知道答案。
不知道代表中国的外交部有没有准备好答案。
nba 매니저가 홍콩 지지 발언을 하자, 중국이 nba와의 합작을
중단했다. 미국 의원들도 홍콩 지지를 선언하고 있는데, 그렇
다면 왜 미국과 단교를 하지 않는가?
----------------------------------------------------------
Cultural evolution of the desk
책상 위의 문화적 진화
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lozada
BREAKING: U.S. imposes export controls on Chinese surveillance firms days before U.S.-China trade talks re-start. These firms supply the equipment that allows the government to surveil the country's Uighur minority group
중국의 감시 장비 제조기업에 미국이 수출 규제를 압박하다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
They have a few ideas though. They want to close down the aviation industry. They want us to abandon our cars. They want us to stop heating our homes.
Christopher Snowdon
Interview with a Climate Extinction crank confirms that they have no answers, no solutions and no idea what they’re talking about.
기후변화로 인한 멸종을 주장하는 사람과 인터뷰를 해보니, 그들은 어떤 해결책도 없었고, 자신들이 무슨 말을 하고 있는 지도 모르고 있었다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ridley
"Today the population is at a record high, and famines have all but vanished outside of war zones."
오늘날 인구는 역사상 최고이지만 기근 사태는 전쟁 지역을 제
외하고는 거의 사라졌다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own reason for not liking psychology is that its point of departure is human arrogance. To understand human mind and to fix it! Religion on the other hand starts from the point of human humility, it has via negativa.
내가 심리학을 싫어하는 이유는, 그 출발이 인간의 오만에 있
기 때문이다. 인간의 마음을 이해하고 그것을 고칠 수 있다는
생각 말이다. 이에 반해 종교의 출발은 겸손이다.
------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann
"[The] real complaint about the film is that, by prompting curiosity in regard to why people do bad things, it might distract audience members from the simple, morally urgent task of denouncing men...in a purely normative manner, as a priest denounces sin"
영화 조커의 진정한 문제는, 악을 행하는 사람들에 대한 호기
심을 부추겨서, 신부가 죄을 비난하듯이, 사람들이 범죄자를
비난하는 단순하지만 도덕적으로 시급한 책무를 망각하게 한
다는 점이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLY SHIT there are a lot of American companies
doing pro-China censorship!!!
이런 젠장! 다수의 미국 기업들이 친중국을 위한 겸열
을 하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------
고대 인간들은 원시 공산주의자들이 아니었다.
일부 학자들은 인간이 역사의 대부분을 완전한 공동농장의 양식으로 살아왔으며, 따라서 사회주의가 인간에 더 자연스런 형태라고 믿고 있다.
원시 공산주의를 주장하는 사람들은 유목민들은 소지품이 별로 없었으므로, 사유재산의 관념은 생겨날 물질적 토대가 없었다고 주장한다. 하지만 소지품이 적다고 사유재산이 없었다고 말할 수는 없다.
더구나 원시 인간은 도구를 만들었다. 도구의 제작에는 경제 발전의 두 가지 주요한 요소인 사유재산제와 혁신이 담겨져 있다.
수렵채집 하던 인간들의 식품 공유는 일종의 빌리고 빌려주는 관계이었다.
원시 인간 사회는 남녀 사이의 기초적인 분업, 긴밀한 협력, 기본적인 사유재산 등이 있었고, 이는 시장 경제의 기본 재료였다.
원시 공산사회라는 가설은 학문의 역사에서 커다란 오류의 사례로 기록될 것이다.
Paleolithic People Were Not Primitive Communists
Allen Gindler
The resurrection of socialist ideas at the turn of the 21st century is a fairly evident phenomenon among part of the population of Western countries. Proponents of socialism have employed various "proofs" showing the supposed advantages and naturality of the collective way of existence. There is a line of thought that humanity, for most of its history, lived in a mode of complete collectivization. Thus, socialism is, instead, a natural state of the human community, while other socio-economic formations, especially capitalism, were necessary but unfavorable turns in the evolutionary process.
Such ideas are not new, and can be traced to the founders of scientific communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Founders of Marxism labeled hunter-gatherers' socio-economic order as "primitive communism." Thus, Engels wrote in his famous work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, "Production at all former stages of society was essentially collective, and likewise, consumption took place by the direct distribution of the products within larger or smaller communistic communities." This point of view had been prevailing among scholars and entrenched in scientific literature and school textbooks ever since.
According to the third law of dialectical materialism ("the negation of the negation") Marxists envision the historical process as a spiral, where the movement comes back to the position it started, but at a higher level. In simple terms, along the course of human development, individualism had negated collectivism in order to be negated by collectivism but on a more advanced stage. Marxism stated that socialist change is objective and independent of someone’s will and would inevitably happen when the contradiction between the unbalanced development of productive forces and production relations within society reaches its apogee in the majority of industrialized nations (historical determinism).
The materialist conception of history was called in question by Marxist intellectuals themselves at the turn of the 20th century when it became evident that society was not entirely developing according to the Marxian prescription (crisis of Marxism). This led to the creation of many reformists and revisionists proposing theories that either rejected Marxism altogether (revolutionary syndicalists, fascists) or left the form but entirely changed the content of the teaching (Bolshevism, social democracy). However, new approaches to societal development were not better off than the original Marxism.
The “new” socialists had entertained an idea of building society according to a pre-developed plan under the supervision of capable elites by employing elements of social engineering and coercion of varying degrees. Thus, the theoretician of socialism, Tugan-Baranovsky, in Socialism as a Positive Doctrine affirmed, “The socialist system is artificial, invented form of human society, as opposed to the natural, spontaneously developed forms of society that exist today.” In essence, he revealed that collectivism is not a naturally occurring way of existence but rather an improvised quality. Therefore, by the beginning of the 20th century, socialists had dramatically changed the rhetoric from the idea of natural evolution that culminates with socialist revolution to the concept of rational purpose.
The fiasco of building socialism on demand due to its economic unsustainability and a prevailing trend toward moral decadence has not brought an end to socialist thinking. The Left has not given up and has excavated once again an old argument of the existence of communist bands of hunter-gatherers, who did not know of private property. They argue, therefore, that there is an obligation for all progressive-thinking people to put society back on the right track and embrace collectivization again as it is imprinted in human genes. As is often the case with socialists, they are right about precisely the opposite.
The proponents of the “primitive communism” doctrine pointed out that nomads had just a few possessions, that is, items that they were able to carry on a journey; thus, a sense of private property did not have enough material roots to evolve. However, a few possessions do not mean an absence of ownership. It is enough to have just one item, appropriated and carried continuously by a hunter, for an intimate attachment to develop between a man and an object. Indeed, according to Hans-Herman Hoppe’s first axiom of the theory of property rights, “Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body, as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him.” Here, it is also appropriate to add that everyone is the proper owner of his or her state of mind.
Hence, yet another essential point in defense of a proposition that prehistoric humans had a sense of private property was tool-making activities. Tool-making consists of original appropriation of nobody’s stone or branch and then the addition of one’s skilled labor. This appropriation improved the welfare of the toolmaker, and at the same time, no one was made worse off by this act. As such, the tool-making included in itself two significant factors of economic growth: private ownership and innovations. Undoubtedly, the evolution of human society would capitalize on these elements.
The question of land ownership in hunter-gatherer’s society is rather intricate. Indeed, hunter-gatherers had not yet planted trees, cultivated the land, or raised animals; in other words, they had not intentionally changed the environment to their advantage. However, ancient foragers had secured the “nucleus” of the area where they organized shelters, food storage, fire pits, primitive workshops — all that made up their provisional camp. But most essential is that hunter-gatherers established temporary control on the fuzzy perimeter that encompassed their habitat. They guarded the boundaries of their natural environment, like any other territorial species of the animal world. Thus, they restrained the influx of strangers from competing groups, since their well-being and survival depended on the exclusive exploitation of food resources on land and keeping this habitat inaccessible to others. Humans controlled borders of the area, but not nature-given goods within it. That is why their habitat exhibited duality; it was both controlled but at the same time, unappropriated environment.
When the time came, hunter-gatherers began to enjoy the act of initial appropriation on a scale that human societies did not experience after them. They were the original appropriators of goods and places, and each private property on land today (theoretically) can be traced back to those original owners.
Another argument in favor of “primitive communism” states that Paleolithic people flocked together due to extreme hardship and poverty; they utilized food-sharing behavior according to the scheme of generalized reciprocity (according to the ethnographic observation of indigenous people). However, experience shows that it is not poverty that results in communism; it is communism that leads to poverty.
The food-sharing behavior of hunter-gatherers is best described as a system of borrowing and lending or as a manifestation of an insurance strategy. Thus, Richard Posner in A Theory of Primitive Society, with Special Reference to Law explained,
The conditions of production, in particular, the difficulty of storing food, create considerable uncertainty with regard to the future adequacy of an individual’s food supply and hence considerable variance in his expected wealth. In these circumstances a transaction whereby A, who happens to produce a harvest that exceeds his consumption needs, gives part of his surplus to B in exchange for B’s commitment to reciprocate should their roles someday be reversed will be attractive to both parties.
Therefore, a generous gift-giving or direct redistribution that some had observed on a surface, in reality, happened to be evidence of a more sophisticated economic life, such as the return of the debt, or a “hunger insurance” payment. The generalized reciprocity between members of the family was erroneously applied to the whole band.
Society of early humans is characterized by the rudimentary division of labor between sexes, close cooperation, a fundamental sense of private property, few possessions, a limited number of commodities and services in consumption and exchange, and slight inequality in income distribution. Therefore, pre-historic human societies had all the needed ingredients of the market economy, but on such a small level that the majority of scholars tended to ignore them. However, in the evolutionary processes, one cannot overlook even the slightest delta because it would be impossible to explain behavioral changes over time. An initial and primitive socio-economic setup predetermined a gradient of development of humans as an intelligent species who would use their intellect to organize ever-advanced modes of production.
Assuming that some groups of foragers indeed practiced "primitive communism," they would have died out because they had lost the fierce competition with the more economically viable "libertarian" tribes. Communism has never appeared spontaneously and naturally in the history of mankind. Several attempts to build a communist society were planned and carefully thought-out actions of the revolutionary elements. Hunter-gatherers could not think of such a grandiose and at the same time self-destructive plan because of their primitive stage of development. They instinctively adhered to what was natural. Therefore, the hypothesis of "primitive communism" does not stand up to criticism and should occupy a place in the history of science as an example of a gross blunder.
Allen Gindler is a scholar from the former U.S.S.R., specializing in Political Economy, Econometrics, and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economic Cybernetics, Standard Data Systems, and Computer-Aided Work Design in the Khmelnytskyi National University, Ukraine. He is currently a private consultant to IT industry on Database Administration and Cryptography. As a hobby, he is interested in political philosophy, history, population genetics, and Biblical archaeology. He has published articles and opinion pieces in Mises Wire, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and Biblical Archaeology Review.
------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기