(현장취재) 부정선거 교수들이 나섰다! / 신의한수 20.05.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김정은, 죽었나? … 노동신문, “김일성 축지법은 거짓말이다!” ...김일성 격하! ... 이슈방담#.150 ... 2020.05.26. ... [박훈탁TV]
김정은의 생사 여부를 두고 논객들이 반으로 나뉘었다. 정부와 좌파들은 김정은이 살아 있고 건재하다고 믿고 있고, 다수의 우파 논객들은 죽거나 유고 상태라고 생각하고 있다. 그런데 북한에서 흘러나오는 정보는 그의 유고나 사망을 가리키고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
부정선거 음모론을 제기하고 있는 민경욱 미래통합당 의원이 "조선일보가 완전히 (우리 쪽으로)돌아섰다"고 주장했다.
민 의원은 26일 페이스북을 통해 이같이 주장하며 "다행이다. 고맙다. (부정선거 이슈를 유튜브 등보다)뒤늦게 따라오느라
숨이 차겠지만"이라며 "선관위가 (개표)시연을 한다는 건, 전 국민을 잠깐 속여보겠다는 심산이다. 그렇게 하고 대법원에서
재검표를 불허하겠다고 하려는 요량이라면 그건 민란을 자초하는 일"이라고 했다.
민 의원은 최근 부정선거 의혹 관련 기사를 쓴 조선일보 기자들 실명을 나열하며 "화이팅"이라고 응원하고 "자, 다 같이 복창한다. Follow the party!"라고 적었다. / 일베
민 의원은 26일 페이스북을 통해 이같이 주장하며 "다행이다. 고맙다. (부정선거 이슈를 유튜브 등보다)뒤늦게 따라오느라
숨이 차겠지만"이라며 "선관위가 (개표)시연을 한다는 건, 전 국민을 잠깐 속여보겠다는 심산이다. 그렇게 하고 대법원에서
재검표를 불허하겠다고 하려는 요량이라면 그건 민란을 자초하는 일"이라고 했다.
민 의원은 최근 부정선거 의혹 관련 기사를 쓴 조선일보 기자들 실명을 나열하며 "화이팅"이라고 응원하고 "자, 다 같이 복창한다. Follow the party!"라고 적었다. / 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[충격, 소름] "미베인 조건" 역추적한 예상 의석수 feat.우갤
계산 결과
정리하면 다음과 같습니다.
두가지의 부정한 방법이 없었다면,
43개 지역구에서 통합당 후보가 이겼을 겁니다.
민쥬당이 120석,
통합당이 127석 을 가져가는것으로 나옵니다.
부정으로 당락이 바뀐 지역구입니다.
명단을 보고있자니
민쥬당입장에서
꼭 죽어야하는 사람
꼭 살려야하는 사람
잘 보이네요.
* 어디까지나 가정을 걸고 하는 분석이므로
이게 맞다 라는 글이아닙니다. 참고만하시기 바랍니다. * / 일베 발췌
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6줄요약
1.기본권 주체를 국민에서 사람으로 확대 ㅡ>대한민국 국민이 아닌 조선족,중국인 등의 외국인도 투표할수있고 보호받는거
2.검찰청 영장청구권 삭제 ㅡ>노골적으로 법 기관을 좌지우지 하려는 의도
3.국민 소환제 도입 ㅡ>국회의원이 집권층에 반할경우 선동에 의해 인민재판으로 숙청당할수잇음
4.지방분권국가 선언 ㅡ>지방에 유입된 다수의 귀화한 중국인을 비롯해 외국인을 통해 권력을 행사할수잇음.
5.토지공개념 강화 ㅡ>국민재산 공산화
6.선거제도 개혁 ㅡ> 선전선동에 휘약한 아이들에게 선거권 주기/ 일베
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
스캇 선생의 시원한 한 방
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국의 식민지가 된 대한민국
(Korea Became a Colony of China)
글로벌디펜스뉴스
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sabah
Interesting article by @nfergus
: Cold War 2 has begun. #China vs the world. "...when authoritarian regimes are in crisis, when they are under pressure, that is when they're likely to do reckless things in the realm of geo-politics."
중국 대(對) 세계의 제2의 냉전이 시작되었다.
권위주의 정권이 위기에 처할 때, 지정학적인 문제에서 그들이 무모한 짓을 할 가능성이 크다. --- 사학자 닐 퍼거슨
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Rajkumar
Did any one imagine on Feb 25 that we would lose 100,000 people to COVID in America in 3 months?
2월 25일에, 앞으로 3달 안에 미국에서 우한 폐렴으로 10만 명이 죽을 거라는 걸 상상이나 할 수 있었나?
---------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Wisdom
"Never hire an academic unless his function is to partake of the rituals of writing papers or taking exams." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Skin in the Game
그의 업무가 논문을 쓰고 시험 감독을 하는 게 아니라면, 절대 학자들을 고용하지 말라! --- 탈레브
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
미제스가 막스의 변증법적 유물론을 배격한 이유
스스로 막스주의자라고 하지 않는 사람들, 그리고 자신을 반공주의자라고 믿는 사람들조차 변증법적 유물론에 물들어 있다.
막스는 인간의 역사가 상호 이해가 충돌하는 사회적 세력들의 계급투쟁이라고 보았다.
막스는 서로 모순되는 2가지 철학으로 변증법적 유물론을 만들었는데, 그 두 가지 철학은 바로 헤겔의 유심론(唯心論)과 유물론이다.
헤겔의 유심론은 역사가 세계 정신에 의해 움직이고, 그 세계 정신은 역사적인 위인이나 정부에 의해 표출된다고 주장한다.
이에 반해 유물론자들은 세계가 물질로 구성되었고, 세계 정신 따위는 있을 수 없다고 주장한다.
헤겔은 테제와 안티테제의 대립 그리고 진테제의 종합이 역사의 발전 법칙이고, 사람들이 세계를 이해하는 과정 역시 이를 반영한다고 주장했다.
막스는 헤겔의 변증법을 빌려와서, 계급투쟁이라는 변증법적 과정을 거쳐서 사회주의가 필연적으로 도래한다고 주장했다.
막스에 따르면 사회적 생산력이 기존의 생산 관계나 사회 체제와 갈등이 생기고, 혁명이 일어나서 상부구조가 변화한다고 한다. 이것은 헤겔의 변증법에서 빌려온 생각이다.
미제스에 따르면, 변증법을 관념론에서 분리해서 경험적인 사상에 옮겨놓은 것 자체가 엉터리였다. 헤겔에 따르면 경험적인 현실은 부패했거나 무기력한 것이다.
The Big Reason Mises Rejected Marx's Dialectical Materialism
Antony Sammeroff
Most people have never heard of dialectical materialism. The term looks so obtuse that you’d be forgiven for thinking that only pretentious students loitering outside the philosophy department smoking hand-rolled cigarettes could imagine that it has anything to do with real life. It certainly can’t exert much influence in the world if only a small number of radical Marxists could even tell you what it means.
On the contrary, writes Mises, dialectical materialism dominates the ideas of more people than you think. It has been absorbed by those who do not call themselves Marxists and even by people who consider themselves anticommunist.
When Mises released his book Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution in 1957, dialectical materialism was still the official philosophy of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall was still a good thirty years from coming down. However, Mises’s critique (found in chapter 7) is still relevant. The ideas that dialectical materialism represents have not fallen out of favor and may even be on the rise.
But what the heck is dialectical materialism?
Well, I’m glad you asked.
Dual Origins: Hegelian Spiritualism and Materialism
Marx theorized that human history is best viewed as a series of class struggles between social forces that have contradictory interests. For example, the class struggles between slaves and their masters, between feudal lords and their subjects, and—in his day—the class struggle between capitalists and their workers. He believed that seeing history as the history of class struggle had better explanatory power than viewing it through other lenses, such as the history of ideas, technological innovations, or military conflicts.
In fact, properly viewed through the lens of class struggle, history would naturally subsume those other ways of seeing the world and illuminate the context in which they unfolded, particularly when it came to technological innovation, which Marx thought would ultimately determine the struggle of the age. He wrote, “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.” Mises (1957, p. 72) summarizes Marx's view as follows: “These forces are the driving power producing all historical facts and changes.”
The weird thing about dialectical materialism, Mises notes, is that Marx seemed to cobble it together from pieces of two existing philosophies that contradicted each other. These two philosophies were Hegelian spiritualism (after the influential German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel) and materialism. Marx believed that he was building upon them, but Mises believed they were incompatible.
The Prussian government and the intellectuals of Prussian universities preferred Hegelian spiritualism, because it essentially said that history was guided by the world spirit, or weltgeist, which acted through the great men of history and government to bring about its will. Hegelian spiritualism justified their privileged position by giving them a pretext for ruling over the plebs, since the weltgeist had conveniently picked them out for the task.
The materialists, on the other hand, thought that reality was just “what you see is what you get,” and as such didn’t think that the Prussian aristocracy had any right to rule—even less a divine one granted by some elitist specter. They wanted to overthrow the state—by violent revolution if necessary—and see those pampered high hats to hell.
Hopefully you are beginning to see how Marxism combines these two theories.
Marx Tweaks the Hegelian Dialectic
Now, Hegel is as perplexing a philosopher to understand as you’ll find and notoriously difficult to read even for bookish academic types. Despite his impregnable style he did pass on one very famous idea which I think is quite useful and does actually have the power to demystify the world sometimes, if you interpret it generously. It was also adapted and repurposed by Marx. It’s called the Hegelian dialectic and goes something like this: in a society you have a prevailing doctrine which is widely accepted and taken for granted by most people—but this cannot remain indefinitely so. At some time, a movement comes along proposing to challenge and overturn the prevailing wisdom, saying that it is nonsensical and should be repudiated only to be replaced with a new one.
Hegelians call the first doctrine the thesis and the opposing doctrine the antithesis. But here’s where it gets interesting. The antithesis never successfully overturns the thesis and throws it out the window completely. Instead the two doctrines begin to fuse together creating a synthesis, which combines elements of both. This third doctrine becomes the dominant thesis of a new era. But no sooner has this process completed than the whole damn thing is poised to start again. This new prevailing wisdom, combining elements of the old movement and the one which opposed it, will soon come to be opposed by a new antithesis which opposes that. Hegel believed that this process was a law that governed history but that it also mirrored the thinking process and described the logic by which people come to understand the world itself.
Marx extracted the dialectic and fused it into his own philosophy, hoping to prove that socialism was bound to come about “with the inexorability of a law of nature” by a dialectical process of class struggle in which the workers eventually threw off the chains of their capitalist overlords to create a classless society in which everyone would be equal and work for the common good.
Dialectical Materialism in a Nutshell
This philosophy is dialectical materialism:
1) Everything that exists is material. There are no gods, no souls, no spirits to call up at a séance, or any of that eerie supernatural stuff. Weltgeists are completely out of the question. What you see is what you get. Our thoughts and ideas are only reflections of material phenomena in our physical brains. This is materialism.
2) Everything that exists is in contradiction and conflict with something else, like magnetic poles, Republicans and Democrats, or your in-laws arguing furiously over who burnt the turkey at Thanksgiving. They duke it out, and from their struggle emerges something new. This is dialectics.
According to Marx, at a certain stage in their development the existing material productive forces of society come into contradiction with the existing production relations, or the established social system of property laws. This leads to an epoch of social revolution during which the superstructure transforms itself. This is the application of the Hegelian dialectic in Marxism.
The Misesian Critique of Dialectical Materialism
In Theory and History, Mises strives to highlight how Hegelianism stands in stark contradiction to materialism and that no rational fusion of the two is possible. For one thing, Hegelians believed that the ultimate basis of the universe was mind (which they called “spirit” or “geist”), while the materialists believed that it was matter.
For Hegel, the dialectical process of thinking mirrors the creation process. Via logic the mind acquires knowledge of reality. Matter does not have its own substance but arises from the mind of God (in a manner of speaking), named geist.
Mises says that this worldview is completely incompatible with any kind of materialism. In philosophical terms, Hegel is what is called a spiritual idealist—meaning that he thinks the universe is made of something spiritual rather than material. Mises contends that it was “nonsensical” to take dialectics out of its idealistic grounds and transplant it to a system that was empirical, because Hegelianism viewed what we commonly call empirical reality as “ein Faules” (something rotten or inert). Although it seemed real, it was not real at all apart from the way that reason apprehended it. Its true source was divine action—the ultimate truth.
Friedrich Engels, in trying to prove dialectical materialism, studied the natural world and was wowed to find examples of dialectical processes in full bloom wherever he looked. The whole of geology is a series of negated negations, he wrote. A butterfly comes into existence from an egg through negation of the egg, and then is negated again as it dies. The barleycorn is negated by the barley plant, which produces another barleycorn but in several times the quantity. Mises strongly suggests that this is not actually some ground-shaking revelation but just a silly word game. He points out that it is just as sensible to call a butterfly the “self-assertion” of the egg as the negation of it—the maturing of its inherent purpose and fulfillment of its ultimate potential. Engels was only substituting the word negation for the word change.
Although Marx and Engels boasted of putting the philosophy of Hegel on its feet, Mises concluded that the two simply wanted to latch onto him because his philosophy was dominant in their time. Perhaps it would look better, from their point of view, to propose a philosophy claiming to build upon a great master rather than to repudiate him.
------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기