중국영상] 29일째 계속되는 중국 역대 최악의 폭우!
아직 끝나지 않았다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
세월 베고 길게 누운 구름 한 조각-나훈아
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
민경욱 특종, 양정철 빅데이타 자금흐름(?) 충격 제보 확보. 조해주는 자신있음 튀어 나와.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
현재 천조국에서 벌어지고 있는 일들을 ARABOZA
조지 플로이드 사망으로 인해 촉발된
"흑인의 인권은 중요하다" (Black Lives Matter; 이하 BLM) 운동으로
빡친 흑인들과 그에 동조하는 PC충 세력들이
미국 전역에 있는 위인들의 동상을 파괴하시 시작함.
이들의 주요 타겟은
과거 미국 남북전쟁때 남군 소속이었던 인물들의 동상임.
The Generals Of The Confederate Army Poster by War Is Hell Store
왜 남군 소속 인물들이냐? 왜냐하면 남군이 소속된 아메리카 연합국 (Confederate States of America)은
당시 노예제 폐지에 반대했기 때문에 그런거임ㅋ
An Outline Map Of TheUnited States Of America Showing The ...
하지만 잘 살펴보면 그럴 수 밖에 없었던게
당시 남부 주들의 상황을 살펴 보면
금성출판사 :: 티칭허브The Economics of the Civil War
1. 주 재정의 대부분을 담배 혹은 면화 생산/수출에 의존하고 있었음.
사우스 캐롤라이나, 조지아, 미시시피, 앨러배마에서 생산하던 면화의 양은
당시 미국 면화 총 생산량의 약 3/4를 차지했고 그로 인해 벌어들이는 수출도 어마어마했음.
Compensation - The Atlantic
2. 시간이 흐르면서 노예무역 폐지로인해 노예 공급이 줄어들자 노예가격은 솟구쳐갔음.
1800년에 인당 50불이던 노예는 불과 50년 후인 1850년에는
인당 최대 1000불을 찍을정도로 노예 가격에 엄청난 거품이 끼게됨.
그리하여 1850년 쯤 남부 소속 노예들의 총 가치는 약 20억불정도였는데
이는 남부 소유 총 자본의 약 1/4 정도이며 1년 연방예산의 10배에 달하는 가치이기도 했음.
이렇듯 노예는 남부경제에 있어서 매우 중심적인 역할을 하고 있었음.
남부인들도 물론 도덕적으로 노예제가 옳지 않다는 것을 알고 있었기에
언젠가는 폐지될거라 생각하고 있었음.
근데 이 와중에 북부에서 자꾸 하루아침에 노예제를 폐지하라고 하니
그냥 눈뜨고 순식간에 경제가 무너져 내리는걸 보란 소리고
북부에 완전히 경제권을 잠식당하는거나 마찬가지였음.
파일:external/4.bp.blogspot.com/Civil+War+Soldiers.jpg
그래서 이에 보다못한 남부 주들이 연합하여 아메리카 연합국을 세우고
남북전쟁이 시작된다.
서론이 좀 길었는데 이러한 이유로 지금 남부 소속 인물들의 동상이
미국 전역에서 무참히 훼손되고 있고 이는 현재 진행 중임.
남부군의 총사령관이자 훌륭한 인품으로 존경받았던 로버트 리 장군의 동상.
폭도들의 훼손을 피해가지 못함.
밤에는 아예 조지 플로이드의 모습을 비춰서 완벽한 고인 능욕 완성ㅋㅋ
뛰어난 군사적 역량과 용맹함으로 존경 받았던 토마스 잭슨 장군.
포화속에서도 돌로쌓은 벽마냥 동요하지 않았다해서 "Stonewall" Jackson이라는 별명이 붙기도 했음.
펜스를 쳐놓았지만
역시 폭도들의 손길을 피해가지 못함.
미국의 상원이원이자 스미소니언 학술협회의 일원이었고 나중에 남부연맹의 대통령이었던 제퍼슨 데이비스.
성난 흑인들과 PC충들에 의해 락카로 무참히 훼손 + 문화재 훼손도 덤.
남부군의 제임스 이월 브라운 스튜어트 장군.
남부군 최고의 기병 사령관으로 전쟁 초기 여러 침투 작전을 성공적으로 이끌었음.
보는바와 같이 처참히 털림.
해양학의 아버지라 불리우는 매튜 머리.
그는 바람과 해류 사이의 관계를 분석하여
북대서양의 항로와 기상도를 꼼꼼히 작성하는데
이는 최초이 해도이자 해상 기상도였음.
이를 참고하여 대서양을 오가는 상선들은 상당한 양의 운행 비용을 절감.
하지만 남부군 소속이었다고 하여
조커마냥 화려하게 분장당함.
아메리카 대륙을 발견한 크리스토퍼 콜럼버스 동상.
콜럼버스가 미 대륙을 발견해서 이로 인해 많은 미 원주민들이 죽었다며
그냥 얼떨결에 페인트샤워로 시원하게 능욕.
폭도들은 이에 만족하지 않은건지
나중엔 아예 참수를 진행.
유심히 살펴보면 이는 1960 - 1970년대 동안
중국에서 일어났던 문화대혁명과도 얼추 닮은 모습을 보인다.
약 10년의 문화대혁명 기간 동안 중국인들은
자기들 스스로의 손으로 약 4000년간의 문화 유산을 모조리 박살내버렸는데
이는 중국 역사상 그 어떤 이민족의 침략도 이뤄내지 못한 대규모의 파괴였음.
1300년된 공자 사당의 현판을 걸레짝만들어 먼지로 부숴버림
불교 사찰 훼손으로 고통 받는 마을들
제갈량을 모시던 사찰의 약 900년넘은 목상들도 모조리 퐈이어
광기의 역사, 중국의 문화대혁명에 대해 알아보자 : 네이버 블로그
그외 각종 고서적들도 전부다 바비큐행
과거의 가치관이나 사상들은 현재의 기준으로 무조건 옳고 그르다라고 판단할수 없는 영역임.
시대상이란게 있고 보통의 인물들은 그러한 시대적 한계를 뛰어넘을수 없기 때문.
그러나 흑인 폭도들과 노답 PC충들은
오늘도 목이터져라 동상철거를 외치며 자기들만의 왜곡된 역사관을 강요하는 중이다.
Far-right activists and Black Lives Matter protesters clash in ...
이들의 모습에서 중국이 겹쳐보이는 건 우연이 아닐 것임ㅋ
3줄 요약
1. 미국은 현재 BLM시위로 존경받는 역사적 인물들의 동상들이 파손되는 중
2. 과거 중국 문화대혁명때의 모습과 크게 다를 바가 없음.
3. BLM세력과 중국 공산당이 너무 비슷해 보인다면 정상 / 일베, 사진 발췌
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Say You Want a Revolution?
By Andrew Sullivan
현재 폭력의 사악함을 깨닫지 못한다면, 우리는 머지 않아 오웰이 묘사한 세계로 진입할 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------
미국의 민주제에 대한 토크빌의 우려
다른 자유주의자들과 마찬가지로 토크빌의 주된 관심은 정부 권력의 통제였다.
민주제란 대중의 지배이기 때문에, 토크빌은 미국의 모든 법률, 정치적 기구들이 대중의 지배에 휘둘릴지 모른다고 우려했다.
All You Need to Know about Alexis de Tocqueville
Ryan McMaken
[Ralph Raico, Alexis de Tocqueville (Auburn: Mises Institute, 2017), 94 pp.]
Before he died in 2016, the historian Ralph Raico—an expert on the history of classical liberalism—donated his personal notes and library to the Mises Institute. Archivists later found among his notes a lengthy essay (or monograph) on the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville.
It is unclear exactly what purpose this monograph was originally intended to serve, but the Mises Institute published the essay as Alexis de Tocqueville in 2017. This short and easy-to-read book has yet to receive the attention it deserves, but in our age of moral panics over both race and disease, Twitter "cancel culture," and bureaucrats ruling by decree, we can still learn a lot from Tocqueville's work. Specifically, Tocqueville's warnings about the dangers posed by the American tendency toward the "tyranny of the majority" are still relevant.
Tocqueville, of course, is remembered today in part because of his book Democracy in America, in which he sought to describe the American "national character"—to the extent it exists. But Tocqueville also remains important because he was a leading figure in French classical liberalism (more accurately called simply "liberalism"), thus placing him in the company of liberal giants like Frederic Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, and Benajmin Constant. Tocqueville's application of European liberal ideals to the United States makes him difficult to ignore for anyone seeking to understand how liberalism ought to be understood in the American context today.
Tocqueville's works weren't just a neutral assessment of American (and French) society. They were designed to investigate how political liberty could be understood and preserved.
Tocqueville the Liberal
Understanding some basics of Tocqueville's background is helpful, and Raico begins this book by reminding us that Tocqueville was an aristocrat who embraced liberalism in the wake of the revolution. He was born into an old Norman aristocratic family. Due to the family's connection with the regime of Louis XVI, they were persecuted during the Terror. Tocqueville's parents were nearly executed, and were saved only by the sudden fall of Robespierre from power. Not surprisingly, then, Tocqueville was no French radical, but sided with the more middle-class, moderate, bourgeois elements who rejected the throne-and-altar schemes of conservatives who wished to return to monarchical absolutism. On the other hand, Raico is careful to point out that Tocqueville also rejected the antireligious fervor of many French liberals. In his famous Democraracy in America and in "his other works as well," Raico writes, "Tocqueville accentuates the value of religion."
Like all liberals, Tocqueville's main concern was in the limitation of state power, and this is clearly a focus of Tocqueville's writings. Tocqueville's liberalism came through in his opposition to slavery (both in the US and in the French colonies) and in his later political work as a member of the French legislature. His writings, he later explained to a friend, were "to show men…how to escape tyranny." He applauded decentralization, despaired over the growth of the French state bureaucracy, and in his later work on the French Revolution, The Old Regime and the Revolution, noted that the revolutionaries only extended the tyrannies begun under the earlier monarchical absolutists.
Raico examines Tocqueville's liberal views through his extensive correspondence with other liberals as well, especially the British liberals Nassau Senior and John Stuart Mill. He also notes Tocqueville's many deviations, and it is through this correspondence that some of Tocqueville's most illiberal views become most obvious. Tocqueville embraced French colonialism, for example, and "urged massive French settlement, entailing widespread expropriation of the native inhabitants." Tocqueville also possessed an odd thirst for war in many cases, as in one case where he urged France to go to war with England over Egypt. Raico notes that this "annoyed" his liberal friends, who "could not comprehend how Tocqueville could suggest war—with all its attendant horrors—for such a trivial reason."
Many of these deviations may be attributable to Tocqueville aristocratic origins. The lure of great deeds and "high enterprises" (according to the aristocratic mind) in war thus seemed delightful to him, and we see similar prejudices in Tocqueville's condemnation of bourgeois preoccupations with material accumulation. Perhaps because he was born into wealth, Tocqueville viewed with contempt the ease with which the American middle class freely expressed its desire to obtain basic comforts and to "avoid…misery."
Tocqueville on America
Without a doubt, however, Tocqueville's most famous work is his lengthy and detailed Democracy in America, which, as Raico describes it, is "at once a masterpiece of political philosophy and the best character analysis of the American people ever written." And this is where Raico's analysis is most useful. How is one to approach the many hundreds of pages that compose Tocqueville's work. What are the main themes? What does Tocqueville conclude?
Raico suggests that the key to understanding Democracy in America is seeing it as Tocqueville's examination of his concerns over the effects of equality and democracy on American political liberty.
By equality, Tocqueville does not mean anything mandated by the state. Rather, he notes that both equality and democracy were a natural result of the state of affairs in the United States. In the US, because of the abundance of land and resources, and because of the lack of a legally privileged aristocracy, the majority of residents had attained some degree of de facto equality in economic status. This leads to demands for political equality as well in terms of voting rights and status within the political community.
Raico explores Tocqueville's conclusion that the drive for democracy and equality becomes more or less inevitable because of the realities of Americans' material situation. He shows that Tocqueville's central concern throughout much of the work thus becomes whether or not political liberty can survive these trends.
Raico notes several factors in favor of continued freedom from an abusive state. These include religious faith, which Tocqueville concludes is a key factor in regulating and limiting the excesses of democratic power. He insists that religion is not in conflict with liberalism and that "there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth."
Other examples in favor of continued opposition to tyranny that Tocqueville points out include widespread opposition to conscription and the habit of deferring to decentralized administration of state power.
Moreover, the United States, Tocqueville notes, begins from a position in which political action overall is viewed with suspicion. Politics, he observes, does not attract the most able men of the republic, who would rather spend their time in the "pursuit of wealth." Consequently, "a man does not undertake to direct the fortunes of the state until he has shown himself incompetent to conduct his own."
On the other hand, decentralization, religion, and general skepticism of state power were not, in Tocqueville's mind, likely to be sufficient to overcome the sheer force of majority rule in a nation like the United States. It is this mode of thinking which creates in Tocqueville, as a liberal, the greatest concern. Raico quotes perhaps Tocqueville's most striking passage in this regard:
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. If America has not yet had any great writers, the reason is given in these facts: there can be no literary genius without freedom of opinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist in America. The Inquisition has never been able to prevent a vast number of anti-religious books from circulating in Spain. The empire of the majority succeeds much better in the United States, since it actually removes any wish to publish them.
Raico goes on to note some of Tocqueville's experiences which might have led him to this conclusion, including interviews with Americans who noted a lack of freedom in expressing opinions in favor of legal equality for the races, including in the North, or doubting the veracity of Christianity. In an environment where all members of the community are considered to be equals and equally beholden to the community, Tocqueville fears, the centralization of social power—separate from the explicit power of the state—means that the majority can exercise considerable control over all members, without recourse to legal sanction.
In many ways, this passage sums up Tocqueville's overall concern with democracy and practical equality. Raico writes:
Tocqueville pondered this dark side of democracy [as a social force]. Since “the very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority,” all legal and political institutions will tend to fall under the majority’s sway. The legislature, local law-enforcement officials, the jury-system itself, and, increasingly, many judges — all were organs of the popular will. Moreover, in a democracy the will of the people exerted a potent, if often subtle, control over the would-be dissident, even in the deepest recesses of his mind. Such a situation filled Tocqueville with anxiety, since it presaged the end of intellectual freedom, of cultural progress, and even of any individual independence.
Equality vs. Liberalism
It doesn't take an immense amount of insight to see the relevance of Tocqueville's central concern to our situation today. What are the so-called Twitter mobs if not the "will of the majority" at work? How to explain public shaming of people who don't "#stayhome" or don't agree that "we're all in this together" except as a manifestation of Tocqueville's "democracy"? When the "consensus" of the majority is that we must all submit to a governor's rule by decree when it comes to COVID-19 lockdowns, we are experiencing exactly what Tocqueville feared. In cases like these, "constitutional rights" and protections for the minority become meaningless, and there is no escape for dissenters.
As Tocqueville noted, this sort of thing could be minimized by restraining factors such as religion, decentralization down to the local level, and ideological adherence to an ideal of political liberty. These restraining factors are what preserved liberalism as a functioning ideology in America. After all, providing a haven for dissenters and the minority is a key component of liberalism, which requires tolerance of those who have lifestyles and opinions we dislike.
In our current milieu, however, most of these restraining factors are all but dead, and we are left instead with only the majority rule and the impotent words of liberal constitutions and bills of rights.
Can this trend be reversed or mitigated? It's possible, but it's not easy. A good starting point would be to garner a greater understanding of the American polity as observed by one of its most trenchant and insightful observers. Ralph Raico has provided us with the key introductory text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기