2020년 거리에 울려퍼질 캐롤송 2탄 탁탁탁인생 / 일베 울면 안돼 울면안돼 울면안돼 재앙할아버지는 자영업자에게 재난지원금을 안주신데 재앙할아버지는 알고계신데 누가 대깨문인지 애국보순지 돈싸들고 북한 가신데 전세살때나 월세살때 집사려고 발버둥칠때도 재앙할아버지는 사다리를 끊고계신데 울면안돼 울면안돼 재앙할아버지는 쉐프불러서 짜빠구리 말아드신데~ 창밖을보라 창밖을보라 창밖을보라 문재인이 왔다 창밖을보라 창밖을보라 폐업이 넘친다 문재인 빠는 대깨문들은 나라 망하는지 모르고 오늘도 폐업 내일은 자살 신나는 대재앙시대 긴긴 해가 다가고 어둠이 오면 9시이후 셧다운 거리 거리에 암흑길 추운겨울이 다가기전에 폐업이 넘치네 문재인타도 문재인독재 한번도 경험해보지 못한나라~ 가수 찾고있다 도전해볼 게이 없노? ---->우파 유투버들이 위의 가사로 노래를 올리면 좋을 듯하다. 특히 창밖을 보라는 가사가 일품이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 유승준 "박근혜 구속은 인민재판, 촛불혁명은 쿠데타" --->비정상적인 사회에서는 진실을 말하면 탄압을 받고 조롱을 받는다. 유승준이 바로 그런 예이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 지난 몇 주 동안 부정선거 세력과 싸우며 트럼프가 한 일들 8% Revolt (1) In the last few weeks President @realDonaldTrump has: • Fired the Defense Secretary • Fired the head of CISA • Removed all Globalists from the Pentagon advisory board • Replaced the AG to an acting one that specializes in foreign election interference (2) • Appointed another attorney from the Military who served in the same unit as @GenFlynn as Deputy Attorney General • Signed an Executive Order outlining Military succession • Moved 3 aircraft carriers to the west coast with a strike group 트럼프가 최후의 승리을 하기 위해 지난 몇 주간 얼마나 중요한 일을 했나 살펴보자 늘푸른박 / 일베 트럼프 11/3 선거사기 바이든 패거리 딥스와의 전쟁(계엄령 선포)전에 군을 장악하기 위한 지난 몇주간 용병술 * 국방부 장관 해임하고 국방장관 대행 [크리스토퍼 밀러] 손자병법에 통달한 트럼프 전쟁전 군장악 트럼프 군완전 장악하기 위해 군 핵심요직을 짱게로 부터 자유로운 영혼으로 교체 신임 국방부 장관 크리스토퍼 밀러 (전직 대테러센터장) 미 국방장관 대행 맡는 크리스토퍼 밀러 대테러센터장 앤서니 타타 미국 예비역 중장이 국방부 정책담당 차관(국방부 2인자) 앤서니 타타 미 국방부 신임 정책담당 차관/미 국방부 ‘오바마 테러리스트’라고 글 올렸던 트럼프 충신, 국방부 넘버2 됐다 버락 오바마 전 미국 대통령을 ‘테러리스트’라고 표현해 논란이 됐던 인물이 미국 국방부 정책담당 차관을 새로 맡게 됐다고 외신들이 보도했다. 정책담당 차관은 국방장관이 정책을 수립하는 과정에서 고문역할을 하는 고위직으로 국방부에서 장관 다음으로 높은 자리다. 10일(현지 시각) 정치 전문 매체 더힐에 따르면 앤서니 타타 미국 예비역 중장이 국방부 정책담당 차관 직무대행 자리를 채우게 됐다. 12/2 신임 인도태평양사령관, 아킬리노(해군조종사출신) … 亞군사전략 총괄 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 한국을 비롯해 아시아 전역을 관할하는 인도태평양사령관에 존 아킬리노 태평양함대사령관(사진)을 임명할 예정이라고 월스트리트저널(WSJ)이 지난달 30일(현지 시간) 보도했다. 주한미군과 주일미군 등을 관할하는 인도태평양사령부는 미국의 아시아 군사전략을 실행하는 핵심 사령부다. 해리 해리스 주한 미국대사가 2015∼2018년 인도태평양사령관을 지냈음 12/5 속보! 한·미 연합사령관에 IS 격퇴한 라캐머러 대장 임명 폴 라캐머러(맨 왼쪽) 미 태평양육군사령관(대장)이 지난해 12 * CISA (사이버안보·기반시설안보국) 책임자 크리스 크레브스 해고 [참고] 해임된 크리스 크레브스 전 미국 국토안보부 산하 사이버안보·기반시설안보국(CISA) 국장을 도널드 트럼프 선거대책본부 변호사인 조 디제노바는 이날 한 라디오 토크쇼에 출연해 미 전역에서 대규모 선거 부정이 벌어졌다고 주장한 뒤 "사이버 보안 책임자였던 '바보(idiot)' 크레브스 처럼 선거가 잘 치러졌다고 생각하는 사람은 누구나 'A급 멍청이(moron)'"라고 비난했다. 이어 "그는 사지를 찢어 처형해야 한다. 새벽에 끌어내 총으로 쏴야 한다(He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot)"고도 했다. * 펜타곤 자문위원회에서 모든 글로벌리스트 제거 (키신저 및 울부라이트) * 법무부 장관을 '외국 선거 간섭'을 전문으로 하는 법무장관 대행 [제프 로젠]으로 교체 Jeff Rosen 부장관이 장관대행이 되고 Richard Donoghue 수석차관보가 부장관이 될 것이라고 밝혔다 막스갈로의 저 전쟁신 나폴레옹 전쟁의 승리은 결정적일때 전력을 집중하는 것이다 손자병법 전술은 적을 기만하는 것이다(내어리석음을 보여 적이 자만하게 한다) 유세중 트럼프 엉덩이춤 덩실은 다 아는 것이고(이춤을 출 때 얼마나 비웃었을까 바이든패거리가) 그러나 내부적으로 위와같이 군 장악함 맺음 다 썩어 문드러진 미국정치판에서 계엄령 외에는 답이 없음을 판단한 트럼프 각하는 최후의 승리을 쟁취하기 위한 계엄령을 선포하기 위해서 유세 중 엉덩이춤을 추면서 바이든 패거리들이 자만하게 하고 위와 같이 용병술을 철저히 하여 군대을 장악함 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nassim Nicholas Taleb If you're busy at work odds are you will eventually be replaced by a robot. 만일 당신이 일에만 열중한다면, 당신은 결국은 로봇으로 대체될 것이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 개인주의와 산업혁명 개인과 개인주의는 자유주의자들의 표어였다. 18세기의 합리주의자들과 자유주의자들은 필요한 것은 올바른 법률이라고 주장했다. 그들은 성문법을, 그리고 모든 개인의 능력의 개발을 허용하는 새로운 법을 요구했다. 하지만 이에 반대해 독일의 법학자 사비니Karl von Savigny는 법은 인간에 의해 쓰여질 수 없고, 전체의 영혼에 의해 신비로운 방법으로 발전해야 한다고 주장했다. 그는 또 개인이 생각하는 게 아니라, 국가나 사회가 개인을 도구로 사용해 자체의 사상을 표현하는 거라고 말했다. 그리고 이런 생각은 막스에 의해서도 강조되었는데, 이는 역사 발전을 개인의 자유를 향한 진화라고 생각한 헤겔과는 상이한 생각이었다. 막스에 따르면 노동자들의 생산물 일부가 자본가에 의해 착취되어 소비되지 않게 된다. 즉 과소 소비underconsumption가 발생한다. 이 과소 소비로 인해 정기적으로 불황이 일어난다는 것이다. 18세기에 아담 스미스를 비롯한 학자들은 무역의 자유, 그리고 독점, 길드, 특권에 대한 반대를 부르짖었다. 그리고 몇몇 사람은 가난한 사람들을 모집해 대중을 위한 생산을 시작했다. 그것이 바로 산업 혁명이었다. 현재 서구에 사는 8명의 사람 중에 7명은 산업 혁명 덕분에 생명을 부여받은 사람들이다. 애쉬턴Ashton을 제외하고 해먼드Hammond 부부 등을 비롯한 대부분의 역사가들은 막스가 해석한 산업혁명을 그대로 받아들이고 있다. Individualism and the Industrial Revolution Ludwig von Mises [Marxism Unmasked (2006)]에서 발췌 Liberals stressed the importance of the individual. The 19th-century liberals already considered the development of the individual the most important thing. "Individual and individualism" was the progressive and liberal slogan. Reactionaries had already attacked this position at the beginning of the 19th century. The rationalists and liberals of the 18th century pointed out that what was needed was good laws. Ancient customs that could not be justified by rationality should be abandoned. The only justification for a law was whether or not it was liable to promote the public social welfare. In many countries the liberals and rationalists asked for written constitutions, the codification of laws, and for new laws which would permit the development of the faculties of every individual. A reaction to this idea developed, especially in Germany where the jurist and legal historian Friedrich Karl von Savigny (1779–1861) was active. Savigny declared that laws cannot be written by men; laws are developed in some mystical way by the soul of the whole unit. It isn't the individual that thinks—it is the nation or a social entity which uses the individual only for the expression of its own thoughts. This idea was very much emphasized by Marx and the Marxists. In this regard the Marxists were not followers of Hegel, whose main idea of historical evolution was an evolution toward freedom of the individual. From the viewpoint of Marx and Engels, the individual was a negligible thing in the eyes of the nation. Marx and Engels denied that the individual played a role in historical evolution. According to them, history goes its own way. The material productive forces go their own way, developing independently of the wills of individuals. And historical events come with the inevitability of a law of nature. The material productive forces work like a director in an opera; they must have a substitute available in case of a problem, as the opera director must have a substitute if the singer gets sick. According to this idea, Napoleon and Dante, for instance, were unimportant—if they had not appeared to take their own special place in history, someone else would have appeared on stage to fill their shoes. To understand certain words, you must understand the German language. From the 17th century on, considerable effort was spent in fighting the use of Latin words and in eliminating them from the German language. In many cases a foreign word remained although there was also a German expression with the same meaning. The two words began as synonyms, but in the course of history, they acquired different meanings. For instance, take the word Umwälzung, the literal German translation of the Latin word revolution. In the Latin word there was no sense of fighting. Thus, there evolved two meanings for the word "revolution"—one by violence, and the other meaning a gradual revolution like the "Industrial Revolution." However, Marx uses the German word Revolution not only for violent revolutions such as the French or Russian revolutions, but also for the gradual Industrial Revolution. Incidentally, the term Industrial Revolution was introduced by Arnold Toynbee (1889–1975). Marxists say that "What furthers the overthrow of capitalism is not revolution—look at the Industrial Revolution." Marx assigned a special meaning to slavery, serfdom, and other systems of bondage. It was necessary, he said, for the workers to be free in order for the exploiter to exploit them. This idea came from the interpretation he gave to the situation of the feudal lord who had to care for his workers even when they weren't working. Marx interpreted the liberal changes that developed as freeing the exploiter of the responsibility for the lives of the workers. Marx didn't see that the liberal movement was directed at the abolition of inequality under law, as between serf and lord. Karl Marx believed that capital accumulation was an obstacle. In his eyes, the only explanation for wealth accumulation was that somebody had robbed somebody else. For Karl Marx the whole Industrial Revolution simply consisted of the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. According to him, the situation of the workers became worse with the coming of capitalism. The difference between their situation and that of slaves and serfs was only that the capitalist had no obligation to care for workers who were no longer exploitable, while the lord was bound to care for slaves and serfs. This is another of the insoluble contradictions in the Marxian system. Yet it is accepted by many economists today without realizing of what this contradiction consists. According to Marx, capitalism is a necessary and inevitable stage in the history of mankind leading men from primitive conditions to the millennium of socialism. If capitalism is a necessary and inevitable step on the road to socialism, then one cannot consistently claim, from the point of view of Marx, that what the capitalist does is ethically and morally bad. Therefore, why does Marx attack the capitalists? Marx says part of production is appropriated by the capitalists and withheld from the workers. According to Marx, this is very bad. The consequence is that the workers are no longer in a position to consume the whole production produced. A part of what they have produced, therefore, remains unconsumed; there is "underconsumption." For this reason, because there is underconsumption, economic depressions occur regularly. This is the Marxian underconsumption theory of depressions. Yet Marx contradicts this theory elsewhere. Marxian writers do not explain why production proceeds from simpler to more and more complicated methods. Nor did Marx mention the following fact: About 1700, the population of Great Britain was about 5.5 million; by the middle of 1700, the population was 6.5 million, about 500,000 of whom were simply destitute. The whole economic system had produced a "surplus" population. The surplus population problem appeared earlier in Great Britain than on continental Europe. This happened, first of all, because Great Britain was an island and so was not subject to invasion by foreign armies, which helped to reduce the populations in Europe. The wars in Great Britain were civil wars, which were bad, but they stopped. And then this outlet for the surplus population disappeared, so the numbers of surplus people grew. In Europe the situation was different; for one thing, the opportunity to work in agriculture was more favorable than in England. The old economic system in England couldn't cope with the surplus population. The surplus people were mostly very bad people—beggars and robbers and thieves and prostitutes. They were supported by various institutions, the poor laws, and the charity of the communities. Some were impressed into the army and navy for service abroad. There were also superfluous people in agriculture. The existing system of guilds and other monopolies in the processing industries made the expansion of industry impossible. In those precapitalist ages, there was a sharp division between the classes of society who could afford new shoes and new clothes, and those who could not. The processing industries produced by and large for the upper classes. Those who could not afford new clothes wore hand-me-downs. There was then a very considerable trade in secondhand clothes—a trade which disappeared almost completely when modern industry began to produce also for the lower classes. If capitalism had not provided the means of sustenance for these "surplus" people, they would have died from starvation. Smallpox accounted for many deaths in precapitalist times; it has now been practically wiped out. Improvements in medicine are also a product of capitalism. What Marx called the great catastrophe of the Industrial Revolution was not a catastrophe at all; it brought about a tremendous improvement in the conditions of the people. Many survived who wouldn't have survived otherwise. It is not true, as Marx said, that the improvements in technology are available only to the exploiters and that the masses are living in a state much worse than on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Everything the Marxists say about exploitation is absolutely wrong! Lies! In fact, capitalism made it possible for many persons to survive who wouldn't have otherwise. And today many people, or most people, live at a much higher standard of living than that at which their ancestors lived 100 or 200 years ago. During the 18th century, there appeared a number of eminent authors—the best known was Adam Smith (1723–1790)—who pleaded for freedom of trade. And they argued against monopoly, against the guilds, and against privileges given by the king and Parliament. Secondly, some ingenious individuals, almost without any savings and capital, began to organize starving paupers for production, not in factories but outside the factories, and not for the upper classes only. These newly organized producers began to make simple goods precisely for the great masses. This was the great change that took place; this was the Industrial Revolution. And this Industrial Revolution made more food and other goods available so that the population rose. Nobody saw less of what really was going on than Karl Marx. By the eve of the Second World War, the population had increased so much that there were 60 million Englishmen. You can't compare the United States with England. The United States began almost as a country of modern capitalism. But we may say by and large that out of eight people living today in the countries of Western civilization, seven are alive only because of the Industrial Revolution. Are you personally sure that you are the one out of eight who would have lived even in the absence of the Industrial Revolution? If you are not sure, stop and consider the consequences of the Industrial Revolution. The interpretation given by Marx to the Industrial Revolution is applied also to the interpretation of the "superstructure." Marx said the "material productive forces," the tools and machines, produce the "production relations," the social structure, property rights, and so forth, which produce the "superstructure," the philosophy, art, and religion. The "superstructure," said Marx, depends on the class situation of the individuals, i.e., whether he is a poet, painter, and so on. Marx interpreted everything that happened in the spiritual life of the nation from this point of view. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was called a philosopher of the owners of common stock and bonds. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was called the philosopher of big business. For every change in ideology, for every change in music, art, novel writing, play writing, the Marxians had an immediate interpretation. Every new book was explained by the "superstructure" of that particular day. Every book was assigned an adjective—"bourgeois" or "proletarian." The bourgeoisie were considered an undifferentiated reactionary mass. Don't think it is possible for a man to practice all his life a certain ideology without believing in it. The use of the term "mature capitalism" shows how fully persons, who don't think of themselves as Marxian in any way, have been influenced by Marx. Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, in fact almost all historians, have accepted the Marxian interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. The one exception is Ashton. Karl Marx, in the second part of his career, was not an interventionist; he was in favor of laissez-faire. Because he expected the breakdown of capitalism and the substitution of socialism to come from the full maturity of capitalism, he was in favor of letting capitalism develop. In this regard he was, in his writings and in his books, a supporter of economic freedom. Marx believed that interventionist measures were unfavorable because they delayed the coming of socialism. Labor unions recommended interventions and, therefore, Marx was opposed to them. Labor unions don't produce anything anyway and it would have been impossible to raise wage rates if producers had not actually produced more. Marx claimed interventions hurt the interests of the workers. The German socialists voted against [Otto von] Bismarck's social reforms that he instituted circa 1881 (Marx died in 1883). And in this country the Communists were against the New Deal. Of course, the real reason for their opposition to the government in power was very different. No opposition party wants to assign so much power to another party. In drafting socialist programs, everybody assumes tacitly that he himself will be the planner or the dictator, or that the planner or dictator will be intellectually completely dependent on him and that the planner or dictator will be his handyman. No one wants to be a single member in the planning scheme of somebody else. These ideas of planning go back to Plato's treatise on the form of the commonwealth. Plato was very outspoken. He planned a system ruled exclusively by philosophers. He wanted to eliminate all individual rights and decisions. Nobody should go anywhere, rest, sleep, eat, drink, wash, unless he was told to do so. Plato wanted to reduce persons to the status of pawns in his plan. What is needed is a dictator who appoints a philosopher as a kind of prime minister or president of the central board of production management. The program of all such consistent socialists—Plato and Hitler, for instance—planned also for the production of future socialists, the breeding and education of future members of society. During the 2,300 years since Plato, very little opposition has been registered to his ideas. Not even by Kant. The psychological bias in favor of socialism must be taken into consideration in discussing Marxian ideas. This is not limited to those who call themselves Marxian. Marxians deny that there is such a thing as the search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone. But they are not consistent in this case either, for they say one of the purposes of the socialist state is to eliminate such a search for knowledge. It is an insult, they say, for persons to study things that are useless. Now I want to discuss the meaning of the ideological distortion of truths. Class consciousness is not developed in the beginning, but it must inevitably come. Marx developed his doctrine of ideology because he realized he couldn't answer the criticisms raised against socialism. His answer was, "What you say is not true. It is only ideology. What a man thinks, so long as we do not have a classless society, is necessarily a class ideology—that is, it is based on a false consciousness." Without any further explanation, Marx assumed that such an ideology was useful to the class and to the members of the class that developed it. Such ideas had for their goal the pursuit of the aims of their class. Marx and Engels appeared and developed the class ideas of the proletariat. Therefore, from this time on the doctrine of the bourgeoisie is absolutely useless. Perhaps one may say that the bourgeoisie needed this explanation to solve a bad conscience. But why should they have a bad conscience if their existence is necessary? And it is necessary, according to Marxian doctrine, for without the bourgeoisie, capitalism cannot develop. And until capitalism is "mature," there cannot be any socialism. According to Marx, bourgeois economics, sometimes called "apologetics for bourgeois production," aided them, the bourgeoisie. The Marxians could have said that the thought the bourgeoisie gave to this bad bourgeois theory justified, in their eyes, as well as in the eyes of the exploited, the capitalist mode of production, thus making it possible for the system to exist. But this would have been a very un-Marxist explanation. First of all, according to Marxian doctrine, no justification is needed for the bourgeois system of production; the bourgeoisie exploit because it is their business to exploit, just as it is the business of the microbes to exploit. The bourgeoisie don't need any justification. Their class consciousness shows them that they have to do this; it is the capitalist's nature to exploit. A Russian friend of Marx wrote him that the task of the socialists must be to help the bourgeoisie exploit better and Marx replied that that was not necessary. Marx then wrote a short note saying that Russia could reach socialism without going through the capitalist stage. The next morning he must have realized that, if he admitted that one country could skip one of the inevitable stages, this would destroy his whole theory. So he didn't send the note. Engels, who was not so bright, discovered this piece of paper in the desk of Karl Marx, copied it in his own handwriting, and sent his copy to Vera Zasulich (1849–1919), who was famous in Russia because she had attempted to assassinate the police commissioner in St. Petersburg and been acquitted by the jury—she had a good defense counsel. This woman published Marx's note, and it became one of the great assets of the Bolshevik Party. The capitalist system is a system in which promotion is precisely according to merit. If people do not get ahead, there is bitterness in their minds. They are reluctant to admit that they do not advance because of their lack of intelligence. They take their lack of advancement out on society. Many blame society and turn to socialism. This tendency is especially strong in the ranks of intellectuals. Because professionals treat each other as equals, the less capable professionals consider themselves "superior" to nonprofessionals and feel they deserve more recognition than they receive. Envy plays an important role. There is a philosophical predisposition among persons to be dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. There is dissatisfaction, also, with political conditions. If you are dissatisfied, you ask what other kind of state can be considered. Marx had "antitalent"—i.e., a lack of talent. He was influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach, especially by Feuerbach's critique of Christianity. Marx admitted that the exploitation doctrine was taken from an anonymous pamphlet published in the 1820s. His economics were distortions taken over from [David] Ricardo (1772–1823). Marx was economically ignorant; he didn't realize that there can be doubts concerning the best means of production to be applied. The big question is, how shall we use the available scarce factors of production. Marx assumed that what has to be done is obvious. He didn't realize that the future is always uncertain, that it is the job of every businessman to provide for the unknown future. In the capitalist system, the workers and technologists obey the entrepreneur. Under socialism, they will obey the socialist official. Marx didn't take into consideration the fact that there is a difference between saying what has to be done and doing what somebody else has said must be done. The socialist state is necessarily a police state. The withering away of the state was just Marx's attempt to avoid answering the question about what would happen under socialism. Under socialism, the convicts will know that they are being punished for the benefit of the whole society. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------