Bad Kitty 真相 @pepesgrandma Audio of Scott Koch admitting to Stacy that Biden ballots were unloaded from 2 Korean planes, while Trump ballots were loaded up and removed. A Josh supposedly has video too. This explains the pristine mail-in ballots. 미국 부정선거의 가짜표 운반에 한국 비행기 이용 ㄷㄷㄷ 트럼프의 진짜 표를 없애는 동안 2대의 한국 비행기에서 나온 바이든의 가짜 표로 대체함 ㄷㄷ 이는 접히지 않은 빳빳한 우편투표 용지에 대한 설명이 됨 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 1줄 요약 미대선과 한국의 415부정선거는 별개가 아님 ㄷㄷ / 일베 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bad Kitty 真相 @pepesgrandma Part 1: Korean Air in Phoenix ballot deliveries and Ryan Hartwig’s involvement in the nights event. Ryan used to work for Project Veritas. The plane left earlier than scheduled and before police arrived. The police report number is 2020-1830839. https://ryanhartwig.org/korean_air_part_1/ 안그래도 주한미군건으로 현정부 압박했었던게 트럼프인데다 강경화는 말로 표현할 수 없는 병크짓해서 (https://www.chosun.com/politics/blue_house/2020/11/09/FNQTKJSFAJF73LVCTI7IJEBYJY/) 죨라 찍힌 상태에다가 트럼프도 개빡친상태일텐데 플러스로 대북전단법으로 미의회 다수 의원들도 청문회 열정도로 안 좋게 보는 상황이고 야당 병신들도 바이든 되어야된다고 바이든 지지를 대놓고 했는데 ㅋㅋㅋ 미국 대선 개입까지 한국이 했다고 밝혀지면.. 진짜 감당안될듯.. 반미나라 반미정부들의 최후를 보면은 항상 피해자는 국민들이였음.. 1줄 요약 크리스마스 끝나고 진짜 큰 일 터질듯 ㄷㄷㄷ 정치 이런거 떠나서 한국까지 개입했다면 큰일이 벌어진다 ㄷㄷㄷ --->중국에서 미국 선거용지 인쇄하고, 한국의 비행기를 이용해 미국에 배달했다. 중국 공산당, 한국 좌파 정부, 미국 좌파 민주당이 공모한 부정선거였다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Giuliani: Election fraud evidence 'going to blow up' after Christmas, become clear 'all at once' 줄리아니 변호사가 크리스마스 이후부터 메가톤급 사실이 드러날 것이라고 공언했습니다. "크리스마스가 지나면 민주당 지도부와 신문과 TV 등 주류 언론, SNS 재벌기업들이 손 쓸 새도 없이 그들이 퍼뜨린 정보들이 모두 거짓이라는 증거가 일시에 드러날 것이다." "그것은 국가에 매우 쇼킹한 소식이 될 것" 이라고 말했습니다. / 일베 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 린 우드,펜스 부통령의 엡스타인 의혹제기/크리스마스에 폭탄테러/트럼프 "외계생명체 발견되면 큰일" 박상후의 문명개화 크리스마스 아침시간에 미 테니시주 내쉬빌의 AT&T본사 건물앞에서 폭탄이 실려있던 RV가 폭발해 이 일대가 쑥대밭이 됐습니다. 사망자는 없었지만 협박의도가 있는 테러로 보입니다. 미국이 내전으로 가는것 아니냐는 불안감이 엄습하고 있습니다. 이런 가운데 법률전으로는 가능성이 없다면서 계엄령을 주장해온 린 우드 변호사가 마이크 펜스 부통령을 믿어서는 안된다는 충격적인 주장을 했습니다. 그는 마이크 펜스와 엡스타인 연루설을 제기했습니다. 그는 트위터에서 펜스 부통령을 존 로버츠 연방대법관, 바이든, 오바마, 클린턴, 미치 매코넬과 동일선상에서 언급했습니다. 린 우드 변호사는 또 존 로버츠 대법관이 의문의 눈주위 상처를 입은 것에 대해서도 해명하라고 요구했습니다. 미스테리의 상처를 입은뒤 불법체류외국인 청소년들을 수용한다는 오바마의 법안을 취소하려는 트럼프 대통령의 움직임을 연방대법원에서 저지한 로버츠에 대해 다시 공격했습니다. 한편 트럼프 대통령은 황당한 우한폐렴피해구제법안을 반려한뒤 트위터에 외계생명체가 발견되지 않기를 희망한다는 2014년 포스팅을 다시 올렸습니다. 공화 민주 양당 의원들이 압도적으로 통과시켜 트럼프 대통령에게 서명하라고 제출한 우한폐렴피해구제법안에 담긴 충격적인 항목들을 다시 자세히 설명했습니다. 미 의회는 공화 민주 할것없이 기성정치인들은 아주 부패했습니다. 우한폐렴 피해 구제는 양두구육이었습니다. 상하원 의원들은 이 법안을 구실로 자신들의 세비를 대폭 인상한 것으로 나타났습니다. https://youtu.be/XpoIBNCYUGI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 펜스 배신자 썰은 기우, 합동 회의에 증거로 폭격 (Flood with sh-t!) Scott 인간과 자유이야기 https://youtu.be/T_x3N-dFLAE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국 통신센타 폭파, 현역의원 체포, 트럼프 작전개시 임박 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/-cBE1gv2PT4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “정조, 실상은 폭군이었다” 70대 재독 사학자의 도발 하지만 정말 정조가 개혁 군주였을까. 재독(在獨) 사학자인 변원림(72) 박사는 단호하게 “아니다”라고 부인한다. 정조가 진짜 성군이었는지 몇 년간 추적 작업을 벌인 끝에 그 결과물을 ‘정조의 공포정치’(가제)라는 단행본으로 이르면 올 연말에 출간할 예정이다. ----->책은 읽어보지 않았지만, 신문기사만으로도, 그리고 그후 조선이 점점 쇠퇴한 것으로 보아, 변 박사의 말이 옳은 듯하다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 존 스튜어트 밀은 중앙통제 정권의 위험성을 알고 있었다. 밀은 사회주의를 선호했는데, 그가 말하는 사회주의는 조합주의였다. 그는 중앙에서 통제되는 공산주의는 위험하다고 보았다. 이는 하이에크의 통찰과도 일치한다. 밀은 일정한 문명의 단계에 이르지 못한 사람들에게는 중앙통제의 독재도 가능하다고 해서, 자신의 말에 충실하지는 못했지만, 소수의 엘리트에 의한 중앙 통제 정권이 자유를 말살할 거라는 통찰은 선견지명이 있었다 Mill: Socialism Could Work for More Advanced People David Gordon John Stuart Mill was more favorable to socialism than David Ricardo and his followers, even though Mill in economics was generally a Ricardian. In the preface to the third edition of his Principles of Political Economy (1852), he says that the main obstacle to socialism is that people might not yet be civilized enough to put it into practice. When people reach this higher state he isn’t sure what they will decide. Mill says, The chapter on Property has been almost entirely re-written. I was far from intending that the statement which it contained of the objections to the best known Socialist schemes should be understood as a condemnation of Socialism, regarded as an ultimate result of human progress. The only objection to which any great importance will be found to be attached in the present edition is the unprepared state of mankind in general, and of the labouring classes in particular; their extreme unfitness at present for any order of things, which would make any considerable demand on either their intellect or their virtue. It appears to me that the great end of social improvement should be to fit mankind by cultivation for a state of society combining the greatest personal freedom with that just distribution of the fruits of labour which the present laws of property do not profess to aim at. Whether, when this state of mental and moral cultivation shall be attained, individual property in some form (though a form very remote from the present) or community of ownership in the instruments of production and a regulated division of the produce will afford the circumstances most favourable to happiness, and best calculated to bring human nature to its greatest perfection, is a question which must be left, as it safely may, to the people of that time to decide. Those of the present are not competent to decide it. When Mill wrote about socialism, though, he had mainly in mind a system of workers’ cooperatives, though he considered other arrangements, including communist systems in which people share equally, as well. He is sympathetic to these too, but of one variety of socialism he is critical. This is a centrally planned economy in which people’s jobs are assigned by an elite group at the top. He thinks this is hostile to liberty, and this verdict doesn’t change even if people can vote from time to time about the membership of the elite. He says, It supposes an absolute despotism in the heads of the association; which would probably not be much improved if the depositaries of the despotism (contrary to the views of the authors of the system) were varied from time to time according to the result of a popular canvass. But to suppose that one or a few human beings, howsoever selected, could, by whatever machinery of subordinate agency, be qualified to adapt each person's work to his capacity, and proportion each person's remuneration to his merits—to be, in fact, the dispensers of distributive justice to every member of a community; or that any use which they could make of this power would give general satisfaction, or would be submitted to without the aid of force—is a supposition almost too chimerical to be reasoned against. A fixed rule, like that of equality, might be acquiesced in, and so might chance, or an external necessity; but that a handful of human beings should weigh everybody in the balance, and give more to one and less to another at their sole pleasure and judgment would not be borne, unless from persons believed to be more than men, and backed by supernatural terrors. This closely resembles the central argument of The Road to Serfdom. In chapter 7, Hayek says, Most planners who have seriously considered the practical aspects of their task have little doubt that a directed economy must be run on more or less dictatorial lines. That the complex system of interrelated activities, if it is to be consciously directed at all, must be directed by a single staff of experts, and that ultimate responsibility must rest in the hands of a commander-in chief whose actions must not be fettered by democratic procedure, is too obvious a consequence of general ideas of central planning not to command fairly general assent. Hayek goes on to say that supporters of central planning claim that coercion would be confined to the economic aspects of life and that this still allows considerable scope for individual freedom. Hayek denies this. The authority directing all economic activity would control not merely the part of our lives which is concerned with inferior things; it would control the allocation of the limited means for all our ends. And whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which not. Central planning controlled by an elite leads to total dictatorship, exactly Mill’s argument. Hayek was well aware of Mill’s insight, and he quotes part of the same passage I have highlighted. Unfortunately, Mill isn’t completely true to his insight. It applies only to people who have reached a certain level of civilization, not to “savages.” (He limits in the same way his defense of freedom of opinion in On Liberty.) Mill says, That the scheme might in some peculiar states of society work with advantage, is not improbable. There is indeed a successful experiment, of a somewhat similar kind, on record, to which I have once alluded; that of the Jesuits in Paraguay. A race of savages, belonging to a portion of mankind more averse to consecutive exertion for a distant object than any other authentically known to us, was brought under the mental dominion of civilized and instructed men who were united among themselves by a system of community of goods. To the absolute authority of these men they reverentially submitted themselves, and were induced by them to learn the arts of civilized life, and to practise labours for the community, which no inducement that could have been offered would have prevailed on them to practise for themselves. Mill was for much of his adult life a high official of the East India Company and an ardent imperialist. Liberty was not for the “lesser breeds without the law,” as Kipling later termed the subject peoples. But despite his many limitations, unforgettably brought out by Murray Rothbard, he does deserve praise for recognizing that central planning run by an elite would bring liberty to an end. . ----------------------------------------------------------------------