1월 6일 미국은 사망했다.ㅣTris 트리스 https://youtu.be/frVd2k6kGGA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 트럼프 4년 … “미국 행정국가, 민주당 성향의 좌파 이익집단에 불과!” ... 이슈방담#.231 ... 2020.01.08. ... [박훈탁TV] https://y outu.be/D2C12oGzd2g ------------------------------------------------------------------------ e커머스가 살길이라 믿었는데…새해벽두부터 유통 규제 시작된다 與, 쿠팡·마켓컬리·SSG닷컴 등 영업시간·품목 조정 법안 추진 업계 “뉴노멀 시대에 역행” 비판 정치권이 법 개정을 통해 대형 마트/ 서울경제 --->예전의 물물교환 시대, 오일장의 시절로 회귀하고 있다. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 중국 공산화는 레닌 작품임 2 탈중국만이살길임 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11315608764 여기 '중국 공산화는 레닌 작품임' 일베간 글에 당시 러시아, 중국, 일본, 조선 등 국제상황을 더 첨가 하자면 저게 냉전시절 소련 지도임 보면 알겠지만 러시아와 국경을 접하고 있던 나라들은 전부 공산화 되었음 이게 바로 국가의 생존 법칙임 자국과 국경을 접하고 있는 나라에 잡아 먹히거나 아니면 잡아먹어야함 그래야 살아남음 그래서 1917년 레닌이 러시아 공산혁명에 성공하고 중국공산화 작업에 들어감 그런데 1917년 상황이 어떠했냐면 레닌에 1917년 공산혁명에 성공하자 거기에 반발한 세력이 들고 일어나서 러시아가 내전에 돌입함 근데 이때가 1차대전 끝무렵인데 당시 연합군이었던 미국, 영국, 일본이 레닌의 공산주의가 유럽 및 태평양 지역으로 퍼지는걸 막기 위해서 레닌의 공산혁명을 반대한 러시아의 백군을 지원하게 됨 그래서 미국, 영국, 일본이 1918년에 러시아 블라디보스톡에 군대를 상륙시킴 미국이 약 10,000명, 영국이 1,000명 병력을 상륙 시켰는데 일본은 70,000명을 파견함 그래서 당시 상황이 어땠냐면 저랬음 1918년 8월에 일본군 포함 미국, 영국 연합군이 블라디보스톡에 상륙했는데 미국, 영국과 달리 일본은 3달만에 만주 지역을 전부 저렇게 점령하고 저 멀리 바이칼호수 있는데 까지 점령을 해버림 이때 일본 육군 세력이 국내 및 국제적으로 막강한 위력을 발휘하게됨 일본의 의도는 러시아가 공산혁명으로 내전에 휩싸인 기회를 이용해서 우랄산맥 동쪽 러시아의 시베리아 영토를 전부 점령해서 아예 러시아가 극동에서 힘을 행사하지 못하게 하려는게 목적이었음 그래서 당시 레닌 한테는 미국, 영국 보다 일본을 막는게 러시아 공산주의가 생존할 수 있는 급선무 였고 그래서 레닌이 당시 일본에 저항하고 있던 중국 및 조선의 반일단체를 중심으로 민족주의 항일운동을 선동하는게 생존전략이었고 그래서 당시 러시아 극동지역에 살고 있던 조선인들 포섭해서 항일투쟁하도록 지원해준거고 이새끼들이 다른 조선인들 포섭해서 빨갱이 교육 시키고 항일운동하게 한건데 1920년에 발생한 청산리전투, 봉오동전투가 다 이때 발생한거임 그러니 청산리전투, 봉오동전투는 무슨 조선독립을 위한게 아니라 레닌 지원 받아서 러시아, 중국에서 일본군 몰아내고 러시아의 공산혁명을 지키고 중국과 조선을 공산화 시키려는 의도에서 나온 항일운동인거임 그래서 레닌이 저 짤 화살표에 표시된 '그리고리 보이틴스키(Grigori Voitinsky)' 라는 러시아 빨갱이 간첩을 중국에 파견해서 대학가를 중심으로 출판 활동 하면서 공산주의 사상을 전파하고 반서양, 반일, 반체제에 동조하는 중국 대학생들을 민족주의를 이용해서 포섭하기 시작하며 중국공산당 창설을 주도하게 됨 저새끼가 사실은 당시 중국 5.4운동 부추킨 놈이라함 또 저새끼는 미하일 보로딘(Mikhail Borodin)이라는 러시아인인데 저새끼가 쑨원을 매수해서 러시아가 자금과 무기를 제공할테니 중국공산당 하고 국공합작하라고 꼬드겨서 성공시킨 새끼고 장제스를 모스코바에 보내서 레닌사상 교육하고 군사교육 받게 한 놈임 즉 결론은 1920년 청산리전투, 봉오동전투는 저렇게 1917년 레닌의 공산주의 혁명, 1차대전, 러시아 내전 그리고 일본, 미국, 영국의 러시아 개입 거기에 대응한 레닌의 생존전략 이런게 복잡하게 뒤섞인 상황에서 나온거임 원래 청산리전투, 봉오동전투 자체가 한반도 국경 안에서 발생한 항일 전투도 아님 레닌의 중국, 조선 공산화 전략 그리고 일본의 러시아 시베리아 전략 그리고 그 중간에서 레닌 한테 이용당한게 소위 말하는 조선인 항일 독립투사들이란건데 한국의 독립을 위해서 싸운게 아니라 소련의 공산주의를 지키고 중국과 조선의 공산화를 위해서 항일투쟁한 새끼들을 독립투사라며 국가유공자로 지정해서 세금낭비하고 있는게 병신 한국 새끼들임 / 일베, 사진 생략 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Capitol Riot Wasn’t a Coup. It Wasn't Even Close. Ryan McMaken Coups are nearly always acts committed by elites against the sitting executive power using the tools of the elites. It's clear the elites want Trump gone, and Wednesday's riot was no coup. 의사당 난동은 쿠데타가 아니었다. 쿠데타는 현직의 대통령에 대항해 엘리트들이 그들의 도구를 이용해 일으키는 행위이다. https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even-close ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 웬디 브라운의 책 <네오리버럴리즘의 폐허 속에서> 서평 저자는 하이에크가 국가의 복지 제공을 반대했다고 믿고 있지만, 하이에크의 책 <예종에의 길>을 보면 그는 영국 정도의 선진국가에서는 국가가 일정한 복지를 제공해야 한다고 말했고, 이런 이유 때문에 미제스와 로스바드는 하이에크를 비판했다. Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan: The Villains of "Neoliberalism" David Gordon In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West by Wendy Brown Columbia University Press, 2019 viii + 248 pages Wendy Brown, a well-known political theorist who teaches at UC Berkeley, does not like Friedrich Hayek very much. She in part blames him and others as well, including Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, for policies that have led to the bad state of the world in general and America in particular today. In the Ruins of Neoliberalism covers other topics, ranging from the case of the Colorado cake maker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex couple to the rise of nihilism about values and Herbert Marcuse’s “repressive desublimation” (not a good thing, I assure you); but I shall concentrate on what she says about Hayek. Her most fundamental criticism of Hayek is that he opposes democracy in the sense in which she favors it. In her view, democracy signifies political arrangements through which a people rules itself. Political equality is democracy’s foundation. Everything else is optional—from constitutions, to personal liberty, from specific economic forms to specific political institutions. Political equality alone ensures that the composition and exercise of political power is authorized by the whole and accountable to the whole. When political equality is absent, whether from extreme social or economic disparities, from uneven or managed access to knowledge, or from manipulation of the electoral system, political power will inevitably be exercised by and for a part, rather than the whole. The demos ceases to rule. (p. 23, emphasis mine) One thing is missing from her account which you would expect to be present. Why is democracy in her sense a “good thing”? Is it just supposed to be obvious that it is? No doubt there are worse political systems than democracy, e.g., a communist dictatorship, but why is democracy to be preferred above all other social arrangements? She does not tell us. Her reticence is surprising in view of the considerable sympathy she shows for Nietzsche’s criticism of morality. But if values are subject to questioning, this value—democracy—is not. Given this standpoint, it is easy to see what she has against Hayek. He opposed democracy as she understands it. She gives a good account of his views, stressing his opposition not only to democracy but to “social justice” and his defense of the spontaneous orders of the market and traditional morality. Hayek rejects just what she supports. The cardinal sin of the Continental tradition, however, is its worship of popular sovereignty, a concept…that Hayek calls a dangerous “nonsense notion.” Popular sovereignty threatens individual freedom, licenses unbounded government, and confers supremacy on precisely the domain that needs to be leashed, the political. It permits legislative power to run amok, exceeding its task of formulating universal rules of justice, inevitably expanding the powers of the administrative state as it does so…[A]s legislative practice that exceeds universal rule making expands state power and curtails freedom, justice itself becomes confused. We mistakenly call “just” Hayek says, whatever lawmakers do, or whatever we think that they should do, rather than reserving the term for what the ancient Greeks called isonomía, “equal justice for all.” (pp. 68–69) You might expect Brown after this account of Hayek’s view to show what is wrong with it, for example by arguing that popular sovereignty doesn’t lead to the bad consequences that Hayek fears. But she doesn’t do this. Instead, she treats what Hayek says merely as symptomatic; his position is not to be argued against but diagnosed. It is wrong because “democracy” is good—obviously. Although she has read Hayek extensively, and on the whole gives an insightful account of his ideas, at one point she misstates them. Rightly stressing his support for traditional morality, she claims that Hayek’s ideas lead to a rejection of state provision of welfare to the poor and that he condemns completely “the social state’s replacement of family functions and replacement of moral law with social justice.” (p. 74) To the contrary, Hayek thinks that the decline of the extended family as the modern economy has grown makes a role for the state in providing welfare inevitable, and he favors such measures. In The Road to Serfdom, he says: There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.” Indeed, both Mises and Rothbard criticize Hayek for undue concessions to the welfare state. In a very favorable review of The Constitution of Liberty, Mises complains, Unfortunately, the third part of Professor Hayek's book is rather disappointing. Here the author tries to distinguish between socialism and the Welfare State. Socialism, he alleges, is on the decline; the Welfare State is supplanting it. And he thinks the Welfare State is, under certain conditions, compatible with liberty….However, the fact that Professor Hayek has misjudged the character of the Welfare State does not seriously detract from the value of his great book. (Brown does not mention Mises at all in the book.) Brown also wrongly suggests that Hayek, in his criticism of sovereignty, agrees with Carl Schmitt that political concepts are secularized theological concepts. She says, quoting Hayek, Moreover, the very notion of sovereignty rests on a “false constructivist interpretation of the formation of human institutions which attempts to trace them all to an original designer or some other deliberate act of will.” Thus, Hayek concurs with Schmitt that sovereignty is a secularized theological concept, but, unlike Schmitt, regards sovereignty as false and dangerous because it is theological. (p. 70, emphasis in original) But in speaking of an “original designer,” Hayek isn’t talking about an analogue to God but is contrasting institutions that arise through deliberate acts of human will with the products of spontaneous order. If Brown’s discussion of Hayek is for the most part careful, the same cannot be said of her remarks about James Buchanan. Here, I regret to say, she is guilty of sloppy scholarship. She hasn’t read Buchanan but relies entirely on Nancy MacLean’s worthless screed Democracy in Chains (see my review of it). Brown says: James Buchanan of the Virginia Public Choice School of neoliberalism decried public goods. . .he understood the importance of gerrymandering and voter suppression and alloyed his brand of free enterprise with the project of white supremacism.” (p. 62) In fact, Buchanan wrote a book, The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, about the provision of public goods and the topic is a major theme in his long career as an economist. And, far from being allied with white suprematism, he supports preference for minority candidates in education and employment. Most of the book is on a much higher level than this, though. Otherwise, we would be in the ruins of In the Ruins of Neoliberalism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 과학적 절대주의에 빠진 환경 운동가 빌 나이의 인스타그램 사진 나이는 캘리포니아 산불이 산불 관리의 부실이 아닌, 지구의 기온 상승의 결과라고 주장한다. 그는 또 지구의 기온 상승은 인간의 행동에 의해 멈춰질 수 있다고 말한다. 나이는 과학의 근본적인 목적을 잘못 이해하고 있다. 과학은 자연현상에 관한 지식을 얻기 위한 경험적 도구이다. 과학은 단지 실증적 진술positive statements만을 할 수 있을 뿐이고, 규범적 진술은 절대 하면 안 된다. 예를 들어 과학은 알콜이 여러 가지 병을 일으킬 수 있다고는 말해도, 개인에게 금주를 하라고 말해서는 안 된다. 음주 여부는 개인의 가치 판단의 문제이기 때문이다. Climate Activism, Captured in One Instagram Post Nick Stiles The other day, during my daily dose of immersion in the cesspool of leftist propaganda that is Instagram, I came across a post that perfectly captures the essence of climate activism. The post comes from Bill Nye, the man who was once a well-liked and entertaining television personality and children's science educator. Many younger Americans during their primary schooling watched episodes of his PBS show, Bill Nye the Science Guy. From his glory days of acting as a twenty-minute substitute for our exhausted middle school science teachers, he has now entered into the endless abyss of what I like to call “scientific absolutism,” a tactic that the climate fanatics, and the administrative left in general, hold near and dear. In the post, Nye stands in front of a thermometer reading 108 degrees. Underneath is the caption, “108 Fahrenheit, 30 September. Not really a forest management issue…is it? It’s climate change. There is work to do. #VoteforScience.” A closer examination of the image and the accompanying language used by Nye will illustrate the political and academic landscapes we currently face. First, for those unaware of the intricacies of the Instagram dialect, “#VoteforScience” may be translated to “Vote for Joe Biden.” Second, it should be noted that the post responds to the (at that point) recent widespread forest fires in California. Nye claims that the violent fires are a result not of forest poor management, but of allegedly increasing global temperature. However, this alone is not enough to satisfy him, for if the temperature of the Earth were a variable out of our control, there would be no need to emphasize its effects. Rather, by noting “there is work to do,” he implies that the alleged global rise in temperature, which is also allegedly responsible for the forest fires, is a product of, and can be reversed through, human action. In connecting this to his previous point, he is making a normative statement in his hashtag, asserting that we ought to vote for Joe Biden. In doing so, he makes two assumptions. Nye assumes that we ought to submit ourselves wholly to his scientific hypotheses about forest fires, rising global temperatures, and human influence on these variables. He then assumes that once we do this, we must necessarily also value his presumed end, namely, the preservation of forests, over other goals, which must be given up in the pursuit of lowering the rate of global temperature increase. Yet, one must be willfully ignorant to deny that many sacrifices must be made in order to adopt Nye's peculiar mixture of means and ends. Thirdly, by writing “There is work to do,” he also demands that the government coerce you and all others into following his plan. This can be deduced from the fact that the “work” he demands be done is of a collective nature; he believes that the increase in global temperature can be curbed only when everyone follows his plan. Science vs. Propaganda Nye’s post shows that his ideas do not differ from those to which we have now been exposed for many years. The climate cultists have been pushing such an agenda for a long time. Instead, what is striking about this post is its propagandistic nature. The fact that the temperature exceeds 100 degrees during one day just after the end of summer in California—a place not alien to unseasonable heat waves—does not at all necessarily lead us to Nye's conclusions. But by assuming this one data point “proves” his point, Nye makes it clear this is little more than sloganeering. However, much more concerning than the lack of rigorous proof of his hypotheses is Nye’s misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of science. Science is an empirical tool for gaining knowledge of natural phenomena. It may only issue positive statements, never normative ones. It can never tell one what he ought to do. To use an example from Mises, science may tell a man that drinking alcohol will increase his susceptibility to various diseases. But in no way does science tell him that he ought to stop drinking; if he values the enjoyment of drinking more than he does his good health, he will continue drinking. This choice is not “anti-scientific”; it is simply the result of his subjective scale of preferences. Once science escapes the sphere of purely positive statements, it loses credibility, and no longer can convey universal knowledge regarding natural phenomena. As Jörg Guido Hülsmann pointed out in his recent article “Toward a Political Economy of Climate Change,” when climate researchers recommend policy action, they swiftly move out of the realm of climate science and into the realm of political philosophy, an area in which they lack expertise. While Nye presents to us one clear example, such misuse and abuse of science characterizes the behavior of the climate activists. The public, eagerly seeking the comfort of trusting those with “a plan,” i.e., the elites and the bureaucracy, while fearing deeper philosophical and economic debates, is quick to overlook this leap across fields on behalf of the scientists. Hence, we see such polemical propaganda as Nye’s reaching millions of young impressionable minds on social media under the guise of objective science. Despite relinquishing the source from which science derives credibility, such academic elites pretend as though their statements remain objective and use their perverted form of science to further their specific plans, those which should rightly be examined through the political and economic lenses. Nick Stiles is a senior in high school. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------