충격!! 선관위 이 새끼들 부정선거 하기는 했나 보네 ㅉㅉㅉ 까똑까똑2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11333618354 [단독]선관위 3170명 보험 든다…"공정성 논란 줄소송 대비" : 네이버 뉴스 (naver.com) 1. 현직 공무원들이 2015년 1월 1일부터 2021년 12월 31일까지의 배상책임보험에 가입함 2. 그 중 기간제 근로자가 38명, 무기계약제 근로자가 38명인데 선관위 직원들은 무려 그 100배인 3,097명 ㄷㄷㄷ 3. 선관위 직원들이 보험을 원하는 시기를 보니 정확하게 문재앙 정권 기간동안의 전체 선거들에 대한 보험임 4. 제3자가 선관위 직원들에게 부정선거 관련 소송을 제기하면 국민혈세 나랏돈으로 3,000만원까지 보상해 준단다 씨발 5. 일반 직원의 100배나 되는 3,100명이 5년간의 각종 선거 관련 소송을 대비해서 보험을 든다는 것 자체가 부정선거 증거 아님? 6. 아무 죄도 없이 당당한 놈들이 미쳤다고 보험 가입하겠음? 2줄 요약 1. 문재앙의 충견 노릇하는 선관위 새끼들 정권 바뀌는거 눈치채고 국민혈세로 지들 소송비 보상비 떼우려고 대부분 보험 가입 중 2. 이쯤 되면 선관위 새끼들이 그동안 문재앙 정권에서 거행된 각종 선거 대부분 부정선거에 간여했다는 정황증거로 확실하지 않노? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사회적 정의 전사들을 만들어내는 마음의 바이러스들 갓 사드Gaad Saad의 책 <기생충에 좀먹힌 정신>은 객관적인 진리를 부정하는 현대의 유행을 반박하는 책이다. 인간 정신에는 기생충적인 병원체가 있는데, 이것들은 신념 체계와 생각의 패턴, 정신 세계 등으로 구성되어 있고, 인간의 사고 능력에 기생해 양분을 빨아먹는다. 이들 정신의 바이러스가 신경 회로를 정복하면, 그 환자는 이성과 논리와 과학으로 사고하는 능력을 잃고, 현실과 상식, 진리와 동떨어진 자발적인 광기에 갇힌다. 이 병원체들이 가지는 한가지 공통점은 사람들을 현실의 족쇄로부터 해방시키려는 것이다. 예를 들면, 인간이 태어날 때는 백지와 같은 공백 상태로 태어난다는 주장이다. 다시 말해 인간이 생물학적으로 진화한 유전도 없고, 타고난 개인들간의 차이도 없이 태어난다는 생각이다. 포스트모더니즘은 모든 지식은 상대적이라고 하고, 사회적 구성주의는 인간의 행동, 욕망, 기호 등은 대부분 생물학적인 유전에 의해 결정되는 게 아니라 사회에 의해 형성된다고 믿는다. 급진 페미니즘은 젠더 역할이 가부장제에 의해 형성되었다고 하고, 트랜스젠더 행동가들은 생물학적인 성과 젠더는 이분법적으로 나뉘는 게 아니라 유동적인 구성체라고 말한다. The "Mind Viruses" Creating Social Justice Warriors David Gordon The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense by Gad Saad. Regnery, 2020 xvi + 240 pages Gaad Saad, a psychologist who specializes in applying evolutionary biology to the study of consumer behavior, has written a book of great value, and moreover, it is a book that required great courage to write. The book is filled with interesting ideas, and I have space here to mention only a few of them. What most draws me to the book is that Saad has a philosophical turn of mind, and as such, he is concerned with fashionable attempts to deny the existence of objective truth. He says, The central focus of this book is to explore another set of pathogens that are as dangerous [as biological parasites] to the human condition: parasitic pathogens of the human mind. These are composed of thought patterns, belief systems, attitudes, and mindsets that parasitize one’s ability to think properly and accurately. Once these mind viruses take hold of one’s neuronal circuitry, the afflicted victim loses the ability to use reason, logic, and science to navigate the world. Instead, one sinks into an abyss of infinite lunacy best defined by a dogged and proud departure from reality, common sense, and truth. (p. 17) The mental viruses Saad has in mind are to a large extent those that deny that human beings have a biological nature. He says, for example, Many idea pathogens share one common thread, a deep desire to liberate people from the shackles of reality. Take, for example, the blank slate premise of the human mind. It posits that humans are born void of any evolved biological blueprints and innate individual differences. Our eventual life trajectories are thought to be fully shaped by the distinct environment to which we’ve been exposed. (p. 70) It is exactly here that Saad has manifested his courage, as the followers of many fashionable movements deny what he affirms and have been quick to boycott and blacklist dissenters. He tells us that the idea pathogens on university campuses fall into several large categories. Postmodernism posits that all knowledge is relative (no objective truths)…. Social constructivism proposes that the great majority of human behaviors, desires, and preferences are formed not by human nature or our biological heritage but by society, which means, among other things, that there are no biologically determined sex differences, but only culturally imposed “gender roles.” Radical feminism asserts that these gender roles are due to the nebulous and nefarious forces of the patriarchy. Transgender activism purports that biological sex and “gender” are non-binary fluid constructs. Scientifically speaking, postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism, and transgender activism are all based on demonstrable falsehoods. (p. 69, emphasis in original) Saad has placed great stress on the findings, as he takes them, of evolutionary biology, but how do we know these findings are true, and, moreover, so firmly established that resistance to them can be characterized as mental pathology? In a crucial passage, he says that evolutionary theory is supported by “nomological networks of cumulative evidence.” “This approach epitomizes the gift of the human intellect. It is akin to building a jigsaw puzzle. No single piece is sufficient to see the full image but once all of the pieces are placed in their rightful positions, the final pattern emerges clearly” (p. 146). Saad, it transpires, firmly believes that science is our best means to attain objective truth. “Philosophers have offered many frameworks to define truth. Mathematical proofs, for instance, are axiomatic truths. Empirical truths, on the other hand, are sought by the scientific method” (p. 143, emphasis in original). Saad’s views about evolution and science merit careful consideration, but my aim here is to present them rather than evaluate them. I would, though, note one problem. When he says that the “scientific method is the universal epistemological framework for understanding the world around us” (p. 57, emphasis added), he is making a statement that he takes to be true, even though it is a philosophical statement and not a scientific one. In his stress on the objectivity of logic and reason, Saad finds an ally in Ludwig von Mises, whom he cites: The contemporary progressive mantra considers it laudable to argue that different races, cultures, or religions possess distinct ways of knowing. However, not too long ago, the idea that people of different races or classes possessed distinct ways of thinking and reasoning, was reserved for racists and other miscreants. Ludwig von Mises … coined the term polylogism to capture this exact folly. Mises differentiated between Marxian polylogism and racial polylogism…. Polylogism is an anti-science notion, as Mises well knew…. There is no “black mind” or “white mind,” no “white male way of knowing” or “indigenous way of knowing,” there is only one truth, and we find it through the scientific method. (pp. 59–60) An objection might occur to some readers, but Saad has an answer to it. Saad says that there is only one way of knowing, not separate male and female ways of knowing, but doesn’t he also, against those he calls radical feminists, emphasize biologically based differences between the behavior of men and women? Saad would reply that there is no contradiction: there are evolutionary reasons for both universal logic and sex-based differences in behavior. If science is to continue to progress, it is essential that all lines of inquiry be open. This openness ought not to give way to the demands of certain “oppressed” groups that controversial views that hurt their feelings should be banned: Given that they are so wrong, how do the ideologues defend their idea pathogens? Under totalitarian regimes, the solution is direct. You criminalize if not violently suppress (or kill) any dissenting voices. In the West, the ideological indoctrination is subtler. It is achieved by an ethos of political correctness and best enforced by creating university campuses that lack intellectual diversity … intellectual terrorists instruct generations of gullible students to remain quiet in their classroom seats while they inculcate them with anti-science nonsense. (p. 92, emphasis in original) The “social justice warriors” have met their match in Gad Saad, and readers will benefit from the many stimulating ideas in The Parasitic Mind. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 보편적 기본소득제는 노예로 가는 길이다. 기본소득제는 정부의 프로그램이고, 우리는 언제나 정부를 자유의 적으로 감시해야 한다. 보편적 기본소득제는 국가를 보호자로, 시민들을 피보호자로 제도화할 위험이 있다. UBI and the Road to Serfdom David Gordon Many people think that a universal basic income (UBI) would be a good substitute for the welfare state. Under this proposal, each person resident in a country would receive a guaranteed income, sufficient to live at a modest level. People would get the money unconditionally. Unlike welfare payments, the UBI would not be lessened if people earned money in addition to the amount it provided, and, because it is not means tested—absolutely everyone gets it, even billionaires—it requires no complex bureaucracy to administer. The UBI would cost a great deal of money, but its defenders claim that since it is a substitute for the welfare state, we would also save the vast amounts of money now required for financing welfare programs. Further, if our economy continues to grow, at some point the UBI will become affordable. Charles Murray, for example, in a short book published a number of years ago, says of his version of the UBI, “I began this thought experiment by asking you to ignore that the Plan was politically impossible today. I end proposing that something like the Plan is politically inevitable—not next year, but sometime…. Real per capita GNP has grown with remarkable fidelity to an exponential growth equation for more than a century" (In Our Hands, AEI Press, 2006, p. 125). The critics of the UBI aren’t convinced and still claim the program would be too costly to implement. In a recent book, Universal Basic Income – For and Against (Rational Rise Press, 2019). Antony Sammeroff offers a very able account of this controversy and many other issues connected with the UBI. He gives an especially good analysis of the argument that automation is liable to make so many people unemployable that a UBI will be needed to provide for them. But what I’d like to discuss this week is another argument that Sammeroff deploys to great effect against the UBI. The UBI, Sammeroff reminds us, is a government program, and we ought always to view the state as an enemy of liberty. It is precisely the feature of the UBI that its supporters emphasize, its universal coverage, which would enable to state to exercise tyrannical control. Sammeroff says, Now a Basic Income Guarantee may begin universal, but as the years wear on and it proves expensive to grant, corners may be cut to ensure its continuance. Hardly anyone will object to the UBI being withdrawn from criminals, for example. And then perhaps for anti-social behavior. Petty crimes, like littering the street, might lead people to receive a penalty against their UBI. A few might moan that this is the beginning of a government social-engineering program, but to most people it will seem like quite a sensible and reasonable measure…. Clipping people’s Basic Income will soon seem the most sensible and appropriate response to many crimes and misdemeanors. (p.148–49) Not only could the state use the UBI as an instrument of social control; we have every reason to think those in charge of the state would exercise their power for bad motives. This is the same class of people [who] launched a permanent war in the Middle East wasting trillions of dollars and destroying millions of lives. They bailed out the banks from the public purse and gave themselves raises after telling the rest of the nation that we had to tighten our belts. They have robbed the young of the opportunity to own a home by sending house prices through the roof, and mean to leave them a nation in ruinous debt. (p.147) Sammeroff’s argument here is consistent with the contention of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, summarized in the title of chapter 10, “Why the Worst Get on Top,” but it is not quite the same. Hayek argues that rulers will very likely be bad, but Sammeroff’s point is not dependent on this thesis. His claim is rather that the evidence shows that our present rulers are bad and will remain so. Thus they can be expected to abuse the UBI program. Sammeroff strengthens his case that the UBI poses a threat of tyranny by using an admission from Charles Murray, who, as mentioned above, is a pioneering advocate of the program. He acknowledges that the UBI would require people to have a “universal passport” and “known bank account.” Making the most of these admissions, Sameroff says, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to imagine that people may soon be forced to accept a mandatory Government ID Card in order to claim their Basic Income. Before long they will be asked to show it in order to get into government buildings. Then at the airport to get on a plane. Then simply to board a train or a bus. Then to post a package. Then to get into a bar. Then a restaurant. Before long every public place will ask you to show your ID card…. you will be expected to produce it in order to vote, and before long not voting may result in a fine as well…. Just as states freeze the assets of suspected fraudsters, they will soon be freezing the “known bank account” of political dissenters. By the time they come for those with radical ideas about freedom from government tyranny there will be precious few left to speak out for us. (pp. 151–52) One might object to this that the state is capable of demanding a government ID card and controlling people’s bank accounts without the UBI, but why give the government an excuse to perpetrate such horrors on us? Sammeroff notes that it is the poor, supposedly those who would gain the most from the UBI, who would be most vulnerable to its abuse: Certainly, the poor, who depend solely on their handouts to survive, will quickly become very cautious of what they say and do. But even reasonably affluent people will think twice before risking the money. The UBI institutionalizes the state as patron, and citizen as ward. Before long we may arrive in a frightening era where payments and penalties are used to mould us into compliant little drones. The utopian dream will have descended into a tyrannical nightmare. (p. 152) -------------------------------------------------------------------------