조선일보 “너희 때문에…” 택배 대리점주, 민노총 원망하며 극단 선택 “허위사실 퍼뜨리고 계속 괴롭혀...하루하루가 지옥 같았다” tuye**** 요즘 건설현장 노가대도 민노총 산하 건설노조 가입 안하면 일못한다...더럽지만 먹고 살려고 가입 했는데 매달 노조비도 많이 떼간다고 하더만...옜날 깡패가 자리세 뜯는거랑 뭐가 달라 sawe**** 민주노총의 실태가 낱낱이 드러나야 한다. 일은 안하고 권리만 주장하고 어그지 부리고 집단으로 떼지어와서 시끄럽게하고 여론을 호도하는데 아주 뛰어난 조직인 것 같습니다. 이참에 민주노조 조합원행태로 인한 피해사례가 세상밖으로 나오길 기대해봅니다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “민노총은 양아치 같은 노동귀족 주사파” 노동계도 비판 노동계 인사들, 만민토론회서 비판 조선일보 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 긴급 특종!! 영등포을구에서 선거 투표지 수천장 가짜로 판망됨 ㄷㄷㄷ 까똑까똑2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11364008050 1. 영등포을 선거구에서 나온 부재자 투표지 대부분이 접히지 않고 빳빳한 가짜로 판명됨 2. 모서리 부분이 직각으로 잘리지 않고 비스듬하게 잘린 투표지가 수천 장 확인됨 ㄷㄷㄷ 3. 영등포을 선거구에서 부정선거 투표지가 10장만 나와도 부정선거인데 수천장이면 탄핵감 아니냐? 4. 박 변호사가 수상한 투표지 수천 장 찍어 와서 정밀 분석 중이라고 한다 25분 짜리라서 들으면서 이 글 쓰는데 자세한 내용 궁금한 게이들은 링크 영상 참고해라 1줄 요약 이제 더 이상 못 기다린다 문재앙 부정선거 탄핵 가즈아!! https://youtu.be/4-pN6QklFVw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 총선무효 선언 해야할 조작(?)이 쏟아졌다? 재검표 리얼 상황. 도태우변호사. https://youtu.be/4d_w3dUj8zA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 1·2금융 막혔으니 대부업체로 가라?… 금융위, 우수업체 21 --------------------------- 고소먹은게이다 댓글달기 금융 좆문가로서 저건 진짜 나라에 빨간불 들어온거임 왜냐면 지금 은행에서 돈이 아예 앵꼬났단거임 은행에선 3퍼정도빼고 전부 대출이나 운용가능하거든 근데 지금97퍼가 싹다 빚으로 나가버렸단거임 물론 회수가 안되는 상황이니까 더이상 대출못해주는거고 그래서 그나만 현물인 대부자금 쓰라는거임 ㅋㅋ 걍 은행권 전부 막힌거임 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FN 투데이] 대통령 후보 지지율 모두 조작 가능성.. 조사기관 멋대로 사기쳐도 아무도 몰라, 별도 감시기관도 없어 오후의산책 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363555635 1. 여론조사기관을 아무도 감시하지 않는다. 2. 여론조사기관은 그냥 민간사업자 , 공식적으로 신뢰할 근거 전혀 없어 3. 직접 여론조사기관 당사자들에게 물어보니 한국갤럽은 아무도 자신들을 관리 감독하지 않는다고 털어놨다. 4. 여론조사기관의 조작은 중범죄 5."이젠 아무도 여론조사 안믿어".. 검찰 수사 가능성도 6. 여론조사조작은 부정선거의 가장 중요한 첫 단계 중략 .... 원문 출처 : "요즘 여론조사 대부분 조작 가능성" - 파이낸스투데이 (fntoday.co.kr) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 美, 99조원 장비 버리고 가자…탈레반, 첨단무기 강국 됐다 중앙일보 --->만일 미국이 전략적으로 저런 무기들을 버리고 도망나왔다면, 그 무기로 중국의 신장 지역에 내란을 조장하기 위했다고 추정할 수 있는데, 과연 그런지는 앞으로 사태를 살펴보면 알 수 있다. 하지만 지금의 대체적인 여론은 미국의 작전 실패라고 보고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 시진핑의 전방위 연예계 대숙청/청산되는 중공판 프리메이슨 태산회/내 돈도 마음대로 인출 못한다 박상후의 문명개화 중화권 톱스타 여배우 자오웨이 퇴출을 둘러싼 거대한 풍파가 중공을 엄습했습니다. 자오웨이 뿐만 아니라 수많은 연예계 인사들이 청산대상이 됐습니다.시진핑의 연예게 대숙청은 단순한 스캔들이 아니라 재계전반은 물론 정계도 연관된 거대한 사건입니다. 자오웨이 사건의 경우 마윈의 알리바바를 포함한 항저우의 관가와도 관계된 사안입니다. 자오웨이는 마윈뿐 아니라 시진핑에게 대들었다가 18년형을 받은 런즈챵과도 밀접하게 교류해왔습니다. 마윈의 알리바바, 레노보의 창설자 류촨즈의 딸 류칭이 CEO인 디디추싱등 중공IT, 전자상거래 기업들이 갑자기 타도목표가 된 분위기와도 무관치 않습니다. 이번 연예계 숙청은 우이판. 장저한에서 시작돼 자오웨이에서 절정을 이루는 듯 하지만 이제 시작입니다. 자오웨이와 직간접적으로 연관된 연예계 인사만 30명선이라고 합니다. 자오웨이는 중화민족을 욕되게 한 7가지 죄를 저질렀다는 비난도 일고 있습니다. 정부가 연예인을 행정력, 공권력으로 두들기면 샤오펀홍들이 나서서 융단폭격식의 인신공격을 하고 있습니다. 자오웨이와 함께 한때 큰 인기몰이를 했던 궁정사극 환주거거에 출연했던 린신루, 판빙빙등 공주배역 3명이 퇴출된 것도 큰 화제입니다. 중공당국은 톱스타 청산과 함께 이들을 추종하며 후원금을 냈던 팬클럽에도 정리작업에 들어갔습니다. 스타들을 무조건 추종하며 돈을 바치는 문화를 없애겠디는 강한 입장을 내비쳤습니다. 이번 방송에서는 또 앞으로 은행계좌에서 돈을 인출하기 위해서는 자금출처와 용도를 보고하도록 해야 한다는 황당한 정책도 소개합니다. 시법적으로 당분간 특정지역에 한정되기는 하지만 오는 9월 1일부터 개인은 10만위앤 기업이나 단체는 50만위앤 이상의 은행계좌는 당국의 관리와 감시를 받게 됩니다. https://youtu.be/qj23m2Nxw7k --->중국의 문화대혁명을 이렇게 다시 보게 될 줄은 꿈에도 몰랐다. 전에도 말했지만, 중국이 이렇게 미친 짓을 하고 있을 때, 한국의 기업들에게 좋은 기회인데, 문죄인 미친 놈 때문에 그 기회를 잡지 못하는 게 너무 안타깝다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 또 터져 나왔다? 박용찬 영등포을 재검표 결과.(210830) https://youtu.be/ln274LYlxKM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [긴급속보] 대법원, 재검표 사진을 모두 삭제 / 결과적으로 인천연수을, 양산을, 법원 사진사 모든 사진 증발 / 법원, 원고측 사진 촬영 금지 / 증거인멸 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/o4nq8fo4OJY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 백신에 대한 미신 또는 치명적 위험성 카카오콱 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363129231복사하기1 2021-08-27 07:56:46 이번 중공바이러스 사태 이전까지만 해도 백신은 꼭 필요한 경우 아니면 접종을 권장하지 않았음. 특히 100nm 미만의 크기를 가지는 바이러스들은 그 자체가 운동성이 있고 주변 분자와의 전자기 결합을 통해서 변이되기 때문에 끊임없는 변종이 발생하게 됨 인간같은 생명체는 생식을 통해서 출산을 하지만 바이러스는 인간내부에 존재하는 각종 분자와의 전자기 결합을 통해 안정적인 형태를 유지하게 되면 개체수가 차츰 늘어나 그것들이 증식하는 것처럼 보이게 되는 확률적으로 존재하는 미생물임. 이를 보기도 어렵고 이를 포착해서 바이러스를 해체하는 것도 어려움. 그러나 인간은 바이러스들이 DNA를 속여 불순한 세포를 복제해내기 시작하면 그것들을 제거하는 세포(항체)를 만들어냄. 이런 부분에서 보면 인간 자체가 신이라는 주장이 틀리지 않음. 따라서 예전에는 자체적으로 항체가 생겨 면역되는걸 선호했음. 그런데 중공바이러스 이후 이러한 방역시스템이 완전히 뒤집혔음. 사실 촉수가 있는 코로나 바이러스에 진짜 걸렸는지 아닌지도 확인할 수 없는데 감염 결과를 보고 추정하는 이상한 테스트 방법으로 중공바이러스가 걸렸네 마네 하는 상황이고 사망율은 과거 독감에 비해 다를바 없음. 그러므로 바이러스들이 어리둥절해할 상황이 온 것임. 바이러스를 모기에 비유하자면 예전에는 사악한 인간이 뿌리는 가스로부터 도망다니면서 근근이 살아갈 수 있었는데 지금은 모기가 나타하면 그 일대에 화염방사기를 뿌리는 것 정도가 아니라 아예 지구를 불태우는 사태에 직면한 것임. 바이러스는 그렇다 치더라면 인간들 입장에서는 자신들의 목숨을 방역을 관리하는 정부기관에 맡긴 꼴이 되고 말았음. 현재 유포되고 있는 백신의 기존의 것과 전혀 다른 방식을 취하고 있음. 바이러스를 간신히 볼 수 있는 전자현미경이 수십억원에 달하고 그나마도 냉동시켜서 활동성이 사라진 바이러스만이 관찰이 가능하기 때문에 이 백신들이 과연 어떠한 결과를 초래할지는 아직 모름. 최근 백신을 분석한 논문이 나오고 있는데 산화그래핀이 대량으로 관찰되고 있다고 함. 산화그래핀은 배열에 따라 전자기장을 형성하거나 트랜지스터를 형성하는 차세대 소재로 알려졌을 뿐이지 이것을 인체에 주입할 것이라고는 상상도 못했음. 이것은 놀라운 정도가 아니라 끔찍한 이야기임. 우리 주변의 전자기기나 전기자동차는 전자기장의 원리를 이용하고 있음. 전자기장은 반드시 새로운 전자기장을 유도하기 때문에 전자시스템 개발자들은 EM에 대응하는 설계를 하게됨. 비닐하우스가 햇볕이 필요하지만 바람을 막기 위해서 비닐을 감싸는 것처럼 전자회로 도선 주위에 전기의 흐름을 방해하는 전자기장을 막아주는 회로를 만들어주는 방법을 사용함 인간도 전자기 흐름에 의해 DNA 복제같은 미생물 활동이 일어남. 여기에 전자기장을 방해할 수도 있는 산화그래핀을 주입한다? 이것은 경우에 따라서는 엄청난 재앙을 불러올 수도 있는 행위임. 현재 다수의 사망자가 혈전현상을 보이고 있는데 만일 이것이 산화그래핀에 의해 촉발되었다면 백신을 맞은 직후뿐만 발생하는 것이 아니라 살아가는 동안 지속적으로 같은 위협에 노출되는 것임. 인간은 인간 자체가 신의 모습을 하고 있음. 인간의 어리석음 때문에 인간의 존재를 위협할 수 있는 행위를 중단해야함. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 새뮤엘슨의 자유에 대한 견해 반시장주의자들이 흔히 하는 말은, 인권이 사유재산권보다 중요하다는 것이다. 하지만 이는 문제의 본질을 제대로 보지 못하는 어리석은 짓이다. 사유재산권이 바로 사유재산에 대한 인간의 권리이기 때문이다. 그런데 새뮤엘슨은 이런 좌파의 흔한 오류에서 한 걸음 더 나아간다. 그는 인간의 권리가 확장되면 사유재산권은 축소된다고 여긴다. 시장에서 높은 가격을 책정해서, 예를 들어, 교육을 받지 못한다면, 그런 경우 자유는 단지 개념적이라고 믿는다. 그는 또 가격을 단지 결핍된 상품을 배분하는 수단이라고 본다. 그래서 그는 가격 체제는 강요의 한 방법이 되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그는 놀라울만큼 자유에 대한 적대감을 드러낸다. 그래서 그는 다음과 같은 말을 쏟아낸다. “내가 프리이버시에 대한 자유를 누리면, 당신은 친구와 함께 있을 수 있는 자유를 잃는다.” 그는 자유를 무정부상태, 규범의 부재로 착각한다. Paul Samuelson on Freedom David Gordon Some economists are good at political philosophy as well. Mises and Rothbard of course come to mind, but the good philosophers aren’t confined to Austrian school economists. Amartya Sen and Kenneth Arrow know what they are talking about when it comes to philosophy, agree with them or not. But some eminent economists don’t, and, judging by Nicholas Wapshott’s new book, Samuelson Friedman (Norton, 2021), the most famous American economist of the twentieth century, Paul Samuelson, was not a philosophical giant. The book is a study of the Newsweek columns of Samuelson and Milton Friedman, and Samuelson doesn’t appear to have thought through philosophical issues very deeply. Friedman does much better, but I’m going to be talking only about Samuelson. One of the clichés of anti–free market thought is the claim that human rights are more important than property rights. This is nonsense; property rights are rights of human beings to property. Samuelson accepts an extreme version of this cliché: “The rights of property shrink as the rights of man expand,” he wrote. While some suffered because the government intervened in the market, an unfettered market had winners and losers, too, he argued. While the free market suggested that everyone was free to buy what they wanted, there was such a thing as rationing by price, which put many items well beyond the reach of those without the means. The children of those who could not afford good education, for instance, were deprived by the market setting too high a price. The “freedom” of individuals provided by the market was therefore only notional. (p. 80) Samuelson has confused two different things. Suppose I would like to visit Paris but can’t afford an airplane ticket. I’m unable to do what I want, but no one is using force against me, or threatening to use force, to prevent me from going to Paris. I can’t go because I am unable to meet the price that the owner of the airplane has set for the use of its services. The situation would be quite different if I bought a ticket and government agents forcibly removed me from the plane. Samuelson could counter in this way: the distinction between being unable to do something because doing it requires the consent of someone else, which he declines to give, and to be forcibly prevented from doing something isn’t important. Nevertheless, there is a distinction, and Samuelson for the most part ignores it. Indeed he soon makes even clearer that he doesn’t understand the distinction. “Samuelson saw prices merely as a means of rationing scarce goods…. Indeed, the deliberate raising and lowering of prices was often a means of guiding human behavior rather than following it. Throwing Friedman’s words back at him, Samuelson wrote, ‘libertarians fail to realize that the price system is, and ought to be, a method of coercion’” (p. 80). There are, though, some indications that he acknowledges the distinction, but just doesn’t see why coercion, as libertarians understand it, is bad. “And even if ‘coercion’ were the right word, Samuelson believed such compulsion to be way down the list of important issues for economists to be concerned about. ‘The notion that any form of coercion whatever is in itself so evil a thing as to outweigh all other evils is to set up freedom as a monstrous shibboleth,’ he wrote” (p. 86). In other words, Samuelson is saying that if the state coerces you to make an exchange with someone or taxes you, this isn’t much of a problem. And why not? In an incredible passage, Samuelson gives us his answer. If you exercise your right to freedom, you are coercing those who want you to do things that you refuse to do. “‘My privacy is your loneliness,’ he wrote. ‘My freedom to have privacy is your lack of freedom to have company. Your freedom to “discriminate” is the denial of my freedom to “participate”’” (p. 86). This passage enables us to resolve a seeming contradiction in what Samuelson says. He first says that there really isn’t a distinction between government coercion and the “coercion” of the price system but then seems to acknowledge there is a distinction, only to dismiss it as not important. The “reconciliation” is that Samuelson takes exercises of freedom to be in conflict with one another in a way that necessarily involves coercion. When he seems to admit a distinction between freedom and coercion, this is merely a slip on his part. He hasn’t thought through consistently his rejection of the distinction. He falls into another confusion. He conflates freedom with anarchy, taken as the absence of rules. ‘’‘The modern city is crowded. Individualism and anarchy will lead to friction. We now have to coordinate and cooperate,’ Samuelson wrote” (p. 86). He several times gives the example of traffic lights at a crossroads restricting individual freedom. He does not see that if the owner of a road sets rules for its use, this does not coerce people who prefer to ignore these rules. It will come as no surprise that he likes taxes. “It is not possible for individuals to cut themselves off from society, he argued, and the price of belonging to society was the obligation to pay for common services through taxation…. Taxation, which was an example of how the state coerced free individuals, was to Samuelson the means for a good citizen to pay his debt to society” (p. 85). How we contracted this debt to society he does not bother to explain. Why is more required than individuals who freely associate with one another? Where does “society” come in apart from this? Samuelson does not tell us. As you would expect, “Samuelson preferred the democratic process over the market. It was fairer, kinder, more civilized” (pp. 87–88). Those who disagree are enemies of civilization who need to be coerced to pay their debt to society. Such is the wisdom of Paul Samuelson. --->세계의 주요 대학에서 지난 세기에 새뮤엘슨의 경제학 책으로 경제를 공부했으니, 그 악영향을 가히 짐작할 만 하다. 좌파 사상과 엉터리 경제이론이 세상을 망치고 있다. 물론 엉터리 경제이론 역시 넓은 의미의 좌파적 사고의 결과이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

문재인, 캄보디아 방문했던 목적은? [이규택] 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/d7bldc-szkw --->내년 대선에서 좌파가 승리할 가능성이 없으면, 문죄인이 내란이나 내전을 일으킬 가능성이 있다. (이규택) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부정선거이후 통과된법!!! 살몬적섹소 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363578045 보안법및 국정원 대공수사권 내란죄 수사권등 폐지 고위 공직자 수사처 설립 (대통령이 임명 ) 대북전단 살포및 확성기 사용금지 (위반시 3년징역) 5.18을 부인하거나 비방시 형사처벌 (위반시 5년징역) 제주4.3 특별법 희생자및 유족 명예회손시 형사처벌 언론 중재법 통과및 헌법개정(예정) 등등 자유민주주의체제 근간이 무너지는 소리가 들리지 않는가 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부정선거 사전투표용지 초간단 검증법 틀엄프 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363597124 Machine Identification Code라는 거 아냐? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code 프린터에는 (듣보 메이커가 아니고서는) 어느 프린터로 출력했는지 기종을 식별할 수 있도록 육안으로는 안 보이는 미세한 점을 프린팅 시 용지에 찍도록 제조되어 있다.(참고로 지난 선거 시 사용된 것은 EPSON이니 듣보가 아니지.) https://m.blog.naver.com/mdrhoy/221972722844 영화 보면 범인이 편지 쓸 때 잡지 같은 데서 글자 하나씩 잘라 붙이는 장면 있지? 다 이거 때문에 프린터로 출력 안 하는 거다. 이것만 확인하면 망점 비교하거나 무게 따위 잴 필요도 없다. 이 tracking dot 유무만 확인하면 간단히 그리고 반박 불가 검증 가능. (민경욱 대표한테 제보함) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 무지(無知)와 스펙터클 민주주의/ 경향 한윤정 전환연구자 ---->전환 연구자라는 생소한 타이틀을 달고 있지만, 실상은 좌파들이 늘 하던 헛소리이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

흉기 찔리자 맨손 격투로 제압…법원 "정당방위 아냐"(종합) 흉기에 전치 5주 부상입었지만 "과잉방위" 흉기 떨어뜨리고 발로 차 갈비뼈 부러뜨려 1심 "피해자 처벌 불원 감안해 형은 면제" / 뉴시스 --->이런 지멋대로 판사들을 국민들이 심판할 수 있어야 진정한 민주제이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이슈포청천] '불법 비자' 통해 조직적으로 돈 버는 대사관이 있다? 부정부패의 대한민국 조선일보 https://youtu.be/mA11krn5C1U --->나라가 썩었는데 이를 바로잡으려는 시도도, 의지도 없다. 그렇다면 그 결말은 너무 뻔한 거 아닌가! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사흘간 백신 이상반응 9천349건↑…사망 17명↑ 인과성은 미확인 아나필락시스 의심 56건, 주요 이상반응 277건 추가…나머지 경미한 사례 1차 AZ·2차 화이자 '교차접종' 관련 397건↑…누적 4천244건 / 연합뉴스 8월 27일까지 백신맞고 사망한 사람 756명 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [파이낸셜 뉴스] 日 '이물질' 모더나 백신 160만 회분 사용 중지...'금속 물질' 가능성(종합) 오후의산책 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363338575 도쿄 등 광역지역에서 이물질 보고 속출 모더나 스페인 공장 같은 시기, 같은 제조라인 160만 회분 사용 중단 후생노동성, 금속 물질 가능성 제기 【도쿄=조은효 특파원】 일본 정부가 미국 모더나의 일부 코로나19 백신에서 이물질이 확인되자, 26일 약 160만회 분량에 대해 사용 중단 조치를 내렸다. 일본 후생노동성은 해당 이물질이 금속조각일 가능성을 제기했다. 일본 후생노동성은 이달 16일께부터 도쿄, 사이타마, 이바라키, 아이치, 기후 등 광역단체가 운영하는 대규모 접종장과 기업 접종장에서 모더나 백신에 이물질이 들어가 있다는 총 39건의 보고가 날아들자, 모더나 스페인 공장에서 같은 시기, 같은 제조라인에서 만들어진 약 160만회 분에 대해 사용을 중단한다고 발표했다. 일본 후지TV는 후생노동성 간부의 발언을 토대로 "이물질이 금속 물질일 가능성이 있다"고 전했다. 이물질은 검정색과 갈색의 작은 입자로 알려졌다. (기사가 사실이라면 백신 속에 산화 그래핀이 포함되었다는 소문이 사실일 가능성이 매우 높다.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나 방역봉쇄는 정치적 목적 밖에 없다 카카오콱 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363404184 https://youtu.be/yJF4CkVPUmI 컬도르프 박사의 지적 중에 가장 핵심적인 말은 "방역봉쇄에 공중보건이나 생물학이나 과학적인 근거는 전혀 없다" "전문지식이 부족한 대중을 속이고 있을 뿐이다" "정치적 목적 외에는 이유를 찾을 수 없다" "나는 평생 과학자로서 살다 죽을줄 알았는데 갑자기 정치적 소용돌이에 휘말리고 말았다" 문재인 정권 타도의 시작은 방역봉쇄를 돌파하여 국민의 기본권을 찾는 것임. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stalin's War: A New History of World War II with Author Sean McMeekin, PhD https://youtu.be/4RLVwB23c1o ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나: 서구는 어떻게 인권을 저버리고 중국식의 중앙통제를 수용했나 하이에크에 따르면 사전에 결정된 목표를 달성하기 위해 인위적인 질서를 따른 국가들은, 억압과 정치가의 가치관을 강요받게 된다는 것이다. 하이에크에 따르면 공산화 된 러시아, 파시스트 독일, 이탈리아 등은 모두 인위적으로 만들어진 사회였다. 이와 반대로 자생적으로 질서가 만들어진 사회에서는 사전에 결정된 목표나 대규모 집합적인 목표들이 없다. 인위적인 질서를 추구하는 사람들은 그들의 계획이 과학적이라서 거기에 대한 이견이 있을 수 없다고 믿는다. 하지만 미제스는 과학적 당위란 있을 수 없다고 주장한 바 있다. 과학은 사실을 서술할 수는 있지만, 거기에 바탕 해서 어떻게 해야 한다던지, 사람들이 어떤 목적을 추구해야 하는지에 대해서는 말 할 수 없다. 사람들이 자유롭게 방임될 때, 그들은 인간의 이성이 계획하거나 예견할 수 있는 것보다 더 많은 것을 성취한다. 정치가 한 사람이 사람들의 계획을 무력화하고, 자신의 계획에 따르게 하는 것은 무례하고 오만한 일이다. Covid: How the West Embraced Central Planning and Abandoned Human Rights Birsen Filip In January 2020, Hubei and more than a dozen other provinces in mainland China implemented totalitarian lockdown measures, such as the closure of schools and workplaces, and strict restrictions on travel and mobility, including the suspension of all public transport, the cancellation of flights, blocking train and bus routes, and closing highway entrances. Efforts to bring the outbreaks under control in these provinces also included mask mandates and strict stay-at-home orders. By the end of February 2020, the pandemic was largely under control in most Chinese provinces, which led the government to start easing many of the oppressive lockdown measures the following month. The lockdown was officially lifted on April 8, 2020, seventy-six days after it was initially implemented. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the covid-19 outbreak was being upgraded from a public health emergency to a pandemic. In response, government officials in many liberal countries, along with a handful of unelected medical experts, did not hesitate to adopt containment measures similar to the ones imposed in China, including internal and external border closures, and “extremely coercive and restrictive lockdowns and physical distancing measures for the stated purpose of bringing the pandemic under control and preventing future outbreaks.” That means, instead of managing a situation that spontaneously emerged with the tools of spontaneous order (also known as free and open societies), which F.A. Hayek described as a self-generating, self-regulating, and self-correcting system, these politicians and their unelected medical experts consciously chose to implement an artificial order that was imported from China. This was done despite the fact that, historically, these countries have been persistently critical of artificial order (also known as designed, involuntary or exogenous order), which refers to the deliberate central planning of all aspects of a society by a head of state (or a group of people) for the purpose of attaining predetermined ends. Hayek warned that states that turned to artificial order in order to achieve their predetermined goals would inevitably resort to coercion and the imposition of a set of practical rules that would dictate the actions, conduct, and values of individuals in public, as well as in their private spheres. According to him, all totalitarian regimes, including Bolshevist Russia, Nazi German, and Fascist Italy, were artificially ordered societies. Contrary to a spontaneously ordered society, where there are no predetermined and intricately planned large-scale collective goals to be achieved by a superior authority, and each individual executes their own plans based on their own will, values, and choices, in an artificial order, “the planner's own plan” replaces “the plans of his fellow-men.” In other words, the planner seeks to “deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.” Even though artificial order is a novel system for formerly liberal countries, their governments have enthusiastically embraced their newly acquired totalitarian powers, as well as associated discourses, propaganda techniques, language, and oppressive, coercive, and dictatorial policies. They have also silenced and censured dissenting views, including those of many writers and credentialed scientists and doctors, who have been attacked and labeled “covidiots,” conspiracy theorists, and selfish. Perhaps most concerning is the way in which they have incessantly promoted the full vaccination of their populations with mRNA vaccines with unknown future side effects via highly sophisticated marketing and propaganda techniques designed to induce fear and paranoia. In recent weeks, many of these totalitarian regimes, which are still in their infancy, have stepped up their efforts to vaccinate those citizens who are proving to be more unwilling or hesitant to being injected with mRNA technology by turning to punitive measures like withholding “privileges” with vaccine passports and threatening their livelihoods through vaccine mandates. In fact, the introduction of vaccine passports is proceeding in a number of Western countries in spite of the fact that recent data from Israel, the UK, and many other nations with high vaccination rates suggest that the mRNA injections are of very limited effectiveness in preventing the spread of disease. The gradual imposition of various totalitarian measures aimed at coercing the masses into getting their injections should not be particularly surprising, given Hayek’s warning that the achievement of the ruler’s ends via artificial arrangements entailed continuous intervention, regulation, and coercion on the part of the ruling authority. Thus far, the oppressive measures being adopted by the novice dictators of formerly liberal societies have created “a state of affairs which from the point of view of their advocates is worse than the previous state which they were designed to alter.” Unfortunately, this is unlikely to deter them from pressing forward and making things even worse. According to Ludwig von Mises, when faced with the failure of their “first intervention,” these dictators would not be “prepared to undo … [their] interference,” recommit to the forces of the spontaneous order, and return to a free society; instead, they would likely add to their “first measure more and more regulations and restrictions.” Mises further added that “proceeding step by step on this way it finally reaches a point in which all economic freedom of individuals” has disappeared, along with general freedom. This leaves the door open for the emergence of “socialism of the German pattern, the Zwangswirtschaft of the Nazis.” Hayek pointed out that supporters of artificial order are incapable of recognizing the diverse nature of human beings in terms of their will, goals, characteristics, beliefs, habits, customs, situations, and physical, intellectual, and psychological capacities. Accordingly, the rulers of the artificial order determine the daily activities of individuals, while totally stripping away their diversity. The rulers do this under the assumption that a mass majority of people are homogenous in nature, and that they are too mechanical, submissive, primitive, and selfish to distinguish between information and indoctrination through mass media, sophisticated advertising methods, and various propaganda techniques. At the same time, supporters of the artificial order are also conscious of the fact that they will not be able to reach the souls of the minority via their sophisticated propaganda techniques. Consequently, they will try to entice these individuals into compliance through various forms of incentives and bribes (e.g., offering vaccinated people lotteries, gift cards, jewelry, computers, phones, phone plans, discounts at various stores, cash, etc.). Finally, to deal with the most stubborn holdouts that do not submit to these incentives, they will implement increasingly coercive measures, including expensive fines, vilification, physical and mental abuse, termination of employment, and imprisonment. Through such policies and measures, the rulers of the artificial order are able to create a “state of affairs in which what structure society still possesses is imposed upon it by government and in which the individuals have become interchangeable units [like any object] with no other definite or durable relations to one another.” Contemporary practitioners of artificial order “pretend that their plans are scientific and that there cannot be disagreement with regard to them among well-intentioned and decent people,” not unlike the planners of various totalitarian regimes over the last century. However, Mises warned that “there is not such a thing as a scientific ought. Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be and what ends people should aim at.” Since the importation of Chinese artificial order, novice dictators of formerly open societies have been imposing fixed values that not only lie well beyond the limits of a state’s action according to liberal thought, but also exceed the scope and purposes of science. Moreover, they refuse to accept that “men disagree in their value judgments.” The idea that Western countries could successfully import and apply an artificial order that took the People’s Republic of China more than seven decades to master was not only misguided, it also exposed the poverty in the thinking, judgment, knowledge, policymaking, caring, and imaginations of Western leaders and their handpicked medical experts, who have taken it upon themselves to violate the fundamental principles of liberalism, democracy, and human rights. After more than eighteen months, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the artificial order imported from China has eliminated the virus, nor has it improved the social and economic conditions or the healthcare systems in formerly “open societies.” Unfortunately, it appears as though the totalitarian strategies that have been embraced by formerly liberal governments will continue to persist for the foreseeable future in spite of their poverty. They are steadfast in their commitment to maintaining their artificial order, despite considerable evidence that it has already caused irreparable harm by contributing to the deaths of many people, depriving many others of healthy lifestyles, violating freedom, and facilitating economic damage and ruin. In fact, some experts believe that the physical, moral, intellectual and emotional damage that has been caused by lockdowns is worse than a quick death. Meanwhile, many economists are concerned about the effects of the massive job losses, higher inflation, reductions in earnings, growing gender gaps, rising extreme poverty, and large deficits that have been attributed to coercive lockdown measures. Moreover, by implementing Chinese artificial order, Western politicians and their handful of unelected medical experts have proven themselves to be ignorant of the fact that liberal thought and principles have been strongly and systematically opposed to artificial order on account of the danger that it poses for the advancement and progress of spontaneous order. That is to say, they failed to understand the premise that if men are “left free” to act spontaneously, they often achieve “more than individual human reason could design or foresee.” Consequently, the spontaneous actions of individuals often produce outcomes “which can be understood as if it were made according to a single plan, although nobody has planned it.” Mises would be very critical of the type of artificial order that is currently being implemented in liberal countries, as he argued that “it is insolent to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner.” He questioned: “[W]hose plan should be executed? The plan of Trotsky or that of Stalin? The plan of Hitler or that of Strasser?” He further cautioned that “if one master plan is to be substituted for the plans of each citizen, endless fighting must emerge. Those who disagree with the dictator’s plan have no other means to carry on than to defeat the despot by force of arms.” Similarly, Alexis de Tocqueville warned that if freedom is ever lost as a consequence of despotism and people have been brought to despair, then they will inevitably “appeal to physical force,” leading to the emergence of anarchy. History has demonstrated that “when people were committed to the idea that in the field of religion only one plan must be adopted, bloody wars resulted. With the acknowledgment of the principle of religious freedom these wars ceased.” Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"정규재, 그 사람은 악질이다" / 현성삼 변호사의 일갈 /왜 또 말도 안되는 주장으로 욕을 퍼먹을 까 / 아직도 그런 소리라면, 정말 대책이 없어 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/WuknaaR6Ov0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 오늘 정부 개새끼들 아프간 난민 환영식 보여주기 쑈의 절정 찍음 돈많으면너먼저때려봐 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363190555 강성국 법무부 차관이 27일 오전 충북 진천 국가공무원인재개발원에서 아프가니스탄 특별입국자 초기 정착 지원과 관련해 브리핑하는 도중 관계자가 뒤쪽에서 무릎을 꿇고 우산을 받쳐주고 있다. 2021.8.27 자국민은 개 씨발 똥으로 여기는 문재인식 정치 방송 내보내는거 때문에 저렇게 자국민 무릎 꿇리고 20분 넘게 행사했다고한다 이게 나라냐?? --->한국의 관료들은 썩을 대로 썩었다. 한국은 지금 조선시대로 회귀하고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조선일보 [단독] 송두환 인권위장 후보, ‘박원순 서울시’에서만 48건 수임 법률자문은 63건 전관 예우 논란...헌법재판관땐 임차인 주거안정법 “합헌” 변호사땐 “위헌” -->개법관들! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 속보- AZ백신맞고 집단 사망자 발생 정부는 책임회피 논란 진격일베짱 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11363182655 오늘 하루에만 몇명이 도대체 죽는거냐 함양서 AZ 백신 맞은 60대, 30분 만에 사망 기사입력 2021.08.27. 오후 2:16 제주서 AZ 2차 접종 60대 숨진 채 발견…관련성 조사 기사입력 2021.08.27. 오전 11:36 바다수영 즐기던 70대 AZ 2차 백신 맞고 사망, 유족 "억울" 기사입력 2021.08.27. 오전 5:01 바다수영까지 즐길정도면 나이를 떠나서 백신맞고 바로 사망했다면 백신이 원인이지 이걸 또 기저질환 탓하며 정부가 책임회피 보상도 못해준다면 국정조사 청문회 열어서 진짜 정은경이랑 문재인 사형시켜야함 마두로문두로 일베 댓글달기 이스라엘 백신 2차까지 60%인데 중환자 60%가 2차까지 접종자이고 하루 확진자 1만1천명 우리나라인구로하면 8만명인데 백신을 왜 맞냐? 그런데 좌빨들과 사기탄핵파들은 '그래서 백신을 더 맞아서 90%맞아야 집단면역이된다'라고하거나 '그래서 부스터샷을 맞아야된다'는 어거지결론을가지고 백신강제접종으로 가고있다 이게 전세계적으로 일어나는일이고 이제 싸우지않으면 당할수밖에 없는거같다 쥬예지이이이이잉 댓글달기 백신이 사기이든 아니든 어차피 백신을 맞아야 한다면, 백신 맞은 후 운동은 절대 삼가하고 1주일 이상 가급적 최소한의 움직임만 하며 생활하셈 이유 : 백신 부작용의 대부분이 심장 및 혈액 관련인데 백신을 맞고 나면 심장 쪽 부담이 존나 크다는 공통점이 있음 즉, 급격한 움직밈, 과격한 운동은 평상시와 달리 백신 맞고 난 뒤 충혈되고 약해져 있는 심장에 핵폭탄을 터트리는 것과 같은 영향을 끼친다는 거지 이게 늙은이들보다 젊은 사람들이 백신부작용으로 ㅁㅈㅎ되는 경우가 더 많은 것과도 관련이 있음 운동은 심장에 무리를 주는 펌프질을 더 많이 하게 함 그러므로 백신 맞으면 움직임을 최소화 하는 것이 매우 중요함 백신 맞기 전엔 별도의 약 같은 거 안 먹는 게 좋음. 그저 순간적인 면역력을 강화시켜주는 비타민C 같은 것만 좀 더 과량으로 섭취하는 정도로 그쳐야 함 그리고 백신 맞고 난 뒤엔 타이레놀 말고 아스피린을 준비해두는 것이 좋음 아스피린은 진통, 해열, 소염 + 혈액을 묽게 해주는 효과가 있는데 타이레놀은 진통, 해열 효과만 있고 소염 효과는 존나 미미함 백신 부작용은 혈전과 기능이 저하된 심장에 염증을 유발할 수도 있으므로 염증을 완화, 치료하는 소염 기능이 있는 아스피린이 효과적임 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [윤평중 칼럼] 누가 민주주의를 두려워하는가 민주주의의 처음이자 끝인 언론 자유 질식시킬 악법 앞장서거나 방조하면서 민주주의자일 순 없다 자유 언론 두려워하는 그가 바로 파시스트다 윤평중 한신대 교수·정치철학 조선일보 --->윤평중은 가짜 민주주의자이다. 이전에 문죄인을 옹호하는 글을 써서 비난을 받은 바가 있다. 아마 본인 자신이 자유민주제를 가장 두려워할 것이다. 조선에 글 쓰는 사람들은 한번쯤 의심해 보아야 한다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 부정선거 없다 / 음모론자라고 맹비난하던 / 조갑제, 요즘 왜 조용한가 / 뜬금없이 내년 대선 부정선거 조심해야 한다고 주장 / 이게 무슨 자다가 봉창두드리는 소린가 [공병호TV] --->아마도 다시 우파로 위장할 필요가 생긴 듯하다. 조갑제, 저 사람은 매우 교활한 좌파이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 서평: 스탈린의 전쟁: 새로운 2차대전사 기존의 2차대전에 대한 평가는 미국이 소련과 연합해 악당 히틀러를 퇴치한 전쟁으로 본다. 그리고 스탈린은 동맹의 상대로서 고마운 존재로까지 승격된다. 하지만 새로운 2차대전사를 쓴 션 맥미킨Sean McMeekin은 기존의 2차대전관을 부정한다. 그에 따르면 철저한 막시스트인 스탈린은 자본주의 세계를 무너뜨리기 위해, 1939년 독일과 불가침조약을 맺어, 독일이 마음 놓고 폴란드를 침공할 수 있도록 했다. 그리고 독일이 영국 및 프랑스와 길고긴 소모전으로 국력을 탕진하면, 나중에 러시아가 세계 공산주의 혁명과 영토의 확장을 실행하려 했다는 것이다. 또 맥미킨에 따르면 히틀러에 못지 않게 스탈린 역시 독일 침공을 염두에 두고 병력을 배치했다는 것이다. 또 연합국의 무조건 항복 정책과 독일의 농업국가화를 겨냥한 미 국무장관 모르겐타우 계획 등은 서부 전선에서 평화적인 전쟁 종료와 히틀러의 축출 기회를 모두 방해해서, 결론적으로 소련의 정책을 도왔다. 또 무조건 항복 정책으로 인해 태평양 전쟁을 더 연장시켰고, 전쟁 막바지에 스탈린은 참전을 선언해서 영토를 획득했다. 만일 1939년 소련이 핀란드를 공격했을 때, 영국과 프랑스가 러시아가 장악하고 있던 바쿠 유전을 공습했다면, 독일에 대한 러시아의 전쟁 능력을 손상시켜서, 독소 전쟁의 참상을 방지할 수 있었을 것이다. 또 스탈린이 일본과 맺은 중립 조약은 일본으로 하여금 영국과 미국에 대립하면서 동남아와 태평양으로 진출할 수 있는 기회를 주었다. 스탈린의 전쟁은 2차대전의 원인과 결과에 관심을 가진 사람은 반드시 읽어야 할 굉창한 책이다. Review: Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II David Gordon Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II by Sean McMeekin Basic Books, 2021 831 pp. Probably the dominant mainstream view of World War II goes like this. World War II was the “good war.” Though Joseph Stalin was guilty of many crimes, Adolf Hitler, with his vast conquests accompanied by mass murder on a colossal scale, was an immediate threat to Britain and the United States, and for this reason, an alliance with Stalin was the best course of action for these countries once Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Further, once the war became a struggle between the Allied and Axis powers, the Russians bore the brunt of the war. Given the immense losses of the Russian people, both soldiers and civilians, we should regard Stalin with something approaching gratitude, however much it goes against the grain to do so, owing to his leadership of his country during this life-and-death conflict. (The philosopher Susan Neiman in her book Learning From the Germans is a good example of this viewpoint. See my review here.) To say the least, this is not Sean McMeekin’s view. He is a historian who has written outstanding studies of the Russian Revolution, the origins of World War I, and the Ottoman Empire, characterized by extensive archival research in multiple languages. In Stalin’s War, he has outdone himself. It takes over twenty pages to list the archives he has consulted (pp. 767–88), and he has examined an immense number of printed collections of documents, memoirs, and secondary sources as well. He concludes that the mainstream position is false. Stalin, from his earliest days as a revolutionary in tsarist Russia, was a committed Marxist who sought the overthrow of the capitalist world. To that end, he sought to exacerbate tension between Hitler, eager to overthrow the Treaty of Versailles, and Britain and France. He accordingly signed a nonaggression pact with Hitler on August 23, 1939, freeing the Germans to attack Poland and, not incidentally, securing substantial territory for Russia. In the world war that began with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, he hoped that the Germans would find themselves in a prolonged struggle with Britain and France, leaving both sides exhausted and clearing the way for communist revolution and Russian expansion. When the Germans subdued France with unexpected quickness in 1940, Stalin pressed his own territorial and economic demands to such an extent that the pact with Germany was strained, a situation not resolved by Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940, when Molotov’s intransigence surprised and dismayed Hitler. War between Russia and Germany became increasingly likely. McMeekin stresses that Stalin deployed his forces in a way that suggests that, like Hitler, he too had an attack in mind: it is wrong to think of Operation Barbarossa as an unprovoked German assault. After the Germans invaded Russia on June 22, 1941, both Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt did everything within their power to aid Stalin. Churchill had for many years suspended his anticommunism, viewing Hitler as the greater danger, and Roosevelt, even though America was not yet in the war, gave Russia aid on much better terms than he offered Britain, a pattern that continued throughout the war’s duration. The aid Stalin received proved essential to his ability to withstand the German onslaught and, eventually, mount a counterattack, but far from being grateful, he acted with complete disregard for American and British interests. As the war continued, the pattern of American and British subservience to the Soviets continued, and McMeekin shows how again and again Roosevelt and Churchill ignored the dictates of national interest to aid Stalin. Among the examples he discusses are the abandonment of the London Polish government in exile at Stalin’s behest, the support for Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia, and the undermining of the Nationalist Chinese government. As if this were not enough, the “unconditional surrender” policy and the Morgenthau Plan, calling for the pastoralization of Germany, also aided Soviet policy in that they impeded the chances of the overthrow of Hitler and a peaceful settlement of the war on the western front. Applied to Japan, unconditional surrender prolonged the war unnecessarily and enabled Stalin, who had done nothing to help the Allies during the war, to declare war at the last moment so that he could secure territorial gains for Russia. I have been able to give only a small sample of McMeekin’s vast canvas, and I have space to comment on only a few points of interest. Readers familiar with Mises’s socialist calculation argument may wonder how it was possible for Stalin to build up a tremendous military arsenal through central planning. Part of the answer lies in the concentration of resources on military goods, to the detriment of civilian consumption, but another part of the answer is more surprising. McMeekin notes that many American businessmen invested in Russia, helped Stalin construct factories, and even exported their own plants. Here the author appropriately makes use of the pioneering three-volume study of Anthony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (1973), as well as his own archival research (p. 677n8. Sutton’s later work Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution [1974] also merits reading but should be used with caution). In considering the events leading up to the war, McMeekin asks, Why did Britain issue a guarantee to Poland in March 1939, when there was no prospect of Britain’s coming to Poland’s defense in the event of a German invasion? Further, the guarantee did not extend to Poland’s eastern borders: Why was it more important to defend Poland from German invasion than Russian? Russia did not accept the boundaries in place after the Russo-Polish war of 1920 and wanted at least a restoration of the Curzon line boundaries of the Versailles settlement. By the way, much of the work at that conference in determining the Curzon line boundaries was done by the great Kant scholar H.J. Paton. In answer to the question of why Britain issued the guarantee, I would like to call attention to the important study by Simon Newman, March 1939: The Guarantee to Poland, (1976) suggesting that the Chamberlain government was quite willing to engage in war with Germany. In this connection, the influence of Lord Halifax, the foreign secretary, who, as R.A. Butler notes in his memoirs, was the dominant influence on British foreign policy in the months after the Munich conference, should not be overlooked. McMeekin makes an intriguing remark about the effect of British pressure: “It is significant that Hitler displayed cold feet in the last days of August 1939, sensing that he was leading Germany into a larger conflict than he had bargained for” (p. 93). One of the key points in the book is the importance of control of resources such as aluminum and oil in carrying on war. In this regard McMeekin suggests that a concerted strike by the British and French against the Baku oil fields, controlled by Russia, after Stalin’s invasion of Finland in November 1939, could have crippled Russia’s ability to wage war against Germany and thus averted the horrors of the Russo-German war. “But the Allies missed their chance…. It had been a close call for Communism in its existential struggle with the capitalist world, but Stalin’s wiles had seen off real and potential threats and restored the Soviet position” (p. 155). McMeekin, in his assessment of Stalin’s policy aims before the German invasion, makes use of the excellent book by Ernst Topitsch, Stalin’s War (1987), citing his report of Stalin’s May 5, 1941, speech to the Soviet military graduates that makes clear his aggressive aims (p. 675n5). Contrary to the review of Topitsch’s book by Gerhard Weinberg in the American Historical Review (June 1989), Topitsch was by no means a Nazi ideologue. To the contrary, he was a philosopher sympathetic to the Vienna Circle logical empiricists and wrote critically of Nazi ideology. Not only did Stalin have hostile intentions toward Germany, he showed little desire for good relations with Britain and the United States. Stalin’s neutrality pact with Japan, signed by Stalin and Japanese foreign minister Yosuke Matsuoka on April 13, 1941, was hostile to American interests. “With its position in Manchuria secure, Japan was now free, if it wished—and Stalin’s hint could not have been clearer—to strike into Southeast Asia and the Pacific against British and US interests” (p. 258). Matsuoka, by the way, spent his teenage years in pleasant circumstances in Portland, Oregon, and spoke fluent English. Stalin wished to embroil the United States and Japan in conflict, since peace between the two countries might encourage Japan to move against Russia. An uncompromising American policy of resistance to Japanese expansion in Southeast Asia was thus in his interest, and the communist agent Harry Dexter White, ensconced at the Treasury Department, drafted a memorandum in June 1941 that was the basis of secretary of state Cordell Hull’s demand to the Japanese on November 26, 1941, that they withdraw totally from their conquests, an ultimatum that led the Japanese to look on war with the United States as inevitable. Anthony Kubek’s How the Far East Was Lost (1972), which McMeekin lists in his bibliography, has a valuable chapter, actually written by Stephen H. Johnsson, on White’s activities in fomenting conflict between the United States and China. More generally, Charles Callan Tansill’s Back Door to War (1952), based on extensive research in the US State Department Archives, has a long account of Japanese peace efforts prior to Pearl Harbor. Tansill, once esteemed as one of America’s foremost diplomatic historians, is today seldom cited. As mentioned above, the author has rightly stressed the uncritical American and British attitude toward the Yugoslavian partisans led by Tito. The author’s excellent discussion supports the earlier study of Slobodan Draskovich, Tito: Moscow’s Trojan Horse (1957). Draskovich was the son of a Serbian minister of the interior who had been assassinated in 1921 and the brother of Milorad Drachkovitch, for many years a fellow at the Hoover Institution. More generally, later archival research has supported the findings of “premature anti-Communists” during and immediately after the war. The author’s comments on Major George Racey Jordan, who protested American shipments of uranium and other materials needed to construct atomic weapons (pp. 532–34), and on the protests on Pennsylvania governor George H. Earle to Roosevelt on unconditional surrender (p. 451 and, especially, p. 737n31) should be consulted on this point. I shall close with a remark that students of free market economics will find intriguing. McMeekin says, “[T]he proto-Keynesian fallback argument one sometimes hears—that the mobilization of the ‘arsenal of democracy’ brought the United States (and later world) economy out of the Depression in a way Roosevelt’s New Deal did not—rests ultimately on the broken-window fallacy identified by Frédéric Bastiat” (p. 664). Stalin’s War is a magnificent book and everyone interested in the causes and consequences of World War II—and what reasonable person could not be?—should read it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

한국의 기본 용지규격은 100g, 중국의 기본 용지규격은 150g 민경욱이 밝힌 내용. 투표 용지가 150 그램이었던 이유는, 중국에서 인쇄되어 왔기 때문이라는 추론이 가능하다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 박주현 변호사TV] 황교안 대통령 후보, 비전발표 등에서 부정선거 척결 의사 발표 등 영상! https://youtu.be/4I_z7Viud-8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [단독] 개성공단 문 닫은 지 5년인데… '평균 8200만원' 개성지원재단 연봉 매년 올렸다 뉴데일리, 개성지원재단 예산자료 분석… 최근 5년간 인건비로만 50% 지출 개성공단 2016년 폐쇄됐는데… 평균연봉 2018년 7340만원 → 2021년 8283만원 New Daily 2021-08-26 "존재이유 전도된 좀비 기관" --->현재 공무원의 9/10를 모두 잘라야 한국이 살아날 수 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 지금 자살율 엄청 높은데 , 문재인이 보도 못하게 막는다고 하는데~~ㅠㅠ 박카스맨 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11362948969 지금 자살율 엄청 높은데 문재인이 보도 못하게 막는다고 하네 요 ~~ 반포쪽 한강변 아파트에서 살고있는 사람들 말이 요즘에 한강 다리밑으로 119 보트들이 엄청 자주 보인다고 함. 다리에서 자살하는 사람들이 엄청 많다고... 거실에서 영동대교가 바로 보이는데 불과 2년전만해도 일주일에 한두번이던 자살자 찾는 수상경찰 출동이 일년전부터 거의 매일 밤마다 찾아다닌다 이근처 사는 사람들은 다 안다고 영동대교가 자살 핫스팟인데 여기도 매일 몇명씩 떨어진다. 반포쪽 한강변 아파트에서 생활고에 시달리던 50대 아줌마가 15층 아파트 옥상에서 뛰어내려 죽었다. 하지만 지역신문에 한줄 기사도 안나옴. 아파트 주민들도 집값 떨어질까 쉬쉬 홍대에서도 코로나로 자살한 업주있던데 뉴스한줄 없더라? 엠뷸란스 오고 난리났던데 매장에서 목매달았다고. 현직 경찰도 직접 증언한 건데 지금 자살자 엄청 많다고, ​자살자 관련 유명한 점쟁이 말로는 생활고로 하루에도 수십명이 죽어서 ​죽은 사람이 부디 좋은곳으로 가게 해달라고 찾아온다네 ~ ​그래서 점집이 문전성시로 박터진다고 함. ​ IMF보다 더 심각하게 자영업 폐업률 높고 실업율이 높은데 ​왜 자살관련 보도가 안나오는줄 아냐? ​문재인이가 국민들 눈가릴라고 , 엠바고 쳐걸고 언론 보도 못하게 통제중 ​올해말이면 본격적으로 더 터져 나온다고 함. 지금 실제 자살자 수는 언급 안하고 코로나 사망자수로 계속 눈속임 염병질을 하는데, 경제문제로 무너진 가정, 자살자들이 계속 나오는데 이런 현실에 대해서는 입다물고 있음 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국증시 붕괴, 첫번째 신호 발생! ... 상위 0.1%에 진입하려면 [박훈탁TV] margin debt, 4.3% 폭락! ...Margin debt, 개인과 기관이 보유한 주식을 담보로 차입한 부채; 7월에 투자자들이 Margin debt를 대대적으로(4.3%) 줄였고; 1928년까지margin debt 하락과 S&P500지수 약세의 통계적으로 유의한 상관관계, 확인되었습니다. https://youtu.be/xjbTdedFSa8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 칼 멩거의 학문적 유산 멩거는 경제학을 개인들의 선택을 연구하는 학문이라고 정의했다. 멩거 당시에 독일의 경제학은 역사학파가 장악하고 있었는데, 그들은 경제 이론에 대해 무지했고, 따라서 이론을 쓸모없는 추론이며 심지어 해롭다고 보았다. 하지만 멩거 이전에 이미 무명의 ‘고센’이라는 사람이 나타나 한계 효용의 원칙을 천명했다. 한계 효용 체감의 법칙이란 동일한 상품이 증가할 경우 각 단위의 가치가 조금씩 줄어든다는 뜻이다. 멩거는 효용 이론의 원칙을 밝혔고, 고전 경제학자들에 의해 발전되고, 막스에 의해 착취 이론에 이용된 생산 비용에 따른 가치 이론을 배격했다. 멩거에 따르면 개인이 경제 활동을 하는 이유는 자신의 상태를 개선하기 위해서이다. 인간의 지식의 증가, 거래 비용transaction costs의 감소, 저축의 이용 등에 의해 경제적 발전이 이루어진다. 번영은 경제가 얼마나 효율적으로 지식을 생산하고, 그 지식을 활용하는지에 달려 있다. 번영의 기준은 더 많은 상품을 소유하는 것에 있지 않고, 개인들의 주관적인 욕구가 얼마나 잘 충족되었는지에 달려 있다. 여기에는 레저와 비물질적 상품도 포함된다. 노동의 가치는 그것이 최종 생산품에 기여한 정도에 따라 평가된다. 멩거는 ‘가격’은 우연한 것이고, 중요한 것은 그 바탕에 깔려 있는 교환의 비율이라고 보았다. 그리고 교환 가치는 다시 개별 경제 활동가의 주관적 가치 평가에 의해 결정된다. 화폐는 교환을 촉진하는 도구이지 가치의 기준이 아니다. The Lasting Legacy of Carl Menger Antony P. Mueller Carl Menger (February 23, 1840–February 26, 1921) is the founder of the Austrian school of economics. He is generally recognized in economics for his contribution to the development of the concept of marginal utility and as a pioneer of the subjective value theory. For Austrian economics specifically, he laid the foundation with his insights on the use of knowledge and foresight, the importance of relative prices, the role of time, and the role of the spontaneous emergence of social institutions. Menger provides a consistent perspective of the economy and delivers a coherent exposition of the complexities of the interrelation among goods, value, exchange, and prices. Context Menger defines economics as the science of individual choice. His method of inquiry is based on deductive logic as an instrument to bring to light the hidden structure in the available empirical material. Joseph Salerno characterizes Menger’s methodology as “causal-realistic analysis.” In his essay on Carl Menger, Friedrich von Hayek points out that at the time of Menger’s writing, progress in economic theory had stagnated in England, while in Germany the second generation of historical economists dominated the field. These German scholars were ignorant of economic theory and regarded theory as useless speculation and possibly even harmful (p. vii). Nevertheless, the German tradition of economics had exerted an influence on Menger insofar as many continental economists (as in Italy and France) had remained conscious of the contradictions inherent to the determination of prices by production costs based on the labor theory of value. After all, there was Hermann Heinrich Gossen (1810–58), who had formulated the principle of marginal utility in his voluminous treaty, though it was largely unnoticed in academic circles when it was published. In his book of 1854 (translated into English as The Laws of Human Relations and the Rules of Human Action Derived Therefrom [1983]), Gossen formulated the economic law of diminishing marginal utilities in the valuation of the goods relevant to decision-making. Gossen also pioneered the law that equilibrium requires that the ratio of marginal utility to price to be equal for all goods under consideration, a theorem which has become standard in modern microeconomics in its mathematical formulation. Value Theory In his Principles of Economics (1871), Menger explains that people trade because both sides gain from exchange. People attribute different valuations to the same specific good. Therefore, in the voluntary exchange of goods, equivalents do not change hands, but both parties are better off than before. Value is subjective. Its degree changes with the individual’s conditions. Decreasing marginal utility means that more of the same good diminishes the value of each unit of the good. While Menger did not coin the term “marginal utility,” which was introduced later by Friedrich Wieser, the concept was developed by Menger as the magnitude of the importance which an economic agent attaches to the least important satisfaction which he still can secure by a single unit of the available quantity of the good (Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehr, pp. 87, 99). A unit of water to satisfy thirst has a higher ranking than the unit of water used to wash the hands. However, when there is enough water available to satisfy fully the need of washing hands, the unit of water to drink is not more valuable than the same unit of water to wash hands. Menger’s main contributions, as they are elaborated in his Principles of Economics, include the explanation of the subjective basis of economic value and that exchange ratios represent the foundation of relative prices. Menger elaborated the principles of utility theory and rejected the cost-of-production value theories as they had been developed by classical economists and used by Karl Marx in his exploitation theory. Well aware of these theories, Menger expounds his principle of marginal utility as the subjective valuation of goods depending on the number of the units of the good that are within the reach of an individual. Marginal utility decreases, and thus the satisfaction that the least valuable unit of the good renders for an individual determines the value of the goods satisfying the higher preferences on this person’s ranking schedule. Economic Action Beginning the investigation of the causal relationship between human needs and the availability of the means of their satisfaction led Menger to distinguish between goods of the first, second, and higher orders of goods. Goods of the first order serve for immediate consumption, while higher-order goods serve to produce the goods of the first order. With the concept of complementarity of goods, Menger alerts us to the problems of time and uncertainty. Betterment is the motivator of economic action. According to Menger, the purpose of the economic activity of an individual is to improve his conditions. Development in the sense of the improvement of personal economic circumstances takes place when the level of individuals' well-being rises. For this, the production of so-called goods of higher orders is the main means. First-order goods serve directly for consumption, while the goods of the higher orders serve for the production of the goods of the first order. These production goods have no direct utility, but one that is derived from the utility of the final goods. Economic progress takes place through the increase of human knowledge, the reduction of transaction costs, and the availability of savings. Thus, the extension of free markets is the key to development, along with entrepreneurial action aimed at finding the best ways to create and to cope with the edifice of higher-order goods—the capital structure. Prosperity depends on how well the economy generates knowledge and how effectively the application of the new insights can be accomplished. The criterion of progress is not the accumulation of ever more goods but the satisfaction of the subjective wants of the individuals in their full scope, which would also include leisure and nonmaterial goods. Exchange and Price In the context of goods of higher orders, Menger elaborates the principle of imputation, which says that production goods have a derived utility which rests in the utility that individuals ascribe to the final goods that are produced with the help of the higher-order goods (Grundsätze, pp. 138–42). The concept of “derived utility” applies also to labor. Labor has a value, but it results from the usefulness that it contributes to the final good. In this sense, labor is a good of higher order that is present in all stages of the production process. In each stage, the value of labor is derived from (or “imputed,” as the term was coined by Friedrich Wieser, to it by) its contribution to the end product. Menger also rejects the idea that prices are one of the most important aspects of the economy or even its most important feature. Prices are “accidental,” Menger explains, because what counts are the underlying exchange ratios. These exchange values, in turn, are determined by the subjective evaluations of the individual economic actors. Prices emerge as reflections of the subjective values of the individual participants in an exchange. Using the concept of a “commodity” as a good that is meant to be sold on the market, Menger highlights the different degrees of salability of goods. Given that a few specific goods have an exceptionally high degree of salability, which means that they are generally accepted in exchanges, Menger comes to the explanation of the emergence of money in an economy. Money is not the product of private or official agreement, let alone of a legislative act. Money is not an invention. Money came into use the more people realized that that their economic goals were promoted more swiftly in an exchange by accepting goods with the greatest marketability. Money is the outcome of human economic activities. Menger stresses that money is a tool to facilitate exchange and as such does not serve as a standard and store of value. Money is not a measuring rod. The basis of exchange is not the trade of equals but the inverse estimation of the trading partners concerning the value of the goods being exchanged. Prices have meaning only as relative prices, as the expression of exchange ratios. Legacy Many of Menger's insights are nowadays part of standard economics. Many more are preserved in the distinct school of Austrian economics. This applies particularly to the notions of foresight and the role of uncertainty, which are fundamental to economic activity in Menger’s perspective. Despite its wide scope, the Principles of Economics do not include the whole range of topics that Carl Menger wanted to cover. According to Hayek (p. xi), Menger had plans to deliver three more volumes. The second part of the project was to treat “interest, wages, rent, income, credit, and paper money,” the third part was to cover production and commerce, while a fourth part was to discuss and criticize the existing economic system and make proposals for its reform. Probably distracted by the “Methodenstreit,” Menger did not carry out his original plans and thus left much still to do for the succeeding generations of economists. Menger’s original work is full of profound insights. He is rightly cited as the unique founder of the Austrian school of economics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.30 영등포을, 주심 재판관 / 조재연으로 바꾼 이유 / 앞으로 문제를 덮기 위해 큰 역할을 할 것으로 전망 / 그는 이 건을 반드시 덮어야 한다고 생각 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/MSZj-PjiBRM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤희숙 사퇴는 비겁했다. 프리덤뉴스 https://youtu.be/LFNCYmS7HMU --->오세훈의 엉뚱한 짓이 생각난다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 충북동지회 은밀한 면회 "국정원 긴장했어, 박지원 날라갈 것" 중앙일보 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [부정선거]법관들(부장판사+조재연 대법관)과 피고(선관위)의 공모가 드러난 한 장면 익명50마오 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11362820426 210823 양산 재검표 현장, 원고 : 투표지 무게 좀 재 봐도 되예? 부장판사 : 얘, 무게 재 보세요 무게 재고 크기 재고 가짜 투표지라는게 증거가 바로 나오자 피고(선관위) : 판사 지금 뭐하는거요? 이런건 조재연 대법관한테 물어보시오! 버럭! 부장판사 : 여보세요 조대법관님? 여기 무게 재는데 피고가 조대법관님한테 연락해서 재판하라는디요? 조재연 대법관 : 당신 뭐하는기요? 그라만 안돼. 버럭!! 부장판사 : 여러분 무게 재는 것은 취소합니다. 무게 안 잰걸로 합니다. 일동, 방금 한게 안한기라꼬예? --------- 이 장면은, 부장판사는 피고에게 쫄았고 대법관은 피고와 공범이라는 것을 확인한 한 장면 되시겠다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 클린턴 전 정치고문 나오미 울프, 백신 여권에 내재된 위험성... 그리고 그들의 불경한 동맹? (상편) NTD Korea 제가 믿을 수 없었던 건 좌파가 표현의 자유를 위해 싸운다는 그 오랜 전통에도 불구하고.. 긴즈버그 대법관.. 하울 재판.. 채털리 부인 재판.. 읽고 쓰기 운동.. 노동자 교육.. 공교육에 무료 도서관까지.. 그런 것들이 우리의 유산인데 그 모든 걸 내다 버렸어요. 사우스 다코타에서 열린 ‘프리덤 페스티벌’에서 페미니스트 작가이자 저널리스트인 나오미 울프와 마주 앉았습니다. 빌 클린턴과 앨 고어의 정치 캠페인 자문을 맡기도 했습니다. 아울러 국민들이 민주적 절차에 참여하도록 돕는 플랫폼 ‘DailyClout.io’의 창업자이자 CEO를 맡고 있기도 합니다. 저희는 백신 여권에 내재된 위험에 대해 이야기를 나누고, 정부, 빅테크 검열, 대형 제약사로 이어지는 불경한 동맹에 대해 논의해봅니다 https://youtu.be/gAwoC_j1Uzc ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 거시경제 통계자료들은 정부 개입의 도구이다. 최종 상품과 서비스의 가치를 뭉뚱그려서, 정부의 통계학자는 GDP나 기타 경제 지표를 통해 ‘경제’라는 허구를 구체화 한다. GDP와 기타 경제 지표를 통해 정부와 중앙은행의 관리들이 소위 말하는 경제를 통제할 수 있다는 것이다. 통계는 정부가 시민들의 생활에 개입하는 수단이다. 그래서 로스바드는 만일 통계가 없다면, 정부의 사회주의적 계획과 통제를 모두 엎어버릴 거라고 말한다. 국가의 전체 산출량을 계산하는 건 사실 불가능하다. 산술적으로 감자와 토마토를 더한다는 게 불가능하기 때문이다. 나아가 다양한 거시경제 지표들은 사실은 현실 세계와 거리가 있다. 따라서 존재하지 않는 “경제”를 허구적인 경제 지표를 통해 정부의 정책으로 밀어붙이면, 개인들은 피해를 입을 수 밖에 없다. 자유시장 경제에서는 정부와 중앙은행의 개입이 없으므로, 여러 경제 지표를 측정하고 발표할 하등의 이유가 없다. 통계는 개입주의자들, 정치가, 정부 관료 등의 눈과 귀이다. 이들의 눈과 귀를 잘라버리면, 정부 개입의 위협이 사라진다. Macroeconomic Data Is a Tool for Government Intervention Frank Shostak It is common for commentators and economists to refer to something called the “economy,” which sometimes performs well and at other times poorly. The “economy” is presented as a living entity apart from individuals. For example, various experts report that the “economy” grew by such and such percentage, or that the widening in the trade deficit threatens the “economy.” What do they mean by the term “economy”? Does such an entity actually exist? Within this framework of thinking, the “economy” is assigned a paramount importance while individuals are barely mentioned. The “economy” produces goods and services in this way of thinking. Once the output is produced by the “economy,” its distribution among individuals in the fairest way is required. In reality, goods and services are not produced in totality and supervised by one supreme commander. Every individual is preoccupied with his own production of goods and services. Consequently, there is no such thing as the total national output. By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an “economy” by means of the GDP statistic and other economic indicators. It is held that if the “economy” were concretized by means of various economic indicators, policymakers could navigate the “economy” along the growth path that is considered by the experts as desirable. Again, by means of constructed economic indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP), government and central bank policymakers can control the so-called economy. According to Rothbard, Bureaucrats as well as statist reformers … in order to get “into” the situation that they are trying to plan and reform, they must obtain knowledge that is not personal, day-to-day experience; the only form that such knowledge can take is statistics. Statistics are the eyes and ears of the bureaucrat, the politician, the socialistic reformer. Only by statistics can they know, or at least have any idea about, what is going on in the economy. Moreover, It is true, of course, that even deprived of all statistical knowledge of the nation’s affairs, the government could still try to intervene, to tax and subsidize, to regulate and control. It could try to subsidize the aged even without having the slightest idea of how many aged there are and where they are located; it could try to regulate an industry without even knowing how many firms there are or any other basic facts of the industry; it could try to regulate the business cycle without even knowing whether prices or business activity are going up or down. It could try, but it would not get very far. The utter chaos would be too patent and too evident even for the bureaucracy, and certainly for the citizens. And this is especially true since one of the major reasons put forth for government intervention is that it “corrects” the market, and makes the market and the economy more rational. Obviously, if the government were deprived of all knowledge whatever of economic affairs, there could not even be a pretense of rationality in government intervention. Surely, the absence of statistics would absolutely and immediately wreck any attempt at socialistic planning. Once expressed in terms of various economic indicators such as the GDP statistic, the “economy” is expected to follow the growth path outlined by government planners. Thus, whenever the growth rate slips below the outlined growth path, government and central bank policymakers are expected to give the “economy” a suitable push by means of fiscal and monetary policies. Periodically, though, government officials also warn people that the “economy” has become overheated, i.e., it is “growing” too fast. In this case, government and central bank officials declare that it is their duty to prevent inflation. It must be realized that at no stage does the so-called economy have a life of its own, independent from individuals. Furthermore, it is not possible to establish the total real output, given that arithmetically we cannot add potatoes and tomatoes. The employment of various price indexes does not solve this issue. This in turn means that various macroeconomic indicators compiled by government statisticians are detached from the real world. Consequently, various policies to influence a nonexistent entity—the “economy”—via fictitious indicators inflict damage on individuals. Even government statisticians admit that the whole thing is not real. According to J. Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, In particular, it is important to recognize that real GDP is an analytic concept. Despite the name, real GDP is not "real" in the sense that it can, even in principle, be observed or collected directly, in the same sense that current-dollar GDP cannot in principle be observed or collected as the sum of actual spending on final goods and services in the economy. Quantities of apples and oranges can in principle be collected, but they cannot be added to obtain the total quantity of "fruit" output in the economy. The “Hampered” Environment and Macroeconomic Data To succeed in a hampered market environment, entrepreneurs tend to respond to the prevailing conditions, which are influenced by central bank and government policies. A businessperson cannot afford to ignore changes in various economic indicators such as GDP, given that government and central bank officials react to changes in these indicators. For instance, if the central bank is expected to tighten its monetary stance in response to a strengthening in the GDP, a businessperson must take this into account in order to succeed in his business. In a hampered environment, businesspersons must try to interpret various economic indicators in terms of how authorities will respond to them and how this response is going to affect their business environment in the months ahead. Note that the government, in order to construct various economic indicators, is busy collecting the data from businesses that are allocating resources to supply the government with the information. The construction of various economic indicators generates employment opportunities for economists and experts in other fields such as mathematics and statistics. These experts are employed not only to compile various economic data, but they are also employed to interpret the data and provide guidance to businesses. Do We Need to Know about the Economy in a Free Market Environment? In a free market environment, free of government and central bank interference with businesses, it does not make much sense to measure and publish various economic indicators. This type of information is of little use to entrepreneurs. In a free market environment, what possible use can an entrepreneur make of information about the growth rate of GDP? How can the information that GDP rose by 4 percent help an entrepreneur succeed in his business? Alternatively, what possible use can be made of the data showing that the national balance of payments has moved into a deficit or a surplus? According to Rothbard, The individual consumer, in his daily rounds, has little need of statistics; through advertising, through the information of friends, and through his own experience, he finds out what is going on in the markets around him. The same is true of the business firm. The businessman must also size up his particular market, determine the prices he has to pay for what he buys and charge for what he sells, engage in cost accounting to estimate his costs, and so on. The only indicator to which entrepreneurs pay attention is profit in the activity concerned. The higher the profit, the more a particular business activity is in tune with the consumers’ wishes. Paying attention to consumers’ wishes means that entrepreneurs have to organize the most suitable production structure for that purpose. The information on various macroeconomic indicators will be of little assistance in this regard. What an entrepreneur requires is not general macroinformation, but rather specific information about consumers’ demand for a product or a range of products. Government-aggregated macroindicators will not be of much help to entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur will have to establish his own network of information concerning a particular venture. Only an entrepreneur will know what type of information he requires in order to succeed in the venture. If a businessperson’s assessment of consumers’ demand is correct, then he will make a profit. An incorrect assessment will result in a loss. The profit and loss framework penalizes those businesses that have misjudged consumer priorities and rewards those who have exercised a correct appraisal. The profit and loss framework makes sure that resources are withdrawn from those entrepreneurs who do not pay attention to consumer priorities to those who do. According to Mises, Thus profit and loss are generated by success or failure in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers. We have seen that the construction of various economic indicators generates employment opportunities for economists and experts in other fields such as mathematics and statistics. These experts are employed not only to compile various economic data, but they are also employed to interpret the data and provide guidance to businesses. We have seen that in a free, unhampered market businesspersons in the pursuance of their goals will not require macroeconomic indicators. This means that there is likely going to be little interest in the services of economists, statisticians, and mathematicians. Macroeconomic data are the means that are employed by government and central bank policymakers to navigate the so-called economy toward the growth path that they set. As a rule, this navigation culminates in the boom-bust cycle menace and the weakening of the process of wealth generation. Hence, to prevent the menace of the boom-bust cycle and economic impoverishment, there is a place to consider not compiling and publishing various so-called economic data. As we have seen, this data is detached from reality. Hence, policymakers’ continuous response to a mirage undermines the process of wealth generation, thus undermining individuals’ well-being. On this Rothbard held, Statistics, to repeat, are the eyes and ears of the interventionists: of the intellectual reformer, the politician, and the government bureaucrat. Cut off those eyes and ears, destroy those crucial guidelines to knowledge, and the whole threat of government intervention is almost completely eliminated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 백신 강제 접종과 그레이트 리셋 국가는 공포를 통해 존재한다. 따라서 국민들에게 코로나 바이러스로 인한 위험을 과장해서 공포를 조장하는 건 국가의 이익에 부합한다. 또 코로나의 위험을 과장하고 또 과도하게 반응하는 건 정치가들에게 남는 장사인 것이다. 록다운에서 체면을 갖추고 빠져나가는 방법은 바로 백신 켐페인이다. 부정적인 뉴스는 언론에 호재일 뿐만 아니라, 백신을 통해 국민을 구했다는 시나리오 역시 언론이 반기는 이야기이다. 국가와 언론 그리고 제약회사, 초국가 조직 등은 모두 전체 국민의 백신 접종에 이해가 걸려 있다. 유엔이나 세계보건기구 등은 그레이트 리셋, 또는 거대한 변화를 그들의 목표로 삼고 있다. 레이먼드 엉거Raymond Unger는 이런 초국가적 계획이 그람시나 마르쿠제 등이 구상했던 문화전쟁의 일환이라고 본다. 초국가적 기구들은 코로나 위기를 그들의 어젠다를 확장시키는 데 이용하고자 한다. Vaccine Mandates and the "Great Reset" Philipp Bagus Pressure on the unvaccinated grows. While the vaccinated in some countries are getting back some of their freedoms taken away by the covid interventions, the unvaccinated are not so well off. They are being targeted for discrimination. Access to public spaces and traveling is being made more difficult for them. In some countries there is even mandatory vaccination for some professions. But why is the vaccination campaign so important to governments that they are increasing the pressure to such an extent? And who has an interest in the global vaccination campaign? To answer these questions, it is necessary to analyze the prevalent vaccination narrative and ask who benefits from it. In doing so, the alliance of interests between the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational institutions must be addressed. Let us start with the pharmaceutical industry. It has an obvious economic interest in the vaccination campaign. It makes enormous profits from widespread vaccination. What about the state? In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d'être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state's interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights. When the corona crisis started and not much was known about the virus's potential danger politicians were faced with an asymmetric payoff. If politicians underestimate a danger and do not react, they are held responsible for the underestimation. They lose elections and power. Especially if they can be blamed for deaths. Photos of mass burials aside, the consequences of underestimating danger and failing to act are politically fatal. In contrast, overestimating the danger and taking decisive action are politically much more attractive. If it really is an unprecedented threat, politicians are celebrated for their tough measures such as lockdowns. And politicians can always argue that without their decisive action, there would indeed have been a disaster. If the measures ultimately turn out to have been exaggerated because the hazard was not so great after all, the possible negative consequences of the measures are not as directly associated with the politicians as the photos of mass burials, because these consequences are more indirect and long term. The indirect and long-term health costs of lockdowns include suicides, depression, alcoholism, stress-related illnesses, earlier deaths from canceled surgeries and screenings, and a generally lower standard of living. However, these costs are not directly associated with the drastic interventions and blamed on the policy. Many of these consequences will occur after the next elections or even later and are not visible. For instance, we cannot observe to what extent a higher standard of living would have increased life expectancy. And if someone dies six years from now from alcoholism or depression developed in the wake of lockdowns, most people probably will not make the lockdown politicians responsible, and if they do, these politicians will possibly already be out of office. Thus, it is in the interest of politicians to overestimate a threat and overreact. In order to justify and defend the harsh measures such as lockdowns that are so attractive to politicians, it is necessary to stir up fear. When politicians stoked fear and hysteria during the covid-19 crisis, implementing highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, the damage to the economy and social fabric was immense. Yet a society cannot be locked down forever, as the costs keep rising. At some point, it must exit lockdown and return to some normality. However, how can one at the same time stir up fear of the threat of a killer virus and return to normalcy? The way out is vaccination. With to the vaccination campaign the state can stage itself as the savior from the great danger. The state organizes vaccination for its citizens and gives the vaccinations to the citizens for "free." Without this "vaccination rescue" and in a permanent lockdown, the negative economic and social consequences of the restrictions on civil rights would be so great that resentment among the population would continue to grow and ultimately unrest would threaten. So, sooner or later, the lockdown must be ended. If, however, the state authorities were to back out of the lockdowns and restrictions without further explanation and imply that the danger was not so great after all and that the restrictions were an exaggeration and a mistake, they would lose a great deal of support and trust among the population. Consequently, from a governmental perspective, a good and face-saving "exit scenario" from the most severe restrictions is needed, and the vaccination campaign provides it. Through state-provided vaccination, the state can continue to hold on to the narrative of the great threat and still get out of the lockdown. At the same time, it can pass itself off as a savior that is making somewhat more normality possibly through vaccination. To do this, it is necessary that as large a proportion of the population as possible also get vaccinated, because if only a fraction of the population gets vaccinated, the vaccination campaign cannot be sold as a necessary step toward opening up. Thus, it is in the state's interest to get a major part of the population vaccinated. If this strategy works, the state will have set a precedent, expanded its power, and also made citizens more dependent. Citizens will believe that the state has rescued them from a mortal predicament and that they will need its help in the future. In return, they will be willing to give up some of their liberties permanently. The announcement that a state-organized annual vaccination booster is needed will perpetuate the citizens' dependence. The mass media have fallen in line and actively support the vaccination narrative. The state and mass media are closely linked. Framing by the leading media and targeting the population have a long tradition. Already in 1928 Edward Bernays advocated the intelligent manipulation of the masses in his classic book Propaganda. In modern states, the mass media help to construct popular approval for political measures such as in the case of covid-19. The mass media's support of the state is due to several reasons. Some media are directly owned by the state, others are highly regulated or require state licenses. Furthermore, media houses are staffed with graduates from state educational institutions. In addition, especially in times of crisis, a good connection to the government offers advantages and privileged access to information. The willingness to carry the state's fear narrative also comes from the fact that negative news and the exaggeration of dangers bring attention. In the corona crisis, the one-sided media coverage that proliferated through social media and muted critical voices contributed to fear and panic and created great psychological stress among the population. However, it is not only negative news that is attractive to the media; the narrative of the state rescuing the population from a major crisis also sells well. Thus, the vaccination narrative plays into the hands of the mass media. In addition to nation-states, the media, and pharmaceutical companies, supranational organizations also have an interest in ensuring that the world's population is vaccinated. Supranational organizations are actively pursuing an agenda in which global vaccination campaigns play an important role. These organizations include the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Health Organization (WHO), which are closely interconnected. Some of these organizations have set as their goal a great reset, or a great transformation. In the areas of pandemic and climate protection, gender, migration, and the financial system, these organizations want to find coordinated answers for the benefit of all people worldwide. They emphasize shared responsibility and global solidarity. The central control of vaccination, climate change, and financial and migration flows bears the hallmarks of a new world order. For example, the theme of the 2019 annual meeting of the WEF was "Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution." Another example of supranational planning is the UN's "Global Compact for Migration." At the national level, these radical ideas are supported, as shown by the German Advisory Council on Global Change's Welt im Wandel – Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation (World in transition: Social contract for a great transformation) policy paper. Raymond Unger (2021, pp. 84–89) sees this drive for supranational planning as part of a culture war envisioned by Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. A global management of opinion and outrage is combined with scenes of fear and horror, especially in the fields of climate change and corona, to establish a new socialist world order. In fact, the WHO, the IMF, and the UN are led by former communists. The WEF is financed by global companies, including the pharmaceutical industry and the big tech companies. The WEF, for its part, significantly finances the UN's 2030 Agenda. The WHO is also significantly funded by pharmaceutical companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which spearheads global vaccination campaigns. During the covid-19 crisis, the pharmaceutical industry also exerted its influence on the WHO. And the IMF only aided nation-states if they complied with WHO recommendations. These interconnected supranational organizations see the covid-19 crisis as an opportunity to advance their agendas. The UN policy paper Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the Socio-economic Impacts of COVID-19 views covid-19 as a turning point for modern society. The intention is to seize the opportunity and act in a globally coordinated manner. The major tech companies support these agendas. They are also members of the WEF and censored disagreeable information related to covid-19 on their platforms (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook), just like the mass media. Videos critical of vaccination are particularly quickly deleted on YouTube. The title of a keynote speech by IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, "From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation" also underscores the idea that supranational organizations want to use the corona crisis for their agendas. Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, argues that the covid-19 crisis represents a "rare opportunity" to "lay new foundations for our economic and social systems." In COVID-19: The Great Reset, coauthored with Thierry Malleret, Schwab speaks of a defining moment and claims a new world will emerge. According to Schwab, it is time for a fundamental reform of capitalism. Thus, the globally coordinated vaccination program can be interpreted as a building block in a supranational strategy of a great reset. Global vaccination structures are being established that can be used for subsequent global vaccination campaigns. From the perspective of advocates of a great reset, globally coordinated covid-19 vaccination underscores the need for global structures and organizations that can then be used for other global purposes, such as effectively combating "climate change" and pushing for a great reset. In short, the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational organizations are closely intertwined and have a common interest in the vaccination narrative. From this perspective, the mounting pressure on the vaccine-free is unsurprising. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 불안퇴 종합증 불안퇴란 주로 노년의 여성들 다리에 형용하기 힘든 부적감不适感을 느끼는 증상이다. 증상은 아프다기 보다는 쑤시고 후끈거리는 등의 감각이다. 刘金生教授谈不安腿综合征中医心悟 时间：2015-07-16 许多患者就诊时主诉：一到夜间双下肢出现极度的不适感、没有一个舒适的地方可以放好双腿，痛苦难以忍受、难以形容，甚至痛不欲生。这是什么病？其实这是患了不安腿综合征。 一、认识不安腿综合征 不安腿综合征，又称不宁腿综合征，目前认为不安腿综合征属于中枢神经系统疾病，具体病因尚未完全阐明。早在1672年，英国医生Thomas Willis 首次描述了不安腿综合征(Restless legs Syndrome, RLS)，该病又称为Ekbom综合征，其临床表现是发生于下肢的一种自发的、难以忍受的痛苦的异常感觉。这种异常感觉常常累及患者小腿的深部如肌肉或骨头，尤其以腓肠肌最常见，部分患者大腿或上肢也可以出现，通常为对称性。患者常主诉在下肢深部有蚂蚁爬或虫子咬、瘙痒感、疼痛、刺痛、烧灼感、撕裂感、蠕动感等不适，有时患者的感觉难以形容。患者为此会有一种急迫的强烈要运动的感觉，并导致过度活动如翻来覆去、到处走动。休息时如久坐或长时开车时也会出现症状，活动可以部分或者完全缓解症状。正常情况下，夜间卧床时症状变得强烈并且在半夜后达到高峰，患者被迫踢腿、活动关节或者按摩腿部，患者往往形容“没有一个舒适的地方可以放好双腿”。严重者要起床不停地走路，部分患者需要不停的敲打腿部，方可得到缓解。 二、不安腿综合征是常见病吗 国外的流行病学资料表明其患病率为总人口的1－10％，我国的患病率估计在1.2－5％左右，中老年常见。该病是一种较常见的疾病，其发病率远远高于其它神经系统的疾病，如多发性硬化、帕金森病或者阿尔茨海默病。 三、为什么不安腿综合征患者常常被误诊或漏诊 不安腿综合征患病率较高，由于它是一种功能紊乱与失调性疾病，一般并无其它明显的体征和检查的异常，医生对此病认识不足，又缺乏客观指标，常造成误诊或漏诊。另一方面患者常常难以形容下肢的不适感，经常在骨科、风湿科、神经科等多个科室就诊，做了无数检查，却仍被误诊为失眠、抑郁症、或者腰椎病、下肢循环障碍、类风湿性关节炎、缺钙等，治疗效果不佳。 四、不安腿综合症的中医心悟 不宁腿综合症古今文献记录的较少，但早在《灵枢》、《素问》中记载“胫酸”、“髓酸”的记载都与本病表现类似。《伤寒杂病论》中亦有相似的描述如“血痹”、“痉病”、“腿挛急”等。现代多认为不宁腿综合症属于中医的“痹症”范畴，其基本病因病机为正虚邪恋，局部经气不利，肌肉筋脉失养，以黄芪桂枝五物汤等方加减治之。究其效果，有效者亦有不效者，尚未尽如人意。何以效果不佳？实未得病机之真谛！为医者需于望、闻、问、切四者中搜求病机，必有得心之处，胸中了了，用药方灵。不安腿症状具有典型的“旦慧昼安，夕加夜甚”特点，《灵枢》顺气一日分为四时：“夫百病者，多以旦慧昼安，夕加夜甚，何也？岐伯曰：···朝则人气始生，病气衰，故旦慧；日中人气长，长则胜邪，故安；夕则人气始衰，邪气始生，故加；夜半人气入脏，邪气独居于身，故甚也。”人气者，身之阳气也。邪气者，水湿也。夜半阳气衰，水湿趋下滞留两腿，气血凝滞，故两腿不安不宁症状在夜间加重，概肢体之轻捷敏健者，赖阳气之周流。水不升为病者，调肾之阳，阳气足，水气随之而升。血之性善降而易凝，和与温、养血之妙法。静而思之，豁然有悟：阳虚寒凝，水湿滞留两腿，气血凝滞，实为不宁腿综合症发生的病理机制！病理既明，法随理出。温阳益气，利水活血，当为治疗不宁腿综合症的不二法门。试举验案2则，供同道参考。 验案1 张某某，女，46岁，丰台人。初诊：2013年9月23日。 不安腿综合征7年余。历经北京各大医院诊治，效果不明显。两腿部强烈的不适感，表现为重胀感、麻痛但痛不重、难以形容的难受感。难受时下肢肌肉跳动，跳动节律与心脏节律一致，夜间10时至2时，明显加重，以致无法入睡，不得不起床捶腿，甚至下地不停地走动才能感觉舒服些，夜间痛苦异常，难以睡眠，终日烦躁，疲惫不堪，甚至出现了抑郁自杀的征象。两腿畏寒，夏季尤重，贫血，月经量少，口唇紫暗，大便溏，小便可。苔白水滑，舌胖大舌尖红，脉滑。 制附子10 白芍12 苍术15 茯苓30 生晒参10 当归15 川芎12 泽泻15 怀牛膝30 生薏仁30 防己15 炒杜仲15 生黄芪30 7剂，水煎服。药渣重煎，适温泡足。 2013 –9-30复诊。 服上药第三天症状加重，第四天继续加重，难以形容的难受感，第五天症状减轻，第六天症状消失，已可安卧。现月经2月未至，两腿畏寒减轻。大便溏，小便黄，苔白，舌胖大边有齿痕、舌尖红。 制附子10 白芍12 苍术15 茯苓30 生晒参10 当归15 川芎10 泽泻15 怀牛膝30 生薏仁30 炒杜仲15 鹿角胶6（烊化） 生黄芪30 龟板胶6（烊化）山甲粉3（分冲） 14剂，水煎服。药渣重煎，适温泡足。 2013 –10-14日，三诊。 服上药（9-30日方），面部发红，出现米粒大小红色丘疹，无瘙痒，2天后消退，蜕皮，自认为排毒反应。两腿部强烈的不适感消失，夜可安卧，困扰7年的睡眠障碍终于消除。面色紅润，精神焕发，唯两小腿仍有畏风现象，坐小轿车久，两腿部偶有轻度不适感。月经两月未至，右胁偶有胀痛，大便溏，小便可。苔白，舌淡红。脉弦滑。 柴胡12 当归12 白芍15 苍术15 茯苓30 炙甘草6 丹皮10 山栀10 川芎10 泽泻15 怀牛膝30 独活15 7剂，水煎服。药渣重煎，适温泡足。 2013 –10-21日，四诊。 服上药右胁胀痛消失。唯两小腿仍有畏风现象，坐小轿车久，两腿部偶有轻度不适感。月经两月未至，大便溏，小便可。苔白，舌淡红。脉缓。自觉这次方药不如9月30日方药效果好。仍以9-30日方加减进退，15剂后，月经来潮，诸症消失。 按：患病7年余，历经北京各大医院诊治，效果不明显。患者两腿部强烈的不适感，表现为重胀感、麻痛但痛不重、难受时下肢肌肉跳动，夜间10时至2时明显加重，两腿畏寒等症，一派阳虚寒凝，水湿滞留两腿，气血凝滞之象。以附子汤温经助阳、祛寒除湿，合当归芍药散养血调肝、健脾利湿，复加防己黄芪汤益气祛风、健脾利水，共成温阳益气，利水活血之剂。值得注意的是，服药第三天症状加重，第四天继续加重，第五天症状减轻，第六天症状消失。其间患者出现面部发红，出现米粒大小红色丘疹，蜕皮。病人自认为是排毒现象，实乃“瞑眩”，“若药不瞑眩，厥疾弗瘳”，此之谓也。所幸病人未因病情加重而停药，终获痊愈。医患之间的信任，实为取得疗效的关键！ 该患者随访8个月，不安腿综合征一直未发作。 验案2 孙某某，男，49岁。赤峰市人，乡镇干部。 2012-09-13日，初诊。 不安腿综合征3年余，患者两腿部强烈的不适感，表现为重胀麻痛，着床侧肢体难以形容的难受感，难以找到合适的体位，辗转反侧，呻吟不已，伴周身关节肌肉疼痛，夜间加重，晨起活动后疼痛消失。易感冒，感冒后气短，脸面发麻，持续月余方止。胃脘凉，腹胀，大便溏，日3-4次，肛门经常有水渗出，尿频，滴沥不尽，有泡沫。苔白，舌暗红、边有齿痕。脉沉无力。 制附子10 肉桂5 生晒参10 干姜10 炮姜炭10 炒苍白术各15 炙甘草10 砂仁10 白蔻仁10 茯苓30 补骨脂15 7剂。 2012-09-20日，二诊。 服上药失气频作，两腿部强烈的不适感减轻，夜间痛重明显好转，肛门水渗出好转。令患者意外高兴的是，出现了多年未有的晨间勃起。苔白黄，舌淡红暗，边有齿痕。脉弦。 制附子10 肉桂5 干姜10 炮姜炭10 炒苍白术各15 生晒参10 生黄芪30 炙甘草10 升麻10 砂仁10 茯苓30 补骨脂15 15剂。艾条20支灸关元、足三里穴位。 2012-10-18日，三诊。 两腿部强烈的不适感消失，周身关节肌肉疼痛消失。胃脘凉，大便溏，尿频等症减轻。苔白，舌淡红边有齿痕，脉弦。患者欣喜过望，求巩固疗效。以上方加减进退，20剂后，诸症消失。 按:本例患者表现为下肢及着床侧肢体难以形容的难受感，周身关节肌肉疼痛，夜间加重，晨起活动后疼痛消失，为什么表现这些症象？欲研此症之病理，须明中医气化之精妙。患者自觉向左卧，则体内血液水湿全沉于左侧，向右卧，则全沉于右侧，可以推知病者血流水湿已无自然循环流动之活力，此血流何以不能自动，则必由于脾肾阳气衰微。胃脘凉，腹胀，大便溏，肛门经常有水渗出，显系阳虚水停之明证。治以桂附理中加味，补肾助阳，温中健脾，益先天，补后天，标本兼治，阳气恢复，水湿自散，内外通气，血流自然，则大病终愈。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 시호가용모탕으로 불안퇴 치료 不安腿综合征(restless legs syndrome，RLS)又称多动腿综合征或不宁腿综合征。本综合征为Willis(1685)首先记载，Wittonack(1861)称为胫骨不安症(anxietas tibia)，法国则称肌性焦热(impatience musculaire)，1943年Allison又称此征为腿部神经过敏症(leg jitters)，1944年Ekborn初称此征为无力性脚感觉异常症(asthenic crural paresthenia)，直到1945年Ekbom方称其为不宁腿综合征，后来人们又称为Ekbom综合征。Gorman认为正常人群中5%可发现RLS。 RLS在各年龄组皆可发病，但多见于40岁以上的壮年。症状主要发生在两下肢，但亦可累及大腿和足部，可以一侧为重，或仅限于一侧下肢，但上肢和手部则很少受累。受累的患肢深部酸、麻痛灼热、虫爬样、瘙痒样等多种痛苦感觉为主要表现的发作性疾病。症状在休息时出现，而在白天工作，劳动或运动时不出现症状。症状常迫使患者的小腿不停的活动，甚至在室内、外长久的徘徊，才能使症状缓解，因此命名为不宁腿综合征。本病的发病机制尚不清，病因不明，尽管对症治疗的方法很多，但迄今为止尚无对因治疗措施。 其主要临床表现为如下几方面。 　　1.不安，休息时常走来走去，或不停地搓腿，躺在床上时常翻来覆去或摇动身体。 　　2.感觉异常，在休息尤其清晨与夜间时大腿深部有爬行样不舒感，常为双侧受累，迫使患者要经常活动其两腿。 　　3.睡眠中周期性腿动，为刻板地屈曲运动，在6h的睡眠中至少发生40次以上的腿动。 　　4.醒时的不自主腿动，在卧位或坐位休息时常发生下肢的不自主屈曲运动。 　　5.睡眠障碍，由于感觉异常和腿动，常导致患者失眠。 　　6.夜间加重，尽管白天休息时也可有异常、腿动和不安症状，但夜间有明显的加重趋势。 笔者从几年前接触不安腿综合征尝试用过桂枝茯苓丸、芍药甘草汤、黄芪桂枝五物汤、地黄饮子等及一些传统中医模式滋补肝肾法及清热利湿法效果均不理想。遂改变治疗思路，决定从治疗失眠入手，因为不安腿综合症全部伴有睡眠障碍，把治疗失眠的方子筛选一遍柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤觉得更合适，所以运用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤治疗不安腿综合征十余例，通过近一年的观察疗效甚佳。 柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤主原文是：“伤寒八九日，下之，胸满烦惊，小便不利，谵语，一身尽重，不可转侧者，柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤主之。” 林伯良在《小柴胡汤证的研究》一书中认为： ①柴胡主证及肝证：如胸满，烦惊，谵语之类。 ②外部证及内部从证：如身重，小便不利之类。” 他并根据以上基本状态，把症状进一步推广了。他认为： ①胸满方面，可以把胸腹膨胀，心下紧张，或往来寒热等，看做类似证。 ②从惊烦来说，烦惊即烦闷易惊，常可兼胸腹动悸，气上冲而烦惊，精神受劳，因此，可发生失眠多梦，精神过敏，容易兴奋，或眩晕头痛耳鸣等。严重的可发生谵妄，发狂癫痫等。”例如：《类聚方广义》称：“本方治狂证，腹胸动甚，惊惧逼人，兀坐独语，日夜不眠，或多猜疑，或欲自死。又治痛症，时寒热交作，郁悲愁，多梦不寐，或恶接人，屏居暗室。” 　③从外部及内部从证说：在上术柴胡主证及肝证的结合下，如下肢麻痹、水肿、半身不遂，四肢倦重或疼痛或牵搐等，以及失精、阳萎、月事失常等，都可和身重，小便不利看做类似的症状。 经过这样推广，就可使本方适用不安腿综合征的治疗。 案一：杨某 男 56岁 72kg 169cm 工人 下肢困乏不适二十余年，严重影响睡眠，每晚需双腿跪在床上才能入睡片刻，甚感痛苦，生不如死，晚上常起床走来走去、不停搓腿方感舒服片刻。在找笔者前经多处调理效果欠佳，口不渴、大便可、烦躁易怒、头晕头蒙头脑不清醒、记忆力减退、有吸烟史高血压病史，舌淡红、苔薄黄、脉弦细：柴胡15g 龙骨15g 牡蛎15g 桂枝10g 云苓15g 生姜15g 大枣15g 黄芩10g 琥珀10g 党参15g 半夏20g 制大黄10g 六副 药后症状大减，共服30余副上证全消。半年后上证又发，用药六副即好。 案二：梁某某 女 35岁 52kg 1.65cm 粉刷工人 不安腿综合征五年、有甲亢病史，中西药治疗无效，体瘦、食欲可、长久站立下肢困乏，难以忍受，似痒非痒、似疼非疼、似酸非酸、似困非困，严重影响睡眠，大便偏稀，脾气急躁，经前乳房胀痛，口稍苦：柴胡15g 龙骨15g 牡蛎30g 桂枝10g 云苓30g 生姜15g 大枣15g 黄芩6g 琥珀10g 党参15g 半夏20g 制大黄6g 上方六副 诸证大减，共服二十四副痊愈。 通过用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤治疗不安腿综合征感觉近期疗效甚佳，远期疗效还待观察。可不可以把柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤看作不安腿综合征的专病专方，还待研究。一家意见不妥之处还望同道斧正。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 不安腿綜合徵又稱多動腿或不寧腿綜合徵。主要表現為雙下肢(膝踝間)深部肌肉有難以訴述或忍受的酸、麻、痛、爬蟲樣、灼熱等莫名不適，一般兩側對稱發作，也有一側較重，主要發作於休息時，尤以晚間臨睡前為多，發作時迫使按摩，叩打區域性或起床徘徊，可使症狀暫時緩解或減輕。但隨後又復出現，久久不能人睡。體檢包括神經系統以及肌電圖、腓腸肌診檢等未見異常。 中醫認為本**氣血不足，營衛虛弱，風寒之邪人侵經脈，使之阻滯不通所致。 (1)根據《浙江中醫雜誌》1991，(2)：78，尚禮儉報道：用芍藥甘草湯合二至丸加味**不安腿綜合徵25例，獲愈。處方：白芍50克，甘草10克，女貞子20克，旱蓮草18克，丹蔘30克，木瓜15克，懷牛膝15克。水煎服，每日1劑。加減：失眠多夢者，加炒酸棗仁、龍骨、牡蠣、夜交藤；心悸，氣短，面色不澤者，加黃芪、黨蔘、當歸、柏子仁；舌苔黃膩者，加蒼朮、黃柏、滑石、薏苡仁。 (2)根據《廣西中醫藥》1987，(5)：12，潘北桂等報道：用芍藥甘草湯**不安腿綜合徵7例，其中，**5例，好轉1例，無效1例。處方：白芍30克，甘草5克。每日1劑，水煎服，10天為1個療程。用藥最短4天，最長8天。 (3)根據《北京中醫雜誌》1987，(2)：43，王秀琴報道：用芍藥甘草湯加味**2例不安腿綜合徵。處方：白芍60克，炙甘草15克，木瓜30克，生薏苡仁30克，杜仲30克，丹蔘30克。水煎服，每日1劑。 (4)根據《河北中醫》1991，(5)：15，陳殿元報道：用加味芍藥甘草湯**不安腿綜合徵10例，其中，近期**7例，好轉2例，無效1例。處方：白芍30克，甘草6克，木瓜18克。每日1劑，水煎分2次口服。7劑為1個療程，最多連服3個療程。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 不寧腿（肢）綜合徵的臨床特點是雙小腿深部難受或痠痛，小腿肌肉痙攣、發緊或深部如蟲爬、瘙癢等感覺。**常不明確。 1、劉氏認為肢體疼痛、痙攣等症內屬肝血不足，外為風寒溼邪所侵，經氣不利，筋脈失濡所致。以芍藥甘草湯加味（白芍、甘草、生米仁、生地、宣木瓜、蘇木、威靈仙、地龍）隨症加減，**本病32例，結果：痊癒18例（56．2％），顯效7例（22．06％），好轉4例（12．5％），無效3例（9．3％），總有效率90．7％ 2、李氏根據不寧腿綜合徵病在下肢及纏綿難愈等特點，認為下焦溼熱鬱蒸，·經脈氣機閉阻為本病的主要病機。以四妙丸加味（蒼朮、黃柏、薏苡仁、川牛膝、漢防己、忍冬藤、車前子）**本病13例，結果：**9例，顯效3例，有效1例 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 김걸 교수의 가미사묘산 운용 경험 金傑運用加味四妙散經驗拾萃 作者 / 1王娜娜 1吳明陽 2金傑 1河南中醫藥大學第一臨牀醫學院 2河南中醫藥大學第一附屬醫院 編輯 / 許紅 ⊙ 校對 / 張芊芊 金傑教授從1999年至今一直從事臨牀教學科研工作，善於運用中西醫結合方法診斷治療精神、神經及心理障礙性疾病，臨牀療效顯著。筆者有幸跟隨金傑教授臨證學習，受益匪淺，現將其運用加味四妙散的經驗介紹如下。 1 加味四妙散的方解及其證治特點 四妙散載於清·張秉成《成方便讀》，而本方源自於元·危亦林《世醫得效方·卷第九》的蒼朮散加味而成。蒼朮散由黃柏、蒼朮各等分組成。原作散劑，可治療「一切風寒溼熱，令足膝痛，或赤腫，腳骨間作熱痛，雖一點，能令步履艱苦。及臀髀大骨疼痛，令人痿。一切腳氣，百用百效」。後至元·朱震亨《丹溪心法》一書中將其改稱爲二妙散。四妙散由二妙散加懷牛膝、薏苡仁共4味藥物組成，主治溼熱下注之痿、痺症。方中蒼朮味苦能燥溼、性辛溫、可散寒除痺，是燥溼健脾之要藥，《珍珠囊》有雲:「能健胃安脾，諸溼腫非此不能除。」黃柏味苦而性寒、沉降，善清溼熱且尤長於清下焦溼熱。如《脾胃論》所言:「黃柏之苦寒，降溼熱爲痿，乘於腎，救足膝無力，亦除陰汗、陰痿，而益精」，「如腳膝痿軟，行步乏力，或疼痛，乃腎肝中伏溼熱，少加黃柏」。據《神農本草經》載:「薏苡仁，主筋急，拘攣不可屈伸，風溼痺，下氣，久服輕身益氣」，是以方中用薏苡仁健脾胃、除溼痺、緩拘攣、舒筋絡;牛膝味苦酸、性平，《名醫別錄》曰:「補中續絕，填骨髓，除腦中痛腰脊痛，婦人月水不通，血結，益精，利陰氣」，《神農本草經》原文:「牛膝，味苦，主寒溼痿痺，四肢拘攣，膝痛不可屈伸，逐血氣。」金傑認爲四妙散方中蒼朮與黃柏配伍應用可共奏清熱燥溼之功效，使溼去而熱除，即邪氣盛、正氣不虛之二妙散功效；加入牛膝以補肝腎、強筋健，引蒼朮、黃柏入下焦而祛溼清熱；宗《黃帝內經》:「治痿獨取陽明」之旨，故用能獨入陽明經脈之薏苡仁以淡滲利溼，清熱除痺，舒利筋絡。金傑根據中醫學理論及多年臨牀經驗對四妙散進行加味，加入萆薢、木瓜、豨薟草、防己以增強祛風除溼、舒筋活絡之效，加入當歸、益母草以養血活血通絡，加入白芍、甘草即芍藥甘草湯以增平肝柔肝、緩急止痛之效，諸藥相合清熱燥溼、通筋利痺、標本兼顧，是治療溼熱痿、痺症之妙藥。臨證運用加味四妙散治療溼熱下注型吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵、不安腿綜合徵、腰椎病和抽搐等多種疾病，療效顯著。現代醫學認爲，吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵是以周圍神經和神經根的脫髓鞘病變及小血管炎性細胞浸潤爲病理特點的自身免疫性周圍神經病，經典的吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵被稱爲急性炎症性脫髓鞘性多發性神經病，臨牀表現爲急性對稱性弛緩性肢體癱瘓；不安腿綜合徵是指夜間或休息時出現的肢體難以忍受的不適感，運動、按摩可暫時緩解的一種綜合徵，其臨牀表現通常爲夜間睡眠時雙下肢出現極度的不適感，迫使患者不停地移動下肢或下地行走，導致患者嚴重的睡眠障礙。 2 典型病案 2.1 吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵 案1：王某，男，39歲，以「四肢無力2周」爲主訴於2015年5月21日入院。患者2周前感冒後出現四肢麻木無力、雙手持物無力、無言語不利、口角歪斜、頭痛頭暈、噁心嘔吐等症狀，未引起重視和治療。2周以來上述症狀進行性加重，逐漸出現行走不穩，遂來河南中醫藥大學第一附屬醫院住院治療，診斷爲「吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵」。患者既往無其他病史，否認腦出血及腦梗塞等病史。入院症見四肢無力，雙下肢膝以下發涼，腓腸肌壓痛，納眠可，二便調，舌質淡紅，苔黃厚膩，脈弦滑。查體神志清，言語流利清晰，雙上肢近端肌力Ⅲ級、遠端肌力Ⅱ級，雙下肢近端肌力Ⅲ+級、遠端肌力Ⅲ級，肌張力減低，腱反射減弱，病理反射未引出，淺深感覺未見明顯異常，共濟運動不能配合。顱腦磁共振成像檢查腦內未見明顯異常。肌電圖示周圍神經損害。中醫診斷痿證，證屬溼熱浸淫證，西醫診斷吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵。西醫給予營養神經、補充維生素、改善微循環等治療並對症處理。中醫以清熱利溼爲治法，方選四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、豨薟草各30g，茯苓20g，當歸、益母草、木瓜、萆薢、白芍各15g，清半夏、黃柏各10g，陳皮、防己、炙甘草各12g，水煎服每天1劑，每日2次。配合針灸治療每天1次。治療3周後患者四肢麻木無力明顯減輕，可自行短距離行走，繼續治療4周後出院。出院症見四肢無力消失，雙下肢膝以下發涼、腓腸肌壓痛症狀消失，可自行長距離行走。雙上肢近端肌力Ⅴ-級、遠端肌力Ⅳ+級，雙下肢近端肌力Ⅴ-級，遠端肌力Ⅳ+級。隨訪患者3月病情無反覆。 2.2 不安腿綜合徵 案2：馬某，男，53歲，主訴雙下肢不適伴雙腓腸肌痙攣2周。2015年8月17日來診，症見雙下肢異樣不適感伴痙攣，雙腓腸肌痙攣夜間尤甚，常在夜間醒來揉按腿部，或下地行走活動稍有緩解，右下肢困沉，納眠可，二便正常，舌淡暗，苔黃膩，脈弦細。西醫診斷不安腿綜合徵，中醫診斷痺症，辨證屬溼熱下注、浸淫筋脈。治以四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、益母草、豨薟草、木瓜、萆薢、白芍各30g，黃柏10g，當歸、防己、炙甘草各15g，水煎服每日1劑，每日2次。服藥6劑症狀大減，雙下肢異樣不適感明顯減輕，雙腓腸肌痙攣基本消失，偶覺右下肢困沉。守上方6劑以鞏固療效，服後症狀消失。 2.3 腰椎病 案3：瞿某，女，74歲，以「腰痛伴右下肢疼痛3年，加重3 d」爲主訴於2015年5月2日入院。患者3年前無明顯誘因出現腰痛伴右下肢疼痛、麻木，自覺晨起疼痛、麻木較輕，下午逐漸加重，曾於鄭州市某醫院診斷爲腰椎間盤突出症，住院治療(具體治療不詳)好轉後出院，3 d前因勞累後致上述症狀再發加重，今爲求中西醫結合治療入住我院。患者既往有冠心病、高血壓、腰椎間盤突出症，否認糖尿病和腦梗塞及腦出血等病史。入院症見腰痛、右下肢疼痛伴麻木，直腿高舉試驗陽性，納眠可，二便正常，舌紫暗，苔白厚，脈弦細滑。腰椎MRI示L1-2、L2-3、L3-4、L4-5、L5-S1椎間盤膨出、腰椎諸椎間盤變性、腰椎骨質增生、L3、L4椎體相對緣及L5、S1椎體相對緣終板變性。西醫診斷坐骨神經痛、高血壓病、冠狀動脈粥樣硬化性心臟病，中醫診斷痺症，肝腎虧虛證。西醫給予改善循環、營養神經等治療並對症處理，中醫給予四妙散合獨活寄生湯加減：麩炒薏苡仁、桑寄生、茯苓、鹽杜仲、牛膝各30g，麩炒蒼朮、黨參、秦艽、白芍、桂枝各15g，當歸、川芎各12g，獨活、防風、炙甘草、黃柏各10g，熟地黃20g，細辛3g，水煎服每日1劑，每日2次。治療1周後患者自訴腰痛及右下肢麻木等症狀均明顯減輕，右下肢疼痛已基本消失，繼續治療1周後出院。出院症見腰痛及右下肢疼痛、麻木消失，直腿擡高試驗陰性。 2.4 抽搐 案4：王某，女，60歲，主訴雙下肢不自主抽搐30餘年，加重伴雙上肢抽搐3d。2015年8月18日來診，症見雙下肢不自主抽搐夜間尤甚，3d前出現雙手抽搐，活動後加重，休息後抽搐緩解，但覺雙下肢沉困，納眠可，二便如常，舌暗紅，苔黃稍膩，脈弦細滑。西醫診斷肢體痙攣，中醫診斷痙證，溼熱下注證，治以四妙散加減：麩炒蒼朮、川牛膝、薏苡仁、益母草、木瓜、豨薟草各30g，當歸、防己、萆薢、炒白芍各15g，黃柏10g，炙甘草12g，服藥10劑後四肢已不抽搐，停藥則又發作，但程度較前明顯減輕，自覺症狀已減輕90%。繼服上方10劑症狀消失，隨訪1個月未再復發。 3 總結 加味四妙散治療病症衆多，但其所治疾病病機總與溼熱邪氣密切相關。金傑認爲隨著現代社會物質生活條件的改善，飲食習慣的變化，今人多飲食不節、恣食肥甘厚味、嗜食生冷之品，終致脾胃受損，溼熱合邪蘊結脾胃，百病乃生;加之長期處於溼熱環境中，或涉水淋雨，氣候突變，感受溼邪，溼熱相搏;或爲苦寒類藥物不當使用亦可損傷脾胃化生溼熱。溼熱侵襲人體常可導致「溼熱裹挾，如油入面，難捨難分」，是以徒清熱則溼不退，徒祛溼則熱愈熾;因溼性趨下、重著易襲陰位，多導致下肢困重無力或關節疼痛;溼邪爲陰邪易阻遏氣機，損傷陽氣致機體正氣受損，可致外邪乘虛侵襲，是故溼熱之邪又常挾他邪入侵;而溼爲有形之邪，熱爲無形之邪，熱邪須依附於溼邪方可留於經絡臟腑之間，致使局部關節屈伸不利甚或紅腫疼痛，終發爲痿證、痺症。金傑根據中醫學基本理論及多年臨證經驗，緊抓溼熱這一主要病機，運用古方四妙散加味治療溼熱引起的吉蘭-巴雷綜合徵、不安腿綜合徵、腰椎病和抽搐等現代疾病，收效甚佳。現代藥理研究亦表明，以蒼朮、黃柏爲主組成的方藥具有明顯的抗炎鎮痛、抑制免疫病理反應的作用。趙鵬飛研究發現，加味四妙散有減輕兔膝骨關節炎軟骨基質的降解、促進損傷軟骨修復的作用。 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

시진핑이 노리는 3연임 구도는 푸틴-메드베제프 모델?/리커챵의 후임은 바로 이 사람/탈레반은 중공처럼만 하면 OK! 박상후의 문명개화 베이다이허 회의가 폐막한 뒤 시진핑과 리커챵의 은근한 대립구도가 관심을 불러 일으키고 있습니다. 720허난성 대홍수이후 아무도 찾지 않던 정저우를 리커챵이 찾았습니다. 리커챵의 정저우 방문은 중공관영매체들의 홀대를 받았습니다. 국무원은 허난성 정저우에 조사반을 투입했는데 시진핑의 사람으로 분류되는 허난성과 정저우 당서기에게 책임을 물을지가 관심사입니다. 허난성은 리커챵이 7년동안 지냈던 지지기반이도 합니다. 리커챵이 2022년 20대 이후 거취가 어떻게 될지에 대해서는 교체가능성이 점쳐지고 있습니다. 그리고 그 후임으로는 정협주석인 왕양이 떠오르고 있습니다. 시진핑이 공동부유를 주창한 중앙재경회의에서 왕양의 존재감은 두드러졌습니다. 시진핑, 리커챵 다음으로 언급됐고 왕후닝, 한정보다 앞섰습니다. 또 시진핑이 티벳을 방문한데 이어 왕양이 티벳해방 70주년 행사에 출석한 점도 관심사입니다. 60주년과 50주년에 각각 출석한 이가 시진핑, 후진타오였습니다. 이 두사람은 당시 최고지도자 내정자신분이었습니다. 따라서 시진핑의 차기권력구도에서는 국가 주석, 당총서기, 중앙군사위 주석직 가운데 당 총서기직을 왕양에게 양보하고 수렴청정을 할 가능성이 점쳐지고 있습니다. 이는 푸틴-메드베제프 모델과 유사합니다. 왕양을 허수아비로 내세우고 시진핑이 실권을 장악하는 방향으로 가는 게 아니냐는 합리적인 추론이 나오고 있습니다. 이번 방송에서는 저쟝성에서 최고위 관리들이 잇따라 낙마했으며 이는 마윈의 알리바바와 관계가 있다는 소식과 함께 말레이지아의 중국계 가수가 탈레반에 대해 중공을 조롱하는 긋한 충고를 제시했다는 소식도 전해드립니다. https://youtu.be/i-wmUk17-bI --->말레이시아의 중국계 가수는 황밍즈인데, 박상후 씨가 착각을 했는지 계속 황즈밍이라고 발음하고 있다. (화면에 그의 이름이 나온다.) 너무 많은 프로그램을 만드느라 좀 지친 듯하다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 화이저 백신 FDA 승인과 백신 산업 지각 변동. ESG Stakeholder 자본주의 본질은 ‘정부와 기업의 공모 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/YUL_iOFPyBQ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 유명 의학 전문가들이 백신에 대한 소신을 밝히다!! 미디어파이 코로나 조기치료의 선구자로 알려진 텍사스 A&M 대학의 피터 맥컬로(Peter McCullough) 교수는 “현재의 대량 예방 접종은 역사상 가장 치명적이고 불안하며 값비싼 의료 프로그램 중 하나”라고 주장했습니다. 조기치료란 코로나 예방약을 미리 복용하거나 증세를 느끼는 초기 단계일 때 치료약을 복용해 조기에 완치시키는 치료 방법입니다. 심장병 전문 의학박사인 맥컬로 교수는 두 개의 의학저널 편집장이며 코로나를 연구하는 46명의 전문가와 함께 그동안 600개 이상의 논문을 연구 저술했습니다. 그는 미국 백신 부작용 보고 시스템(VAERS), 이스라엘과 영국의 최신 데이터를 인용해 백신 접종 후 코로나 발병 사례가 기하급수적으로 증가했다면서 “기본적으로 백신 위주의 코로나 대응 방식은 실패”라고 지적했습니다. 맥컬로 교수는 대량 백신 접종의 첫 번째 국가인 이스라엘을 예로 들며 성인 80%가 예방 접종을 받은 7월 이후 코로나 발병 사례와 중증 입원 건수가 20배 급증했으며 이스라엘 보건부가 보고한 신규 사례의 대부분(80% 이상)은 예방접종을 받은 사람들이었다고 밝혔습니다. 그후 이스라엘은 8월부터 백신의 ‘부스터샷(3차접종)’을 시행해 8월 23일 현재 150만 명이 넘는 사람들이 세 번째 예방 접종을 받았습니다. 영국 상황도 낙관적이지 않습니다. 성인의 3/4 이상(76%)이 2회 접종을 받았고 90%의 성인이 1회 이상 접종을 받았지만 6월 이후로 입원한 환자 수는 7배나 급증했습니다. https://youtu.be/pYRVxA_rtWo ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "북한 남침 능력 없다"는 송영길 여당 대표 주장, 워싱턴에서 커다란 파장 김영호 교수 https://youtu.be/guKsSEz8YP8 ---->아프간의 6만 탈레반이 수천억의 지원을 받은 아프간 정부군을 무찔렀다. 하물며 북한은 좌파 정부의 은밀한 지원으로 핵무기를 개발했고, 기타 또 어떤 무기를 보유하고 있는지도 모른다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조재연, 노골적 편들기 / 대법관들, 믿을 수 없다 / "재판의 심리와 판결은 공개한다"-헌법 제109조 / 재판장의 재량권을 남용해서, 범행을 축소하기 위한 공모 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/PcpN4aVu8DI --->관료주의가 무서운 이유는, 독재 체제로 변하면 독재자들의 하수인이 되어 개처럼 충성하기 때문이다. 지금 한국의 대법관(개법관)들이 이를 잘 증명하고 있다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 윤미향이 낸 ‘윤미향·정의연 보호법’...후원금 유용 비판하면 처벌 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (日,언론)..한국의「원화 가치」 하락.. 한국은행 금리 인상, 한국의 부동산과 주가는 개폭락... 아베노문시키 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11362542432 한국의「원화 가치」 하락.. 세계의 투자자들이 팔자에 나선 이유 韓国の「ウォン」がここへ来て下落…世界の投資家たちが「売り」を仕掛けたワケ 8/24(火) 8:02配信 (왜구,언론).. 現代ビジネス 원화 가치 하락의 전조 ウォン安の兆し 　 8월 들어 한국 원화 가치가 하락하고 있다. 아시아 신흥국 통화와 비교해도 원화 가치의 하락률은 크다. 환율의 배경에는 여러 요인이 있지만. 그 중에서도 중요하다고 생각되는 것은 한국 은행의 연내 금리 인상이 어려워졌다고 보는 해외 투자가가 늘어나고 있는 것이다. 8월의 월초부터 중순까지 세계 경제의 변화를 보면 한국 경제의 둔화 우려를 높이는 요인이 잇달아 부상하고 있다. 세계 반도체 시황에서 메모리 반도체 중 하나인 DRAM의 우려가 커지고 고가권에서 맴돌던 한국 주식과 원화의 팔자를 세트로 하는 해외 투자가들이 많다. 중국의 주요 경제 지표는 사전 예상을 밑돌고 미국 중앙 은행인 연방 준비 제도 이사회(FRB)이 자산 매입의 단계적 축소= 테이퍼링을 실시할 가능성도 높아졌지만. 경기 회복세를 약화시키는 재료가 많아지면서 한국 은행의 금리 인상이 어려워지고 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 습열 하주湿热下注에 의한 각종 질병을 치료하는 사묘산 四妙散临床有“四妙” 运用四妙散经验 四妙散见于清代医家张秉承所著的《成方便读》一书，由苍术、黄柏、牛膝、薏苡仁四味药组成，与《丹溪心法》之二妙丸、《医学正传》之三妙丸乃一脉相承之剂。原方主治湿热下注之痿证，取苍术燥湿健脾除湿邪之来源；黄柏走下焦除肝肾之湿热，薏苡仁入阳明胃经祛湿热而利筋络；牛膝补肝肾兼领诸药之力以直入下焦。崔老认为其方能走下焦而清热燥湿，故对于以下焦湿热为主要表现的疾病，皆可用之，不必拘泥于痿证。其常用四妙散为基础方化裁治疗下焦湿热之痛风、脉痹、黄带等疾病，取得了良好的疗效，扩大了四妙散的应用范围。 一、治疗痛风 痛风是一种嘌呤代谢紊乱所致的疾病，其临床表现为高尿酸血症及其由此引起的痛风性关节炎反复发作、痛风石性慢性关节炎，累积到肾脏形成慢性间质性肾炎和尿酸肾结石。中医认为痛风症的发生是由于过食肥甘厚味、烟酒等物品，痰浊、湿热内生，流注关节经络，阻碍气血运行，从而发肿胀、疼痛等痛风症候，是以《内经》有“膏粱之变，足生大疔”之戒，明代医学 162家龚廷贤在《万病回春》中亦指出：“一切痛风肢体痛者，痛属火，肿属湿……所以膏粱之人，多食煎炒、炙煿、酒肉，热物蒸脏腑，所以患痛风。”崔老根据痛风之病因病机，结合多年临证经验，从泄浊化瘀，通利经脉入手，以四妙散为主方，加利湿泄浊，通经活络之品，组成经验方崔氏痛风汤。 崔氏痛风方：由苍术、黄柏、薏苡仁、川牛膝、防己、川木瓜、木通、蜈蚣、全蝎、僵蚕、川萆薢、羌活、独活、赤芍、五灵脂、没药、桃仁、红花 18味药物组成，主治痛风急性发作之湿热偏盛型，常见下肢关节红肿疼痛，局部灼热，舌质红，苔黄腻，实验室检查提示血尿酸增高。本方能从整体调整脏腑功能，促进尿酸排泄，减少尿酸沉积，从而达到治疗痛风的目的。 案 吴某某，男，54岁，2015年 12月 5日初诊。 ［主诉］痛风反复发作 2年余。患者平素喜饮酒，近 2年余痛风数次发作，尿酸增高，3天前因饮酒后痛风再次发作，右足第一跖趾关节红肿疼痛，连及整个脚面均肿胀，行走困难，脉滑数有力，舌边尖红，苔黄腻。实验室检查：血尿酸 502 μmol/L。 ［诊断］痛风属湿热下注，血脉不通。［治法］清热燥湿，通络止痛之剂。 ［方药］苍术 12g，黄柏 12g，薏苡仁 20g，川、怀牛膝各 20g，木防己 15g，木通12g，木瓜15g，羌活9g，独活9g，威灵仙12g，没药9g，丹皮12g，赤芍30g，白茅根20g，金银花20g，川萆薢15g，连翘15g，当归12g，五灵脂（包）12g，红花9g，甘草9g。6剂。 二诊：服药后疼痛减轻，仍夜间痛甚，守上方加蜈蚣 2条，全蝎 6g，8剂水煎服。之后未再来复诊，半年后门诊偶遇患者，其自述服药后症状完全消失，目前未再复发。 按：本案治疗即是以崔老痛风汤为主方加减运用。方中以四妙散为主，走下焦清热除湿，且苍术、薏苡仁、牛膝三药皆有除痹之功，再配以川木瓜、木通、汉防己、川萆薢、白茅根等药以渗湿泄浊；羌活、独活除湿止痛；威灵仙性猛善走，用之大能通行经络，使气血流通无阻；丹皮、赤芍凉血解毒；金银花、连翘清热解毒，配以当归、五灵脂、红花、没药化瘀止痛。方药对证，故一诊而痛减轻，二诊时加蜈蚣、全蝎，取其攻毒散结、通络止痛之功，荡涤浊邪，流通气血。据崔老临床经验，痛风患者红肿疼痛等热象明显者宜重用黄柏，同时加金银花、连翘或五味消毒饮等清热解毒药物，疼痛轻而肿势明显者重用苍术、薏苡仁；川萆薢一味用量需大，常用 15~30g，方能达到较好的泄浊之功。 二、下肢深部静脉血栓（湿热型） 下肢深静脉血栓形成主要是由于静脉损伤、血流缓慢和血液高凝状态三大因素使血液在深静脉腔内不正常凝结，阻塞静脉腔，导致静脉回流障碍而致。血栓形成后，阻碍血流运行，血中水液外泄，从而形成肿胀、疼痛，血行不畅，局部肌肤失养，日久发为皮肤溃疡等症。就其病因病机及临床表现来看，可归于中医脉痹的范畴。崔老认为脉痹的形成多因气血亏虚，邪气结于脉中，导致血凝而不流，日久则化湿生热，因其多有下焦湿热之表现，故而崔老在治疗此类疾病时以具有清利下焦湿热之功的四妙散为主方佐以活血通经，凉血解毒之品以治之。 案 吴某某，女，55岁。2009年 7月 10日初诊。 ［主诉］下肢肿胀 1个月余。 ［现病史］患者双下肢肿胀疼痛已有月余，下肢发热，颜色发暗，行走困难，生活不能自理，在外院诊断为下肢深静脉血栓并静脉炎，经治疗后效果不佳，由家人搀扶其到中医门诊就诊。刻下：双下肢肿胀疼痛，以膝关节以下较甚，按之凹陷（+++），局部皮肤触之有热感，脉沉滑，舌质紫暗。 ［诊断］脉痹属湿热下注兼有瘀血。 ［治法］清热祛湿，凉血活瘀。 ［方药］苍术12g，黄柏12g，川牛膝20g，薏苡仁30g，车前子20g，茯苓20g，忍冬藤30g，连翘20g，升麻12g，赤芍15g，丹皮12g，川萆薢20g，川163 木瓜15g，当归12g，红花6g，没药9g，甘草6g，4剂水煎服。二诊：服药后症状略减，下肢肿胀（++），效不更方，加威灵仙 12g，6剂。 三诊：服药后，患者自觉效果甚好，症状大减，肿胀大消，守上方加减再服 6剂，巩固疗效。此后患者在此方基础上略有进退，前后共服药百余剂， 半年后亲朋来诊，代述患者现精神大好，行走自如。 按：清代张石顽在《张氏医通》中说：“脉痹者，即热痹也。脏腑移热，复遇外邪，客搏经络，留而不行。”血行不利则为水，水湿与热相合，故病肿胀，气血不通则病疼痛，故而方中用四妙散为主和车前子、茯苓、木瓜、萆薢诸药，清热利湿，湿热去则肿胀消。血行不利，水渗脉外，则脉中留有瘀血，故用赤芍、丹皮、红花、没药、当归活血止痛；忍冬藤清热解毒兼以通经活络；连翘解湿热毒邪，湿热清，瘀血化则血行通畅，痹证可除。方中妙用升麻一味，辛甘微寒，性善升提，可升提脾虚下陷之气，防止湿热之邪流注下焦。二诊时加入威灵仙一味，性猛善走，通行十二经，加强除湿通行经脉的作用，坚持服用，疗效甚佳。 三、黄带 黄带为带下色黄或赤白相兼，或气甚腥秽质黏稠，或见阴痒难忍，或见小腹隐痛，带下量多缠绵难愈，大多继发于盆腔感染、宫颈炎等疾病。中医认为带证的发生与湿邪密切相关，多因冲任虚损，带脉失约，脾湿下流，其色白量多者多为寒湿，色黄者多为湿热。故而崔老治疗黄带多以四妙散为主方加以清热解毒、燥湿止带之品，组成自拟方蠲带汤。 蠲带汤：苍术、黄柏、薏苡仁、连翘、苦参、乌贼骨、茜草、土茯苓、浙贝母、元胡、甘草。 本方具有清热燥湿，解毒止带之功，对于各种盆腔炎、宫颈炎、宫颈糜烂等疾病引起的带下色黄，或带有血丝，量多，有异味，阴部瘙痒，少腹疼痛等症具有良好的疗效。 案 宋某某，女，41岁，2015年 6月 2日初诊。 ［主诉］白带量多、色黄半年余。 ［现病史］患者近半年来白带量多，发黄，有异味，近 4个月来同房后白带中带有血丝，月经提前，量多，有血块，脉滑数，重按无力，舌淡苔根部黄腻。 ［诊断］黄带属肾阴虚，胞宫湿热。 ［治法］滋肾清热利湿。 ［方药］苍术15g，黄柏12g，薏苡仁30g，苦参12g，乌贼骨15g，茜草12g，浙贝母15g，土茯苓15g，生熟地各15g，白果12g，车前子15g，旱莲草30g，女贞子20g，连翘15g，仙鹤草30g，甘草6g，10剂水煎服。 二诊：服药后黄带大减，刻下将至经期，脉沉略滑数尺弱，舌淡苔薄白，根部厚腻，用上方去旱莲草、女贞子、生熟地、苦参，加生山药 30g，川牛膝15g，白术15g，8剂水煎服。 随访：服药后白带明显减少，色不黄，无明显不适。 按：《傅青主女科》云黄带所成乃“热邪存于下焦之间，则津液不能化精，而反化湿也……湿与热合，欲化红而不能，欲返黑而不得，煎熬成汁，因变为黄色矣。”是以黄带乃下焦湿热所称可知也，至于同房后带血丝者，乃是下焦火热本盛，同房之时，欲火旺动，复而助之，煎熬阴血，再加之肝气疏泄太过，藏血失职，致湿热之气通血俱下而成，其月经提前，亦乃是火旺之象。治疗当以清利下焦湿热为主，傅青主以易黄汤以治之，而崔老在四妙散为基础佐以利湿解毒、滋肾养阴之品合成蠲带汤应用亦可治之，师其意而不泥其方，此乃中医之灵活巧妙之处。临证应用时，应根据患者整体情况随症加减，热毒较甚者，可加蒲公英、金银花、连翘等清热解毒之品，月经将至时，可去方中苦寒滋腻之药如生熟地、苦参等，根据月经量多少酌加桃仁、红花等活血通经之品，同时加大茜草用量至 15~30g，因茜草大剂量应用尚具有活血之功。 四、臁疮 臁疮相当于西医的小腿慢性溃疡，其临床表现为小腿下部慢性溃疡，经久不愈，或愈后易复发，其发病原因多因长期久站或有下肢静脉曲张，导致局部血液循环不畅，血流瘀滞，化湿生热，湿热成毒，肌肤失养。因其发于小腿部位，且有湿热为患的特点，所以崔老在治疗此类疾病时常用具有走下焦而清湿热的四妙散为主方加减运用，毒邪较盛者加清热解毒之品，日久伤及气血者加补气养血之品，常能收到较好的疗效。 案 陈某某，男，80岁，2009年 8月 10日初诊。 ［主诉］双下肢溃疡 1年余。 ［现病史］患者 1年前无明显诱因出现双下肢溃疡，肿胀，局部肌肤腐烂，流黄水，痒痛难忍，时轻时重，多次治疗，效果欠佳，脉浮滑，舌淡，苔黄腻。 ［诊断］臁疮属湿热下注，气血不通。［治法］除湿清热，活血通络。 ［方药］苍术12g，黄柏12g，土茯苓30g，怀牛膝20g，薏苡仁30g，金银花20g，连翘15g，黄连12g，白鲜皮20g，紫荆皮15g，皂刺12g，苦参15g，黄芪30g，当归12g，白花蛇舌草30g，甘草6g，8剂。 二诊：服药后下肢溃疡、疼痛、肿胀均较前减轻，效不更方，继服 8剂。 三诊：溃疡面局部已愈合，肿大减，痒痛消失，守方加益气活血之品再服8剂。随访：数月后。患者诉自行守方间断服用 3个月余，溃疡面已全部愈合，行动自如，惟行走尚有沉重感。 按：本病多由于经久站立或负担重物，劳累耗伤气血，中气下陷，而致下肢气血运行无力，肌肤失养及血流瘀滞，湿盛于下。溃疡后皮肤失其卫外之能，复感毒邪，毒邪化热，湿热蕴结于下而成。故治疗当以清热祛湿、活血解毒以治其标，益气活血生肌以治其本。方中方中黄柏苦寒，清热燥湿，尤善祛下焦之湿热；湿自脾来，以苍术燥湿健脾，使湿邪去而不在生；薏苡仁甘淡利湿舒筋，主治湿热下注之痿痹证；怀牛膝补肝肾，强筋骨，祛风湿，引药下行，四药合用，去湿热而利经络，为治疗下部湿痿之妙药。双花、连翘苦寒，均清热解毒，消肿散结，应用于湿热痈肿；土茯苓甘利湿，消肿解毒；黄连、苦参苦寒均清热燥湿；白鲜皮、紫荆皮苦寒，清热燥湿，解毒；皂刺辛散温通，攻散之力较强，凡痈疽能消能溃，诸药合用，一方面增强清热利湿之功。另一方面又清热消肿；黄芪辛温，益气活血，托毒生肌，当归辛甘温，养血和营，两药合用，补气养血，用于疮疡溃后，久不愈合；白花蛇舌草苦寒，清热解毒，利湿通淋，甘草调和诸药。辨证准确，用药合理，数年疾患一朝而愈。四妙散是由二妙散经多年临床应用逐渐发展而来，其较二妙散而言，清热利湿之功更大，且能补肝肾而专注下焦湿热之证，对于多种因湿热所致的疾患均有较好的疗效，除上述所举疾病外，崔老还曾应用四妙散治疗湿热腰痛、湿热型紫癜等疾病均取得了较好的疗效。崔老认为，中医治疗疾病时强调审证求机，方药对证，证在其中处于关键和核心地位，不同的疾病，尽管其病因、表现、发展及预后各不相同，但只要在某一阶段表现出由相同病机所促发的某些症状，即可采用类似的方法治疗，即所谓异病同证同治，如本篇中所举病案，分属于内分泌、周围血管、皮肤、妇科等不同的系统，但均表现出湿热下注的证候，所以采用具有清利下焦湿热之四妙散为主治疗，取得了较好的疗效。但在辨证治疗的同时，不能忽视辨病治疗，应在辨证的基础上，根据不同疾病的发生、发展规律，在主方的基础上给予加减运用，以使治疗更具有针对性，如治疗痛风加用渗湿泄浊之品；脉痹证加用通经活络之品；黄带加用补肾固冲之品等。崔老常教导我们说，临证治病，当详细辨证，对病机了然于心，然后据此开出主方主药，再根据疾病演变规律，具体临床表现，给予加减运用，切不可死守成方，胶柱鼓瑟，贻误病情。 版权声明 本文选自《崔玉衡临证经验荟萃》 — 北京 ： 中国医药科技出版社，由“杏林墨香”订阅号独家发布。更多精彩，敬请期待。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------