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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------