이병철 사망 요인은 심장마비로 위장한 암살일 가능성이 높다. 평범한사람234 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11389058735 https://www.ilbe.com/view/11389058735">아카이브 : https://web.archive.org/web/20220112092347/https://www.ilbe.com/view/11389058735 이재명 변호사비 의혹 폭로자, 이병철 이재명 측근 시점에서 생각해보면 이병철은 돈으로 회유도 안되고 협박도 안먹히는 사람이라 이번 대선에서 이기고 입막음을 하기 위해서는 이병철을 암살하는 방법밖에 없을 것이다. 이재명 측근은 이병철을 어떤 방식으로 암살하고 싶었을까 ? 좌파 진영에서 흔히 사용하는 자살로 위장해서 암살로 죽이고 싶었을까 ? 평소 SNS에서도 자살할 생각이 없음을 밝히고 주변 지인들한테 자신은 자살하지않을것이라 말하였기에 기사 주소 : http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2022011201030603349001 ( 이미지 클릭시 링크로 이동합니다. 기사 아카이브 : http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2022011201030603349001">https://web.archive.org/web/20220112055637/http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2022011201030603349001 자살을 위장한 암살은 실행하지않을것이다. 타살 흔적이 남는 둔기나 흉기를 사용한 암살 ? 둔기나 흉기를 이용한 암살은 확인하기 쉽고 타살의 흔적이 분명하게 남는다. 멍청한사람이 아닌 이상 자신의 진영을 폭로한 사람을 타살의 흔적을 쉽게 확인할수있는 둔기나 흉기를 이용한 암살은 실행하지않을것이다. 타살의 흔적을 찾기 어렵고 암살 대상을 죽일수있는 방법은 뭐가 있을까 ? 바로 독극물을 이용한 심장마비를 위장한 암살이다. 독극물을 이용한 심장마비를 위장한 암살은 50년전인 1970년대 미국 청문회에서 공개된 CIA에서 사용한 암살 수법이다. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6dldvNECI&t=3s ( 이미지를 클릭하면 1970년대 미국 청문회에서 공개된 CIA에서 사용한 암살 수법을 확인하실수있습니다. ) 기사 주소 : https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20170219073900089 아카이브 기사 : https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20170219073900089">http://web.archive.org/web/20220112073254/https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20170219073900089 한줄 정리 : 이재명 변호사, 이병철은 독극물을 이용한 심장마비를 위장한 암살일 가능성이 매우 높다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 기자가 작정하고 이재명 취재했네 (feat. 녹음파일) Iamgroot http://www.ilbe.com/view/11389087027 조선에서 이재명 변호사비 대납 의혹 관련해서 3개월 동안 집중 취재함 A변호사가 이재명으로부터 받은 수임료 23억 변호사비 주고 받은 내용은 녹음 다 됐고. 파일은 모두 3개 파일 공유는 절대 안된다고 했던 그가 숨진 채 발견됐지만 취재 기자가 이미 녹음파일 3개 모두 입수함 오늘 하나 공개 됐고, 나머지 두 개도 곧 공개 예정임 https://m.ilbe.com/view/11389076847 이번 제보자 사망으로 대깨문들도 찢에 대한 반발이 심해지는 것 같은데 하루 빨리 나머지 두 개 다 까서 찢 본인이 찢겼으면 좋겠다 한줄 요약 1. 재명아 감옥 가자 http://m.monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?ctcd=A&nNewsNumb=202201100012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 산기룡이 일베 댓글 시발 무슨 90년대 일본 학원폭력만화에서나 나올법한 깡패나부랭이가 권력 차근차근 쌓아서 국가수반 자리까지 올라간다는 얼토당토 않은 개쌉소리가 리얼 현실이 되어가는 좃한조선 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 이런 개병신민족이 '다시는 일본에 지지않겠습니다' '역사를 잊은 민족에겐 미래가 없다' 이런 개쌉소리나 씨부려대는 수준 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 팡주 현대 아이파크 진짜 좆된거는 ㄸㅏ로 있음(붕괴원인 추가) 아다찾아삼만리 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11389070099 막말로 이렇게 된거 싹 부시고 다시 짓는다 치자 전국에 현대 아이파크 브랜드 건물 입주자들이나 관계자들이 가만 있을까 "우리아파트(건물)도 안전진단 검수조사 실시하라" 또한 현재 시공중인 다른 아이파크 관계자들이나 입주예정자들은? 가만있지 않을거 같은데 그리고 건물 무너진거 잘보면 타설중인 층 밑으로 16개층이상이 아작난건 둘째치고 바닥이 주저앉았다? 첫째로 철근이 도면대로 제대로 들어가있지 않을 가능성이 가장큼 바닥은 수직벽체에 비해 하중을 많이 안받음 위에서 무너져도 바닥층은 버티고 있어야 정상임 근데 저렇게 바닥이 같이 주저앉은거는 철근을 제대로 안넣고 빼먹은 건데 이걸 감리가 묵인해준 거 같음 돈받아먹었을듯 철근 한가닥씩만 빼먹어도 돈 많이 세이브됨 둘째 레미콘 콘크리트 불량 가능성 얼마전 화물연대 파업과 요소수 대란과 맞물려 벌크차(시멘트운반차)들의 가동률이 절반밖에 안됨 현장에 계약된물량은 납품해야지 시멘트는 부족하지 도저히 안되니 시멘트에 석분ㅇㅣ라는걸 섞어서 콘크리트를 혼합했을 가능성이 높음 지금도 그리하는 렘콘 업체 많음 거기다가 가장중요한 모래의 품질이 현저히 떨어짐 뻘의 형태인 흙을 세척해서 모래로 둔갑되어 납품됨 당연히 자갈 모래 시멘트 가 적절히 혼합 될리 없음 근데 전라도라 싸게싸게 넘어간듯 부가적으로 추운 날씨에 양생이 문제인데 저렇게 포장 덥고 열풍기 때봐야 24도~28도 마추기힘듬 그렇기에 타설시에 포장 다 덮고 열 가해가며 타설하는게 원칙인데 저런 고층 슬라브는 타설 특성상 포장을 걷어야 됨 치면서 찬바람불고 콘크리트가 십여분 안에 얼기 시작함 당연히 밑에 층 타설되서 굳어있는 부분과 붙어서 강도가 이어져야 되는데 얼기 시작하믄서 결착이 안됨 얼어붙은 공구리는 손으로 긁어도 부스러짐 이건 바닥부분도 마찬가지 게다가 초고층인데 찬바람도 강하지 포장도 마구뜨고 찢겨나가기 일수임 포장 잘..완전히 덮고 최소못해도 5일 이상은 불때가면서 온도 맞추고 양생기간을 가져야됨 빨리 건물 올려야되니 타설 후 밤새 불때고 담날 깽폼 올렸을거임 왜냐 공정이 급하거든 정상대로라면 감리가 못올리게 해야 됨 양생제대로 안된 콘크리트가 하중을 견딜리 없음 현대도 문제지만 감리단 현장소장단은 줄줄이 철창행이고 아이파크 이미지를 비롯 하청들 줄줄이 좆된거임 젤로 큰문제는 협력업체의 무한경쟁입찰이라 단가를 스스로 낮추엏 들어오니 단가는 안맞고 적자는 나고 메꿀려다보니 이지경이 된거임 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDC Whistleblower: “Vaccines Never Meant to Stop Covid-19” CDC 내부고발자: "백신은 결코 COVID-19를 막을 의도가 없다" By Mike Baxter - January 11, 2022 "로비투신이 일반 감기를 예방하는 것처럼 현재의 COVID-19 예방접종은 COVID 예방에 더 효과적이지 않습니다"라고 지난 10월 기관 프로토콜에 의문을 제기했던 전 CDC 연구원이 Real Raw News에 한 말이다. 익명을 위해 래리에게 전화할 이 소식통은 딥스테이트 자금 지원 기관에서 12년간 근무했으며 화이자, 모더나, 존슨앤드존슨이 CDC에 분석과 기록 보관을 위해 보냈다는 백신 시험 보고서를 관리하는 일을 담당했다. 그는 처음부터 CDC의 의도는 트럼프의 Covid-19 태스크포스(TF)가 빅파마가 조작한 임상시험 결과가 중국 바이러스에 감염되지 않도록 95% 이상의 효능을 보였다고 믿도록 압박하면서 부작용 보고서를 묻거나 오보하려는 것이 분명했다고 말했다. 거대제약회사는 5만 명의 임상 실험 참가자들의 팔에 혈액 응고 주사를 집단으로 주사했으며, 다른 4만 7천 명의 플라시보 효과를 받았다. 50,000명 중 2% (놀라운 수)는 첫 번째 또는 두 번째 주사를 맞은 후 21일 이내에 심근염과 심낭염을 포함한 심각한 부작용이 나타났다. 게다가, 약을 복용하고 의도적으로 Sars-Cov2 테스트에 노출된 실험 참가자의 85%가 바이러스에 노출된 후 4~14일 이내에 COVID-19에 양성 반응을 보였다. 간단히 말해서, 예방접종은 단지 15%의 수혜자들만 보호하는 것처럼 보였다. 일베 발췌 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국 민주주의 운명의 날 1월 17일. 선거 무결성을 위한 공화당의 대공세 Scott 인간과 자유이야기 https://youtu.be/iI_ic9Yva6c --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 잃어버린 세계 인간은 자유시장, 자유 경제, 자유 기업의 가치를 발견했다. 하지만 정부가 나서서 이런 자유의 권리를 보호해주겠다고 하면서, 오히려 자유를 파괴하고 말았다. 국가주권주의는 통치자, 전사戰士, 관료들의 직업병이다, 사회적 협력과 분업은 시장경제 또는 자본주의에서만 가능하다. 그리고 민주제, 개인의 자유, 언론의 자유, 종교적 관용, 국가 간의 평화는 바로 자본주의 체제에서만 가능하다. The World That Might Have Been Garet Garrett Ludwig von Mises writes tragedy in the language of political economy. There is in man the very principle of frustration. Once, and perhaps for the first time, he did find the right way. Beginning with the optimistic social philosophy of 18th-century liberalism he discovered the solutions of the free market, free competition, free private enterprise—that is to say, capitalism—and how at the same time to put government in its place. After that he had only to go in a straight line toward a world of peace and unlimited plenty. For a while he did go in a straight line and there was the 19th century, in which political freedom and material well-being advanced together, inseparably and wonderfully. But the government, which he had put in its place, began to overtake him, offering to do him good and to help him on his way. Little by little he accepted its friendly offices, thinking as he did so that government was something he imposed upon himself and therefore controlled, whereas he was to learn all over again that government is a natural and living thing, like an organism, with powers of self-extension. Offering only to help him on his way to a new free world of unlimited well-being it was really all the time hostile to anything he was doing for himself, because the more successfully he managed his own affairs, especially his economic affairs, the worse it was for the prestige of government. Mises says, Governments have always looked askance at private property. Governments are never liberal from inclination. It is in the nature of the men handling the apparatus of compulsion and coercion to overrate its power to work, and to strive at subduing all spheres of human life to its immediate influence. Etatism is the occupational disease of rulers, warriors, and civil servants. Governments become liberal only when forced to by the citizens. From time immemorial governments have been eager to interfere with the working of the market mechanism. Their endeavors have never attained the ends sought. The beginning of modern evil was when governments began again to intervene in the economic sphere. Every act of intervention turned man from his true purpose, and Mises explains why: Prices, wages, and interest rates are the result of the interplay of demand and supply. There are forces operating in the market which tend to restore this—natural—state if it is disturbed. Government decrees, instead of achieving the particular ends they seek, tend only to derange the working of the market and imperil the satisfaction of the needs of the consumers. In defiance of economic science the very popular doctrine of modern interventionism asserts that there is a system of economic cooperation, feasible as a permanent form of economic organization, which is neither capitalism nor socialism. This third system is conceived as an order based on private ownership of the means of production in which, however, the government intervenes, by orders and prohibitions, in the exercise of ownership rights. It is claimed that this system of interventionism is as far from socialism as it is from capitalism; that it offers a third solution of the problem of social organization; that it stands midway between socialism and capitalism; and that while retaining the advantages of both it escapes the disadvantages inherent in each of them. Such are the pretensions of interventionism as advocated by the older German school of etatism, by the American Institutionalists, and by many groups in other countries. Interventionism is practiced—except for socialist countries like Russia and Nazi Germany—by every contemporary government. The outstanding examples of interventionist policies are the Sozialpolitik of imperial Germany and the New Deal policy of present-day America. But the tragedy was that when the government's intervention in the modern case had gone rather far, man embraced it, and there arose in the world the great cult of what Mises calls etatism, a word he prefers over statism, both meaning simply the all-powerful and worshipful state. He says, A new type of superstition has got hold of people's minds, the worship of the state. People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, of violence and threat. Woe to anybody who does not bend his knee to the fashionable idols! The case is obvious with present-day Russia and Germany. One cannot dispose of this fact by calling the Russians and the Germans barbarians and saying that such things cannot and will not happen with the more civilized nations of the West. There are only a few friends of tolerance left in the West. The parties of the Left and of the Right are everywhere highly suspicious of freedom of thought. It is very characteristic that in these years of the desperate struggle against the Nazi aggression a distinguished British pro-Soviet author has the boldness to champion the cause of inquisition. "Inquisition," says T.G. Crowther, "is beneficial to science when it protects a rising class." For "the danger or value of an inquisition depends on whether it is used on behalf of a reactionary or a progressive governing class." But who is "progressive," and who is "reactionary"? There is a remarkable difference with regard to this issue between Harold Laski and Alfred Rosenberg. It is true that outside of Russia and Germany dissenters do not yet risk the firing squad or slow death in a concentration camp. But few are any longer ready to pay serious attention to dissenting views. If a man tries to question the doctrines of etatism or nationalism, hardly anyone ventures to weigh his arguments. The heretic is ridiculed, called names, ignored. It has come to be regarded as insolent or outrageous to criticize the views of powerful pressure groups or political parties, or to doubt the beneficial effects of state omnipotence. Public opinion has espoused a set of dogmas which there is less and less freedom to attack. In the name of progress and freedom both progress and freedom are being outlawed. He agrees with Hayek when he says, "While fighting the German aggressors, Great Britain and the United States are, step by step, adopting the German pattern of socialism." Such is the theme of Omnipotent Government. Since the eclipse of the classical economists, no writer has more powerfully or with fewer misgivings defended free private capitalism, not only as the system that works and contains within itself the mechanisms of self-correction, but as a social philosophy. He says, The essential teaching of liberalism is that social cooperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalism—democracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nations—are consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property. And this involves also the fate of peace, for, as he says, The fateful error that frustrated all the endeavors to safeguard peace was precisely that people did not grasp the fact that only within a world of pure, perfect, and unhampered capitalism are there no incentives for aggression and conquest. Some of the notable passages in the book are analytical, touching the technics and consequences of the government's intervention in the economic affair, as, for example, when it fixes a price ceiling for milk with the laudable purpose of making it possible for the poor to buy more milk for their children. What happens? First, the marginal or high-cost producers of milk stop producing it, so there is less for everybody. To cure this situation the government must fix the price of all the factors necessary to produce milk. But at those prices other people stop producing the factors that are necessary to the production of milk. They begin to go out of business because there is no profit in it. Whereupon, the government, to cure that further situation, must go on "to fix prices for the factors of production necessary for the production of those factors of production which are needed for the production of milk," and so on and on back, from the cost of everything the milk farmer uses to the cost of everything it takes to make what he uses and the cost of everything it takes to make everything it takes to make what the milk farmer uses, even to his suspenders. In his analysis of unemployment he regards unions as a vital part of the state apparatus of compulsion and coercion: The labor unions succeed in forcing the entrepreneurs to grant higher wages. But the result of their endeavors is not what people usually ascribe to them. The artificially elevated wage rates cause permanent unemployment of a considerable part of the potential labor force. At these higher rates the marginal employments for labor are no longer profitable. The entrepreneurs are forced to restrict output, and the demand on the labor market drops. The unions seldom bother about this inevitable result of their activities; they are not concerned with the fate of those who are not members of their brotherhood. These dismal effects of minimum wages have become more and more apparent the more trade unionism has prevailed. As long as only one part of labor, mostly skilled workers, was unionized, the wage rise achieved by the unions did not lead to unemployment but to an increased supply of labor in those branches of business where there were no efficient unions or no unions at all. The workers who lost their jobs as a consequence of union policy entered the market of the free branches and caused wages to drop in those branches. The corollary of the rise in wages for organized workers was a drop in wages for unorganized workers. But with the spread of unionism conditions have changed. Workers now losing their jobs in one branch of industry find it harder to get employment in other lines. They are victimized. So one may come to the end of the book, or to almost the end, with a sense of nostalgia for the optimism of the 18th-century liberals and a certain hopefulness. If it was once there it must be there still—the right way to a free world of relative peace and yet greater well-being. But, alas! his conclusion is that the old liberals were after all wrong. Their economic theories were right, almost too right, but they believed in the perfectibility of man; they believed mankind "was on the eve of lasting prosperity and eternal peace" and that reason would henceforth be supreme. Therein they were tragically wrong. They left out of consideration the principle of frustration. He says, The realization of the liberal plan is impossible because—at least for our time—people lack the mental ability to absorb the principles of sound economics. Most men are too dull to follow complicated chains of reasoning. Liberalism failed because the intellectual capacities of the immense majority were insufficient for the task of comprehension. It is hopeless to expect a change in the near future. The last words are, The prosperity of the last centuries was conditioned by the steady and rapid progress of capital accumulation. Many countries of Europe are already on the way back to capital consumption and capital erosion. Other countries will follow. Disintegration and pauperization will result. Since the decline of the Roman Empire the West has not experienced the consequences of a regression in the division of labor or of a reduction of capital available. All our imagination is unequal to the task of picturing things to come. Such a book could not have had a happy ending. After Omnipotent Government, Mises brought out Bureaucracy, a smaller book with a kind of missile power. Bureaucracy is not in itself the evil. You cannot have government at all without it. Only the intent matters. It is puerile, therefore, for people as individuals to complain of it because it happens to touch them in a disagreeable way while at the same time, by groups and classes, they support the doctrine of intervention by government when they happen to be the beneficiaries. Who after all is to blame? He answers that question ironically: It is a fact that the policy of the New Deal has been supported by the voters. Nor is there any doubt that this policy will be entirely abandoned if the voters withdraw their favor from it. The United States is still a democracy. The Constitution is still intact. Elections are still free. The voters do not cast their ballot under duress. It is therefore not correct to say that the bureaucratic system carried its victory by unconstitutional and undemocratic methods. The lawyers may be right in questioning legality of some minor points. But as a whole the New Deal was backed by Congress. Congress made the laws and appropriated the money. Once intervention by government in the economic sphere begins, the parliamentary principle must decline, for the obvious reason that Parliamentary procedures are an adequate method for dealing with the framing of laws needed by a community based on private ownership of the means of production, free enterprise, and consumers' sovereignty. They are essentially inappropriate for the conduct of affairs under government omnipotence. The makers of the Constitution never dreamed of a system of government under which the authorities would have to determine the prices of pepper and of oranges, of photographic cameras and of razor blades, of neckties and of paper napkins. But if such a contingency had occurred to them, they surely would have considered as insignificant the question whether such regulations should be issued by Congress or by a bureaucratic agency. They would have easily understood that government control of business is ultimately incompatible with any form of constitutional and democratic government. It is true that bureaucrats are free to decide questions of vital importance in the individual's life; it is true that the unelected bureaucrats are no longer "the servants of the citizenry but irresponsible and arbitrary masters"; it is true, furthermore, that "bureaucracy is imbued with an implacable hatred of business and free enterprise." But none of this is the fault of bureaucracy primarily. It is the outcome of "that system of government which restricts the individual's freedom to manage his own affairs and assigns more and more tasks to the government." Bureaucracy, therefore, is not itself the disease. It is a cancerous phenomenon and betokens the fact that one kind of tissue has got out of control and is growing wild at the expense of other tissue. Mises says, The main issue in present-day political struggles is whether society should be organized on the basis of private ownership of the means of production (capitalism, the market system) or on the basis of public control of the means of production (socialism, communism, planned economy). Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual's life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. There is no compromise possible between these two systems. Contrary to a popular fallacy there is no middle way, no third system possible as a pattern of a permanent social order. The citizens must choose between capitalism and socialism or, as many Americans say, between the American and the Russian way of life. When he comes to the remedy his pessimism reappears. Against those who now call themselves liberals and are resolved nevertheless to abolish liberty, against those who call themselves democrats and yearn for dictatorship, against those who call themselves revolutionaries and want to make government omnipotent—against all of these there is but one weapon, and the name of it is reason. But how can it be supposed that by reason alone man can cure in himself this political disease when by reason alone he was unable to prevent it? This review ran in American Affairs, vol. 7, no. 1 (1945), pp. 47–49. Author: Garet Garrett Garet Garrett (1878–1954) was an American journalist and author who was noted for his critiques of the New Deal and US involvement in the Second World War.