조선일보 대장동 재판서 ‘특혜’ 증거 공개한 검찰…이재명 결재 문건도 포함 dhvp**** 대장동 자문 판사 누구 ??? 권순일 권순일은 누구 ?? 이재명 정치인생 살려준 은인 그리고 그 재판에서 권순일 6번 개인적으로 만난사람누구 ??? 김만배 김만배는 누구 ?? 이재명 측근 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 머니투데이 공수처 '성남FC 수사 무마' 의혹 박은정·김오수 등 입건 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 데일리안 "이제 백신접종 의미 없다" 버려지는 백신들…"접종비용, 치료에 사용해야" 4차 접종 목적으로 요양병원에 배정된 백신, 대량 폐기 위기 동네병원 "오늘 잔여 백신 접종자 1명…남으면 아까워도 폐기" 전문가 "대유행 속 접종, 더 이상 의미 없어…접종 비용, 치료 목적에 사용해야" "이미 계약된 백신 물량은 어쩔 수 없어…접종 필요한 국가에 보내는 것도 방법" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MBC 닭고기 가격 떨어질까 봐..병아리 3천만 마리 살처분 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 대선조작 프로그램, 전격 공개 / 선관위, 중앙서버에 위치한 '조작 프로그램'울 이용해서 대선 결과 조작 / 이재명 표 더하기, 윤석열 표 빼앗기 사례 공개 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/WLlPpwfJU4k ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • 변희재 뒤에 진짜 분탕 프락치 수괴 정규재 있다 IIbephilia http://www.ilbe.com/view/11404260781 가로세로연구소 김세의는 헛지랄 하지 말고 변희재 따위는 그냥 무시하고 정규재 부터 죽여야 한다 정규재는 기본적으로 유승민 & 이준석 과인데 그 어설픈 두 새끼들과는 달리 프락치 간첩인지 쉽게 드러내지를 않고 시간이 좀 지나서 정규재가 어떤 결과를 만들려고 행동했는지 누적 통계를 봐야 겨우 추론만 가능할 뿐이다 일단 정규재는 자신의 창당 작업 및 선거 출마를 위해 4.15 부정선거 관련해서 민주당의 스피커 노릇을 하고 코로나19 바이러스 팬데믹 시기에 방역을 방해한 의혹이 있으며 그 중 가장 치명적인 부분은 최근 모든 선거에서 우파 정당 및 우파 진영을 혐오하게 만드는 발언을 일삼으며 자신은 투표 자체를 포기하겠다고 주장하면서 여러분도 결정하길 바란다는 식으로 다른 우파 성항의 유권자들의 투표 의욕을 떨어지게 만드는 일관된 모습을 보였다는 것임 (참고로 우파 이미지 다 망치고 있던 안정권 등등 즈질 패거리들 배후도 정규재였음) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤석열 평소 주변 인사들에겐 "박 전 대통령 명예회복이 필요하다"며 "어떤 식으로든 돕겠다"는 의지를 밝혀온 것으로 전해졌습니다. http://news.tvchosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2022/03/24/2022032490105.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나가 나았는데도 정기적으로 저열低熱, 구해久咳, 식욕부진, 다한多汗 등의 증상이 나타날 때 죽엽석고탕을 쓴다. 이는 열병의 열이 아직 완전히 사라지지 않고, 몸의 진액을 상했기 때문에 나타나는 증상이다. 죽엽 15, 석고 30, 반하 9, 맥문동 15, 인삼, 자炙감초 6, 갱미(쌀) 15 / 단위 그램 竹葉15克(2把) 石膏30克(1斤) 半夏洗9克(半升) 麥冬去心15克(5兩) 人參6克(2兩) 甘草炙6克(2兩) 粳米15克(半升) 上七味，用水1升，煮取600毫升，去滓，納粳米，煮米熟，湯成，去米，溫服200毫升，日三服。 「竹葉石膏湯」可應用於「熱證」治療。南京中醫藥大學教授黃煌在一場研討會中表示，竹葉石膏湯是常用的熱病後期的調理方，有清熱養陰的功效，適用於發熱性疾病以及體質瘦弱者的長期低熱、久咳、食欲不振、多汗等。 黃煌表示，竹葉石膏湯的經典配方包括有竹葉、石膏、半夏、麥門冬、人參、甘草、炙粳米共七味。經典方證中提到，「傷寒解後，虛羸少氣，氣逆欲吐，竹葉石膏湯主之」。 黃教授表示，其中，所謂的「虛羸少氣」；虛羸是指形體消瘦。在《傷寒論》提到，此方主治是「傷寒解後」，可知本方的經典用法主要針對「熱性病的恢復期」， 餘熱未盡兼有津傷。此時，患者可能不發熱，也可能表現多為「低熱」。但患者大部分都表現為消瘦和虛弱，過去常用「骨瘦如柴」「形銷骨立」等來描述。 而「少氣」，是指氣短、乏力；氣逆欲吐者，是指咳嗽、乾嘔。往往咳則痰涎膠著難去，或張口抬肩，或咽喉枯燥不適。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 청보清補의 양방, 죽엽석고탕, 위화胃火를 끄고 신열身熱을 제거하는데 효과가 좋다 中醫清補良方—竹葉石膏湯，清胃火除身熱效果極佳！ 竹葉石膏湯出自《傷寒論》。主治「傷寒解後，虛羸少氣、少逆欲吐」。方由「竹葉二把，石膏一斤，半夏半斤，麥冬一升，人參三兩，甘草二兩（炙），粳玉米半斤組成。」「以水一斗，黃取六升，去渣，納粳米，煮米熟，湯成去米，溫服一升，日三服。」現在人們處方用量：淡竹葉15g，生石膏30g，法半夏、麥門冬各10g，人參（或潞黨參12g）6g，炙甘草為4.5g～5g，粳米20g。而《證治準繩》方則淡竹葉15g，生石膏20g，肥知母10g，麥門冬8g，生甘草6g。 一般認為竹葉石膏湯只適用於熱病之後，餘熱未盡，陰傷羸瘦，嘔逆之證，殊不知雜病「諸虛煩熱」因於肺胃陰虛、津傷燥熱之證，仍屬適宜，凡見心煩口渴，鼻咽乾燥，乾嘔咳逆，尿黃便秘，舌紅苔黃脈數者，用之均能取得良好的效果，後世一些治療肺胃陰虛、津傷燥熱之方，即多由此方加減化裁而來。 竹葉石膏湯用藥共七味，方中竹葉清熱除煩，石膏清胃火而除身熱，麥冬生津養陰以潤肺胃，人參益氣扶羸，半夏降逆止嘔，粳米、甘草和中護胃。諸藥相合，共奏清熱養陰、和中益氣之功。其制方之妙，一是方中以半夏降逆、蠲飲，而用麥冬與之相伍，防溫燥太過。二是方中用人參、麥冬相合，益氣而能生津，津回氣生，氣陰相長。三是石膏與人參相合，使清中有補，補寓於清。四是竹葉在方中，有助於石膏之清熱，引邪熱隨小便下行，使清中有利，利不傷陰，更無補虛戀邪之害。實為配伍嚴謹之清補肺胃的良方。 支氣管炎無論急性、慢性，凡見陰虛肺燥，都可用本方加味治療。如屬風燥咳嗽、咳痰嘔逆者，用本方療效甚佳，若有表證，加薄荷、桑葉；咽痛，加牛蒡子、桔梗、玄參；咳甚，加杏仁、浙貝、枇杷葉；痰中帶血，加白茅根、茜草，並重用麥冬30g；胸滿咳逆，加魚腥草、銀花與葶藶子；久咳不止，若見胃氣不和者，當用本方加浙貝、海浮石、紫菀，以潤肺止咳、降逆和胃；咳嗽聲嘶者，加玄參、僵蠶、木蝴蝶；如為癆嗽潮熱又須加知母、鱉甲、地骨皮、貝母；氣有兩虛甚者人參改用西洋參。 胃、十二指腸潰瘍，屬虛寒證者較多，一般喜用甘溫辛燥之劑，但若久病鬱熱，灼傷胃陰，見脘脹、乾嘔吐逆者，用本方加味多能獲取良效。若胃脹可加厚朴、檳榔；納呆加神曲、麥芽、石菖蒲；腹脹便秘，加檳榔、大黃；腹脹便稀加廣木香、砂仁、山藥。飢餓時胃脘疼痛若為灼痛，得食則減者用本方加生地、丁香；痛甚者，再加白芍、川楝子；刺痛便黑加五靈脂、蒲黃、三七；嘔血加大黃炭、黃連、茜草；燒心嘔逆、胃酸偏多者加吳茱萸、石決明、滑石。 胃火上炎兼陰虛肺燥者，也宜使用本方。口瘡、涎多，本方合導赤散加萆*；舌苔黃厚，心煩口臭，加佩蘭、茵陳、梔子、黃連；牙齦出血或鼻衄，加大黃、白茅根、小薊；牙痛不腫者，加白芷、升麻；熱毒壅盛腫痛者，加銀花、連翹、蒲公英、紫花地丁；腫甚者，加穿山甲、皂角刺、玄參、浙貝母。 胃火上沖，引起頭痛，面紅目赤，可重用石膏，並加白芷、川芎、菊花、桑葉；頭暈面赤，心煩失眠，重用半夏20g，加龍骨、牡蠣、夜交藤、炒棗仁；頭暈、血壓偏高者加石決明、夏枯草、牛膝、龍膽草，甚者再加羚羊角3g；耳鳴者，加磁石、牛膝、石菖蒲。此外，神經性嘔吐屬陰益氣逆者，可用本方加旋覆花、代赭石、石決明、柿蒂，甚者加全蠍、地龍解痙平逆；梅核氣、心煩不安、咽中如堵、吐咽不下，可用本方加海浮石、海藻、蘇子、梔子，能使陰復氣降，中焦樞機一轉，諸逆悉平。 原文網址：https://kknews.cc/health/4vrkl63.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 선의에 의한 법률로 국민들 통제하는 관료들 막스 베버는 모든 국가는 폭력에 기초하고 있다고 단언했다. 국가란 특정 지역에서 다수의 사람들에게 폭력을 행사하는 소수의 인간 집단(정부)일 뿐이다. 국가들은 이제 국민의 육체와 정신 그리고 도덕까지 자의적으로 규제할 수 있는 권위를 갖추었다. 수동적인 비폭력 원칙은 비도덕적이라고 매도되고, 능동적인 선의(善意)의 원칙에 따라, 관료들은 추상적인 서구의 집합적인 도덕을 위해 투쟁한다. 이에 따라 관료들은 국민의 모든 부문을 계속해서 간섭할 수 있게 되었다. Love, Fear, and the Law of Good Intentions Aleksander Rammos Max Weber, citing Leon Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk, bluntly stated that “every state is founded on violence.” The imaginative theories that have been at times employed to justify the state violence do not fall under the scope of this article. What is analyzed here is the orderly way in which the state elites have jointly prepared the ground to dominate individuals in the fourth technological revolution. Law and War Pursuant to the standard definition of German sociologist Max Weber in “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the state is “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” In other words, a state is nothing more than a narrow group of people (i.e., the government) who manage to exert violence on larger groups (i.e., the subjects) in a certain place (i.e., the territory). When state violence is directed against common individuals, it is called law, while when it is directed against other officials, it is called war or a coup / civil war. A self-destructive war among state officials provides an opening for the liberation of the common people, as Mao Zedong noted during the Cultural Revolution: “The world is in great chaos; the situation is excellent” (天下大乱，形势大好). If only chairman Mao and his peers did not use commoners as disposable weapons in their fights! To the contrary, the sacrifice of people in the interests of the state elites is not easily justifiable and risks awakening the subjects. For this reason, following the shocking aftermath of World War II, governments resorted to the legal shelter of international law, under the motto of international peace, to maintain their privileges. War and Peace In light of the atrocities committed by state officials during World War II, it was obvious that legal positivism and the social contract theories could not easily survive in the new era. The most awkward period for the victorious state officials was the Nuremberg trials. On one hand, the plaintiffs themselves had committed the same crimes; on the other hand, the prosecuting agents found it difficult to support the charges, simply because the Nazis had abided by the Nazi laws and the Nazi laws were perfectly legal pursuant to the statist maximum of legal positivism. Facing such an embarrassing situation, state officials put forward a then neglected apparatus—international law. They enforced a corpus of internationally applied laws promising peace, or at least to avoid unproductive fights between them, in exchange for immunity and authority. The international law was not truly intended to relieve the subjects. The common people remained subjects of sovereign officers instead of being recognized as sovereign subjects of a universal law. The case law of the intergovernmental courts of human rights, wherever established, merely proved that the governors did not seriously mean to submit their powers to any law. Although it is true that for a half century international law offered relief to the common people, this happened only to the extent that bureaucrats reduced their scuffles. With more peace, the people were subjected only to the violence of their officials without suffering from wars among regimes. However, at the end of the twentieth century, the state officials’ poor capacity to bind themselves to any peaceful principle led them to more wars exposing anew their true violent nature. Thus, it became evident that governments needed a new narrative in order to maintain their status. For this reason, they called on love. Love and Fear At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the significance of a shared national territory faded due to technological progress. In this context, national territory started being conceived as a fluid space formed by a combination of substantial areas and insubstantial “metaverses” and that could not easily be monitored. To the contrary, what remained tangible and, thus more subject to regulation, were the individuals, who could simultaneously interact in several territories. In this context, Western state officials ended up with a group of subjects acting in multiple spaces, the metaverses included, where individuals could escape state violence and assume full self-ownership and sovereignty. In the West, an abrupt return to the traditional territorial state would have sounded like an arbitrary request to use horses instead of cars. Thus, Western officers needed a justification for their violent interception of individuals’ progression toward full self-ownership. To this end, the state elites substituted love for peace, resorting to the most vague and authoritarian law, the good intentions law—an emergency law that allows constant governmental interference with human liberty out of fear of harm, provided that everything is well intended. From the Nonaggression Principle to the Good Intentions Principle The rising universal emergency law of good intentions is distinguished by the following characteristics: Universal as opposed to international. The old international law had been designed for tangible spaces, while the state elites now needed a law which could apply universally. Indeed, the new law can regulate certain individuals in uncertain "verses;" e.g., offline, online, metaverse, universe, multiverse, alterverse, megaverse, etc. A permanent state of emergency. In the increasingly interconnected digital environments, governments present every issue as an urgent situation that needs to be immediately regulated. On this occasion, the state officials show up to regulate subjects’ behavior by leaps and bounds, out of an alleged fear of an imminent collective hazard. Law as violence. Violence is the foundation of the state officials’ authoritarian privilege; under the new law, the state has an upgraded authority to arbitrarily regulate the body, the mind, and the morals of the subjects. Good intentions as opposed to nonaggression. The passive nonaggression principle is not only rejected, but it rather qualifies as immoral. Pursuant to the active good intentions principle, state officials have declared themselves restless fighters for an abstract Western collective virtue. For this reason, they are allowed to constantly interfere with every aspect of life while inviting the subjects to cooperate (i.e., to passively obey). Possible bad consequences are excused due to officers’ good intentions. If some subjects dissent, they obviously do not share the progressive social and moral values and must be ostracized (canceled, in the digital slang) or otherwise sanctioned. Conclusion In the West, the political ideologies of the last two centuries have long been replaced by a collective raving love and fear delirium orchestrated by the privileged bureaucrats. In the center of it, there is a muddle of regulations regarding identity issues, climate change, energy efficiency, health and social threats, safeguard of democracy, etc. The subjects must follow all legislation religiously, not for its doubtful results (external) but to prove their moral alignment (internal) with the state in its fight against a vague emergency. The emergency, as if it were religious dogma, cannot be questioned by any commoner, while the political elites, as if they were clergy, are allowed to be authoritarian as long as they have good intentions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------