조선일보 세월호 조사위, 3년6개월간 572억 쓰고도... 결론 얼버무렸다 또 맹탕 조사...사참위 “외력설 확인되지 않았다” --->옛날 같으면 저 놈들 다 개작두 맛을 봐야하는 거 아닌가? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 국민일보 도로 막고 공단 점거… 화물연대 노조 파업에 산업계 비명 조합원 7800명 파업 참여 운송차량 길목 막고 공단 점거 파국 산업계, 자구책 마련하지만 역부족 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 미국 영국 원숭이두창 백신 '강제접종' 시작 23년부터7년대환란 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11420060476 https://n.news.naver.com/article/014/0004849607 미국, 영국, 캐나다 등에서 감염자와 밀접 접촉자 그리고 더 나아가 주변 이웃이나 가족 등에 접종하는 포위 접종 시작했다고함 일단 최춘식 의원이 질병청한테 백신패스 시행하지 않겠다는 약속을 받아내셨지만 향후 정부와 질병청 망할 것들이 또 장난질을 할듯한 분위기니 계속 예의주시하고 견제해야됨 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 특종) 태국 마리화나 합법 전면화!!!! c70 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11420142693 6월 9일부로 모든 마리화나 합법임. 심지어 집에서 10그루 까지는 키우는거 까지도 합법임. ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 이제 동양에서 대마초 필곳도 없어서 유럽이나 좀 이상한 나라 가서 피는 애들 많았는데 이제 태국으로 존나 몰리겠노 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 한국도 대마초 피는애들 필리핀이나 베트남 말고 태국으로 갈듯. 필리핀이나 베트남도 한다고들 하는데 어쨋든 불법인지라 꺼림직한데 태국은 이제 완전 합법이니. 거기다가 어제부로 대마초 연루 범죄자들 2000명 이상 감옥에서 석방함. 아직 4000명 정도 더 있는데 서류 도착하는대로 다 석방시킬 예정. 암튼 우리나라 사람은 속인주의라 타국에서 미약해도 한국오면 잡아가니깐 조심하고. 참고로 지금 태국은 백신 안맞아도 48시간 안에 cpr음성이면 격리없이 입출국됨. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1% 부정선거 아닐 가능성까지 없애버린 100% 부정선거 배추혁명 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11420035887 1. 동영상으로 투표하는 유권자들의 뒷모습 혹은 아래 바지춤만 찍어서 집계한 결과가, 선관위 발표와 일치하는 곳도 꽤 나오고 있음 : 차라리 전 지역이 전부 선관위 집계 결과가 더 많이 나왔다면, 동영상 카운팅 자체에 문제가 있었다고 할 수 있겠으나, 이렇게 정확히 일치하거나, 아니면 크게 차이가 나는 건, 사전투표 유권자 수가 조작됐다는 걸 강력히 시사함. 2. 경기도지사 선거, 서울 선거를 제외하고는 지방에서는 사전투표와 당일투표 사이에 별 다른 차이가 없는 지역구도 꽤 나옴. : 차라리 모든 지역이 사전투표는 더불당이 전승했다면 설명이 가능하긴 하나, 지역에 따라 관내 사전투표에서도 병신파워당이 승리했는데, 관외 사전투표에서 뒤집어져서 결국 패배하는 지역구도 나오는 등, 인위적 조작이 아니라면 나올 수 없는 결과가 전국적으로 더욱 심하게 많이 나오고 있음. 3. 지난 선거와는 달리, 계속 진화하는 범죄의 모습을 보이고 있다. 범죄자들은 의혹을 품고 소송이 제기될 경우까지 대비해서 논리를 만들어 놓았고, 증거는 전부 인멸한 것으로 보인다. 4. 한국은 오늘부터 완벽한 banana republic 이다. 정성적으로 완전히 붕괴한 나라라서, 정량적으로 아무리 그럴싸하다 한들, 총체적 붕괴는 시간문제다. 한국민에게는 스스로의 힘으로 해결할 능력이 전혀 없다는 게 이번 사태를 통해 또 다시 확인됨. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매일경제 [레이더P] 尹·여당 광주행 막후에 정운천 "이번엔 예결위 가서 호남에 예산폭탄" 보수정당 첫 '자랑스러운 5·18 광주인상' 5·18 재단 법정단체화 끝까지 밀어 부쳐 대통령실에 "기념식 초청 분위기 좋다" 보고 尹대통령 "그러면 이번에 다같이 가자" 결단 이준석 전주을 출마 언급 유력 후보로 부상 "양자구도, 이길려면 50% 득표 필요" 신중 인수위 때 전북지역 수조원급 공약 포함시켜 국회 후반기엔 예결위 위원으로 활동 "전북지역 예산폭탄 꼭 지킬 것" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 경기도지사 선거, 실상과 비밀 전격 공개 / 표도둑질이 얼마나 이뤄졌는가 분석 / 김은혜-강용석, 대의를 위해 재검표에 나서야 (06/10/2022) [실방-공병호] https://youtu.be/qhj3Xo_WA40 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좌파들은 왜 정부의 전문가들을 좋아하나? 좌파들은 오랫동안 과학자 전문가들에 의해 통제되는 국가를 주장해왔다. 이 전문가들이 그들 말로는 비정치적이기 때문에, 좋은 정부를 만들 거라는 생각이다. 이런 헛소리를 아직 믿는 사람들이 꽤나 많다. 21세기 미국은 전문 테크노크랫technocrats에 의해 지배되는 국가이다. 이들 전문가들에는 중앙은행 관료들, 대법관들, 공공 의료 관료들, 국방부의 장군들이 있다. 그들이 전문가이기 때문에 일반 국민은 그들의 방법이나 결론에 감히 의문을 가져서는 안 된다. 전문가들이 국가를 통제해야 한다는 좌파들의 생각은 이미 19세기 후반, 20세기 초반부터 뿌리 내리기 시작했다. 그래서 사회과학 집단과 관료 조직이 그들만의 리그를 형성해서 대중의 목소리를 외면했다. 미국 경제학자 연합회 같은 사회과학자들은 그들이 사회의 원로나 종교인, 지역 대표, 시장의 실행가들보다 많이 안다고 믿었다. 그들은 현대 사회를 만들기 위해 기존의 가치와 문화적 규범을 모두 배격했다. 좌파의 교통 정책관인 에모리 존슨 같은 인물들은 이상적인 전문가 국가를 만들기 위해 노력했는데, 이것이 오늘날 개인들의 자율권을 빼앗고 대신에 강제 공권력에 의해 통제되는 국가를 만들고 말았다. 무정부주의자인 바쿠닌은 일찍이 전문가 집단에 의한 국가 통제는 단지 통제 집단의 교체에 불과하다는 점을 지적했다. 이들 과학자와 학자 전문가 집단에 의해 통제되는 현대 사회는, 이미 좌파들의 소망이었던 공산화 된 사회와 별 다름이 없다. Why Progressives Love Government "Experts" Ryan McMaken In twenty-first-century America, ordinary people are at the mercy of well-paid, unelected government experts who wield vast power. That is, we live in the age of the technocrats: people who claim to have special wisdom that entitles them to control, manipulate, and manage society's institutions using the coercive power of the state. We're told these people are "nonpolitical" and will use their impressive scientific knowledge to plan the economy, public health, public safety, or whatever goal the regime has decided the technocrats will be tasked with bringing about. These people include central bankers, Supreme Court justices, "public health" bureaucrats, and Pentagon generals. The narrative is that these people are not there to represent the public or bow to political pressure. They're just there to do "the right thing" as dictated by economic theory, biological sciences, legal theory, or the study of military tactics. We're also told that in order to allow these people to act as the purely well-meaning apolitical geniuses they are, we must give them their independence and not question their methods or conclusions. We were exposed to this routine yet again last week as President Joe Biden announced he will "respect the Fed's independence" and allow the central bankers to set monetary policy without any bothersome interference from the representatives of the taxpayers who pay all the bills and who primarily pay the price when central bankers make things worse. (Biden, of course, didn't mention that central bankers have been spectacularly wrong about the inflation threat in recent years, with inflation rates hitting forty-year highs, economic growth going negative, and consumer credit piling up as families struggle to cope with the cost of living.) Conveniently, Biden's deferral to the Fed allows him to blame it later when economic conditions get even worse. Nonetheless, his placing the economy in the hands of alleged experts will no doubt appear laudable to many. This is because the public has long been taught by public schools and media outlets that government experts should have the leeway to exercise vast power in the name of "fixing" whatever problems society faces. The Expert Class as a Tool for State Building The success of this idea represents a great victory for progressive ideology. Progressives have long been committed to creating a special expert class as a means of building state power. In the United States, for example, the cult of expertise really began to take hold in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it led directly to support for more government intervention in the private sector. As Maureen Flanagan notes in "Progressives and Progressivism in an Era of Reform," Social science expertise gave political Progressives a theoretical foundation for cautious proposals to create a more activist state…. Professional social scientists composed a tight circle of men who created a space between academia and government from which to advocate for reform. They addressed each other, trained their students to follow their ideas, and rarely spoke to the larger public. These men founded new organizations—such as the American Economics Association—to promote this new class of experts and their plans for a more centrally planned society. Ultimately, the nature of the expert class was revolutionary. The new social scientists thought they knew better than the patricians, religious leaders, local representatives, and market actors who had long shaped local institutions. Instead, Progressives were modernizers with a structural-instrumentalist agenda. They rejected reliance on older values and cultural norms to order society and sought to create a modern reordered society with political and economic institutions run by men qualified to apply fiscal expertise, businesslike efficiency, and modern scientific expertise to solve problems and save democracy. The emerging academic disciplines in the social sciences of economics, political economy and political science, and pragmatic education supplied the theoretical bases for this middle-class expert Progressivism. The Progressive impulse for expertise-based rule was perhaps exemplified by the Progressive transportation planner Emory Johnson, who advocated for a strong federal executive branch that would be resistant to political pressure while relying on the supposedly "scientific" judgments of government planners and other bureaucrats. Johnson explicitly took up the question of the role of expertise in the American state…. he maintained that success relied upon what he termed "executive functions." He sought to empower the federal government's executive branch as experts' natural home.1 In the Progressive view, business leaders and machine politicians lacked a rational and broad view of the needs of society. In contrast, the government experts would approach society's problems as scientists. Johnson felt this model already somewhat existed in the Department of War, where Johnson imagined the secretary of war was "quite free from political pressure and [relied] on the counsel of the engineers." Johnson imagined that these science-minded bureaucrats could bring a "really economic and scientific application" of policy.2 "Disinterested" Central Planners Johnson was part of a wave of experts and intellectuals attempting to develop "a new realm of state expertise" that favored apolitical technocrats who would plan the nation's infrastructure and industry.2 Many historians have recognized that these efforts were fundamentally "state-building activities … [and that] their emergence marked and symbolized a watershed in which an often-undemocratic new politics of administration and interest groups displaced the nineteenth century's partisan, locally oriented public life" (emphasis added).3 In short, these efforts sowed the seeds for the idealized technocracy we have today: unresponsive to the public and imbued with vast coercive power that continually displaces private discretion and private prerogatives. Indeed, the Progressive devotion to expertise followed "the core pattern of Progressive politics," which is "the redirection of decision making upward within bureaucracies."4 Thus, in contrast to the populist political institutions of an earlier time, decision-making in the Progressive Era became more white-collar, more middle class—as opposed to the working-class party workers—and more hierarchical within bureaucracies directly controlled by the state's executive agencies. Although Progressives thought of themselves as the saviors of democracy, they nonetheless recognized the conflict between their professed democratic ideals and a reliance on experts: [Progressives] reconciled the conflict between using hierarchical bureaucracy to seek efficiency and dispersing power to achieve equality by depicting bureaucratic systems as safeguards of public order…. Since authority flowed from supposedly disinterested facts and "scientific" expertise, bureaucratic systems were presented by their champions as objective, coherent, and essentially democratic structures.5 This idealized notion of the "disinterested expert" formed a key component of the Progressive agenda: Progressive reformers proposed an antidote to the corruption of patronage politics, emphasizing disinterested experts and rationalized administration: a city council would appoint an executive officer, the city manager, who would in turn appoint qualified lieutenants to assist him. The rationalized and centralized bureaucracies presided over by city managers would be run "scientifically," meaning objectively, insulated from patronage politics.6 Who Should Rule? In many ways, then, this aspect of Progressive ideology turned the political agenda of laissez-faire classical liberalism on its head. Liberals of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian variety had sought to increase outside political influence in the policy-making process through elections and the appointment of party activists loyal to elected representatives. This was because liberals feared that an insulated class of government experts would function more in its own interests than those of the taxpayers. The Progressives, however, imagined they could create a disinterested nonpolitical class of experts devoted only to objective science. The fundamental question, then, became who should rule: insulated experts or nonexpert representatives with closer ties to the taxpayers. We can see today that the Progressives largely succeeded in granting far greater power to today's technocratic class of experts. The technocrats are praised for their allegedly scientific focus, and we are told to respect their independence. If the goal was ever to protect public checks on state power, however, this was always an unworkable ideal. By creating a special class of expert bureaucrats with decades-long careers within the regime itself, we are simply creating a new class of officials able to wield state power with little accountability. Anyone with a sufficiently critical view of state power could see the danger in this. Interestingly, it was anarcho-communist Mikhail Bakunin who recognized the impossibility of solving the problem of state power by putting scientific experts in charge. Such a move only represented a transfer of power from one group to another. Bakunin warned: The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class, and finally a bureaucratic class. Moreover, state bureaucratic efforts to plan society from the center, Bakunin noted, will demand an immense knowledge and many "heads overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars. It is not necessary, of course, to have full-blown socialism to create this "new class." The modern state with its mixed economy in most cases already has all the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to make this a reality. As long as we defer to this ruling class of "scientists and scholars," the Progressives have won. 1.Drew VandeCreek, "Emory Johnson and the Rise of Economic Expertise in the Progressive State, 1898-1913," Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 17, no. 2 (April 2018): 276–96, esp. 279. 2.a. b. Ibid., p.4. 3.Ibid., p. 15. 4.Heather A. Haveman, Srikanth Parachuri, and Hayagreeva Rao, "The Winds of Change: The Progressive Movement and the Bureaucratization of Thrift," American Sociological Review 72, no. 1 (February 2007): 117–42, esp. 125. 5.Ibid., p. 125. 6.Ibid., p. 127. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------