미국...어느지경 까지 왓나...

[다른소리]

https://therealnews.com/advocating-internment-camps-for-homeless-people-is-increasingly-mainstream-this-should-frighten-us

리얼 뉴스에서 뽑은 것입니다.

미국을 보면 한국을 알수 잇다고 햇지요??

한국인들은 말을 잘 안 합니다...

한국인들의 통계는 그 신뢰도에 잇어서는 미국의 통계보다 낮습니다.

그래서 한국의 진짜 모습은 누가 어느쪽을 강조 하는냐에 따라 정반대의 모습으로 서술됩니다.

이런 극명한 대조는  정치권과 그 쥐쇗끼들이 주도 하고 잇고

한국의 수구 꼴통과 진보 꼴통들은 ...미국의 공화당 꼴통이나 민주당 꼴통들과는 감히 비교 될 수 없습니다.

노무현교 환자들은 ...640만불을 생계형 범죄라고 나발 거립니다.. 

지만권과 유시민의 토론을 통해....우리가 무엇을 알 수 잇습니까?? 

두 꼴통놈들에 대한  교차되는 이갈리는 역겨움 말고  없습니다.

무엇을 봐야 합니까??

무엇을 기준하여 판단해야 합니까??

다른소리의 한국을 아는 방법은 미국을 아는 것입니다..

미국을 이해 하려다 보면.....자동뽕으로 한국을 알게 되더라고..

그래서 열씸히 미국 이야기를 퍼 나르고 잇습니다..

영어 공부도 함시롱.....다른소리와 꼭 같은 방법으로 한국을 이해해 보라고..

홈리스는 한국의 문제는 아닙니다.

하지만 홈리스의 내제적인 문제는 한국도 꼭 같이 갖고 잇고....

특히 홈리스(가난뱅이)들에 대한 시각은 ...양아치 쇗끼들과 완벽하게 같습니다.

시각이 같다면 해결책도 같지요..

해결이 아닌  더 많은 문제만 만들 뿐입니다.

미국은 기독교적 보수주의가 춤추는 개인주의 국가입니다.

홈 리스는 당연히 개인의 노력 부족, 개인의 죶 같이 불운한 것이고....그래서 내가 어찌 해야 할 일은 아닌 것이지요.

그들은 미국식 해법을 찾앗습니다..

이 거지쇗끼들을 싹 쓸어 수용소에 처 넣어 버리면 된다...는  기독교적 보수주의적 해법을 찾앗습니다.

이 기독교적 보수주의 에서 가난은 사회을 유지하기 위한 필요악입니다.....

홈 리스는 사회의 필요학적 구성 요소로 봅니다.

가난해야 일을 한다는 것이지요.

기본소득 같은 것을 지급하면 누가 일을 하려 하느냐??

연방 최저임금을 올려주면...어차파 불법 이민자들을 쓸 수 밖에 없다....는 ....미국식 합리성으로 접근합니다.

만약에.....중국 공산당 같앗쓰면 이런 것을 어떻게 풀엇을까요??

한인들의-특히 애미 배쏙에서 부터 미 양아치들의 노래와 언어를 처 듣고는, 기어 나와 서는 

가장 미국식으로 사육된  젊은 쇗끼들의... 자신들 보다 재능도 부족하고, 노력하지도 않고, 재수 조차 없는 ..가난한 사람들에 대한 시각이 무엇인지.....

그것이 미 양아치들의 시각과 다르다고 누가 솔찍하게 말을 할 수 잇을지 ...모르겟습니다..

이런 사람들의 중국 공산당에 대한 이 갈리는 욕설과 빈정거림이 정신질환 말고 무엇으로 설명이 되는지 모르겟습니다. 

노무현 정권때....대한민국 출범 이후 최고의 부동산 투기질이 일어낫습니다.

치솟는 부동산 때문에 서민들이 골병이 들어 가자....똥 줄이 탄 민주당은 ...건설원가 공걔..라는 

처방전을 들고 나왓지요..

노무현은 이 처방을 시장의 원리에 어긋난다는 간단한 이유로...거절 햇습니다.

-10배 넘는 장사도 잇다...니들도 노력 하여 그리 돈 벌어라..

-취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ

꿈은 이루어 진다....

노무현의 꿈...........10배가 넘는 장사의 구현....

대장동이  왜 이재명 잡기 위한 정치사건인지 모르겟습니다..

이재명이  부정 부패에 연루가 됫던 말던....대장동 사건의 핵심은 ..우리 사회에서 이런 엄청난 돈 잔치가 얼마든지 벌어질 수 잇다는 ...그 병리적 구조의 문제 아닙니까??

노무현이 그리도 환장햇던 시장에 맡겨 놓으면,,, 얼마든지 이런 일이 벌어 질 수 잇다는 것이고.....

그 찬란한 노무현의 이상 세계의 실제적인 구현을  대장동을 통해 실제로 보고 잇는 중이다고........응?? 

똥 오줌은 가리고들  살자고 들.........응??

ADVOCATING INTERNMENT CAMPS FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE IS INCREASINGLY MAINSTREAM. THIS SHOULD FRIGHTEN US.

They aren’t calling them “internment camps,” but this is what they are—in effect and intent.

BY ADAM JOHNSONJANUARY 27, 2023

“Homelessness Crisis” discourse can generally be broken down into two distinct trends, depending on how one interprets the terms involved: On one side, there are those who believe the crisis in question is that there are human beings living without shelter and the central conflict is a lack of available homes and care for the people who need them; on the other side, there are those who think the crisis is that there are too many homeless people in public spaces who, by virtue of existing, are “hurting business” and generally undermining the “quality of life” of “taxpayers.”  These two groups almost always talk past each other, often deliberately so. Sometimes their goals can overlap, but on certain fundamental issues there is simply no common ground. more often than not, their goals, sympathies, and convictions are in direct opposition to one another. 

Politicians, for their part, will do their best to pander to both camps, often speaking in terms that deliberately obscure which interpretation of the crisis (and how to address it) they’re trafficking in. But when it comes down to concrete policy, there is no way to avoid the tension between these two interpretations. 

More and more, those who fall into the latter camp—the Simply Remove Visible Poverty Camp—are dispensing with the pretense of indulging the former, or having humanitarian concerns of any kind, and are becoming more overt about “getting tough” on the homeless people themselves. 

This logical end of this Just Get Them Out of My Sight approach, internment camps, is increasingly becoming a mainstream position.

-----중국 공산당의 접근과 비교해 보시기 바랍니다....이념이니 사상이니 그딴 개 소리 빼고..

미국식 민주주의와 중국식 공산주의는....인식과 시각 부터 다릅니다...

당연히 한쪽의 기준으로 다른 쪽을 평가 할 수 없습니다....이런 생각 자체가 틀여 처 먹은 것이지요.

미국식 자유 민주주의가 무엇인지 모르겟지만...그런것을  한국도 아닌 중국에 처 밀어 대지 말라는 것이지요.

한국이야 미국놈들 죶물도 성수라며 받아 처 먹기 환장한 종들이니....미국식 자유 민주주의가 약발을 처 받겟지만

중국은 그딴것 신경도 안 쓴다고...............응??

그러니 중국에 대고 걱정하고 혀 차고 한숨쉬고 하는 븅쉰짓쫌 그만 좀 처 하시고..

니들이나 걱정해 ,,,,응???....

니들 교주님 나라 미국이나 걱정해 주던지........ 

Last June, the Miami city commission approved a plan to ship their homeless population to Virginia Key island. The plan was later put on ice after pushback (which had less to do with the moral catastrophe of the situation than the fact that wealthy residents of the island didn’t want the homeless people in their backyards). Former gubernatorial candidate Michael Shellenberger called for National Guard- and FEMA-run camps to warehouse California’s homeless population—camps where they would be forced to seek “services” under the threat of arrest and jail. Former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Rick Caruso flirted with a similar idea, insisting his “emergency” homeless plan would be based on the ICE emergency detention centers for migrant children set up by the Trump administration. Then there was this op-ed published last week in the Times of San Diego, in which “businessman” George Mullen and NBA Hall of Famer Bill Walton remove all the liberal euphemism and explicitly call for San Diego’s homeless population to be rounded up and put in an internment camp (“ranch”) in the middle of nowhere Southern California. (The dehumanizing, barely readable prose refers to unhoused people as “walking-zombies” and “out-of-control substance abusers about to attack us.”) 

When our formerly lovable hippie NBA legends start sounding like foaming commenters on Breitbart, something ominous is happening in our discourse.  

모르긴 해도.......

아마도 이 여자 이 말 한마디가....최순실이 5년은 더 콩 밥 처 먹게 만들엇을 것이다고 생각합니다..

그런데 미국에서는 저런 접근이 ...미국식 기독교적 사마니즘에 바탕한, 너무나 합법적이고, 이성적이며, 현실적이고, 솔찍하며, 인간적인 접근이다는 것이지요.

채 5년도 지나기 전에 우리는 조국일가의 사건을 통해 또 한번 한국의 주류라는 것들의 사고와 인식을 확인 할 수 잇엇습니다.

이미......한국은 미국식 기독교적 광기가 dna화 된 사회입니다.

여기엔 좌,우 구분도 없고, 수구와 진보의 구분도 없고,,,갱상도 전라도 구분도 없습니다.

All of the above proposals for what amount to homeless internment camps are at least savvy enough to note that the homeless people “relocated” to these camps “may come and go as they please.” But this, to anyone reading the fine print, is clearly untrue.

All of these proposals are paired with a parallel demand that camping throughout the city or relevant jurisdiction be categorically banned on pain of prison. Thus, camping outside the “federal emergency homeless help zone” would be criminalized and result in arrest and jail. When someone cannot afford housing and the only place they can legally sleep outside is a designated government-run camp, that government-run camp becomes somewhere they are, by definition, forced to be. They are “allowed to leave” only in the most superficial sense; that is, they are only “allowed to leave” on their way to another jurisdiction or prison. If police are going to harass and arrest any person experiencing homelessness who is not in the “federal emergency homeless help zone,” then the “federal emergency homeless help zone” becomes, ipso facto, an internment camp. 

사실상의 강제수용소라는 것이지요..

즉 홈 리스들을 딱 쓸어 강제수용소에 처 넣어.....홈 리스 아닌 사람들의 시야에서 제거하고, 경제활동에 지장을 주지 않게 하는 방식이.....바로 미국식 기독교적 사마니즘의 해법입니다..

바로 이런 것들이 중국의 신장 위그르 켐프의 인권을 씨불립니다..

이런것 아세요..

다른소리 학교 다닐때만 해도....증말 거지들이 많앗습니다...

사실 사람들 사는 모습이 거지들과 다를것도 없엇고..

그때 노상들엇던 말이

-북한에는 거지가 없다.....왜??...

-수령님 눙깔에 안 띄게 다 잡어다 어디다 처 넣어 버린다..

-공산도배놈들의 나라는 본래 그런 나라다..

-우리의 대한민국은 거지들도 얼마든지 돌아 다닐 수 잇는 자유 민주주의 나라이다..

-취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ

그런말이 얼마나 사실인지는 여전히 모르겟지만..

홈 리스들을 싸그리 수거해서 수용시설에 처 넣어 버리겟다...는 미국 정치인들의 주장이...

우리가 그리도 싫어 하는 공산도배놈들과 무슨 차이가 잇지요??

---

There’s a general ethos that Something Must Be Done about the homelessness crisis in the United States today. One hears this rhetorical posture all the time: “We must DO SOMETHING.” Press conferences are called, mayors are flanked by Serious Looking Officials, city council members, and, of course, cops. “Task forces” are created, “states of emergency” are “declared.” Every elected official in the US is conspicuously Taking The Homelessness Crisis Seriously and assuring constituents that they are, in fact, doing something. If that “something” involved building more affordable and free housing, that would certainly be progress—but that is rarely the policy embraced. Any robust social welfare solution “post-pandemic,” in this time of austerity, is simply off the table.

When it comes to these discussions, the elephant in the room is the fact that the United States is more than rich enough to “solve homelessness” in a matter of months, but that doing so would radically alter our social and economic system. Indeed, well-intentioned people—even those who don’t consider themselves “on the left”—routinely point out that, on paper, it’s “cheaper” to house people than to imprison them or spend millions paying cops to harass them. While this is technically true, it’s looking at the wrong metric. 

The interest of Capital, in the long term, is to maintain a steady percentage of extreme poverty. This isn’t conjecture or abstract theory: it was well documented and made quite explicit throughout the debates around Enhanced Unemployment Insurance and COVID-related stimulus packages in late 2020 and early 2021. Creating a modestly higher floor for millions in response to the pandemic reduced poverty and increased wages and labor power across the board, which organs of capital openly insisted that, by not letting working people fall into an economic abyss, the government was setting a dangerous precedent that would allow workers’ wages to rise, thus “disincentivizing” them from taking low-paying, difficult, and abusive jobs— a “nut” those in power are “still trying to crack.” Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC-R) said as much in June 2021, telling reporters, “[people] are not going to work for $15 an hour and make $23 unemployed.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board articulated a similar sentiment when it opposed the move to extend unemployment benefits in April 2020, writing that “Employees say they’ll take the unemployment check for as long as they can make more money by not working. One internal Trump Administration analysis estimates that this work disincentive applies to millions of Americans.” The Chamber of Commerce(미 상공회의소) also aggressively lobbied to end what was, in effect, a basic income for people on unemployment. Neil Bradley, the chamber’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, stated matter-of-factly in May 2021 that “the disappointing jobs report makes it clear that paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market.”

이들의 주장, 이들의 논리, 이들의 개 소리는 고스란히 한국에 번역 수입되어 + 빨갱이 타령질 과 함께 뿌려집니다.

-복지 늘리면 나라 망한다....취지지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣ

이 자는 살진고양이법에 대해.....시진핑미소법, 삼성전자망조법 이라....빈정거렷지요.

그리고 당당하게 씨불렷습니다..

-주가 5000포인트 시돼를 열겟다..

-취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ

혀튼 노무현과 눈꼽만큼이라도 연관된 년놈들의 공통된 특징은

.취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣ.......쥐 쇄끼들 소리를 참 잘 지른다는 것이지요..

본래 조상이 쥐쇗끼들이엇나.......거 뭔 존 소리라고 쥐 쇄끼들 소리를 그리도 지줘 되는지 모를 일 입니다.

Put another way: If they are not coerced by a credible, ever-present fear of homelessness, or a lack of healthcare, or the specter of destitution more broadly, low-wage workers are more difficult to control, abuse, sexually harass, etc.—and they are, most importantly, less likely to accept lower wages. This isn’t how the likes of Graham, Bradley, and the WSJ editorial board phrase their “concerns,” of course, but it’s what they mean. Indeed, why would a worker put up with a low-paying, unpleasant job if they can quit and still have their basic needs met? After decades of neoliberal austerity, wage stagnation for workers, and rampant corporate pillage, the ad hoc welfare state that began to emerge during the pandemic existentially frightened Capital, which is why we got a year-and-a-half straight of “labor shortage” panic, baseless bromides about how “no one wants to work anymore,” and manufactured inflation pressure on Congress. 

--)) 이런것이  미국의 기독교적 민주주의 광기의 기본 골격입니다..

진짜 재미나는 것은....왜 저런것이 그리도 쉽게 한국 사회로 이식되어 그리도 쉽게 뿌리 내릴 수 잇느냐는 것인데..

다른소린 모르겟습니다.

다른소리가 알고 잇는 것은 .....한인들이 혀튼 참 잘 돈다 ...라는 것이지요..

This coercive reality of this dynamic defines people’s harried search for secure housing in a capitalist society as much as it defines their need to secure a basic income. If everyone was guaranteed a safe, secure house, labor power would radically increase overnight. A fixed percentage of extreme poverty is necessary to discipline the bottom rung of labor, whose fear of homelessness is one of their biggest—if not the single biggest—motivations for working a shitty, sweaty, abusive, low paying job.

미국이 말하는 인권에는 이런 사고가 깔려 잇습니다......그러니 

모를때야 어쩔 수 없지만....알고 나면 ...수긍 할 수 없는 것이지요..

But lately, especially given the spiraling cost of housing, this fixed population of extremely poor people has gotten out of hand and caused PR problems for capitalism’s political arms, especially for Democrats who run large cities. Thus, the only solution is to arrest and harass said population back into invisibility. 

Meaningfully helping our fellow human beings who are living in destitution—by providing free housing, basic income, etc.—is simply not an option for the powers that be. Providing such tangible material support for struggling people would lead to increased labor power and higher wages, and our political class won’t let that happen again for at least several generations. The only “solution,” then, is to manage this surplus population, committing state resources to a draconian campaign to imprison people experiencing homelessness, to displace them, or to let them freeze to death until their existence ceases to be a PR problem for local electeds. With our options so limited by a political status quo premised on manufactured austerity, and with our ability to imagine societal alternatives so stunted by the hyper-atomization of our local polities, there’s no other way. 

This is why more overtly dystopian “solutions” to the “homelessness crisis” are growing more mainstream. Without the will or ability to actually solve the crisis by taking the necessary concrete steps—like, for instance, investing tens of billions of dollars in constructing robust, safe housing—local officials, various arms of capital, and wealthy homeowners are taking matters into their own hands, attempting to simply remove the problem from sight rather than solve it in any meaningful sense. To the average person, this approach can seem reasonable, even attractive. The idea of providing basic income and free, permanent housing to this country’s hundreds of thousands of homeless people must seem, on the surface, like asking for a perpetual motion machine or free energy: a pipe dream that’s so far out of the realm of political possibility it’s not even considered.  

Again, it’s important to recognize that these increasingly heartless sentiments, and the equally heartless policy solutions that result from them, are very much a bipartisan problem.(삼성에만 환장한 노무현과 박그뇌 같은 것이지요) Paralleling the trajectory of their conservative counterparts, liberal discourse has grown more carceral. Allegedly progressive outlets like The Young Turks let their millionaire owner/anchors call for greater criminalization of poverty to “deal with the problem.” Democratic mayors stand in front of “sweeps” praising police for “clearing camps,” all while making vague and manifestly bullshit promises that all the people removed by the raids got housing somewhere else. In a political system such as ours, at a political moment such as this, where cowardice, meanness, austerity, and atomization are the operating principles for maintaining order, there is no other option. 

The trueness of the old adage “socialism or barbarism”(로사 룩셈부르크의 말 입니다....) can be most acutely observed at the bottom rung of society—from the 30 million Americans without healthcare to the 2.3 million locked in prisons, to those caught in our school-to-prison pipeline, to the homeless. We can either address these social ills with robust social welfare or abject cruelty.

Having foreclosed on the former, having given up on a meaningful, deficit-funded federal plan to house the country’s growing homeless population, all that’s left is barbarism. And the barbarism that’s the most intellectually honest, the unabashed barbarism that cuts out the bleeding-heart euphemisms and empty promises of “affordable housing,” the self-styled pragmatic barbarism that takes the framework of Simply Removing Visible Poverty to its logical end and openly calls for internment camps and imprisonment, will be the most viral and popular. Because, for all the cruelty it entails, it’s still the most clear-eyed, immediate, and attractive “solution” to a voting public that doesn’t like being worked over by mealy mouthed politicians who won’t just come out and say what they actually intend to do. They want their barbarism naked and clearly spelled out. It may still seem relatively fringe for now, but as the squeeze of another recession looms, “the homelessness crisis” will continue to become more pronounced, inequality will continue to balloon, and those providing the most honest version of barbarism will become more attractive to more people.