There are certain tipping points in history.

There are certain tipping points in history.

They may be 'huge events that are directly identified by the eye' that no longer need words, such as war, martial law, or revolution,
On the other hand, as if choosing a menu one morning, I wake up quietly (at least on the outside) in the tranquility of my daily life.

It is not difficult to distinguish between the enemy and me because the former appears with a very specific form of a soldier or rebel armed with a gun knife, but the latter is wrapped in sophisticated language, elegant expression, and elegant gestures, so it is not properly distinguished at the time. It is only after a long time that the danger of the moment is greater and longer and more persistent, so it is desperately difficult to correct it again even if you realize your mistake late.

On December 3, 2024, we went through that first, and yesterday, December 26, we witnessed that second.

The pro-Wi Gudeta on December 3rd was watched in real time by the nation's soldiers and police, who are supposed to protect the country and the people, to block and occupy the National Assembly, the representative organization of the people. Those who experienced it in person, and those who were anxious all night and couldn't take their eyes off the real-time video, all went through the scene together.
The events of that day were so specific and clear that the call to punish them immediately and protect the republic became an absolute proposition.

There are many ways to punish the mutiny monster. In the pre-modern era, people would have caught him right away and put his head first. The crime of treason was dealt with in a strict and swift manner above all else because the public should know the tragic end of the traitor so that no group dreaming of an insurrection can appear again.

But we are no longer living in that era. Our people are now trying to do a miracle that would be extremely idealistic and practically impossible, with extremely rare historical success stories, to control events in the pre-modern way of thinking seeking a one-man dictatorship with procedural control of violence and barbarism with modern laws and systems. We were watching with bated breath to see if the world could set an example of a true democracy in a new era in which South Korean citizens peacefully subdue insurrectionists.

But... yesterday, cold water was poured into the process.

The three constitutional judges who had the power to decide in the National Assembly were notified to the government by the 'majority vote', which is the basic decision principle of democracy. Now the government has an 'obligation' to appoint them, and has refused to do so by exercising that obligation as if it were its own 'right'.

"Agreement between the ruling and opposition parties" wrapped in beautiful, elegant, and seemingly justified words.

In this situation, what is the ' ruling-opposition party agreement' defined by Prime Minister Han Deok-soo (acting party)? Do you mean that all members of the National Assembly agree?
In a modern society that recognizes individuals' individuality (this is also an important achievement of the struggle for democracy), the only system in which an issue can be decided unanimously is a communist state ruled by dictatorship. That is why the National Assembly operates with a limit of 1/2 approval and 2/3 approval depending on the case. This is the legal process. In accordance with the 'procedure', the decision of the three constitutional judges in the National Assembly has already been made.
(This issue has already been agreed upon by the ruling and opposition parties under the last floor leader Choo Kyung-ho, and the decision was made by four lawmakers from the People's Power in yesterday's vote.)

However, Prime Minister Han Deok-soo broke the natural 'duty' to appoint them, cleverly wrapping it up with the beautiful word 'oppositional agreement' and reversing 'duty of appointment' into 'right of appointment'. This is the 'high-level governance technique' they have been calling for so far. A technique that wraps up massive violence that does not reveal its actual form in a sophisticated language and form and presents it to the world in a plausible manner.

The technology deprived the country of its diplomatic power in 1905, and the country was taken away in 1910.

No, the people 'took out' the country, but those who practiced that high-level governance signed and sealed the document 'turning over' the country, wrapping it up as the only way to protect the dynasty. What a lot of rhetoric the treaty document started at that time.

"The Emperor of Japan and the Emperor of Korea intend to promote mutual happiness and secure peace in the East permanently in consideration of the particularly close relationship between the two countries. In order to achieve this goal, we are confident that we have not only merged Korea into Japan and have decided to sign a treaty of annexation between the two countries." (Korea-Japan Treaty on Compulsory Merger)

Was the forced annexation of Korea really about promoting the happiness of both countries and securing peace in the East permanently? Those who benefited from that treaty, they sold their country with such rhetoric on their backs.

This situation we are experiencing now is all too clear.
We stand on the blade of history of whether or not to protect the republic that the people before us have achieved at the cost of our blood. This is a desperate moment beyond whether to hand over Korea, which has a half-million-year history, to Japan.

There is only one question that is needed now.

Are you a protector of the republic or a denier.

This is August 1910,
Are you handing over the country to Japan or protecting it,
of the same weight as,
No, it's a bigger and more essential question.

In the face of that question, Prime Minister Han Deok-soo's statement yesterday showed only one answer, no matter how high-level the rhetoric is used.

He was on the side of destroying the republic.

Then what we will do now is all too clear and obvious.
the work of protecting the republic in one's own hands.
What should we do separately for that.

"A conscience that does not act is on the side of evil after all. Look at the wall and swear at it at least."

So now I'm writing this.
In the name of a citizen, the National Assembly should deal with those civil war criminals right now.