이 순간 문재인 정부가 하지 않는 일들
조갑제
문재인 대통령과 정부는 美北의 최고사령관들이 연일 서로 핵전쟁을 경고, 위협하는 가운데 꼭 해야 할 일을 하지 않고 하지 말아야 할 일을 하고 있다.
해야 하지만 하지 않는 일들
1. 사드 신속 배치
2. 핵 민방위 훈련
3. 미국에 전술핵 재배치 요청
4. 자위적 핵무장 검토
5. 국정원의 정보능력 강화(특히 미국 CIA와 협력체제 강화)
6. 한일 정보 협력 강화
7. 북한 전략군의 괌 타격 위협에 대한 입장 천명
하지 말아야 하지만 하는 일들
1. 국정원 無力化와 보복성 과거 캐기 및 폭로
2. 군 지휘부 욕 보이기
3. 對北 풍선 단속
4. 평화협정 논의 제안
5. 의례적 對北 회담 제안
6. 利敵, 친북적 인사 요직 등용
7. 자위적 핵무장을 할 경우 기술의 요람이 되는 原電 발전 백지화 선언
----------------------------------------------------------------
'위안부 전성시대' 도래 중
한반도에 戰雲이 감도는데 많은 한국인은 엉뚱한 일에 정신
팔려 있다. 10일 오후 3시 현재, 언론들의 위안부 관련 보도
타이틀 중 주요한 것만 봐도 아래와 같다. 반나절 동안만 봤
는데도 이 정도다.
갈수록 가관이다. 위안부 기념주화를 발행하지 않나, 前위안
부가 프로야구 시구를 하고, 前위안부가 레코드 취입을 하고,
위안부 동상이 버스에까지 등장하고, 한 청년은 위안부像을
짊어지고 일본 열도 종주에 나서는 중이다. 理性의 시대가
가고, 慰安婦 시대가 도래 중이다.
(펀드빌더, 발췌)
------------------------------------------------------------------
기획재정부의 사회보험 중기재정추계에 따르면, 노인 의료비 증가로 건강보험은 2018년 적자로 전환된 이후 2023년에는 적립금이 모두 소진되고 2025년부터는 매년 20조원의 적자를 낼 전망이다. 장기요양보험 적자도 눈덩이처럼 불어나 지난해 400억원 적자가 2025년에는 2조2000억원으로 커진다. 모두 세금으로 메꿔야 하는 돈이다.
이런 일이 이어진다면 50년쯤 후에는 어떤 상황이 펼쳐질까. 현재 정부 지출 중 31.8%를 차지하는 복지 분야 지출이 2065년에는 70%를 넘어설 것이라는 전망이 한국은행에서 나왔다. 사회 보호와 보건 등 복지 지출이 매년 평균 5조6000억원씩 늘어나 현재 180조원가량인 복지 지출이 2065년에는 500조원을 넘어서게 된다는 것이다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/11/2017081100359.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
야(野) 3당은 10일 문재인 대통령이 전날 발표한 건강보험 보장성 강화 방안에 대해 "선심은 대통령이 쓰고 부담은 국민이 짊어지게 될까 걱정"이라고 했다. 야당에선 "재원(財源) 대책이 부실해 차기 정권에서 국민에게 건보료 폭탄이 돌아올 수 있다"며 "문재인 정부는 자기들 단임 집권 기간만 생각하는 '욜로(You Only Live Once)' 정부냐"는 말도 나왔다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/11/2017081100304.html
----> 어쩌면 본인이 쓴 <대한민국, 이렇게 망한다>가 실현되는 모습을, 가까운 미래에 볼 수 있을 것 같다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처 : 조선일보
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
좌파들의 특기인 언어 조작.
출처: 일베
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
지금 북한이 하는 짓거리에는 중국의 배후가 있다는 증거. 중국은 북한을 이용해 미국을 견제하고 있다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
■ (KBS공영노조성명서) 대통령의 방송관에 대한 우리의 입장 ■
문재인 대통령이 이효성 방통위원장에게 임명장을 주면서 지난 10년 동안 공영방송이 처참하게 무너졌다고 말했다.
우리는 문재인 대통령의 공영방송에 대한 편향적 판단을 우려한다.
문재인 대통령은 아마도 지난 정권 때, KBS와 MBC 등 공영방송이 정권 홍보에 이용되었다고 보는 것 같다.
또 정권홍보를 거부한 언론인들이 징계나 해직 등의 불이익을 받았다고 이해하는 것 같다.
그러나 결론은 틀렸다.
큰 오해를 하고 있다.
지난 10년 동안 방송계를 망친 것은 정권이 아니라, 특정 이념 중심의 노동조합이라는 것이 우리의 판단이다.
우선 이명박 정권 때 MBC <광우병 사태>, 박근혜 정권 때 <문창극 총리후보자의 낙마사태>를 불러온 KBS보도,
이어 박근혜 전 대통령의 <탄핵보도> 등은 맥을 같이하는 심각한 좌편향의 왜곡, 과장 보도라고 우리는 본다.
그 중심에는 외부 압력이 아니라 제작자들의 편향적 제작태도가 있었다.
이런 일방적인 보도를 막으려고, 방송사내에서 지난 9년 동안 힘겨운 싸움이 있었다.
그 과정에서 일부 언론인이 해직되는 등 징계를 받았다.
올바른 보도를 하다가 탄압을 받은 것이 아니다.
왜곡 편파 보도를 하거나 사규를 무시하고 경영진과 충돌하다가 징계를 받은 자들이 대부분이다.
그렇다면, 방송사 내부 구성원의 이념편향은 어느 정도인가?
공영방송의 경우만 보자.
민노총 산하 언론노조연맹(이하 언노련)이 KBS와 MBC에 본부형식으로 노조를 두고 있다. 이미 알려진 대로 좌 편향성이 강하다.
KBS의 경우, 기자와 피디의 대부분이 여기에 가입돼 있다.
일부 간부 등을 빼면 사실상 언론노조가 지배하고 있다.
왜 그랬을까?
또 다른 과거 10년,
즉 김대중, 노무현 정권 시절 이른바 진보성향의 기자와 피디를 경력직이라는 명목으로 대거 뽑았던 것이 한 몫 했다.
특히 노무현 정권시절, 한겨레신문 출신인 정연주 씨가 KBS사장으로 있으면서 <한겨례신문>, <경향신문>, <말>(월간지) 등 이른바 진보매체에서 경력사원을 대거 채용했다. KBS의 DNA를 바꾼 것이다.
이들이 제작한 몇몇 프로그램들은 특정 정권 옹호는 물론, 지나치게 북한과 친북 인사들을 우호적으로 묘사해 문제가 되었다.
심지어 북한의 군가인 <적기가>를 방송해 큰 파문이 일기도 했다.(KBS미디어 포커스, 2003년 8월 14일)
과거 진보정권 시절에 채용된 제작자들이 현재 KBS의 뉴스와 프로그램 제작의 주류를 담당하고 있다.
사내에서 이들의 편향성을 방송법과 심의규정에 따라 바로 잡으려고 하면 언론노조에서는 바로 언론탄압과 간섭이라고 주장해왔다.
바로 이것이 방송사 내 갈등의 요체이고 핵심이다.
그들만이 아니다. 기자협회, 방송기자 연합회, PD연합회 등 이른바 방송사 내 임의 친목 단체들도 그런 성향이 강하다.
KBS 문창극 보도만 보더라도 당시 ‘악마적인 편집’이라는 비판을 거세게 받았지만
한국기자협회는 이게 좋은 보도였다며 도리어 상을 주었다.
그래서 당시 공영방송이 좌파정권의 홍보수단으로 전락했다는 말이 나왔다.
따라서 공영방송의 문제점을 지적하려면 시점을 지난 10년으로 국한해서는 안 된다.
그 이전 진보정권하에서의 공영방송 붕괴를 먼저 지적해야 한다.
이런 점에서, 문재인 대통령의 방송관은 극히 편향적이다.특정 노조에 의한 방송사 내부의 편파성에 대해서는 침묵하고 있기 때문이다.
지금은 권력이나 자본에 의한 간섭과 탄압보다,
내부 구성원에 의한 언론왜곡이 더 심각한 것을 진정 모른단 말인가? 아니면 모른척하고 있는 것인가?
이 판에 언론노조는 KBS와 MBC 두 방송사의 경영진 퇴진을 주장하고 있다. 민주당과 방통위원장도 같은 입장이다.
바깥에서 회사 안을 충동질해 경영진을 몰아내려는 모양 같다.
전 정권에서 방송의 자유와 독립을 외쳐왔던 그 입으로
이제는 정권의 힘을 빌어 사장 이사장 물러나라며 방송을 장악하려 하는게 아닌가 우려된다.
여기서 우리는 우리의 입장을 분명히 밝혀둔다.적어도 우리는 현 KBS 사장이 그동안 공영방송을 제대로 지켜왔다고 보지는 않는다.
전임 대통령의 탄핵과정에서 촛불을 미화하는 방송을 방치하는 등 왜곡, 편향적인 방송에 책임이 있다고 생각한다.
또 문재인 정권출범 후 논란이 되는 정책 등에 대해,
비판과 견제 보다는 찬양에 가까운 보도를 방치했다는 것이 우리의 판단이다.
따라서 우리는 지금 현 KBS 사장을 옹호할 생각은 추호도 없다.
다만 아직 방송법이 보장한 임기가 남았는데도,
정권이 바뀌었다고 외압에 의해 강압적으로 물러나는 것이야말로
민주주의와 방송의 자유와 독립이라는 중대한 원칙과 가치를 해치는 것이기 때문에 그의 사퇴에 반대한다.
방송의 자유와 독립 이 원칙을 지켜내는 출발점은 사장의 임기 보장에 있다.
이걸 지켜내지 않으면 정권이 바뀔 때마다 이런 일이 반복될 수밖에 없다.
따라서 정부는 더 이상 방송사에 대해 정권차원의 개입을 하지 말기 바란다.
문재인 대통령이 천명한 대로 이제는 정권에 의한 언론탄압이 더이상 있어서는 안 된다.
정말 공영방송의 가치를 지키려면 문재인 대통령 자신부터 방송의 자유와 독립을 인정하고 지키는 자세를 보여주기 바란다.
- 2017년 8월 9일 KBS공영노동조합
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
인간의 지식에는 과학적인 지식이 있는 반면, 인간이 정확히 인식하지 못하는 또 다른 지식이 있다. 그것은 과거의 경험을 포함해 환경에 적응하기 위한 인간의 모든 적응을 포함한다. 거기에는 인간의 습관, 기술, 감정적 표현, 도구, 인간의 제도 등이 모두 해당된다.
출처: 하이에크, hayek의 책 < constitution of liberty> 77쪽, 인터넷 pdf 판.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
정신을 지배하는 폭군들 그리고 새로운 집합주의
나치 치하에서 살아남은 클렘페레는 나치 하의 모든 사람들이 나치 식의 사고를 했다고 주장했다. 그들은 히틀러의 국가 사회주의의 논리를 전파하는 단어, 문구, 문장 등을 통해 사고를 하고, 그들의 생각을 통제받았던 것이다.
나치들은 새로운 단어를 만들기도 했지만, 사실은 기존의 단어들의 의미를 선전과 연설, 출판 등을 통해 반복해서 왜곡함으로써, 그들의 목적을 이루었다.
그리고 이런 언어 조작은 공산 국가 소련에서도 사용되었다.
미국의 좌파들 역시 언어 조작의 달인들이어서, 진보를 사회주의자들이라고 비난하면, 그들은 그런 우파를 향해 “극우, 가난한 사람들을 혐오하는 사람, 사회적 정의를 반대하는 사람‘ 등으로 매도한다.
오늘날 막스의 계급 투쟁 개념은 백인 특권의 수혜자와 백인 억압의 피해자라는 양립하는 두 집단으로 바뀌었다.
이때 ‘개인’은 좌파들이 규정한 사회적 범주 속으로 사라지고 만다. 개인들은 인종이라는 감옥에 갇히게 되는데, 진보적 정부만이 그들에게 사회에서의 정당한 지위를 마련해줄 수가 있다.
이들 언어적 전체주의와 언어의 세뇌를 지휘하는 곳은 다름 아닌 지적인 자율성을 누리는 고급 학문 기관들이다.
Tyrants of the Mind and the New Collectivism
•Richard M. Ebeling
The current counter-revolution against liberty is being fought on a number of fronts in American society. One is on the college and university campuses across the country, where the ideology of “political correctness” is strangling the principle and practice of freedom of speech and the ideal of intellectual controversy and debate.
Critical to this campaign against free expression and open exchange of competing and opposing ideas is the capture of the language through which this campaign has been instigated and the linguistic characterization of its protagonists.
We need to remember and reflect upon the fact that it is through our language that we think about ourselves, our relationships to others, and the general social order in which we live and that we share with those others. Words do not simply define or delineate the names of objects, individuals, events or actions. Words also contain and connote meanings that create mental imageries, emotions, attitudes and beliefs in people that influences and colors how they see themselves and the world around them.
The Nazi Manipulation of Minds Through Language
For an example of this we may turn to Victor Klemperer (1881-1960), a German Jew who survived in Nazi Germany outside of the concentration camp system because his wife was not Jewish and she stood by and defended him throughout the Second World War. Several years after the defeat of Hitler and the National Socialist regime in 1945, Klemperer wrote a book called The Language of the Third Reich (1957). A professor of romance languages at a university in Dresden before Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, he was especially attuned to the uses and nuances of words and their contextual meanings.
He kept a detailed and truly fascinating diary about daily life during the Nazi era in Germany, the full contents of which was published under the title, I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years(1995), long after he passed away. He drew upon these meticulous observations in writing The Language of the Third Reich in the 1950s. Klemperer argued that virtually everyone in Hitler’s Germany was a Nazi – whether or not they considered themselves to be National Socialists, including many of the victims of the regime (including German Jews).
Why? Because they had been captured by and had adapted in their thoughts and beliefs the ideas and ideology of their Nazi masters. They found it difficult to think about life and morality in any other way; that is, to reason in a way independent of the language of words and political phrases reflecting the Nazi conceptions of man, “race” and society. In their minds, Klemperer was suggesting, they were no longer self-governing human beings, but slaves of the regime since they thought and acted in terms of the lexicon and logic of Hitler’s National Socialism. Said Klemperer:
Nazism permeated the flesh and blood of the people through single words, idioms and sentence structures which were imposed upon them in a million repetitions and taken on board mechanically and unconsciously . . .
Language does not simply write and think for me, it also increasingly dictates my feelings and governs my entire spiritual being the more unquestioningly and unconsciously I abandon myself to it . . .Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic; they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all.
Klemperer said that it was not that the Nazis made up very many new words, though they did in some cases with intentional design. But what was far more invidious, he argued, is that through their own particular uses of existing words, over and over again in their propaganda, speeches and publications, they changed the meanings and contexts of these taken for granted words of the German language.
The Nazis, through this method, made words have only one meaning, the collective or shared meaning serving the Nazis’ purposes. “Making language the servant of its dreadful system it procures it in its most powerful, most public and most surreptitious means of advertising,” Klemperer explained, and went on:
The sole purpose of the [Nazi use and form of language] is to strip everyone of their individuality, to paralyze them as personalities, to make them into unthinking and docile cattle in a herd driven and hounded in a particular direction, to turn them into atoms in a huge rolling block of stone . . . Where [Nazi language] addresses the individual . . . where it educates, it teaches means of breeding fanaticism and techniques of mass suggestion.
The Soviet Control of Thought Through Language
No different in this ideological technique of bending language to their purposes was the communist regime in Soviet Russia. Russian historian Mikhail Heller (1922-1997) highlighted this aspect of the socialist planned society in his insightful work, Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man (1988).
From the time of Vladimir Lenin with the coming of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917 through the near twenty-five year reign of Josef Stalin, to the Soviet leaders at the end of the regime in 1991, language was made to serve the means and ends of the socialist system. Heller explained:
Lenin developed a special way of writing that made it possible to establish the ‘formula-slogan’ in the mind of the reader or listener . . . Then, as the most important compositional element, there is the use of repetition, by means of which a rectangle is formed which concentrates the attention, narrows the field of possibilities, and squeezes thought into a tight ring from which there is only one exit . . .
Total power over the Word gives the Master of the Word a magical power over all communications. Soviet speech is always a monologue because there is no other party to talk to. On the other side is the enemy. In the Soviet language there are no neutral words – every word carries an ideological burden . . . That is why in Soviet language the same words are repeated over and over again, until they become a signal that acts without any effort of thought. The effect of set phrases and slogans is also assured by their always being repeated in absolutely the same form . . .
The Soviet language became the most important means of preventing people from acquiring more knowledge that the state wished . . . Soviet speech lost its freedom. The language was put together out of slogans and quotations from the Leader [Stalin] . . . The crushing, unquestioned authority of the Leader’s word is the result to a large extent of his right and power to name the Enemy . . . The word that signifies the enemy must be striking, easy to remember, implying condemnation by its very sound, and always imprecise, so that everyone who at a given moment does not please the Leader can be included under it rubric . . .
From “Socialism” to “Liberalism” to “Progressivism”
The same totalitarianization of words and ideas can be seen to be at work in the language of the progressive and radical “left” in America today. Just how successful this has been can be seen in getting people both to forget the past and accept the title “progressive” for all those who desire a further collectivization of contemporary society.
The fact is, those who have taken on the mantle of “progressivism” today were the socialists of a hundred or more years ago. They were certain and confident that such things as Marx’s “laws of history” were making a socialist planned society inevitable and inescapable. But “socialist” soon came to possess too many negative connotations such as central direction and command of everyone in society under what was likely to be a dictatorial political regime.
So, socialists undertook the linguistic sleight-of-hand to transform themselves into the new and “true” or “progressive” liberals, wishing merely to fulfill the unfinished political program of the old, nineteenth century “individualist” liberals who only spoke of “negative” freedoms from coercion and interference by other private individuals or governments.
The unfinished new “progressive liberal” agenda required the fulfillment of “positive” freedoms through governmental guarantees to a wide variety of redistributed benefits for the “needy,” the “exploited,” and the toilers of the earth who were the “real producers” of all things, but who were unjustly treated and abused by “the rich,” the “capitalist owners,” the greedy profit pursuers who cared nothing about the “little guy” on whose back these capitalist exploiters rode to their unethically acquired wealth.
And when “liberal” became, itself, a criticized and unpopular word due to negative attacks by political conservatives and others, the word “liberal” was jettisoned and replaced with simply “progressive,” meaning a person looking forward for the achievement of more “social progress,” connoting what used to be considered a “socialist” program of a hundred years ago – welfare redistribution, and extensive government control and regulation of economic and social life. (See my article, “Barack Obama and the Meaning of Socialism”.)
But to accuse a “progressive” of being a socialist or interested in advancing portions of a traditionally socialist agenda, has been made into a demonstration that the proponent of such an argument is a “right-wing extremist,” a “hater of the poor,” an opponent of “social justice,” if not worse. All of which serves as a linguistic trick to prevent anyone from taking such a critic seriously in terms of the logical and historical basis of his accusation and argument because to take it seriously shows that such a person, himself, has fallen victim to “reactionary” ideas outside of legitimate and acceptable political debate. Discussion closed.
From “Class Warfare” to the New Race Collectivism
The core social concept in traditional Marxian political economy has been the notion of the “class struggle.” Society is divided into two main “social classes” defined as and identified by whether an individual is or is not an owner of the means of production. If he is such an owner, then he is a member of the capitalist “exploiting class.” If he is not such an owner, then he is a member of the exploited and oppressed and victimized workers’ class.
Property ownership determined the social status and place of any and every individual person in the society. What the individual believed, how he personally acted in his social and economic interactions with others were essentially meaningless. You were praised or condemned based upon your “class status” in the society. You were either a “class enemy” or a “social comrade.”
Today, the Marxian conception has been modified and transformed into the new notion of irreconcilable social conflict: the beneficiary of ‘white privilege” versus the sufferer of “white oppression.” Instead of your status relative to the ownership of productive property determining your classification of social “saint” or social “sinner,” there is the new race collectivism.
Being “white” condemns a person as an implicit and explicit beneficiary of a social and economic system (“capitalism”) that has been placed at the service of a limited segment of the human community to gain power, position and wealth for itself at the expense and cost of all those other “people of color” everywhere else around the world.
That so many “white people” either fail to understand this or oppose admitting it demonstrates just how embedded “white racism” really is in modern American society, the new race conflict advocates insist. Failure to accept this new race collectivist argument is taken to be, ipso facto, proof of the racist mindset that the “progressive” opposes and is determined to overthrow by virtually any means.
The Individual Lost in Collectivist Classifications
What is the individual’s own background? Did his ancestor’s ever own African slaves? Were any such ancestors “pro-slavery” or “anti-slavery”? Did those ancestors come to the United States after slavery had ended in America? Were they, themselves, immigrants escaping oppression and discrimination in the “old country” and advocates of equality of rights for all in their new land of America?
How has the individual standing accused of “white privilege” merely due to the pigmentation color of his skin acted in his own personal life toward others? How has he earned his own place in society, through fair detailing on what remains of a free market in the United States or through “crony capitalist” favors and benefits from the government? These questions are never asked, and any attempt to offer answers to them is rejected as smoke screens and rationalizations for maintaining “white privilege.”
Individuals are submerged within and reduced to social categories defined and imposed by ideologists dreaming their own utopian dreams of a socially engineered world reflecting their notion of a new race- and ethnic-conscious society. This not only dehumanizes individuals who by accident of birth happen to be the descendants of Caucasian parents, but this does it no less to those who may be black or Hispanic. You are a “victim” as a “person of color.” You are not able to transcend your own accident of birth to be a thinking, willing, acting individual guided by your own standards, benchmarks and goals, and able to successfully traverse the trials and tribulation of life. You, too, are an inescapable captive of your race, with only a “progressive” government able to guarantee you a “just” place in society.
The Family Resemblances Between the Old and New Collectivisms
How familiar it all sounds to those Nazi assertions that everything undesired and undesirable in German life was due to the machinations and intrigue of “international Jewry.” The failure of so many others in the world to see the invidiousness of Jewish manipulation and exploitation demonstrated the extent to which “the Jew” had succeeded in his control of the social and economic affairs of the world, and how many others were either their unwitting victims or the degenerate accomplices of their attack on “civilization” and race purity.
And how similar to the Soviet method of debate and argument stopping: He is a lackey and dupe of the capitalist exploiters, and therefore should be ignored or condemned. Her refusal to admit the justness of the socialist cause shows that she “must” be in the pay of the capitalist bosses, and thus her arguments should be rejected as special pleading. His arguments against communist and socialist planning should be discounted and ridiculed because he is simply a “red baiter” trying to demagogically arouse emotional resistance against those interested in “social justice” and “world peace.”
And on some American campuses now, how close to the techniques of the “Red Guards” during the Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao in China during the 1960s and 1970s. Mobs of shouting, bullying and physically attacking young thugs spouting meaningless and ideologically vacuous phrases from the “little red book” of quotations from Chairman Mao, to mentally and physically crush any and all who failed to parrot the Party Line or who were the objects of Chairman Mao’s political purges and personal vendettas against real and imaginary opponents.
And at the core of it, the same use of language, repeated and repeated, over and over again, in short, clear phrases connoting “bad things” that merely by being labeled as such stands as accusation, condemnation and implied deserved punishment due the “just wrath” of – the National Socialist German people, the Soviet Socialist toiling masses, the “unprivileged” race victims of “white privilege.”
Academia, the New Race Collectivism, and Word Tyranny
A distinct difference between the proponents of this new race collectivism compared to the twentieth century episodes of German Nazism or Soviet socialism is that this linguistic totalitarianism and word indoctrination is being advanced and imposed without any direct coercive and monopoly apparatus of governmental power.
Instead, the “headquarters” and “front lines” are in academia, especially in some of those institutions of higher learning that are oases of intellectual autonomy from accountability or challenge due to primarily or heavily taxpayer funded salaries, programs, and curriculums. Freed from the world of market-based work and reward and blessed with lifetime tenure, those academics employed on these islands of educational socialism have the “safe spaces” within which there can be cultivated, to use George Orwell’s phrase, “some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual can believe them.”
The assertion and repetition of “white privilege,” “the one percent,” “social justice,” “racist,” “gay-basher,” “LGBT-hater,” “gender insensitivity,” etc., have had numbing effects on private and public discourse. It has produced degrees of self-censorship out of fear that the wrong word, the misplaced phrase, the wrongly understood witticism, or an unintentionally offending double entendre will bring down an avalanche of criticisms and threats to one’s job, social status, or acceptance among professional and informal circles in society.
Similar to the robot-like, expressionless faces seen in the videos of crowds of people in some scenes from North Korea, the politically correct world of American progressivism and the new race collectivism threatens to drain human interaction of spontaneity, banter, and the real and relevant diversity of views, voices, and modes of expression and argumentation. Increasingly, people feel that they have to be “walking on eggs,” never knowing who might take anything said or done as an offense against some ethnic or racial group or person; and the offender finding himself in the dock of social condemnation and ostracism.
Another technique of the new race collectivism and progressivism is to take what is normally accepted as reasonable and appropriate modes of polite and courteous behavior and turn it into a weapon to serve their own agendas. We all know and usually attempt not to intentionally say or do something that will offend or be embarrassing to someone we are associating with in some social setting. We just know its not the “right thing” to do. And if we see someone going out of their way to, in fact, act in this improper manner, we find it inappropriate and “not right,” even if we remain silent and don’t do anything in response to it.
The new race collectivists and progressives have learned to use this notion of proper etiquette and good manners that acts as a break on most of us in the social arena as a weapon to silence and beat down anyone or anything not consistent with their worldview and political agenda. Anything said or done inconsistent with their ideas and ideology is “hurtful” to some oppressed minority or subgroup in society. It shows an insensitivity and misunderstanding of that group’s experiences, history, culture or degree of suffering caused by – “white privilege,” or “the capitalist system,” or . . .
Made to feel guilty in thinking some thought, saying some word, or expressing some idea, and fearful about the consequences from doing so, an increasingly successful Orwellian-like thought police of politically correct “newspeak” is imposed on people in almost every circumstance of social life.
Making the Past Serve the Ideological Purposes of the Present
In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, the anti-hero, Winston, works in the Ministry of Truth. His task is to go through the pages of old newspapers and rewrite the articles in them to make events and statements made in the past consistent with and supportive of the government’s current Party line. The words and events of the past are made to conform to the ideological “truths” of the present.
Here, too, is another trick and technique of the new race collectivists and progressives. Historical events and the people who lived in that past are remade to fit the “truth” of these new totalitarians. When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all human beings are created equal and have certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this was all “really” code words and rationales for a society of white racism.
If James Madison helped to author a constitution for the United States that had as a leading purpose restraints on the passions of potential individual rights-violating majorities that would threaten a free and prosperous society, this is “really” the institutionalization of the power of an oligarchy of the “the rich” to thwart the progressive will of the majority of “the people” for “social justice” against the exploiting “one percent.”
Oh, how similar to Stalin’s method of rewriting the actual history of the Russian Revolution to make himself, a relatively minor player in those events, into the right-hand comrade of Vladimir Lenin in assuring socialist victory. And what a family resemblance to the other Stalinist tool of making the past conform to the politics of the present, when following a purge those sent to the labor camps or to their death had all positive mention of them deleted from books and magazines, and all pictures of them airbrushed out of old photos.
Everyone who believes in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, in freedom of exchange of ideas, must oppose and prevent this new race collectivism and its accompanying “progressive” linguistic totalitarianism from imposing a new dark age of diminished human discourse.
The wit, charm, creativity and humanity of words and the ideas expressed through them, must not be stunted and then petrified by those who wish to reduce individual human beings to collectivist categories of ideological control and command. Liberty of thought, deed, action and association is too precious to be lost to these latest coercing and intimidating thugs of the human mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
[사설] 그제 '30조원 준다', 어제 또 '30조원 준다'
-------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기