PenM가 통일부, MBC에 "'親정부 성향 전문가' 출연시켜달라" 협조요청 논란
제목 보도하는데 통일부가 이런 짓을 하면 됩니까?
그런데 명단 중에 김영희 대기자와 홍석현 이름도 있습니다
김영희는 박대통령을 얼마나 비판했습니까? 물론 홍석현의 마음을 읽었기때문
이라고 이해는 하지만...
명단을 보니 예상한대로 사회 곳곳에서 문재인 추종자 노릇을
충실히 한 인간들입니다
저는 아주 오래 전부터 대한민국에 남조선인민공화국 (전라도 인민공화국)이
있다고 종종 주장했습니다
통일부 1개 부서 관리하는 인간들이 이 정도이니 지금 판검사 장악한 문재인 추종자들과
언론 장악한 문재인 추종자들, 국회 장악한 문재인 추종자들 생각하면
문재인은 남조선인민공화국 대통령인 것 같습니다
문재인은 대한민국 위해서 이런 추종자들을 사회 곳곳에 암약하게 하겠습니까
대재앙 수괴 문재인을 쫓아내야 합니다
*보도내용
다음은 MBC 보도국 게시판에 올라온 통일부측 '방송 출연 검토 요청문'
전문(全文).
2018 남북정상회담 자문단이 구성되었습니다.
정상회담 자문단이 MBC 인터뷰, 좌담회 등 방송에 출연할 수 있도록 협조
부탁드립니다.
100분토론, 통일전망대 등에 조만간 출연할 수 있도록 검토 한번 부탁드립니다.
남북정상회담 자문단 명단은 아래와 같습니다.
<원로 자문단>
1 임동원(座長) 한반도평화포럼 명예이사장
2 김영희 중앙일보 대기자
3 김정수(女) 한국여성평화연구원 원장
4 문정인 대통령 통일외교안보특보
5 박재규 경남대학교 총장
6 박지원 민주평화당 의원
7 백종천 세종연구소 이사장
8 심재권 국회 외교통일위원장
9 이재정 경기도교육감
10 이종석 세종연구소 수석연구위원
11 이현숙(女) 여성평화외교포럼 명예대표
12 이홍구 아산사회복지재단 이사
13 장달중 서울대학교 명예교수
14 장상(女) 세계교회협의회 공동의장
15 정동영 민주평화당 의원
16 정세현 한반도평화포럼 이사장
17 최완규 前 북한대학원대학교 총장
18 하영선 동아시아연구원 이사장
19 한완상 서울대학교 명예교수
20 홍석현 한반도평화만들기 이사장
21 황원탁 前 청와대 외교안보수석비서관
<전문가 자문단>
1 고유환 동국대학교 교수
2 김귀옥(女) 한성대학교 교수
3 김병연 서울대학교 교수
4 김석향(女) 이화여자대학교 교수
5 김연철 인제대학교 교수
6 김용현 동국대학교 교수
7 김준형 한동대학교 교수
8 문성묵 한국국가전략연구원 센터장
9 박명림 연세대학교 교수
10 박현선(女) 이화여자대학교 교수
11 배기찬 국가안보전략연구원 고문
12 양무진 북한대학원대학교 교수
13 이관세 경남대학교 극동문제연구소장
14 이남주 성공회대학교 교수
15 이재영 대외경제정책연구원 본부장
16 이정철 숭실대학교 교수
17 이희옥 성균관대학교 교수
18 임강택 통일연구원 선임연구위원
19 임을출 북한대학원대학교 교수
20 전봉근 국립외교원 교수
21 지성림 연합뉴스 기자
22 조동호 국가안보전략연구원 원장
23 조성렬 국가안보전략연구원 수석연구위원
24 진창수 세종연구소 소장
25 최혜경(女) 어린이어깨동무 사무총장
[출처] *PenM, 문재인 추종자들 명단
-------------------------------------------------------------
"자유주의 얼굴"에서 진행 적화 문장 정권의 진짜 무서움 보수파는 과장도 추방이다
室谷카츠미 신
"문재인 (문재인) 대통령도 같은 운명을 텐데 ..."
일본의 한국 관련 사이트를 보면 이러한 견해를 하고있는 한국 관심 파가 매우 많은 것처럼 보이지만 그것은 잘못이다.
문장 정권이 착착 진행하고 있는 것은 "좌익과 그 동조자 밖에 생활 할 수없는 나라 '만들기이다. 그야말로 '같은 운명을 거치지 않는' 때문이며, 도착하는 앞은 "한국의 적화 '이다. 한국을 주름 잡던 좌익 정권의 진짜 무서움은 정치적 의견을 일절 불허 체제 만들기를 "자유주의 얼굴"에서 진행하고있는 곳이다.
검찰은 완전히 "정권의 사냥개" 되었다. 사건 수사가 아니라 표적을 정하고 어떠한 법률 위반 구부리는 방법이다. 검사들은 보수 정권이 부활하면 자신들이 어떻게 될지 알고 있다. 그래서 점점 사냥개의 광포 성을 발휘하여 보수파 괴멸을 진행한다.
한국에서는 검찰과 경찰의 사이가 매우 나쁘다. 그래서 정부 출범 초기에는 "중립 경찰"라는 입장을 보였다. 하지만 검찰과 대립은 대립으로 "좌익 정권의 경찰 '의 길을 걷기 시작했다.
보수 성향의 수장 선거 입후보 예정자를 저격하고 "그 사람은 경찰이 수사 대상으로 하고 있다"고 공표하는 것은 정권에 대한 충성의 증거이다. 보수 신문 조선 일보 (2018 년 3 월 31 일 사설)가 "경찰의 야당 탄압, 독재 정권보다 노골적 폭력이다"라고 썼다 같다. 이것이라면 6 월 지방 선거는 여당 압승이다.
국민의 눈이 "평창 평창 동계 올림픽 ''남북 관계 ''MeToo"(= 유명인의 성희롱 고발)에 향하고 있는 동안 문 정권은 사회과의 국정 교과서를 "옳고 좋은 나라 · 북한 '을 강조하는 내용으로 개정했다.
그곳에 있는 것은 공산주의자의 전통적 전술인 ‘살라미 전법’이다. 사법과 언론을 장악하고 살라미 소세지를 오른쪽에서부터 잘게 잘게 잘라나가듯이 배제해가는 것이다.
한국국민들이 ‘이래서는 안 된다’라고 알아차릴 때쯤, 그 나라에서 불평을 말하면 ‘반혁명분자’로서 형무소행이 되는 그런 체제가 완성되어가고 있는지도 모르겠다.(구글 번역기로 번역해서 좀 문장이 서툴다. 아래는 원문)
그곳에 있는 것은 공산주의자의 전통적 전술인 ‘살라미 전법’이다. 사법과 언론을 장악하고 살라미 소세지를 오른쪽에서부터 잘게 잘게 잘라나가듯이 배제해가는 것이다.
한국국민들이 ‘이래서는 안 된다’라고 알아차릴 때쯤, 그 나라에서 불평을 말하면 ‘반혁명분자’로서 형무소행이 되는 그런 체제가 완성되어가고 있는지도 모르겠다.(구글 번역기로 번역해서 좀 문장이 서툴다. 아래는 원문)
“リベラル顔”で進める赤化、文政権の本当の恐ろしさ 保守派は課長でも追放だ
「文在寅（ムン・ジェイン）大統領も、同じ運命をたどるだろうに…」
日本の韓国関連サイトを見ていると、こうした見方をしている韓国関心派が極めて多いように思えるが、それは誤りだ。文政権が着々と進めているのは、「左翼とその同調者しか生活できない国」づくりだ。それこそ、「同じ運命をたどらない」ためで、行き着く先は「韓国の赤化」だ。韓国を牛耳った左翼政権の本当の恐ろしさは、政治的フィードバックを一切許さない体制づくりを“リベラル顔”で進めているところにある。
検察は、完全に“政権の猟犬”になった。事件捜査ではなく、標的を定めてから何らかの法律違反に引っ掛ける手法だ。検事らは保守政権が復活すれば、自分たちがどうなるか分かっている。だから、ますます猟犬の凶暴性を発揮して、保守派壊滅を進める。
保守系の首長選立候補予定者を狙い撃ちにして、「あの人物は警察が捜査対象にしている」と公表するのは、政権への忠誠の証しだ。保守系紙の朝鮮日報（２０１８年３月３１日社説）が「警察の野党弾圧、独裁政権下より露骨で暴力的だ」と書いたとおりだ。これなら６月の地方選挙は、与党圧勝だ。
国民の目が「平昌（ピョンチャン）冬季五輪」「南北関係」「ＭｅＴｏｏ」（＝有名人のセクハラ告発）に向いている間に、文政権は社会科の国定教科書を「正しくて良い国・北朝鮮」を強調する内容に改訂した。
-------------------------------------------------------------
돈과 인재들이 한국을 탈출하고 있다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
오늘 박 대통령에 대한 공개 재판으로 한국의 자유민주주의는 막을 내렸다. 시민들이 이 장막을 다시 걷어 올릴지, 아니면 저들의 선전선동에 속아 그대로 유지할지는 앞으로 짧으면 몇 달, 길면 몇 년의 시간 안에 결정이 날 것이다. --- 자유의남신
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
----> 모든 인간을 공산주의 이상에 따라 개조하려 하기 때문에, 좌파사상이 무서운 것이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
소련의 공산 체제는 서구의 기술 덕분에 연명했다
소련 공산주의가 억압적이고 후진적인 러시아를 접수했다는 말은 거짓이다.
그와 반대로 차르 치하의 러시아는 빠르게 발전하는 자유로운 사회였고, 1913년에는 프랑스를 제치고 세계 4위의 공업국이 되었다.
서구의 기술이 소련의 공산주의를 연명하게 했다는 증거는, Dr Anthony Sutton의 책 <Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965>에 자세히 기술되어 있다.
소련 기술의 90%는 서구 유럽이 원천이었다.
1946 ~ 1965년 사이에 소련의 혁신 대부분은 서구 유럽에서 수입하거나 복제한 기술이나 공장에 의존했다.
레닌의 신경제 정책 기간에 350여 개의 서구 기업들이 러시아에 들어가 공장을 짓고 기술을 전수했다. 그들은 제너럴 일렉트릭, 웨스팅하우스, 싱거(재봉틀), 듀퐁, 포드, 스탠다드 오일, 지멘스, 크룹, 인터내셔널 하비스터 등이다.
이런 서구 기술의 전수로 1922년 이후 거의 제로에 가까웠던 생산이 회복되기 시작했다.
1935 ~ 1945년 기간에도 역시 공작 기계, 자동차, 비행기 공장 등이 외국 기업들에 의해 세워졌고, 30만 개의 고급 공작 기계가 수입되었다. 또 2차 대전 기간에는 미국으로부터 110억 달러 어치의 자원과 기계를 받았다.
소련 공산주의가 오래 동안 망하지 않은 것은 서구의 간섭이 없는 전체주의적이고 살인적인 목표를 추구할 시간이 없었기 때문이다. 그리고 소련이 마침내 망한 이유는, 바로 그런 목표를 추구했기 때문이다.
How Communism Survived Thanks to Capitalist Technology
•Philip Vander Elst
Despite the central role played by State controlled central banks and financial institutions in bringing about the conditions which led to the global credit crunch of 2008, free markets and "capitalism," rather than government failure, have taken all the blame for that complex crisis, and Marxism and other varieties of socialism are once again attracting the enthusiastic support of many young people in our universities and colleges.
Unfortunately, however well intentioned, this renewed interest in hard-core socialism, and the belief that it offers relevant solutions to our existing problems, ignores the lessons taught by the many failed socialist experiments of the 20th century, some of which are described by two American economists: Kevin D. Williamson, in his recent paperback, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, and Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his equally informative and well documented new study, The Problem with Socialism.
What, in this context, but on a narrower front, I wish to do in this article, is to draw the attention of open-minded left-wing readers to the significant but little known and highly relevant fact that for decades, Western capitalist technology sustained the failed economic experiment of Soviet Communism, rescuing it from the full consequences of its inherent systemic weaknesses, until its final collapse in 1991.
Capitalist Technology for Soviet Survival
This failure of the Marxist model in post-1917 revolutionary Russia, and its subsequent parasitical dependence on Western capitalism, was set out in detail in my paper, Capitalist Technology for Soviet Survival, published in 1981 by the Institute of Economic Affairs. All I have room for here, a generation later, is to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant arguments and evidence presented in that paper. That this should be necessary nearly 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was recently underlined by the views expressed by Fiona Lali, president of the Marxist Societyat London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), during a recent interview on Radio 4’s Today program.
Asked about the failure of Soviet Communism, following her previous comment that capitalism had outlived its usefulness, “she claimed that it had ‘never had the chance to develop’ because of interference from the West.” Not surprisingly, British historian, Dominic Sandbrook, from whose article in the Daily Mail (22/1/2018) this quote is taken, commented: “My real thoughts about Ms Lali’s version of history are not fit for publication,” and one can easily understand his incredulity.
To begin with, the widespread belief on the Left that Soviet Communism took over an oppressive society and a backward rural economy that it subsequently and heroically transformed into an advanced and powerful industrial state, improving workers’ rights and the living standards of the mass of the population in the process, is the very opposite of the truth.
The Truth about the Legacy left by Pre-Revolutionary Russia
While pre-revolutionary Russia was backward compared to Britain, Germany, and the United States, her economy was developing rapidly and her society was undergoing significant liberalization in the last decades of Tsarist rule. During 18 of the last 25 years before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Tsarist Russia enjoyed the highest rate of industrial growth in the world, and by 1913 was overtaking France as the world’s fourth industrial power. As for the progress of liberalization, here below is a summary of what had been achieved that will startle many readers, coming as it does from the pen of a great Russian historian and political scientist of Hungarian origin, the late Professor Tibor Szamuely, a former Red Army veteran imprisoned by Stalin, and a former Vice-Rector of Budapest University and Lecturer in Politics at Reading University until his untimely death in 1971.
To quote from his pamphlet, Communism and Freedom, published by the Conservative Political Centre in September 1969:
Few people in the West realize to what extent before the Revolution, in the early years of the 20th century, Tsarist Russia had full freedom of the press – no censorship: even Bolshevik papers and books were freely printed – full freedom of foreign travel, independent trade unions, independent courts, trial by jury, a fairly advanced system of social legislation, etc. Tsarist Russia had a parliament, a Duma, with MPs elected from various parties, including the Bolsheviks. This was not a full parliament in the English sense of the word (the executive was not responsible to parliament), but today, on the whole, pre-revolutionary Russia would be regarded as a model democracy, and compared to most of the hundred and twenty-odd countries inhabiting the United Nations Organization, one of the fifteen or twenty most liberal states in the world.
After decades of Communist rule, by contrast, with its concentration of all power, ownership, and resources in the hands of the omnipotent Marxist State, tens of millions of people had died in internal repression under Lenin and his successors, the seeds of liberty and democracy had been totally stamped out, trade unions had become the passive and subservient organs of the Communist Party, corruption had become universal, and the mass of the population had been reduced to a condition of penury, misery, and serfdom.
A Few Key Facts Showing Economic Failure of Communism
Here below are just a few key facts about the material conditions of life under Soviet Communism.
According to such scholars as Professor Sergei Propokovich, Dr Naum Jasny, and Mrs Janet Chapman, for instance, the real wages of Soviet industrial workers in 1970 were hardly higher than in 1913. Similarly, the Swiss economist, Jovan Pavlevski, calculated in 1969 that the real wages of Soviet industrial workers attained the level of 1913 only in 1963. Pavlevski also found that the real incomes of Soviet agricultural workers in 1969 were only 1.2% higher than in 1913. In addition, let it be remembered, unlike the pampered Communist elite, with their posh apartments, countryside villas, and privileged access to imported luxury goods, Soviet citizens had to endure the daily misery of constant shortages of the most basic necessities, like washing powder, razor blades, meat and vegetables, and many other items we take for granted in the West.
This picture of the generally low living standards suffered under Soviet Communism between 1917 and 1991, darkens further when one includes the evidence of the widespread poverty that existed among old people and the inhabitants of some of the most backward former Soviet republics. Thus according to Ilja Zemstov, a former professor of sociology at the Lenin Institute of Baku (Azerbaijan), writing in 1976, one in two retired persons in the Soviet Union lived in poverty, and in the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, 75% of the population lived below the poverty line and there were more homes without water, electricity and toilets than in the whole of Western Europe. Other scholars, also writing in the 1970s, calculated that about half of all housing in the Soviet Union was without running water or sewerage, and living space per person was only about half that available in Western Europe.
But perhaps the most telling single fact revealing the economic bankruptcy of Soviet Communism, was the spectacular failure of its inefficient and unproductive collectivized agricultural sector. Despite only representing about 3% of the total agricultural area of the Soviet Union, the tiny private holdings cultivated in their spare time by Soviet collective farmers provided one-third of the country’s total agricultural output.
The Inherent Flaws and Weaknesses of the Marxist Model
Far from Soviet Communism never having “had the chance to develop” because of interference from the West, as Fiona Lali believes, the endemic economic failure and oppressive character of the Soviet Union flowed inevitably from its Marxist model of economic and social development. A society in which the State owns and controls every sector of the economy, and is the sole landlord, employer, doctor, educator, and welfare provider, cannot fail to be destructive of freedom, personal incentives, creativity, and entrepreneurship, while monopolistic government central planning, reflecting the limited knowledge and political priorities of the ruling bureaucracy, inevitably stifles innovation and technical progress. That is why the negative experience of Soviet Communism was repeated in every other Communist revolution and country during the last century.
Given these truths, the idea that Western interference hindered the outworking and therefore the success of the Communist experiment in the Soviet Union, is absurd. As will be shown below, the exact opposite was the case. In one form or another, Western capital, "know-how" and technology actually pulled Soviet Communism’s chestnuts out of the fire in nearly every decade of the Soviet Union’s existence, principally by compensating it for its above-mentioned systemic inability to generate significant levels of indigenous technological innovation.
While there was nothing inherently lacking in the quality of Soviet scientific research, the limitations of central planning, and the absence of market mechanisms and incentives, prevented the systematic testing of the fruits of research against competing alternatives. Instead of allowing the dispersed knowledge, opinions and talents of millions of individuals, freely co-operating in the market place, to determine the success or failure of new ideas and discoveries, nearly all economic activity in the Soviet Union was narrowly constrained within the developmental straitjacket imposed by its all powerful Communist rulers; hence the need to import skilled personnel, know-how and technology from the freer and more dynamic societies of Western Europe and North America. And this need, moreover, was all the greater, given the entrepreneurial and skills gap created by the physical liquidation of so many of pre-revolutionary Russia’s most productive and educated citizens, and by the ‘brain drain’ of all those who, by fleeing abroad, managed to escape imprisonment and execution at the hands of Lenin’s killer squads and secret police.
Dr. Anthony Sutton’s Pioneering Study
The incredible but little known story of the manner and extent to which Western Capitalism came to the rescue of Soviet Communism, was told in abundant and fascinating detail half a century ago, by American scholar, Dr Anthony Sutton, a former Research Fellow of the prestigious Hoover Institution in California, in his massive three-volume study, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965.
The key finding of this exhaustively documented historical survey, based on literally hundreds of official and unofficial Western and Soviet sources, and abounding in statistical charts, tables, footnotes and appendices, was that 90% of all Soviet technology was of Western origin.
To explain this finding in more detail, Dr Sutton examined 75 major technological processes in such crucial and diverse sectors as mining, oil, chemicals, machine building, aircraft, communications, agricultural equipment, etc, and estimated the percentage that originated in Russia. The startling results were: between 1917 and 1930, 0%; between 1930 and 1945, only 10%; and between 1945 and 1965, a mere 11%.
While there were some indigenous Soviet advances between 1930 and 1945 in the development of machine guns (!), synthetic rubber, oil drilling techniques and boilers, such advances were temporary and later abandoned in favor of foreign designs and processes. Between 1946 and 1965 most of the progress of Soviet innovation depended on the ‘scaling up’ of existing plants and technologies imported and copied from the West. This was particularly the case in iron and steel making, electricity generation and rocket technology.
Famous Western Companies Flocked to the Soviet Union
Western capitalism’s breast-feeding of Soviet Communism began in the 1920s, during the period of Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’, when more than 350 foreign concessions were employed within all sections of the Russian economy except furniture and fittings. Among the foreign firms that flocked to the Soviet Union with their technicians, machinery and capital were famous names like General Electric, Westinghouse, Singer, Du Pont, Ford, Standard Oil, Siemens, International Harvester, Alcoa, Singer, Krupp, Otto Wolf, and many others, including important British, French, Swedish, Danish and Austrian companies. And their beneficial impact on the Soviet economy was dramatic.
Thus, for example, by the end of the 1920s, 80% of Soviet oil drilling was conducted by the American rotary technique and all refineries were built by foreign corporations. As a result of this transfusion of Western capital and expertise, there was a recovery of Soviet production from almost zero in 1922, in the wake of the civil war provoked by the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917, to pre-First World War figures in 1928.
The same pattern carried over into the decade and a half of 1930 to 1945. During these years, the huge industrial plants built for the machine-tool, automobile, aircraft and tube mill industries, were erected by foreign companies, and 300,000 high-quality foreign machine-tools were imported between 1929 and 1940. Throughout the Second World War, moreover, the Soviets (despite their previous treachery in cementing the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact) received $11 billion of resources and equipment from the United States under Lend-Lease.
The defeat of Hitler subsequently enabled the Soviet Union to plunder Eastern Europe for her post-war needs. Two-thirds of the German aircraft industry, the major part of her rocket production industry, about two-thirds of her electrical industry, and tons of military equipment were seized by Stalin. The German rocket installations acquired by the Russians, moreover, included the huge underground V-2 plant at Nordhausen, and laid the foundation of the Soviet "Sputnik" program – so even the much heralded Soviet space effort owed much of its success to the forcible acquisition of Western technology. As an added bonus of the Allied occupation of Germany, the Russians received 95% of the plants dismantled in the American zone, including such strategic goodies as aircraft plants, ball-bearing facilities and munition plants.
The technological breast-feeding of Soviet Communism by Western capitalism continued even during the period of the Cold War. From 1959 to 1963, for example, the Soviet Union bought at least 50 complete chemical plants for chemicals not previously produced in the Soviet Union, and Soviet imports increased ten-fold between 1946 and 1966 – from 692 million roubles to 7,122 million. In addition to all this, two-thirds of the Soviet merchant fleet had been constructed in the West by 1967.
The evidence, then, is overwhelming. Soviet Communism did not fail because it wasn’t given enough time to pursue its totalitarian and murderous objectives free of "Western interference." It failed precisely because of those objectives, and despite repeated infusions of Western capital, know-how, and technology, spanning at least five decades.
The Final Verdict of Alexander Solzhenitsyn
As always, the central truth of the matter was stated most lucidly and clearly by Russia’s greatest 20th century writer and dissident, the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in a speech in 1975 to American trade unionists:
The Soviet economy has an extremely low level of efficiency…It cannot deal with every problem at once: war, space (which is part of the war effort), heavy industry, light industry, and at the same time the necessity to feed its own population. The forces of the entire Soviet economy are concentrated on war…everything which is lacking…they get from you. So indirectly you are helping them to rearm. You are helping the Soviet police state.
Let those embracing Marxism in our colleges and universities ponder these things and ask themselves whether the cause they are now embracing is truly worthy of their energy and idealism.
Reprinted from the Cobden Centre.
Philip Vander Elst is a freelance writer, lecturer and C.S. Lewis scholar. After graduating from Oxford in 1973, with a degree in politics and philosophy, he spent more than 30 years in politics and journalism, serving in free market think-tanks like the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기