체코주재 북한무역 대표를 지낸 뒤 한국에 망명한 탈북자 김태산 씨는  청와대가 최근 국회 주요 인사 및 경제인을 문재인 대통령의 방북에 초청한 것과 관련해 의미심장한 조언을 했다.

“지난날 햇볕정부 10년 시절에 많은 남한의 정치가들과 경제가들 그리고 언론인들과 종교인들이 무슨 큰일이라도 칠 것처럼 쭐렁거리며 북한을 다녀왔다”며

 “그런데 이상하게도 북한을 다녀온 거의 모두가

 북한을 다녀와서는 찍소리도 못하고

지금도 북한의 개처럼 살아가는 인간들을 우리는 적지 않게 보고 있다”

김 씨는 그러면서 “남한의 정치가들과 경제인들 특히 언론인들과 종교인들도 자신들의 남은 인생을 마음고생하지 않고 편하게 살아 갈 것을 원한다면 불필요한 북한 방문이나 접촉은 피하는 것이 상책(上策)임을 경험자로서 충고해주는 바이다”라며 글을 맺었다.

[출처] 김태산 "靑의 방북초청, 김정은과 짜고치는 무서운 올가미"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

출처: 일베

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

문재인 대통령이 추진하는 북한과의 ‘종전선언’에 관한 몇 가지 질문들

이동복

 설혹 ‘종전선언’의 문면(文面)에 “미군 철수”라는 어휘(語彙)를 직접 박아 넣지 않더라도, 일단 문제의 '종전선언‘이 만들어져서 공표된 뒤, 김정은의 북한이 “조선반도에서 이제 전쟁이 완전하게 종결된 이상 미군이 더 이상 남쪽 땅에 계속 주둔하고 미국과 남한 사이에 북한을 적대시(敵對視)하는 동맹관계가 존속될 이유가 무엇이냐”는 주장을 들고 나오고 한국 내에서는 문재인 정권을 장악하고 있는 종북 주사파 세력의 사주(使嗾) 아래 ’진보‘의 위장복(僞裝服)을 입은 좌파 세력들이 다시 ’촛불‘을 켜들고 거리로 떼 지어 나와서 “옳소”하고 북한의 주장을 편들고 나설 경우 이 나라를 무대(舞臺)로 하여 1973년1월17일의   ’파리평화협정‘과 1975년4월30일의 월맹군에 의한 사이공 점령 사이에 월남에서 전개되었던 비극적 사태가 재연(再演)되지 않으리라는 보장을 과연 문재인 씨가 할 수 있는 것인지 필자는 묻지 않을 수 없다. (발췌)

-------------------------------------------------------

대한민국을 보자.

헌법이 무너졌고

법치가 무너졌고 

대한민국의 건국일도 이승만 초대 대통령과 함께 부정당했지.

입법

사법 

행정 3권이 모두 넘어갔으며

3권이 넘어갔으니 군경은 말할 것도 없고 

제 4의 권력 언론은 이미 넘어간지 오래고 

교육도 넘어갔고 

문화예술계도 넘어갔고 

아니 적화 안된 것이 뭐가 있냐?

있으면 말을 해봐.

이미 적화는 완료됐고 

남은 것은 개정은이가 공식적으로 남한을 삼키는 일만 남은거야.

이미 '김정은이 밑에서도 살만 하겠드만'이라고 말하는 사람 많잖아.

미국이 북괴를 무력으로 쳐바르지 않는 이상 

이 나라 개돼지들의 자력으로는 절대로 이 흐름을 바꿀 수가 없어.

정말로 이 나라를 구하려면 

자력으로 뭘 하려고 뻘짓들 하지 말고 

시야를 넓게 가지고 동맹국들과 함께 하는 방법을 찾아야 하는거야.

대한민국을 지키는 문제는 이미 떠나버렸고 

대한민국을 되찾아 회복하는 싸움을 해야 할 때야.

[출처] 이미 적화 됐는데 무슨 적화된다는 소리를
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008년의 금융위기로부터 10년이 지났지만, 금융 시스템은 10년 전보다 그리 안정되어 있지 않다. 금융권은 부채를 줄였고 가계들도 안정을 찾았지만, 정부 부채와 기업들의 부채는 증가했다. 전체 부채는 2008년 지디피의 280%에서 320%로 급증했다.  베를린 장벽의 붕괴로 정치적 역사가 끝나지 않았듯이, 금융의 역사도 아직 끝나지 않았다. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over protected and under challenged - our students have turned their backs on the Enlightenment

daniel hannan

--------------------------------------------------------------------

My least favourite phrase in politics: "Doing nothing is not an option". Doing nothing is always an option. Often, it is the best option. ---daniel hannan

아무 조치도 취하지 않는 것은 언제나 하나의 선택이었다. 종종 그것은 최선의 선택이기도 하다.

---> 정부 관료나 정치인들은 아무 것도 하지 않는 게 국민을 도와주는 것이다. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

아이들에게 그들의 열정을 찾으라고 말하지 말라. 열정은 마술처럼 찾아지는 게 아니라, 일에 의해 개발되는 것이다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

America Desperately Needs a Healthy Conservatism

By Andrew Sullivan

The book is called Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition, and it’s by arguably the most acute conservative thinker of his generation, Roger Scruton. It’s a slim, concise monograph, and it begins with the truth that conservatism is a branch of liberalism, and not its enemy. It is the branch that tries to conserve the liberal democratic state against the corrosive effects and flaws of liberalism itself (not to speak of leftism and reactionism, which seek to overthrow liberalism entirely). More to the point, it does not defend liberalism as a function of natural rights, or of human rights, or self-evident truths, but simply as the inheritance of a particular place in a particular sliver of human history: the Anglo-American world in the last two and a half centuries.

Conservatism defends the individual against the state as an evolving tradition born in the English common law from the 12th century onward, a tradition that came to be embedded in the American justice system. What distinguished the American Revolution, conservatives argue, was that it was rooted in a defense of the rights of Englishmen against a monarch’s whims, as much as a novus ordo seclorum. It was not only a liberal revolution, but also a conservative one, seeking to defend a preexisting state of affairs, and buttressing a new egalitarianism with deep conservative safeguards against majoritarianism, mob rule, and direct democracy. The alternative type of revolution — the one that took place in France — was based on a complete erasure of what had gone before, a rupture in time and culture and regime, and one that led, as all such ruptures must, to murderous tyranny. When all tradition and inherited institutions and norms are abolished, there is only raw power to occupy the vacuum.

Conservatism began then as a defense of America and a critique of France — which is the essence of Edmund Burke’s formative argument. He saw the advent of democracy as a challenge — which demanded acute attention as hierarchies collapsed, and society changed, in order to ensure that too much of value wasn’t thrown away. And so it emphasized the importance of a vibrant and autonomous civil society (independent of government), the centrality of federalism, local community, and voluntary association of the kind that Tocqueville marveled at and saw as the indispensable complement to the atomizing, destabilizing forces that America had also unleashed.

Conservatism’s defense of the free market and free trade was therefore never absolute. In fact, there’s more protectionism in conservatism’s past than many would like to admit. But these market mechanisms were nonetheless the least worst way to discern the value of things traded and sold, and were never supposed to be ends in themselves or to be advanced regardless of the impact on society. In fact, for conservatism, society is for no end and no purpose; it is valuable simply in itself, as the combination of traditions, landscapes, communities, and customs that define a nation, bind us together as citizens, and make us feel at home.

And yes, that feeling of being at home is nebulous. It is in many ways sub-rational. Ask ordinary people to describe it and they will often not be articulate. Sometimes, it manifests itself as bigotry, yes. Most of the time, it is about loss, and mourning it, while understanding that change is inevitable. Burke famously saw society not as a contract between individuals, but as a contract between generations: to pass on to the future the good and viable things we inherited from the past. This emphatically does not mean resistance to all change. In fact, it understands some change as critical to conservation. And perhaps that’s where American conservatism began to go wrong. The goal is not to stand athwart history and cry “Stop!”, as William F. Buckley put it. It’s to be part of the stream of history and say: slow it down a bit, will you?

In Scruton’s account, the list of conservative intellectuals is long and distinguished. The respective geniuses of Burke and Hume and Hegel are integral to its formation; they were succeeded by the Romantic era that urged a corrective to mass industrialization, and a hedge to the Enlightenment’s preference for theoretical reason over the practical wisdom that works, as Adam Smith saw it, as an invisible hand in guiding society. Tradition, conservatives believe, is a form of collective knowledge. It can contain wisdom that reason simply cannot grasp.

As a temperament, conservatives are prone to obey as passionately as liberals are prone to rebel. They prefer order to change, stability to upheaval, authority to anarchy. And so a conservative is likely to see, say, the flag as an object of veneration, the Constitution as something to be protected rather than altered, the nation as demanding a loyalty before all other claims, especially those of ideology, tribe, gender, or race. The conservative immediately saw why Fascism and Communism were evil; they were intent on obliterating settled ways of life, destroying the individual in favor of a collective, empowering the state so that it destroyed the civil society that made liberalism thrive. No conservative ever wants to purify anything. It’s the human mess that we love, with its intimations of how to improve it.

And so conservatism became the resistance to socialism, to government planning, and to the abuse of the English language so that it could be forced to reflect an ideology, rather than a lived reality. (In this sense, Scruton shrewdly notes, Orwell was a conservative.) It saw all too well how the good intentions of liberalism could lead to its unraveling. It abhors war as the ultimate change-maker and disrupter; it despises concepts of race or gender that eradicate the uniqueness of the individual; it defends high culture against philistinism and mediocrity; it cherishes norms. It values the particular over the general, prefers present laughter to utopian bliss, relishes humor in all its forms, defends art as an apolitical force, and respects religion as a separate avenue for the search for ultimate truth, and a critical component of the civil and moral society that enables government to be small and limited. (발췌)

로저 스크루턴의 책 <보수주의>. 읽어볼만한 책 같다.

-------------------------------------------