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

문재인 정권이 만든 정체불명 新造語

펀드빌더(조갑제닷컴 회원)

¶소득주도 성장 
  
  →'세금주도 성장'(보다 정확한 표현) 
  
   
  
  ¶민족 경제 
  
  →'북한 퍼주기 경제' 
  
   
  
  ¶사람중심 경제 
  
  →'민노총 중심 경제' 
  
   
  
  ¶포용적 성장 
  
  →'있는 자 것 빼앗아 나누는 성장' 
  
 -----------------------------------------------------

'합법적 혁명-內戰'에 대한 자유민주 진영의 정당방어는?

지금은 저들의 총동원령-총궐기 발동시기다. 내일이면 늦으리. 사실상의 내전이 저들에 의해 도발되었다

류근일

 근래의 정세를 어떻게 읽어야 할 것인가? 근래의 정세란 이런 것들이다. 트럼프 대통령 행정부는 북한의 FFVD를 먼저 하라고 요구했고 김정은은 제재완화를 먼저 하라고 요구했다. 그래서 미-북 회담은은 교착상태에 빠졌다. 미국은 시간에 구애받지 않으면서 그게 얼마가 걸리든 대북제재만은 더 확실하고 단호하게 밀고나갈 것임을 분명히 했다. 
  
  여가서 속타는 것은 김정은이고 그 다음 속타는 인사는 문재인 대통령일 것이다. 김정은은 우선 돈이 궁해서 죽을 지경일 것이다. 그의 사금고가 비면 간부들을 매수할 자금이 떨어진다. 이건 정권의 존립과 김정은의 리더십이 왔다갔다 할 치명적인 약점이 될 것이다.
  
  그런 김정은은 문재인 대통령에게 “아 왜 당신 중재노력이 이렇게 꽝이나?”며 실망할 게 뻔하다. “날보곤 다 된다고 큰소리치더니 되긴 뭐가 돼?“ 반면에 트럼프 미국 대통령도 문제인 대통령에게 ”저 사람이 북한 비핵화 의지 확실하다고 해서 미-북 정상회담 시작했는데 그게 아니잖아?“라고 탓할지 모른다. 
  
  이런 상황에서 혁명운동 측으로서는 출구를 어디서 찾으려 할 것인가? 이애 대해 노재봉 전 국무총리는 어느 자유진영 집회에서 이렇게 설파했다. ”남한에서 찾으려 할 것이다“ 무슨 말인가? 한 마디로, 한국 내부에서 ‘촛불혁명’ 제2막, 3막, 4막, 5막이 터져 나옴으로써 남-북의 혁명적 접근과 접속을 이루려는 전술이다. 
  
  반미(反美) 운동, 한-미 동맹에 맞서는 '우리민족끼리 혁명', 가진 자의 재산에 대한 합법적 박탈조치(막대한 세금부과 등), 상속세 통한 대기업 사회환원(승계 저지), 태영호 전 북한 공사에 대한 협박 등 우익인사의 반김정일 활동 저지, 반북-반공 활동 불법회 요구, 대북제재 완화하라는 청와대 앞 시위 같은 게 그런 전술의 일단일 수 있다.
  
  ‘백두 수호대’ ‘백두칭송 위워회’ 대학생 꽃물결‘ 운운 하는 단체들이 전국조직을 하려는 움직임도 있다. ”공산당이 좋아요“라는 말도 나왔다. 공산당 찬양은 처음 나온 것으로, 결국은 극좌가 얼굴을 내민 것이다. 민중공동행동이란 행동대가 국회를 포위한다고도 했다. 혁명의 결정적 단계인 물리적 위력에 의한 제압, 즉 비합법 투쟁의 워밍 업인 셈이다.
  
  촛불혁명이 더 급진화하고 있는 징후는 이미 여러 분야에서 목격된 바 있다. 공영방송의 노영(勞營)방송화, 사법부의 운동권 마당 화(化), 민노총의 폭력, 법치파괴, 공권력의 정권앞잡이 화, 대기업 목줄 죄기, 규제강화, 세금 압박, 경기 위축…이런 현상들은 모두가 기성체제를 때려 부수는 혁명작업의 일환들이다.
  
  노재봉 전 총리는 그래서 ”경제가 나빠지면 문재인 정부가 난처해질 것이라고 말하지만 그게 아니다. 한국경제가 나빠지게 하자는 게 촛불혁명 세력의 의지이고 목적이라고 봐야 한다“고 했다. 그렇다. 때려 부수는 게 혁명이다. 그런 입장에선 대한민국의 강한 군사안보 세력과 강한 시장 세력을 없이해야만 한다. 운동권의 ‘민족해방 민중민주주의 혁명’은 그래서 지금 착실하게 진척되고 있다는 것이다.
  
  오늘의 정세를 이런 각도에서 규정할 때라야 비로소 ”대한민국 자유진영은 무엇을 할 것인가?“의 정답이 나온다. 무엇을 할 때인가? 우선 단체는 각자 따로 하더라도, 그리고 노선은 조금씩 다 달라도, ‘북한과 남한 운동권의 합작’에 반대하는 전선에서는 자유진영 단체들이 공동의 구호를 중심으로 같은 싸움을 해야 할 것이라 생각된다. 단체들 사이에 공동전투를 위한 연락망과 창구를 열어두면 되는 것이다. 이조차 ”저런 X하곤 못한다“고 한다면 싸움은 이미 진 것 아닐까? 
  
  지금 시간이 별로 남지 않았다. 운둥권은 이번 집권기간에 웬만한 혁명 사업은 다 해치우려 하고 있다고 보면 틀림이 없다. ”겨우 집권했다가 이명박근혜 정권으로 넘어간 탓에 우리 혁명이 얼마나 도루묵이 되었는가? 두 번 다시 그런 일 없게끔 연내에 되돌릴 수 없는 지점까지 가야 한다“는 게 저들의 속셈이다. 이 계획은 지금 미-북 회담 교착, 대북제재 강화. 북한 인권문제 부상(浮上) 등으로 주춤해 있다. 문재인 정권은 그래서 연내 김정은 서울 방문과 종전선언에 더욱 목을 매왔다. 
  
  자, 이런 지점에 선 시국이 장차 어디로 흐를 것인가? 대한민국 자유진영에게 썩 이롭지는 않은 증후들이다. 문재인 대통령의 지지도는 40%대로 떨어졌지만 자유진영과 원내 보수정파들의 전투태세와 대국민 호소력이 아직도 미약한 때문인지, 그 떨어진 지지표가 자유진영 쪽으로 왕창 넘어오진 않고 있다.
  
  광화문 광장에서 ‘위인방문 환영단’이 버젓이 날뛰고 그것을 공권력이 잡아가지도 않는 망국 전야(前夜)에 임해서도 대한민국 진영이 만약 21세기 판(版) 4색 당쟁에 묻혀 반(反)전체주의 공동투쟁마저 하지 못한다면 후세의 역사가 이를 어떻게 기술할 것인지를 곰곰 새겨봐야 할 것이다.
  
  지금은 저들의 총동원령-총궐기 발동시기다. 내일이면 늦으리. 사실상의 내전이 저들에 의해 도발되었다. 이 내전적 공격에 정면으로 맞서는 자유민주 진영의 정당방위-즉 반격 전선이 편성돼야 한다. 자유민주 인사들에게 그럴 인식과 용의와 실력이 있을까? 
  
  류근일 2018/11/30

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

장례식장에서 우리는 고인의 삶을 추념하기보다, 우리의 

손실을 슬퍼해야 한다.

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

도덕적인 사람이 되려면 모든 세세한 행동까지도 지겨울만큼 도덕적이어야 한다. 

하지만 명예로운 사람은 단지 생명이나 경력, 명예 따위를 대의를 위해 걸거나 약속을 지키기만 하면 된다. 
------------------------------------------------

움베르토 에코의 서재
----------------------------------------------------

Let's Defend Capitalism

 

Henry Hazlitt

 

The World is locked today in a fierce war of ideologies, in some ways strangely resembling the wars of religion in the Middle Ages. The doctrinal points at issue in those wars have become unintelligible to most of us today, and there are some equally strange paradoxes in the present ideological war.

 

The Communists, who started it, not only know precisely what they are against — Capitalism — but precisely what they are for. On both questions the party line is laid down for them from the top. There can be no deviation, on pain of ostracism, penal servitude, torture, or death. But on the other side, most of those who do not accept Communism did not realize, until belatedly, that there even was an ideological war going on; and that no appeasement, no conciliation, no mutual attitude of live-and-let-live, was possible, because the Communists were determined from the start not to permit it. The non-Communists had no idea that they were engaged in a life-or-death struggle.

 

But this brings us to other paradoxes. The non-Communists are still not even united as anti-Communists. For there is still an influential group who say: "True, we should not allow the Russians to impose Communism on us, but neither should we try to impose our system on the Russians. Capitalism (or Democracy) is probably the best system for us, and Communism for them. If we stop arming against the Communists and talking against them, their suspicions will gradually dissolve, and each of us can live peaceably in his own way." This view persists, in spite of its untenability, mainly because it is a wish-fulfillment.

 

Disunited Anti-communists

Moreover, even the anti-Communists are not united. They are all "against Communism." But they have no common definition or concept of Communism. Few of them realize that Communism is primarily an economic doctrine. Most of them regard it primarily as a political or a cultural system. What they hate about it is the despotism, the total suppression of freedom — political, religious, or artistic; the cruelties, the forced confessions, the systematic lying, spying, and plotting, the relentless campaigns of calumny, the existence or threat of military aggression.

 

All these things are indeed hateful. But what most anti-Communists still fail to see is that they are merely the inevitable consequences of the basic economic doctrine of Communism. These are what Karl Marx, writing of Capitalism, would have called the "superstructure."

 

The anti-Communists are also deeply divided in their ideas of the economic system they would prefer to Communism. They range from champions of the free market to left-wing Socialists, with every variety of New Dealer, planner, and statist in between. The New Dealers seem as eager to repudiate "laissez faire Capitalism" as they do Communism. And when it comes to the basic economic organization they propose, the Socialists are actually at one with the Communists against Capitalism.

 

These violent divisions within the ranks of the anti-Communists have led to conflicting ideas concerning the proper "strategy" against Communism. There are those who think that "anti-Communism" is itself a sufficient ground for unity. Communism, they say, is not a doctrine that needs to be dissected, but a conspiracy that needs to be suppressed. What we must do is to ferret out the Communists — in the government, in the armed forces, in the U.N., in the schools and colleges — expose them and get rid of them. Anything else, they contend, is either unimportant or a diversion.

 

Is "Democracy" Enough?

There is another group that is not satisfied merely with being against Communism, which concedes that the opponents of Communism must have a common positive philosophy, but which thinks that belief in "Democracy" is enough. This has been substantially the position of the State Department and the Voice of America under Truman. It is the position of the major part of the American press.

 

What Is Democracy?

It does not stand up under serious analysis. "Democracy" is one of those sweepingly vague words that mean too many things to different minds. It can be stretched or compressed, like an accordion, to meet the controversial needs of the moment. "Democracy" as a unifying concept has come to be, in fact, little better than a semantic evasion. To some it means a political system under which the government depends upon the uncoerced will of the people in such a way that it can be peaceably changed whenever the will of the people changes. To others it means anything down to a system of unrestrained mob rule in which everyone is declared by fiat to be equal in merit and influence to everyone else; in which a minority has no rights that a majority is bound to respect; in which anyone's property can be confiscated at will, and distributed to those who did nothing to earn it; in which incomes are to be equalized in spite of glaring inequalities in ability, effort, and contribution. This second concept of Democracy must lead inevitably into a Communist system and not toward a free one.

 

"Democracy," therefore, has not only come to be so vague as to be almost meaningless; it has lost nearly all its value even as a semantic weapon. The enemy has taken it over and used it for his own purposes. The Communists call their own system (tautologically but beguilingly) a "people's democracy," and argue that capitalist democracy is a contradiction in terms.

 

Even if the concept of "Democracy" did not suffer from a fatal ambiguity, it would still refer primarily to a political system. But Communism stands primarily for an economic system, of which the political accompaniment is mainly a consequent or superstructure. Therefore "Democracy" is in any case a false antithesis to Communism. It is like declaring west to be the opposite of north, or cold to be the opposite of black.

 

Communism vs. Capitalism

The true opposite of Communism is Capitalism. The Communists know it, but most of the rest of us don't.

 

This is the real reason for the ideological weakness of the opposition to Communism, and for the ineffectiveness of most of the propaganda against it — particularly the official propaganda, up to now, of the State Department and the Voice of America, and of the Western governments generally. All these set up "Democracy" as the antithesis of Communism, partly because they are confused enough to believe it is, and partly because they have neither the will nor the courage to defend Capitalism.

 

There are several reasons behind this reluctance. To begin with, the very word "Capitalism" was coined and given currency by Marx and Engels. It was deliberately devised as a smear word. It was meant to suggest what it probably still does suggest to most minds — a system developed by and for the capitalists.

 

The overwhelming majority of bureaucrats in the Western countries do not really believe in the basic principles of Capitalism. The economic freedom it involves is alien to their minds. It is not natural for the people in power in government to believe in less governmental power. Moreover, they do not really understand what makes Capitalism work, or what measures are conformable with it. Their natural tendency is to favor the incompatible system of the government handout. Hence they plump for huge foreign aid programs, Point Four, the International Monetary Fund, and interminable United Nations meddling. They do not realize that these measures and institutions actually retard or prevent the freedom of trade and the free international flow of private investment upon which real recovery, economic growth and productivity depend.

 

Finally, even when an American official understands and favors Capitalism, he is embarrassed by the fact that several of our most important European allies are addicted to Socialism. Therefore he does not dare to praise Capitalism in specific terms for fear of offending our Socialist allies by implication. The real case against Communism hardly even gets itself officially stated.

 

What Freedom Does

It is in large part because of the connotations built into the smear word "Capitalism" that, while millions are willing to die for Communist delusions, nobody has been willing to die for Capitalism — certainly not under that name. But Capitalism is merely the Marxist epithet for the system of the free market, for competitive private enterprise, for the system under which each is permitted to earn and keep the product of his labor — in brief, for economic freedom.

 

It is because of its freedoms and securities that Capitalism is incomparably the most productive system in the world. It does not have to "prove" its superiority to Socialism or Communism. It has already proved that a thousand times over, whether the standard of comparison is productivity or personal freedom. Capitalism is not the best system because it is best for the employer or for the rich. It is the best system precisely for the worker and for the poor. Under it the status, wages, and welfare of the worker have improved historically at a rate and to an extent that before the Industrial Revolution would have been considered incredible. They are still improving, at, if anything, an accelerative rate.

 

The answer to Communism, in brief, is Capitalism. And once we understand this, the problems of "ideological strategy" which we have been confusedly debating begin to melt away. We do not have to discuss whether we have been "merely talking to ourselves" or not. The very question is based on a false analogy — the analogy of the lawsuit, of "our side" versus "their side." This analogy unconsciously swallows the Marxist theory of a real clash of interest between economic "classes" — employers versus workers or rich versus poor. But once we recognize that the system of Capitalism is the only workable one, the only one that promotes the interest of both employers and workers, while it provides the maximum of opportunity for the poor to conquer their poverty, then the real distinction is between those who understand the system and those who do not. A man who is known to understand a problem is never merely talking to himself; all those who sincerely wish to understand it can be counted on to listen.

 

Another problem which melts away is whether we should confine ourselves to combating Communism, because it is a conspiracy and a military menace, or whether we can disregard Communism, on the ground that it has been sufficiently exposed, and concentrate on combating socialist measures because there is so much more real likelihood of their being adopted at home.

 

The solution is simple. There is only one right answer to the sum of 2 and 2, and an infinite number of wrong answers. Once we have shown that 2 and 2 make 4, we do not have to provide separate proof that every other answer is wrong. Communism is just one wrong answer to the basic social problem — though the worst and most dangerous. Socialism (which proposes the same basic economic measures as Communism) is merely another wrong answer, in the long run only a little less bad and a little less dangerous. "Planning," price control, inflation, Keynesianism, are still other wrong answers. As in arithmetic, there are an infinite number of such wrong answers. But once we have found the right answer, we can explain what is wrong with the other solutions from that basis.

 

In the social and economic realm, we must base our criticisms on a positive program. That program is the improvement and purification of Capitalism.

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

샌프란시스코의 부유한 좌파들이 무주택자들의 상황을

악화시키고 있다.

San Francisco's Wealthy Leftists Are Making Homelessness Worse

 

Gregory Morin

 

I recently had the opportunity to visit San Francisco for the first time. Coastal towns tend to be a bit more interesting in terms of cuisine (seafood being one of the more varied palate options) as well as architecture (steep hill structures are ever a testament to human ingenuity) and San Francisco scores high in both categories. However one area where it currently scores quite low is in the aroma zone. At first I thought perhaps they had a very inefficient sewer system near the shoreline retail sector, but as we explored deeper toward the city center it became clear something was amiss. I learned shortly thereafter that San Francisco has a poop crisis. To be blunt — people are literally crapping on the sidewalks. Not the tourists, mind you, but the local homeless population. The situation has come to a head (or to the head to employ a nautical metaphor) primarily as a result of progressive conservatism primed with the power of centralized (governmental) authority.

 

The outside leftist narrative of course is that this poop crisis is inevitable results of unmitigated capitalism, which drives the eternal boogeyman of income inequality. This inequality fuels gentrification of the San Francisco housing market (no, actually property taxes are the prime driver of gentrification — if you own your home absent property tax you would never need to sell due to rising prices). So as housing becomes ever more “unaffordable” people are forced out of their homes and onto the street. This is of course complete nonsense. Prices only go up if supply is constrained while demand is rising. So in order to discover why supply is constrained we turn our attention toward the “inside” leftists (that is, the progressive liberals who live there). It turns out those that live there are in fact quite conservative (even if they don’t realize it). Any attempted new housing project must pass not only governmental hurdles but also the “local input” of current residents. These residents walk and talk like social progressives but because one of their core tenets is that they do not want the flavor, character, or architecture of the area in which they live to change — that is, they want to conserve it in perpetuity — this by definition makes them conservatives in that arena. Their dual desire to not only keep San Francisco locked in an eternal snow globe style stasis but to also not erode the value of their homes drives them to engage in this very destructive economic protectionism: keeping newcomers out by making it virtually impossible (or more costly than necessary) to build, keeps the value of their own homes artificially elevated while preserving the Norman Rockwell character of their town.

 

To fully appreciate the extent of the damage they are causing and why perhaps more than anywhere else in the country the homeless problem is so acute is that the median price of a modest single family home now stands at $1.6 million. A family of four with a household income of $100k is considered at the poverty line and actually qualifies for assistance from HUD (let that sink in — taxpayers across the country are subsidizing the housing of people making a $100k/year).

 

So what is the solution? Always the same and likewise always decried as “unrealistic” — remove all housing regulations and obstacles and let anyone build anything anywhere (works just fine in Houston, Texas, thank you very much). Your neighbor has no right to say what you can do with your property. Progressives (yes, I’m looking at you “townies” in Athens, Georgia) should stop blocking progress when it comes to housing and development.

 

Gregory Morin is CEO of Seachem Laboratories, Inc., in Madison, Georgia. He holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Notre Dame, and has over 16 years experience working at the intersection of the entrepreneurship/business world and the regulatory world.

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