부산386(조갑제닷컴 회원)
오늘 김진태 의원이 말했다. “드루킹이 킹크랩 시연을 한 시점이 2016년 11월로, 탄핵 이전부터 모든 여론이 조작됐다”
이 말이 진작에 나왔어야 했다고 생각한다. 문재인 지지자들이 조직적으로 사이버 여론조작을 한 시점이 지난 대선부터가 아니라 그보다 훨씬 전인 탄핵 이전으로 거슬러 올라가야 한다는 지적에 절대 공감한다. 다시 말해 박근혜 탄핵 자체가 이미 조직화된 집단에 의한 여론 조작과 괴담 부풀리기의 결과물이란 점을 분명히 한 것이다.
그 이후 반기문, 안철수 등 경쟁후보의 낙마에도 이들의 여론 조작이 결정적인 역할을 했고, 보수 후보인 홍준표 후보를 홍발정 운운하며 이미지를 실추시키는데도 이들이 주도적인 역할을 한 것임을 밝혀 문재인의 정통성을 정면에서 문제삼은 것은 매우 효과적이고 필요한 전략이다. (발췌)
------------------------------------------------------------
4.27 선언 다음날에 나왔던 국민행동본부의 놀라운 성명
완전한 비핵화’는 ‘완전한 사기’로 밝혀졌다!
北核(북핵)의 목적은 대한민국 공산화이다. 주권자의 힘을 모아 반공자유 국가 부정으로 가는 ‘판문점 선언’의 실천을 저지하자!
1. 文정권은 북한이 ‘완전한 비핵화’를 약속할 것이라고 예고하였는데, 판문점 선언문에는 한미동맹 해체, 핵우산 철거 등을 뜻하는 ‘한반도 비핵화’로 둔갑하였다. ‘완전한 사기’이다.
2. ‘북한의 완전한 비핵화’를 확인한 다음에나 논의할 수 있는 종전선언·평화협정·對北(대북)경제지원을 미리 약속한 것은 대한민국 대통령이 약속파기상습범과 손잡고 트럼프 대통령을 압박, 對北제재에 구멍을 내려는 利敵(이적)행위가 아닌가?
3. 북한동포들에게 진실과 자유를 가르쳐주는 對北(대북)확성기 방송과 전단을 금지시킨 행위는 독재자 한 사람만 편하게 해주려는 민족반역행위이자 언론자유를 부정하는 민주파괴이다.
4. 反共(반공)자유국가인 한국이 공산독재의 김정은 정권과 손잡고 이른바 ‘민족자주의 원칙’으로 협력한다는 약속은 대한민국 해체와 연방제 공산통일에 같이 노력하겠다는 의미로 해석할 수밖에 없다. 민족반역집단의 가짜 민족주의 선동에 가세, 국민들의 彼我(피아)분별력을 마비시키려는 逆謀(역모)가 아닌가?
5. 판문점 선언문은 ‘민족적 화해’를 여러 번 다짐하면서도 김일성이 불법 억류한 6만 명의 국군포로, 20만 명의 납북자, 강제수용소 수감자 13만 명의 운명엔 냉담하였다. 인권변호사라는 文대통령의 인권은 김정은만의 인권인가?
6. 왜 또 한국 대통령이 평양을 방문하고 남북연락사무소를 개성에 설치하나? 反인류·전쟁범죄자, 민족반역자, 테러지령자, 反국가단체 수괴에게 불려가는 모습으로 국군을 지휘할 수 있나?
7. 서해 NLL(북방한계선)을 평화수역으로 대체한다고 했는데, 이는 線(선)으로도 막기 어려운 북의 도발을 面(면)으로 확대, 분쟁수역으로 만들고 수도권에 치명적인 헛점을 드러낼 것이 自明(자명)함에도 왜 또 노무현-김정일 야합의 망령을 불러들이려는가?
8. 정권의 핵심에 주사파(김일성주의자) 운동권 출신이 들어 있고 이들이 남북대화를 주도한다는 야당의 비판에 솔직하게 답하라!
9. 건국정신과 국가정체성에 배치되는 판문점 선언이 실천된다면 이는 헌법 제3조(영토조항), 4조(통일조항), 66조 및 69조(대통령의 책무는 헌법수호와 국가보위 및 자유통일 추진)를 위반하고 형법의 與敵罪(여적죄)에 해당될 수도 있다는 것이 우리의 판단이다.
9. 대한민국 만세, 국군 만세, 자유통일 만세! 뭉치자, 싸우자, 이기자!
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
[朝鮮칼럼 The Column]
손석희 논란, 그 참담함의 본질
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문죄인이 김돼지와 함께 3.1 연방제 선언할 가능성이 있다고 한다.
[구국연설] 충격,3.1 광화문 음모, 북한과 내통, 위장평화 쇼 폭로, 국민모임 [노재성]
허익범특검은 부실하게 수사했다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 팬앤마이크
----------------------------------------------------------------------
중국은 수십년 동안 미국을 돕겠다고 약속했지만, 뒷구멍으로 김씨 돼지들을 도와왔다. 시진핑을 만날 필요는 없다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
중국의 경제는 작년 12월부터 수축하고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
역사의 족쇄에 갇힌 인도.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
더불당은 사기꾼 폭력집단이지 정당이 아니다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 일베
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이성의 성찰을 거친 결과는 형이상학으로 반박할 수 없다. --- 미제스
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
사회를 인간의 행동에 기반해 설명하지 않으면, 남은 건 신비한 어떤 힘에 의해 사회가 움직인다는 결론이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
예일대에서 백인 학생들의 행동을 정치적 올바름에 따라 기록해두는 풍조가 있다고 한다. 기록들은 30년후에 백인의 인생을 망치는데 유용하게 쓰일 거라고 한다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
일부 사람들이 규제 없이 나머지 사람들에게 권력을 휘두르면, 그것이 노예제도이건 사회주의이건 또 어떤 다른 제도이건 권력은 남용되기 마련이다.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Regular minds find similarities in stories (and situations); finer minds detect differences." - @nntaleb
일반인은 이야기나 상황에서 유사함을 발견하지만, 명석한 사람들은 차이를 찾아낸다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know numerous billionaires; I've met many CEOs. Billionaires tend to live as if they were CEOs; CEOs tend to live as if they were billionaires. ---탈레브
최고경영자들은 갑부처럼 살고, 갑부들은 경영자처럼 산다.
------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
더불당은 사기꾼 폭력집단이지 정당이 아니다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
"Regular minds find similarities in stories (and situations); finer minds detect differences." - @nntaleb
일반인은 이야기나 상황에서 유사함을 발견하지만, 명석한 사람들은 차이를 찾아낸다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know numerous billionaires; I've met many CEOs. Billionaires tend to live as if they were CEOs; CEOs tend to live as if they were billionaires. ---탈레브
최고경영자들은 갑부처럼 살고, 갑부들은 경영자처럼 산다.
------------------------------------------
히틀러가 집권에 성공한 이유
히틀러나 무솔리니가 나타나 쇠퇴하는 서구 문명의 구원자를 자처했을 때, 사람들은 그 내용은 보지 않고 그저 새롭다는 말에 그들을 믿어버렸다. 이미 마치 여성들이 변화를 주기 위해 새로운 옷을 선택하는 것과 같았다.
적의 원칙에 계속해서 양보하게 되면 이데올로기 싸움은 질 수 밖에 없다.
오늘날 리버럴이라 불리는 좌파들은 파시즘을 비난하지만, 그들의 정책은 바로 히틀러주의로 가는 방법들이다.
공산주의와 나치즘이라는 두 가지 선택을 앞에 두고, 기업가와 자본가들은 나치즘을 택했다. 그들 역시 사람인지라 스탈린에 의해 부르주아 계급으로 제거되고 싶지는 않았다.
혼란으로 진보해 가는 건 추천할 만한 일이 아니다.
오늘날 우리에게 필요한 건 멍청한 슬로건의 주술에서 깨어나 건전한 이성으로 되돌아가는 일이다.
"Progressive" Attacks on Capitalism Were Key to Hitler's Success
Ludwig von Mises
The following, written in 1940, is excerpted from Interventionism, An Economic Analysis, which was originally part of Nationaloekonomie, the German predecessor to Human Action.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini constantly proclaim that they are chosen by destiny to bring salvation to this world. They claim they are the leaders of the creative youth who fight against their outlived elders. They bring from the East the new culture which is to replace the dying Western civilization. They want to give the coup de grace to liberalism and capitalism; they want to overcome immoral egoism by altruism; they plan to replace the anarchic democracy by order and organization, the society of “classes” by the total state, the market economy by socialism. Their war is not a war for territorial expansion, for loot and hegemony like the imperialistic wars of the past, but a holy crusade for a better world to live in. And they feel certain of their victory because they are convinced that they are borne by “the wave of the future.”
It is a law of nature, they say, that great historic changes cannot take place peacefully or without conflict. It would be petty and stupid, they contend, to overlook the creative quality of their work because of some unpleasantness which the great world revolution must necessarily bring with it. They maintain one should not overlook the glory of the new gospel because of ill-placed pity for Jews and Masons, Poles and Czechs, Finns and Greeks, the decadent English aristocracy and the corrupt French bourgeoisie. Such softness and such blindness for the new standards of morality prove only the decadence of the dying capitalistic pseudo-culture. The whining and crying of impotent old men, they say, is futile; it will not stop the victorious advance of youth. No one can stop the wheel of history, or turn back the clock of time.
The success of this propaganda is overwhelming. People do not consider the content of alleged new gospel; they merely understand that it is new and believe to see in this fact its justification. As women welcome a new style in clothes just to have a change, so the supposedly new style in politics and economics is welcomed. People hasten to exchange their “old” ideas for “new” ones, because they fear to appear old-fashioned and reactionary. They join the chorus decrying the shortcomings of the capitalistic civilization and speak in elated enthusiasm of the achievements of the autocrats. Nothing is today more fashionable than slandering Western civilization.
This mentality has made it easy for Hitler to gain his victories. The Czechs and the Danes capitulated without a fight. Norwegian officers handed over large sections of their country to Hitler’s army. The Dutch and the Belgians gave in after only a short resistance. The French had the audacity to celebrate the destruction of their independence as a “national revival.” It took Hitler five years to effect the Anschluss of Austria; two-and-one-half years later he was master of the European continent.
Hitler does not have a new secret weapon at his disposal. He does not owe his victory to an excellent intelligence service which informs him of the plans of his opponents. Even the much-talked-of “fifth column” was not decisive. He won because the supposed opponents were already quite sympathetic to the ideas for which he stood.
Only those who unconditionally and unrestrictedly consider the market economy as the only workable form of social cooperation are opponents of the totalitarian systems and are capable of fighting them successfully. Those who want socialism intend to bring to their country the system which Russia and Germany enjoy. To favor interventionism means to enter a road which inevitably leads to socialism.
An ideological struggle cannot be fought successfully with constant concessions to the principles of the enemy. Those who refute capitalism because it supposedly is inimical to the interest of the masses, those who proclaim “as a matter of course” that after the victory over Hitler the market economy will have to be replaced by a better system and, therefore, everything should be done now to make the government control of business as complete as possible, are actually fighting for totalitarianism. The “progressives” who today masquerade as “liberals” may rant against “fascism”; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism.
Nothing could have been more helpful to the success of the National-Socialist (Nazi) movement than the methods used by the “progressives,” denouncing Nazism as a party serving the interests of “capital.” The German workers knew this tactic too well to be deceived by it again.
Was it not true that, since the seventies of the last century, the ostensibly pro-labor Social-Democrats had fought all the pro-labor measures of the German government vigorously, calling them “bourgeois” and injurious to the interests of the working class?
The Social-Democrats had consistently voted against the nationalization of the railroads, the municipalization of the public utilities, labor legislation, and compulsory accident, sickness, and old-age insurance, the German social security system which was adopted later throughout the world. Then after the war [World War l] the Communists branded the German Social-Democratic party and the Social-Democratic unions as “traitors to their class.” So the German workers realized that every party wooing them called the competing parties “willing servants of capitalism,” and their allegiance to Nazism would not be shattered by such phrases.
Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.
What pernicious effects may be produced by believing that the German workers are opposed to Hitler was proved by the English tactics during the first year of the war. The government of Neville Chamberlain firmly believed that the war would be brought to an end by a revolution of the German workers. Instead of concentrating on vigorous arming and fighting, they had their planes drop leaflets over Germany telling the German workers that England was not fighting this war against them, but against their oppressor, Hitler. The English government knew very well, they said, that the German people, particularly labor, were against war and were only forced into it by their self-imposed dictator.
The workers in the Anglo-Saxon countries, too, knew that the socialist parties competing for their favor usually accused each other of favoring capitalism. Communists of all shades advance this accusation against socialists. And within the Communist groups the Trotskyites used this same argument against Stalin and his men. And vice versa. The fact that the “progressives” bring the same accusation against Nazism and Fascism will not prevent labor some day from following another gang wearing shirts of a different color.
What is wrong with Western civilization is the accepted habit of judging political parties merely by asking whether they seem new and radical enough, not by analyzing whether they are wise or unwise, or whether they are apt to achieve their aims. Not everything that exists today is reasonable; but this does not mean that everything that does not exist is sensible.
The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is “left” and what is “right”? Why should Hitler be “right” and Stalin, his temporary friend, be “left”? Who is “reactionary” and who is “progressive”? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. “Orthodoxy” is not an evil if the doctrine on which the “orthodox” stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is “nationalist,” those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?
What would have happened to Western civilization if its peoples had always shown such liking for the “new”? Suppose they had welcomed as “the wave of the future” Attila and his Huns, the creed of Mohammed, or the Tartars? They, too, were totalitarian and had military successes to their credit which made the weak hesitate and ready to capitulate. What mankind needs today is liberation from the rule of nonsensical slogans and a return to sound reasoning.
------------------------------------------------------------
좌파들은 왜 당신의 경제학 논쟁에도 불구하고 설복되지 않는가?
반자본주의적인 사람들은 경제학을 진정한 과학이 아니라 기업가를 위한 선전이라고 생각한다.
대부분의 좌파들은 어떤 조직이 하는 경제교육이든 그것은 일반인을 착취하는 데 정당성을 부여하는, 기업을 위한 유사 과학행위라고 보고 있다.
이렇듯 경제학이 선전으로 여겨지고 있고, 반면에 국가의 개입주의는 무비판적으로 받아들이고 있다.
Why the Left Isn't Convinced by Your Economics Arguments
Ryan McMaken
Among advocates for free-market activists, I'm often told that the unconverted will embrace free-markets if only we explain to them "good economics."
But here's the problem — these people don't think economics is a real thing, a real science, or anything other than corporate propaganda. They think it's something invented by wealthy people to create a fake philosophical justification for why they should be allowed to keep their riches.
In other words, they think that your appeals to "economic science" are just a ruse for pushing an ideology invented to keep poor people poor and powerless.
Economics as Corporate Propaganda
But don't take my word for it.
In an essay on "corporate propaganda and global capitalism," Sharon Beder explains how the promotion of "neoclassical orthodoxy" by "neoconservative economists" in the past was little more than a propaganda campaign to convince people that their own interests coincide with those of private businesses. These economic theories have a patina of real scholarship so as to look like:
An elegant body of microeconomic theory [which] shows that under certain circumstances the general good... will be promoted by a set of competitive markets and integration into the world economy.
But really, these theories exist to give "a public-interest rationale to liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation that provided cover for the self-interested motivations of corporations."
This conspiratorial view is likely far more widely held than many economists would like to believe.
In his book Financial Literacy Education: Neoliberalism, the Consumer and the Citizen, Chris Arthur regards "economics education" as little more than a form of social conditioning, and relates how "the expansion of business propaganda" was made possible by organizations like "Junior Achievement founded in 1919 to teach American students the importance of learning to 'work effectively and to become a useful, self-supporting, honorable member of society.'"
Needless to say, Arthur does not quote these selections from Junior Achievement with approval.
Moreover, Arthur contends that organizations like the Joint Council on Economic Education are little more than the propaganda arms of huge corporations like 3M, Verizon, and JPMorgan Chase. The materials produced by these groups are more or less exercises in "capitalist cheerleading" that are "too often the norm" when consumer education texts stray too far into the realm of economic theory.
This isn't to say, of course, that large business interests don't produce materials and marketing campaigns designed to make themselves look good. That happens often enough. But it is important to note that many on the anti-capitalist left make no distinction between serious economics scholarship and organizations that exist to shill for big business.
Certainly, principled economists will be among the first to note that good economic policy is not at all synonymous with what's good for agri-business, banks, or telecom companies. Very often, those interest groups use the power of state regulation and state-sponsored bailouts to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. Ayn Rand's claim that big business is America's "persecuted minority" has always been complete nonsense.
Most leftwing ideologues don't see these distinctions, however. For them, nearly any organization devoted to "economic education" or "economic research" exists primarily to provide a pseudo-intellectual cover for corporations looking for a "scientific" justification for their exploitation of ordinary people.
So, when advocates for markets suggest that people will embrace free markets if only they are presented with "facts, reason, and logic," these people are likely being far too optimistic.
This view of economics as propaganda is then reinforced by the fact that a pro-interventionist view is by far the dominant view in secondary education and in higher education outside economics departments. This view is then accepted more or less uncritically by a sizable portion of the population.
Thus, when confronted with a well-reasoned and logically sound argument against, say, the minimum wage, the listener is simply left mystified that anyone would oppose a regulation that they believe so obviously benefits low-income people. When confronted with this situation, it's not difficult to see why the non-economist would then be left with the impression that the person presenting the "logical" argument — assuming that person is relatively well off — is really just arguing in favor of his own economic interests. A more "humane" person, of course, would want to help poor people by endorsing a minimum wage hike.
This scenario assumes a relatively forgiving listener who happens to have casually adopted the interventionist line.
A less forgiving, more ideological person on the receiving end of an economics spiel will regard arguments against the minimum wage as either the opinions of a devoted egoist with no regard for the less fortunate, or as the ranting of a "useful idiot" who parrots economic views that are good only for the ultra-rich — and which are contrary even to the useful idiot's own interests.
An Anti-Market View of History
In either case, it remains nearly impossible to break through years of anti-capitalism learned both in the classroom and through popular culture. These views are solidified not so much by alternative economic arguments, but by a view of history which re-enforces the view that government intervention is the only viable real-world solution to the perpetual exploitation of the poor by everyone else. We can see this, for example, in the still-dominant view of history through which a great many people associate industrialization and capitalism with filthy children eating scraps on the streets of London during the nineteenth century. It was only when governments intervened to mandate a welfare state that families were saved from deadly child labor and grinding poverty. Similar popular historical lessons also push the view that it was the New Deal which "saved capitalism from the capitalists" and which saved bankrupt farmers from rapacious foreclosing bankers who were driving ordinary people to the brink of starvation. To this day, school children read and believe accounts like Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle, while decades of dystopian films have convinced many that if not for government intervention, we'd all be living in a world like that portrayed in Robocop.
These views of history are wrong, but when confronted with economic theory, the targeted listener attempts to square the theory with what he or she believes to be actual historical experience. Usually, what the listener believes to be real history wins out, and it's then easy to dismiss laissez-faire economic theory as "nice in theory, but it has failed to improve things in real life."
Thus, the only hope in making good economic theory convincing, to someone who is not already sympathetic, lies in two things:
* Convincing the listener it is possible to believe laissez-faire economic theory and still be a reasonably decent and humane person.
* Present a version of history in which markets can be shown to be the most critical factor in actually and empirically improving the lives of ordinary human beings.
Both of these are, of course, time consuming and difficult tasks. Both often involve building personal relationships with people, and having an excellent command of economic history. They involve a lot more than just pummeling people for a few minutes with "facts and logic."
In his writings on presenting "the freedom philosophy" to the unconverted, market-evangelist-extraordinaire Leonard Read often emphasized the need for educating one's self extensively first, and then exercising a lot of patience. The Left has spent many decades putting their ideas into practice through classroom instruction at all levels of education, and by creating and writing songs, books, movies, and a host of other media for communicating their historical and moral views. It remains unclear if many advocates for free markets have much interest in putting a similar amount of effort into promoting their own views.
----------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기