(칼럼] 북한 제8차 당대회의 키워드는 ‘핵무력 적화통일’ 펜앤 2021.01.23 북한, 노동당 제8차 당대회와 열병식서 '핵무력 고도화' '무력 적화통일' 선포 당규약엔 "강력한 국방력으로 조국통일 역사적 위업 앞당길 것" 적시...'무력 전화통일' 공식 천명 그러나 한국의 여야 정치권과 전문가들은 무대응 혹은 '국내용'이라며 진실 외면 / 필자 김태우 ---> 치매 바이든의 친중 정책과 중국의 패권주의, 거기에 삶은 소대가리, 특등 머저리 문죄인의 종북을 생각하면, 북한의 핵무력 적화통일이 헛소리가 아닐 수 있다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 다가오는 END TIME과 '글로벌리즘2.0' || 美國의 시스템을 바꾸는 그들의 '전략과 전술' 김필재 티비 https://youtu.be/QoYUKiCDcdw --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 삼성이 위험하다. 지금 삼성 내부에 무슨 일이 벌어지고 있는가? 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/F4SPWaWtieU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sullivan I want Biden to succeed. I voted for him. I want Republicans to moderate. I want to lower the temperature. But none of that can or will happen if the president fuels the culture war this aggressively, this crudely, and this soon. 이게 미국의 1급 언론인들이 쓰는 글이고 수준이다. 지금 바이든의 당선은 미국의 존망이 걸린 중차대한 사건이다. 그런데 언론인들은 중국의 패권국으로의 부상과 미국의 쇠망은 별로 걱정하지 않는 듯하다. 물론 중국이 다시 살아나면 한국은 '콜래트럴 데미지'(collateral damage)를 입을 수 있다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 세계 평화를 이루는 미제스식 방법 파괴적이고 악마적인 전쟁을 어떻게 제거할 수 있을까? 미제스의 해답은 그의 사회 철학에 기반한다. 자유시장을 통한 사회적 협력은 사람들을 평화적으로 서로서로 연결시킨다는 것이다. 즉 평화로의 길은 완전한 경제적 자유에 있다는 것이다. 공격적인 국가주의는 개입주의와 국가적 계획경제 정책의 필연적인 부산물이다. 조약이나 회담, 또는 국제연명이나 국제연합 같은 관료기구를 믿는 것은 허망하다. 필요한 것은 이념과 경제 정책에서의 근본적인 변화이다. 그리고 그런 근본적 변화를 가져오는 것은 여론의 지지 밖에는 없다. Only Ideological Change Can Make the World a More Peaceful Place David Gordon Those of us who support a noninterventionist foreign policy find in Murray Rothbard’s work an inexhaustible source of facts and arguments. Mises, by contrast, usually doesn’t comment on foreign policy issues. Sometimes he did, but you won’t find in his published writings his views on the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Arab-Israeli conflict. I’d like to suggest, though, that a fundamental theme in his work supports noninterventionism. The theme I have in mind is the evil of war. In an eloquent passage in Human Action, Mises says: How far we are today from the rules of international law developed in the age of limited warfare! Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle. This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization. Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence. Statolatry owes much to the doctrines of Hegel. However, one may pass over many of Hegel's inexcusable faults, for Hegel also coined the phrase “the futility of victory” (die Ohnmacht des Sieges) To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war. If war is destructive and evil, how can we eliminate it? Mises’s answer comes from a basic principle of his social philosophy: social cooperation through the free market allows people to relate to one another peacefully. Because all parties to an economic exchange benefit from it, people from other countries are not our enemies. The way to peace, then, lies in a policy of complete economic freedom. People should be able to trade with each other as they wish, without restriction. Mises says this far better than I can: What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. Such is the essence of the laissez-faire philosophy of Manchester. This sounds simple enough, but an obstacle impedes carrying out this policy fully. Misled by false ideologies, many people think that nations prosper by seizing the resources of other nations. In Mises’s view, the motive behind modern warfare is thus economic. It’s just a tautology to say that war stems from aggressive nationalism; we need to ask what is responsible for that, and the answer lies in false doctrines of what leads to prosperity. There is perfect agreement with regard to the fact that total war is an offshoot of aggressive nationalism. But this is merely circular reasoning. We call aggressive nationalism that ideology which makes for modern total war. Aggressive nationalism is the necessary derivative of the policies of interventionism and national planning. While laissez faire eliminates the causes of international conflict, government interference with business and socialism creates conflicts for which no peaceful solution can be found. While under free trade and freedom of migration no individual is concerned about the territorial size of his country, under the protective measures of economic nationalism nearly every citizen has a substantial interest in these territorial issues. The enlargement of the territory subject to the sovereignty of his own government means material improvement for him or at least relief from restrictions which a foreign government has imposed upon his well-being. What has transformed the limited war between royal armies into total war, the clash between peoples, is not technicalities of military art, but the substitution of the welfare state for the laissez-faire state. Given that so much of the world is in the grip of false ideologies, what can we do? Mises says that the answer does not lie in international organizations or treaties. It is futile to place confidence in treaties, conferences, and such bureaucratic outfits as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Plenipotentiaries, office clerks and experts make a poor show in fighting ideologies. The spirit of conquest cannot be smothered by red tape. What is needed is a radical change in ideologies and economic policies. But how could this change in ideologies come about? Mises’s answer is that this will happen only if public opinion comes to support the free market, since all government rests ultimately on public opinion. He is pessimistic about whether this will happen. Here is where Rothbard offers an indispensable addition to Mises. If we avoid military intervention except in case of direct attack, and always promote free trade, then we have done what we can to secure a peaceful world. As he put it in an article written in 1982, No, far better and wiser [than collective security] is the old classical liberal foreign policy of neutrality and nonintervention, a foreign policy set forth with great eloquence by Richard Cobden, John Bright, the Manchester school and other “little Englanders” of the nineteenth century, by the Anti-Imperialist classical liberals of the turn of the twentieth century in Britain and the United States, and by the old right from the 1930s to the 1950s. Neutrality limits conflicts instead of escalating them. Neutral states cannot swell their power through war and militarism, or murder and plunder the citizens of other states. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <온난화 부정론자 프레드 싱어의 책 서평> 온난화는 과학의 문제일지 몰라도, 거기에 대해 어떤 정책을 취할 것인지는 과학의 문제가 아니다. 그것은 가능한 선택지들 중에 비용과 효용을 고려해 하나를 선택하는 대중에 의해 결정되어야 한다. 싱어는 급진적인 환경론자들이 주장하듯이 온난화는 그리 위험하지 않으며, 온난화가 과장되었고, 지상의 기록보다 신뢰성이 있는 인공위성의 자료에 따르면 온난화 경고론자들의 주장은 근거가 약하다는 것이다. 역사적 기록에 따르면 추운 시기에 인류는 고통을 받았지만, 기후가 온난한 시기에는 평화를 누렸다. Climate Change: Fred Singer's Classic Critique David Gordon Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Third edition. by S. Fred Singer with David R. Legates and Anthony R. Lupo Independent Institute, 2020 234 pages. During the Senate confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett last October, Kamala Harris criticized Barrett for her refusal to state her opinion about “climate change” on the ground that the issue was controversial. Harris rejected this: science has spoken, and that is that. No rational person, in her view, could go against science by deeming debatable the climate crisis that is upon us. The existence and importance of global warming are matters far outside my competence, but Barrett was right, and obviously so. There are indeed eminent scientists who are numbered among the climate skeptics, or “deniers,” as their enemies call them, and S. Fred Singer, who died last year, was among the foremost of these. He was a pioneer in the development of satellites to track the weather and received a PhD in physics from Princeton under the direction of the great John Archibald Wheeler. The book we have before us to examine first appeared in 1997, with a second edition following in 1999; Singer, with the help of two distinguished colleagues, revised it yet again in 2020. The book retains material from the earlier editions, so that readers can study Singer’s astringent comments over many years about those whose scientific wisdom he challenges. I shall endeavor to indicate a few of Singer’s main scientific points, but, as I have already suggested, I am in no position to assess them. About one matter, though, I venture to suggest that he is right, and this is that the policy question of what, if anything, to do about climate problems is not itself a scientific issue. It must be decided by the public, weighing the benefits and costs of the available options. And in speaking of the public, Singer has principally in mind people in the free market. He distinguishes between “Malthusians” and “cornucopians” and makes clear that he allies with the latter group. “The Malthusians,” he says, “look at population growth and see only more mouths to feed. Cornucopians see more brains to think and hands to work” (p. 143). In contrast to the doomsayers, the cornucopians realize that the consequences of climate change are always experienced locally. Consequently, the information needed to anticipate changes and decide how best to respond is local knowledge and the most efficient responses will be local solutions….Economists describe how common resources can be degraded by overuse by “free riders,” but also how they can be effectively managed by individuals and nongovernment organizations using their knowledge of local opportunities and costs, the kind of knowledge national and international organizations typically lack. (pp. 150, 168) One sort of very costly program especially concerns him, the suggestion to shift to a policy of “Contraction and Convergence.” “The idea is that every human is entitled to emit the same amount of CO2. This, of course, translates into every being on Earth using the same amount of energy—and, by inference, having the same income. In other words, C&C is basically a policy for a giant global income redistribution” (p. 141). Before we contemplate such drastic measures, we should demand firm evidence that global warming is occurring and is as dangerous as it is made out to be by the radical environmentalists; and this Singer says we do not have. To the contrary, the amount of warming has been much exaggerated. In support of his skepticism, Singer urges that data from satellites, more reliable than ground temperature records, do not support alarmist views. The only reliable global temperature record is the one derived from satellite-based weather stations of lower-atmosphere temperatures taken since 1979. When that forty-year record is used to test the accuracy of GCMs [global climate models] that purport to show the impact of human activity on Earth’s climate, the models invariably fail, revealing that man-made CO2 has little or no influence on global temperatures. After taking into account inconsistencies in the global temperature record, it is clear there has been little global warming since 1998 and even earlier in many areas of the world. (p. 117) Singer offers for our consideration a further argument. The environmentalists wish to limit the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, but why is this desirable? An increase of CO2 that caused a moderate rise in temperature would have many very beneficial consequences. “A large literature exists on the historical relationship between climate and human security….Much of it shows humanity enjoyed periods of peace during warmer periods or periods of rising temperatures, while cooler periods or periods of falling temperatures have been accompanied by human suffering and often armed conflict” (p. 154). As one reads the book, one cannot escape the impression that Singer looks back in sadness to his younger days when his views did not face so hostile an audience, and that he resents being pushed aside by others he deems less competent. He says, for example, of several scientists who published online an attempt to refute one of his articles before the article had appeared in print, and moreover arranged with the editor to delay its publication until their own counter could be printed in the same issue, that “Collaboration between authors and an editor to silence one side in a scientific dispute is an egregious violation of professional ethics, as is using confidential information and withholding data” (p. 82). Singer’s discussion of the scientific issues abounds in technical terms, and I freely confess that it has often been difficult for me to understand it, much less evaluate it. But his credentials are impeccable, and one must admire his courage in defying those who use climate as an excuse to advance their destructive agendas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------