자세한 상황 아시나요? 이봉규 티비 --->중공이 한국을 접수하고 있다! https://youtu.be/oTGvjjAc5p8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 한국 좆됨. 공산주의 국가됨 문재앙이온다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11336061474 미국의회에서 한국 인권에 대한 심각성 관련 청문회가 4.15 열리기로 한 가운데, 국무부는 "우리는 한국의 독립적인 사법부가 있는 민주주의 국가로써 이법을 재검토할 도구가 갖춰진 사실을 존중한다" "한국정부에게 그간 북한으로의 정보유입과 표현의 자유를 강력히 견해를 표명했다" 미의회 6명 증인 고든창 "문재인이 반역자인이 확실하게 말할수는 없지만, 그는 간첩이할 행동을 정확히 하고있음" "문재인은 대한민국을 정식국가로 인정하지 않으며, 건국기념일에는 대한민국을 없는 나라 취급했음" 이인호 "서해상 우리국민 사망사건에 대한 북한의 행동은 놀라울 것이 없지만 진실로 충격적인 것은 국민 앞에서 사죄와 위로의 말한마디 안한 문재인정부 태도임. 변명만하는 김정은 성명에 전화위복이니 김정은이 계몽군주니 하는 정신나간 인간들이 정치를 좌지우지함" 존시프톤 "문재인정부는 한국인들이 북쪽 이웃에 대한 기본권을 위해 일하는 것보다, 김정은을 행복하게 하는데 관심이 많음" 수잔숄티 "문재인은 탈북민들을 위해 아무것도 하지 않아 탈북민들이 중국에 넘겨졌음""북 주민들을 위한 인권활동은 전혀 하지않고 북한의 요구에만 답하고 있음" "문재인은 un과 세계가 바라는 북 인권이나 북 비핵화가 아니라 김정은의 말만 듣고 세계에 대북제재 해제만 외치고 있음" 한국은 한중북러 vs 미일호인 기조로 공산주의 가고 있는게 맞는데 미국이 자꾸 내정간섭하고 있음... 큰 문제임.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주한규 반일 감정에 편승해서 호도하면 안될 후쿠시마 오염수 방류 문제 어제 케이블 방송 뉴스 시간에 나와 후쿠시마 삼중수소 오염수 방류 문제에 대해 얘기해 줄 수 있냐는 섭외 요청을 받았습니다. 방류가 별 문제가 없음을 아는 저는 토착왜구로 비난 받더라도 제대로 말 하겠다고 입장을 밝혔는데 나중에 보니 저와 반대 입장을 가진 인사로 바뀌었습니다. 보수 언론에서 조차 국민의 반일 감정에 편승해 방류의 위험성을 주장하는 인사의 자의적인 의견을 우선하는 것 같습니다. 아래 조선일보 보도에서 제 인터뷰는 다음과 같이 간략하게만 나왔습니다 - 주한규 서울대 원자핵공학과 교수는 “방사성물질은 바다에서 희석이 돼서 큰 영향은 없을 것”이라고 했다. 월성원전 삼중수소가 논란이 됐을 때 이미 누차 설명했듯이 삼중수소가 특별히 더 위험한 방사능 물질이 아닙니다. 더구나 총량이 3g 정도 되는 후쿠시마 삼중수소가 거대한 태평양 바닷물에 희석된 후 일본 열도를 우회하는 조류를 타고 우리나라 연안에 올 때 과연 몇개의 삼중수소 원자가 생선 한 마리에 포함될 수 있겠는 지 가늠만 한 번 해보면 걱정할 필요가 없습니다. 반일 감정에 편승해서 전혀 과학적이지 않는 발언을 하며 불필요한 우려를 조장하는 인사들의 말은 흘려들으시길 바랍니다. 다만 저는 후쿠시마 사고를 유발해 우리나라 국민에게 정신적 스트레스와 탈원전 유발을 통해 엄청난 재산상 손해를 끼친 일본 정부가 사고 자체에 대해 미안함을 표시하여 양국간 관계 개선을 주도할 필요가 있다는 주장을 해왔는데 배상 책임 우려를 한 일본이 그런 사과를 하지 않는 것에 대해서는 유감입니다. / 페이스북 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 서울경제 [단독]정부, 작년 “후쿠시마 오염수 문제 없다” 결론 내려 조용한혁명 @경북 /문재인 개새끼가 국제해양법재판소에 제소한단다 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 文대통령 “日오염수 방류, 국제해양법재판소 제소 검토하라” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 동아일보 [단독]삼성家 ‘이건희 컬렉션’ 사회 환원 가닥… “기증규모 1조 이상” hh77**** 경매하면 13조 이상 받을 수 있다는데..나라에서 뺏는건가? 미술품이랑 삼성가 세금으로 퉁쳐라. 더 이상 뭘 얼마나 뜯어낼 속셈인가. 상속세 없는 선진국도 많다. 불합리한 법은 고쳐라. 한국에서 기업할 수가 없다하네... 상속세 때문에 기업하는 사람 사라지겠네...이 엄중한 반도체 경쟁이 치열한데 삼성 수장을 감옥에 가둬놓은 정부..나라를 살릴려는 의지가 박약한거아닌가..일반 국민이 봐도봐도 너무도 이상한 나라운영이야... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 택배기사들 “고덕동 단지 앞까지만 배달”...박스 수백개 쌓았다 / 조선일보 --->저들은 택배 기사가 아니라, 불법 카르텔 조직원이고, 조폭 조직원이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [칼럼] 시진핑의 마오쩌둥 모방하기 펜앤 2021.04.14 시진핑, 중국을 파탄으로 이끈 마오쩌둥의 이념과 열정 따라가고 있어 집단지도체제 무력화하고 장기 독재체제 구축...2050년까지 중국 '사회주의 현대화 강국' 건설 선언 --->시진핑이 하는 짓은 중국을 현대화 하는 게 아니라 망치는 짓이다. 한국에게는 기회인데, 문재앙 때문에 이 황금같은 기회를 살리지 못하고 있다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 꼴통 지식인들 좌파 도그마에 반대 의견을 내는 소수의 독립적인 사상가들은 거의 이단시 되어 있고, 그들의 생각은 독서 대중에 다가가지 못하는 게 현실이다. 목하 좌파 이론은 유토피아파, 과학적인 막시즘파, 그리고 독일 역사학파, 영국 파비안주의, 미국 제도주의Institutionalists, 프랑스 생디칼리즘, 기술관료 등으로부터 모아온 지식조각들로 이루어져 있다. 좌파들의 기본 도그마는 가난이 사악한 사회적 제도의 결과이고, 사유재산과 기업의 탄생이라는 원죄로 인해 인류가 에덴 동산에서의 행복한 삶을 빼앗겼다고 믿는다. 그들은 또 자본주의가 착취자들의 이기심만을 위해 봉사하고, 정의로운 대중들은 점차 가난과 타락으로 나아간다고 주장한다. 그들은 모든 사람들을 부유하게 하는 방법은, 국가라는 위대한 신(神)을 불러서 탐욕스런 착취자들을 길들여야 한다는 것이다. 중앙의 계획과 통제의 시대는 필연적으로 도래하는데, 그렇게 되면 모두에게 젖과 꿀이 흐르는 낙원이 펼쳐진다는 거다. 그들은 자신들의 엉터리 경제 정책의 비판에 대해 제대로 된 대꾸를 하지 못하게 되면서, 이런 경제학자들과 그들의 이론을 지식인과 대학생들이 접근하지 못하게 막고 있다. 사회주의는 공산주의와 동의어이고, 사회주의와 국가 중앙의 계획은 사람들이 믿듯이 공산주의의 해독제가 되지 못한다. 자본주의와 사회주의의 중간에 위치한 혼합 경제란 존재하지 않는다. 막스와 엥겔스가 공산당선언에서 뉴딜과 유사한 개입주의 정책을 말한 것은 자본주의와 사회주의의 타협을 원했던 게 아니라, 그런 개입주의 정책이 완전한 공산주의로 가는 첫 번째 단계였기 때문이다. The Bigotry of the Literati Ludwig von Mises [Excerpted from The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1954).] A superficial observer of present-day ideologies could easily fail to recognize the prevailing bigotry of the molders of public opinion and the machinations that render inaudible the voice of dissenters. There seems to be disagreement with regard to issues considered as important. Communists, socialists, and interventionists, and the various sects and schools of these parties, are fighting each other with such zeal that attention is diverted from the fundamental dogmas with regard to which there is full accord among them. On the other hand, the few independent thinkers who have the courage to question these dogmas are virtually outlawed, and their ideas cannot reach the reading public. The tremendous machine of "progressive" propaganda and indoctrination has well succeeded in enforcing its taboos. The intolerant orthodoxy of the self-styled "unorthodox" schools dominates the scene. This "unorthodox" dogmatism is a self-contradictory and confused mixture of various doctrines incompatible with one another. It is eclecticism at its worst, a garbled collection of surmises borrowed from fallacies and misconceptions long since exploded. It includes scraps from many socialist authors, both "utopian" and "scientific Marxian," from the German Historical School, the Fabians, the American Institutionalists, the French Syndicalists, and the Technocrats. It repeats errors of Godwin, Carlyle, Ruskin, Bismarck, Sorel, Veblen, and a host of less well-known men. The fundamental dogma of this creed declares that poverty is an outcome of iniquitous social institutions. The original sin that deprived mankind of the blissful life in the Garden of Eden was the establishment of private property and enterprise. Capitalism serves only the selfish interests of rugged exploiters. It dooms the masses of righteous men to progressing impoverishment and degradation. What is needed to make all people prosperous is the taming of the greedy exploiters by the great god called State. The "service" motive must be substituted for the "profit" motive. Fortunately, they say, no intrigues and no brutality on the part of the infernal "economic royalists" can quell the reform movement. The coming of an age of central planning is inevitable. Then there will be plenty and abundance for all. Those eager to accelerate this great transformation call themselves progressives precisely because they pretend that they are working for the realization of what is both desirable and in accordance with the inexorable laws of historical evolution. They disparage as reactionaries all those who are committed to the vain effort of stopping what they call progress. From the point of view of these dogmas the progressives advocate certain policies which, as they pretend, could alleviate immediately the lot of the suffering masses. They recommend, for example, credit expansion and increasing the amount of money in circulation, minimum-wage rates to be decreed and enforced either by the government or by labor-union pressure and violence, control of commodity prices and rents, and other interventionist measures. But the economists have demonstrated that all such nostrums fail to bring about those results which their advocates want to attain. Their outcome is, from the very point of view of those recommending them and resorting to their execution, even more unsatisfactory than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. Credit expansion results in the recurrence of economic crises and periods of depression. Inflation makes the prices of all commodities and services soar. The attempts to enforce wage rates higher than those the unhampered market would have determined produce mass unemployment prolonged year after year. Price ceilings result in a drop in the supply of commodities affected. The economists have proved these theorems in an irrefutable way. No "progressive" pseudoeconomist ever tried to refute them. The essential charge brought by the progressives against capitalism is that the recurrence of crises and depressions and mass unemployment is its inherent feature. The demonstration that these phenomena are, on the contrary, the result of the interventionist attempts to regulate capitalism and to improve the conditions of the common man gives the progressive ideology the finishing stroke. As the progressives are not in a position to advance any tenable objections to the teachings of the economists, they try to conceal them from the people and especially from the intellectuals and the university students. Any mentioning of these heresies is strictly forbidden. Their authors are called names, and the students are dissuaded from reading their "crazy stuff." As the progressive dogmatist sees things, there are two groups of men quarreling about how much of the "national income" each of them should take for themselves. The propertied class — the entrepreneurs and the capitalists, to whom they often refer as "management" — is not prepared to leave to "labor" — i.e., the wage earners and employees — more than a trifle, just a little bit more than bare sustenance. Labor, as may easily be understood, annoyed by management's greed, is inclined to lend an ear to the radicals, to the communists, who want to expropriate management entirely. However, the majority of the working class is moderate enough not to indulge in excessive radicalism. They reject communism and are ready to content themselves with less than the total confiscation of "unearned" income. They aim at a middle-of-the-road solution, at planning, the welfare state, socialism. In this controversy, the intellectuals who allegedly do not belong to either of the two opposite camps are called to act as arbiters. They — the professors, the representatives of science, and the writers, the representatives of literature — must shun the extremists of each group, those who recommend capitalism as well as those who endorse communism. They must side with the moderates. They must stand for planning, the welfare state, socialism; and they must support all measures designed to curb the greed of management and to prevent it from abusing its economic power. There is no need to enter anew into a detailed analysis of all the fallacies and contradictions implied in this way of thinking. It is enough to single out three fundamental errors. The great ideological conflict of our age is not a struggle about the distribution of the "national income." It is not a quarrel between two classes each of which is eager to appropriate to itself the greatest possible portion of a total sum available for distribution. It is a dissension concerning the choice of the most adequate system of society's economic organization. The question is, which of the two systems, capitalism or socialism, warrants a higher productivity of human efforts to improve people's standard of living. The question is, also, whether socialism can be considered as a substitute for capitalism, whether any rational conduct of production activities, i.e., conduct based on economic calculation, can be accomplished under socialist conditions. The bigotry and the dogmatism of the socialists manifest themselves in the fact that they stubbornly refuse to enter into an examination of these problems. With them it is a foregone conclusion that capitalism is the worst of all evils and socialism the incarnation of everything that is good. Every attempt to analyze the economic problems of a socialist commonwealth is considered as a crime of lèse majesté. As the conditions prevailing in the Western countries do not yet permit the liquidation of such offenders in the Russian way, they insult and vilify them, cast suspicion upon their motives, and boycott them. There is no economic difference between socialism and communism. Both terms, socialism and communism, denote the same system of society's economic organization, i.e., public control of all the means of production as distinct from private control of the means of production, namely capitalism. The two terms, socialism and communism, are synonyms. The document that all Marxian socialists consider as the unshakable foundation of their creed is called the Communist Manifesto. On the other hand, the official name of the communist Russian empire is Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR). The antagonism between the present-day communist and socialist parties does not concern the ultimate goal of their policies. It refers mainly to the attitude of the Russian dictators to subjugate as many countries as possible, first of all the United States. It refers, furthermore, to the question of whether the realization of public control of the means of production should be achieved by constitutional methods or by a violent overthrow of the government in power. Neither do the terms "planning" and "welfare state" as they are used in the language of economists, statesmen, politicians, and all other people signify something different from the final goal of socialism and communism. Planning means that the plan of the government should be substituted for the plans of the individual citizens. It means that the entrepreneurs and capitalists should be deprived of the discretion to employ their capital according to their own designs and should be obliged to comply unconditionally with the orders issued by a central-planning board or office. This amounts to the transfer of control from the entrepreneurs and capitalists to the government. It is, therefore, a serious blunder to consider socialism, planning, or the welfare state as solutions to the problem of society's economic organization which would differ from that of communism and which would have to be estimated as "less absolute" or "less radical." Socialism and planning are not antidotes for communism, as many people seem to believe. A socialist is more moderate than a communist insofar as he does not hand out secret documents of his own country to Russian agents and does not plot to assassinate anticommunist bourgeois. This is, of course, a very important difference. But it has no reference whatever to the ultimate goal of political action. Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism. Those advocating what is erroneously believed to be a middle-of-the-road solution do not recommend a compromise between capitalism and socialism but a third pattern that has its own particular features and must be judged according to its own merits. This third system that the economists call interventionism does not combine, as its champions claim, some of the features of capitalism with some of socialism. It is something entirely different from each of them. The economists who declare that interventionism does not attain those ends which its supporters want to attain but makes things worse — not from the economists' own point of view, but from the very point of view of the advocates of interventionism — are not intransigent and extremists. They merely describe the inevitable consequences of interventionism. When Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto advocated definite interventionist measures, they did not mean to recommend a compromise between socialism and capitalism. They considered these measures — incidentally, the same measures which are today the essence of the New Deal and Fair Deal policies — as first steps on the way toward the establishment of full communism. They themselves described these measures as "economically insufficient and untenable," and they asked for them only because they "in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production." Thus the social and economic philosophy of the progressives is a plea for socialism and communism. This article is excerpted from The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1954), chapter 3, section 5, "The Bigotry of the Literati." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------