北 식량위기 자아비판 김정은 옆에 선 리병철, 왜 그렇게 열렬히 박수를 쳤을까? 김영호 교수의 세상읽기 https://youtu.be/jIilZfB-v7g ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [이명진 칼럼] 젠더권력의 꿀을 빨며 독(毒)을 주입하려는 자들 펜앤 '젠더' '성인지 감수성'은 양의 탈을 쓴 언어사기 의학적으로 인간에게 제3의 성은 불가능 '젠더 이데올로기' 꿀을 빨며 권력을 잡은 자들이 시민들에게 '젠더'라는 독이 든 잔을 마시게 해 유럽과 남미선 '젠더허풍' '젠더 개소리'에 눈 뜨기 시작...대한민국도 이제 눈을 떠야 --->한번 읽어보아야 할 글 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 손정민 살해사건 8- 4대 의문, 경-행-청이 보인다 최상천의 사람나라 https://youtu.be/7Zivr_e2Wa0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 국적법을 말한다/어느 중국통 교수님 박상후의 문명개화 중공이 보유한 가장 강력한 무기는 역시 인구입니다. 국내에서는 신쟝 위구르, 티벳, 내몽고에 한족을 대거 이주시켜 인구구성비를 깨뜨리고 있습니다. 특정지역에 특정민족이 우월하게 많으면 그 지역은 쉽게 동화됩니다. 러시아의 크림반도 병합도 이와 같습니다. 이런 점을 잘 알고 있는 러시아는 외래인구 유입을 극도로 경계하고 있습니다. 저출산, 고령화를 방지하기 위한 외국적자들의 유입은 국가안보를 위해 심각하게 고려해야 할 사안입니다. 바로 국적법 개정안이 그렇습니다. 특정국적을 가진 이들이 한국국적을 받게 될 경우 최악의 상황을 염두에 둬야 합니다. 특히 이들이 한국의 정체성과 관계없을 경우 문제가 심각할 수 있습니다. 국적취득자를 내세워 지자체나 작은 섬을 장악하는 것도 이론적으로 가능해집니다. 이번 방송에서는 국적법 문제와 함께 성균관대 정치외교학과 이희수 교수의 인민망 인터뷰 내용을 소개해 드립니다. https://youtu.be/MgBiGJEW_-Y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 자본주의는 이미 중세에 있었다. 18세기에 유럽의 자본주의가 본격적인 궤도에 올랐고, 이후로 유럽은 세계의 여타 지역의 경제 성장을 능가했다. 이에 막스 베버는 <프로테스탄트의 윤리>에서 그 근원을 청교도들이라고 주장했다. 청교도들은 검소한 부의 추구를 하나님의 구원의 계시로 보았다는 것이다. 하지만 로스바드는 이를 반대하면서 근대의 자본주의는 산업혁명이 아니라, 이미 중세의 이탈리아 도시국가에서 시작되었다고 주장했다. 그들은 모두 가톨릭이었다. 미제스는 언제나 돈을 벌고 이윤을 남기려는 사람들이 있었으나, 그것을 방해하는 장애물이 있었는데, 그것은 인간의 소유욕을 비도덕적이라고 낙인 찍고, 거기에 제도적인 장애물을 쌓아놓은 이데올로기 때문이라고 말한다. 하지만 자유방임주의가 나타나 장애물을 제거하자 새로운 신세계가 열렸다는 것이다. 그리고 자본주의로 가기 위한 장애가 또 하나 있었는데, 그것은 평등의 이데올로기로서, 일부의 사람들이 다른 사람들보다 더 많이 소유하는 것을 잘못이라고 보았다. 중국은 당시 세계에서 가장 경제가 발전한 나라였지만, 이런 평등 이데올로기를 극복하지 못했다. Capitalism Isn't a Modern Invention. It's Medieval. David Gordon During the eighteenth century, capitalism in Europe “took off” in a way it had not done before, and as a result the West surpassed all other areas of the world in economic growth. What led to this transformation? Max Weber offers the most famous answer. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), he traces the new system to the Puritans. Before them, though there were rich merchants, substantial savings and investment by private individuals was unusual. The Puritans changed matters. They viewed the self-disciplined pursuit of wealth without indulgence in luxury consumption as a sign that God had predestined them to salvation. Murray Rothbard rejects this interpretation. In his History of Economic Thought, volume 1, he says, There has been considerable dispute over the “Weber thesis”, propounded by the early twentieth century German economic historian and sociologist, Max Weber, which attributed the rise of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution to the late Calvinist concept of the calling and the resulting “capitalist spirit”. For all its fruitful insights, the Weber thesis must be rejected on many levels. First, modern capitalism, in any meaningful sense, begins not with the Industrial Revolution of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but, as we have seen, in the Middle Ages and particularly in the Italian city-states. Such examples of capitalist rationality as double-entry bookkeeping and various financial techniques begin in these Italian city-states as well. All were Catholic. Indeed, it is in a Florentine account book of 1253 that there is first found the classic procapitalist formula: “In the name of God and of profit”. No city was more of a financial and commercial centre than Antwerp in the sixteenth century, a Catholic centre. No man shone as much as financier and banker as Jacob Fugger, a good Catholic from southern Germany. Not only that: Fugger worked all his life, refused to retire, and announced that “he would make money as long as he could”. A prime example of the Weberian “Protestant ethic” from a solid Catholic! And we have seen how the scholastic theologians moved to understand and accommodate the market and market forces. (p. 142) Rothbard’s point is decisive, but the question still needs to be addressed: Why did capitalism grow so much in the eighteenth century and after, far exceeding in extent the efflorescence to which Rothbard calls attention? Ludwig von Mises helps answer our question through a reversal. He says that we shouldn’t look for groups of people who, because of special traits, overcame the reluctance of most people to save and invest. There have always been such people, he contends. In Human Action, he doesn’t mention the Weber thesis, but he calls attention to a similar view advanced by Werner Sombart, a leading member of the German historical school. What generated the “machine age” was not, as Sombart imagined, a specific mentality of acquisitiveness which one day mysteriously got hold of the minds of some people and turned them into “capitalistic men.” There have always been people ready to profit from better adjusting production to the satisfaction of the needs of the public. (p. 837) Now comes Mises’s reversal. The question we should be asking isn’t “What group of people wanted to acquire money more than other people did?” Instead, we should try to find out how the obstacles to their doing so were overcome. After pointing out that there have always been acquisitive people, he remarks, But they were paralyzed by the ideology that branded acquisitiveness as immoral and erected institutional barriers to check it. The substitution of the laissez-faire philosophy for the doctrines that approved of the traditional system of restrictions removed these obstacles to material improvement and thus inaugurated the new age. The liberal philosophy attacked the traditional caste system because its preservation was incompatible with the operation of the market economy. It advocated the abolition of privileges because it wanted to give a free hand to those men who had the ingenuity to produce in the cheapest way the greatest quantity of products of the best quality. (p. 837) One more piece of the puzzle is needed to understand in full Mises’s account of the origins of capitalism. It wasn’t enough to end the privileges that allowed only elite groups to enter certain trades. One had also to overcome the ideology of equality, which held that it was wrong for some people to possess markedly more money than others. Although at one time China had a more highly developed economy than the West, the Chinese were never able to overcome this egalitarian dogma. Mises says of the situation: Let us compare the history of China with that of England. China has developed a very high civilization. Two thousand years ago it was far ahead of England. But at the end of the nineteenth century England was a rich and civilized country while China was poor. Its civilization did not differ much from the stage it had already reached ages before. It was an arrested civilization. China had tried to realize the principle of income equality to a greater extent than did England. Land holdings were divided and subdivided. There was no numerous class of landless proletarians. But in eighteenth-century England this class was very numerous. For a very long time the restrictive practices of nonagricultural business, sanctified by traditional ideologies, delayed the emergence of modern entrepreneurship. But when the laissez-faire philosophy had opened the way for capitalism by utterly destroying the fallacies of restrictionism, the evolution of industrialism could proceed at an accelerated pace because the labor force needed was already available. (pp. 836–37) In other words, capitalist development required workers who were willing to work in factories, but they would not have much incentive to do so if they could cultivate their own plots of land. In China, insistence on equality led to a large number of farmers with small plots of land. Demands for equality were less exigent in England than in China, and many workers, lacking land, found working in factories attractive. Mises thus responds to a disputed topic by changing the question under consideration, and in doing so, he makes a creative advance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중공 침략의 첨병 - 공자학원 대학별 현황 카카오콱 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11349589229 1 공자학원 (총 23개소) 2020년 9월 15일 현재 공자학원 연계(孔子課當 및 공자교실) 한국의 초,중,고,단체 개수(단위: 개)/ 首尔孔子学院 2004. 10. 25. 연계 다수 (서울공자아카데미) 忠北大学孔子学院 대전⋅충청 청주 연변대 2006. 09. 28. 고등:1 (충북대학공자학원) 又松大学孔子学院 대전⋅충청 대전 사천대 2006. 11. 12. 고등: 1 (우송대학공자학원) 湖南大学孔子学院 광주⋅전라 광주 후난대 2006. 12. 19. 고등:3, 단체:1 (호남대학공자학원) 东西大学孔子学院 부산⋅경남 부산 산동대 2007. 04. 03. 초등:1, 고등:7, 단체:2 (동서대학공자학원) 江原大学孔子学院 강원⋅경기 춘천 북화대 2007. 04. 24. 고등:1, 교육청:1 (강원대학공자학원) 忠南大学孔子学院 대전⋅충청 대전 산동대 2007. 04. 26. 단체: 1 (충남대학공자학원) 启明大学孔子学院 대구⋅경북 대구 북경언어대 2007. 06. 27. 중등:41, 고등:10 (계명대학공자학원) 顺天乡大学孔子学院 대전⋅충청 아산 천진외대 2007. 09. 28. 초등:13, 고등:2, 단체:1 (순천향대학공자학원) 东亚大学孔子学院 부산⋅경남 부산 동북사범대 2007. 09. 초등:1, (동아대학공자학원) 世翰大学孔子学院 광주⋅전라 목포 청도대 2007. 11. 22. 고등:2 (세한대학공자학원) 大真大学孔子学院 강원⋅경기 포천 하얼빈사범대 2007. 11. 중등:2, 단체:다수 (대진대학공자학원) 노원 又石大学孔子学院 광주⋅전라 완주 산동사범대 2009. 01. 17. 중학:2 (우석대학공자학원) 济州汉拿大学孔子学院 제주 제주 남개대학 2009. 04. 04. 초등:2,중등:13,고등:16 (제주한라대학공자학원) 仁川大学孔子学院 서울⋅인천 인천 중국대련외대 2009. 08. 28. 고등:4 (인천대학공자학원) 韩国外国语大学孔子学院 서울⋅인천 서울 베이징외대 2009. 10. 대학:1, 단체:1 (한국외국어대학공자학원) 庆熙大学孔子学院 서울⋅인천 서울 상하이동제대 2010. 04. 초등:2, 중등:5, 고등:4, 단체:1 (경희대학공자학원) 国立安东大学孔子学院 대구⋅경북 안동 곡부사범대 2012 단체:1 (국립안동대학공자학원) 延世大学孔子学院 서울⋅인천 서울 사천사범대 2013. 09. 초등:1, 단체:1 (연세대학공자학원) 圆光大学孔子学院 광주⋅전라 익산 호남사범대 2014. 09. 24. 고등:1 (원광대학공자학원) 호남중의약대 世明大学孔子学院 대전⋅충청 제천 강서중의약대 2015. 03 18. 단체:2 (세명대학공자학원) 汉阳大学孔子学院 서울⋅인천 서울 길림대 2015. 11. 단체:1 (한양대학공자학원) 国立济州大学商务孔子学院 (국립제주대학상무공자학원) 제주 제주 북경대외경제무역대 2017. 03. 24. 고등:1 [출처] 한국 내 공자학원/공자학당 설치현황 (2020. 9. 15. 현재)|작성자 꿈나무 엄마 공자학원이 이렇게 많이 침투해 있었단다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------