윤희숙 “文정부 4년 빚 410조…68년간 660조였는데” “세금 더 걷히면 빚부터 갚는게 상식” “두고두고 청년세대의 어깨를 으스러뜨릴 빚” /동아닷컴 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MOST VACCINATED NATION in the world reintroduces restrictions as coronavirus cases surge 세계에서 코로나 백신 접종율이 가장 높은 국가가, 코로나 감염이 증가하자 다시 통제를 재개했다. --->불길한 뉴스다. 감염이 다시 증가하는 이유는, 이 바이러스가 실험실에서 인공적으로 만들어졌기 때문이다. (Natural News) Seychelles, known as the most vaccinated nation in the world, has reintroduced coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions after experiencing a sudden surge in coronavirus cases. The island nation, which has a population of just under 100,000, has administered 134,475 doses of the coronavirus vaccine, according to the New York Times’ Covid World Vaccination Tracker. This means that about 72% of its population has received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine. The vaccines procured by Seychelles were developed by the Chinese state-owned Sinopharm company and the British-Swedish pharma giant, AstraZeneca. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조직 보위, 보급 투쟁… 꼰대가 된 운동권의 시대착오 용어5 [당신의 리스트] [18] 작가 곽대중의 꼰86 시대착오 용어5 문화는 선별과 여과의 오랜 역사입니다. 중요한 것은 누가 어떤 리스트를 제출하느냐는 것. 이번에는 전남대 총학생회장 출신으로 자영업자이자 작가로 활동 중인 곽대중씨가 씁니다. 운동권 출신 586들은 어쩌다 ‘우리는 괜찮아’(내로남불)식의 사고 구조를 갖게 되었을까? 운동권 시절 그들이 사용해온 용어를 통해 문화적 근원을 살펴봅니다. / 조선일보 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [충격] 국가보안법 철폐론 수면위로···더불어민주당 범여권 73명 주최자 명단 공개 팬앤마이크 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 美애리조나 재검표서 부정투표지 52만장 발견, "부정선거 확정 스모킹건 파이낸스 투데이 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 남자의 고환과 뇌는 이상할 정도로 많이 닮아 있습니다. 신박 과학 https://youtu.be/t2EpQoIrhJQ ---> 치매 등의 뇌에 걸린 질병을 고칠 때, 성 기능을 향상시키는 한약을 쓰는 경우가 있는데, 뇌와 고환이 닮아 있으므로, 설득력이 있는 방법이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [윤석열에 보내는 공개질문]박근혜 구속반대 했다면…139가지 질문에 답하라 JBC 뉴스 원고 122매에 담긴 공개질의 답변해야 윤석열 박근혜 구속에 어떤 음모가 있었는가 ◇윤석열 전 검찰총장에게 던지는 139가지 공개질문 1.당시 특별검사 및 특별검사보는 일부 야당의 추천만으로 구성되어 태생부터 위헌적인 특검이자, 전형적인 정치적 특검으로, 출발선부터 공정성이 담보되기 어려운 상황이었다. 이에 대해 동의하는가? 2.박 대통령 대면조사와 관련, 합의내용을 특정 언론사에 유출시켜 스스로 신뢰를 무너뜨렸다. 이런 사실이 있었는가. 3. 그 후 신뢰보장을 위해 녹음․녹화가 필요하다는 억지 주장을 펼쳤다. 사실인가. 출처 : JBC뉴스(http://www.jbcka.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 손정민은 살해 당했다. 과학적 팩트 요약정리. 서초경찰은 여기에 답해야 한다. https://youtu.be/nVNYissmseU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 올바른 경제학이 없으면 좌파들과의 싸움에서 이길 수 없다 자유와 전체주의라는 두 체제의 경쟁은 민주국가의 투표소에서 결정될 것이다. 자유의 옹호자들은 시민들이 완전하게 자유의 이상에 헌신할 때에만 체제 경쟁에서 승리할 수 있다. 사람들은 그들의 신념을 위해 목숨을 건다. 하지만 그들이 보기에 긴가민가 하는 이념에 목숨을 걸 사람은 없다. 1917년 러시아의 볼셰비크는 사실 수천명에 불과했지만, 나라 전체를 굴복시키고 권력을 쟁취했다. 그들에게 이데올로기적으로 대항하는 세력이 없었기 때문이다. 차르 치하의 광대한 영토에 경제적 자유를 주창하는 집단이나 당파가 없었다. 기업, 언론, 정치, 각종 전문가들은 매일 매일의 세세한 사실에 구애되어 근시안적인 시각을 갖고 있고, 이념의 대결이 장기적으로 어떤 결과를 가져올지 고려하지 않고 있다. 하지만 이론이나 추상적인 철학이 사실은 세상을 근본적으로 움직이는 주체이다. 사실들은 그것들의 의미를 밝혀주는 설명이 없이는 그 자체만으로 무엇인지 알 수가 없다. 막스에 따르면 한 사람의 사상은 그의 계급에 의해 결정되므로, 적을 공격하는 방법은 사상을 논하는 게 아니라, 그의 부르주아 배경을 폭로하면 끝이 난다. 그는 부르주아의 아양꾼에 불과한 것이다. 좌파들이 부르주아의 본거지라 불리는 대학에서조차 역사, 철학, 문학, 예술 등을 막스의 유물론적 철학의 관점에서 배우고 있다. 일단 막스의 철학에 물든 사람들과는 모든 토론과 대화가 소용이 없다. 따라서 사람들을 좌파 철학에서 해방하는 방법은 철학적, 인식론적 탐구에서 시작되어야 한다. 좌파들은 지난 2백년간의 기술적 발전으로 인해 잠재적 풍요가 있지만, 자본주의 생산양식의 내재적 모순으로 인해 결핍이 발생한다고 주장한다. 하지만 물질적 생산 요소에는 필연적으로 결핍이 발생한다는 사실을 막스는 알지 못했다. 문명의 생존은 개별적인 독재자나 총통 등에 의해 위기에 빠질 수 있지만, 그것을 지키고 재건하고 지속하기 위해서는 선의를 지닌 모든 사람들의 일치된 노력이 필요하다. Without Sound Economics, the Progressives Win Ludwig von Mises [A selection from "The Objectives of Economic Education" in Economic Freedom and Interventionism.] The struggle between the two systems of social organization, freedom and totalitarianism, will be decided in the democratic nations at the polls. As things are today, the outcome in the United States will determine the outcome for all other peoples too. As long as this country does not go socialist, socialist victories in other parts of the world are of minor relevance. Some people among them very keen minds expect either a revolutionary upheaval of the communists, a war with Russia and its satellites, or a combination of both events. However this may be, it is obvious that the final result depends on ideological factors. The champions of freedom can win only if they are supported by a citizenry fully and unconditionally committed to the ideals of freedom. They will be defeated if those molding public opinion in their own camp are infected with sympathies for the totalitarian program. Men fight unto death for their convictions. But nobody is ready to dedicate himself seriously to a cause which in his eyes is only 50% right. Those who say: "I am not a Communist, but . . . " cannot be counted upon to fight rigorously for freedom and against Communism. In Russia, in 1917, the Bolsheviks numbered only a few thousand men. From the arithmetical point of view their forces were negligible. Yet, they were able to seize power and beat into submission the whole nation because they did not encounter any ideological opposition. In the vast empire of the Tsars there was no group or party advocating economic freedom. There was no author or teacher, no book, magazine or newspaper that would have declared that freedom from bureaucratic regimentation is the only method to make the Russian people as prosperous as possible. All people agree that in France and in Italy [1948] the Communist danger is very great. Yet, it is a fact that the majorities in both countries are hostile to Communism. However, the resistance of these majorities is weak, as they have espoused essential parts of socialism and of the Marxian criticism of capitalism. Thanks to this ideological penetration of Communist adversaries in France and Italy, the chances of the Communists are much better than the numbers of Communist Party members warrant. The Philosophical Problem Implied Those engaged in the conduct of business, the professions, politics, and the editing and writing of newspapers and magazines are so fully absorbed by the sundry problems they have to face that they neglect to pay attention to the great ideological conflicts of our age. The urgent tasks of the daily routine impose on them an enormous quantity of pressing work, and no time is left for a thoroughgoing examination of the principles and doctrines implied. Perplexed by the vast amount of detail and trivia, the practical man looks only at the short-run consequences of the alternatives between which he has to choose at the moment, and does not bother about long-run consequences. He falls prey to the illusion that this attitude alone is worthy of an active citizen successfully contributing to progress and welfare; preoccupation with fundamental questions is just a pastime for authors and readers of useless highbrow books and magazines. In democratic America the men most distinguished in business, the professions, and politics have today the same attitude toward "theories" and "abstractions" that Napoleon Bonaparte displayed in ridiculing and abusing the "ideologues." The disdain of theories and philosophies is mainly caused by the mistaken belief that the facts of experience speak for themselves, that facts by themselves can explode erroneous interpretations. The idea prevails that no serious harm can be done by a fallacious philosophy, an "ism," however vitriolic and insidious; reality is stronger than fables and myths; truth automatically dispels lies; there is no reason to worry about the propaganda of the apostles of untruth. There is no need to enter into an investigation of the epistemological issues implied in this widely held opinion. It may be enough to quote a few lines of John Stuart Mill. "Man," says Mill, ". . is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning." Those people who believe that the mere record of the American achievements of economic individualism makes the youth of the United States safe from indoctrination with the ideas of Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, and Harold Laski are badly mistaken. They fail to discern the role that Marxian polylogism plays in the living philosophy of our age. According to the doctrine of Marxian polylogism, a man's ideas necessarily reflect his class position; they are nothing but a disguise for the selfish interest of his class and are irreconcilably opposed to the interests of all other social classes. The "material productive forces" that determine the course of human history have chosen the working "class," the proletariat, to abolish all class antagonisms and to bring lasting salvation to the whole of mankind. The interests of the proletarians, who are already the immense majority today, will finally coincide with the interests of all. Thus from the point of view of the inevitable destiny of man, the Marxians say, the proletarians are right and the bourgeois are wrong. There is no need, therefore, to refute an author who disagrees with the "progressive" teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin; all that is needed is to unmask his bourgeois background and show that he is wrong because he is either a bourgeois or a "sycophant" of the bourgeoisie. In its consistent and radical form polylogism is accepted only by the Russian Bolsheviks. They distinguish between "bourgeois" and "proletarian" doctrines even in mathematics, physics, biology, and medicine. But the more moderate brand of polylogism, which applies the "bourgeois" or "proletarian" yardstick only to the social and historical branches of knowledge, is endorsed by and large even by many of those schools and authors who emphatically call themselves anti-Marxian. Even at universities, which radical Marxians vilify as strongholds of bourgeois mentality, general history as well as the history of philosophy, literature and art are often taught from the point of Marxian materialistic philosophy. The tenets of people committed to Marxian polylogism cannot be shaken by any argument advanced by an author, politician or other citizen suspected of bourgeois affiliation. As long as a considerable part of the nation is imbued many of them unwittingly with the polylogistic doctrine, it is useless to argue with them about special theories of various branches of science or about the interpretation of concrete facts. These men are immune to thought, ideas and factual information that stem from the sordid source of the bourgeois mind. Hence it is obvious that the attempts to free the people, especially the intellectual youth, from the fetters of "unorthodox" indoctrination must begin on the philosophical and epistemological level. The disinclination to deal with "theory" is tantamount to yielding submissively to Marx's dialectical materialism. The intellectual conflict between freedom and totalitarianism will not be decided in discussions about the meaning of concrete statistical figures and historical events, but in a thorough examination of the fundamental issues of epistemology and the theory of knowledge. It is true that the masses have only a very crude and simplified cognition of dialectical materialism and its offshoot, the so-called sociology of knowledge. But all knowledge of the many is crude and simplified. What matters is not to change the ideology of the masses, but to change first the ideology of the intellectual strata, the "highbrows," whose mentality determines the content of the simplifications which are held by the "lowbrows." Marxism and "Progressivism" The social and economic teachings of the self-styled "unorthodox Progressives" are a garbled mixture of divers particles of heterogeneous doctrines incompatible with one another. The main components of this body of opinion were taken from Marxism, British Fabianism and the Prussian Historical School. Essential elements were also borrowed from the teachings of those monetary reformers, inflationists who were long known only as "monetary cranks." And the legacy of Mercantilism is important too. All Progressives loathe the 19th century, its ideas and its policies. However, the principal ingredients of Progressivism, except for Mercantilism which stems from the 17th century, were formed in that much-defamed 19th century. But, of course, Progressivism is different from every one of these doctrines, parts of each of which were synthesized to make Progressivism what it is. . . . Among those who call themselves Progressives there are certainly a number of consistent Marxians .... The great majority of the Progressives, however, are moderate and eclectic in their appraisal of Marx. Although sympathizing by and large with the material objectives of the Bolsheviks, they criticize certain attending phenomena of the revolutionary movement, for instance, the Soviet regime's dictatorial methods, its anti-Christianism and its "Iron Curtain.". . . Many outstanding champions of Progressivism openly declare that they aim ultimately at a substitution of socialism for free enterprise. But other Progressives announce again and again that by the suggested reforms they want to save capitalism, which would be doomed if not reformed and improved. They advocate interventionism as a permanent system of society's economic organization, not as do the moderate Marxian groups, as a method for the gradual realization of socialism. There is no need to enter here into an analysis of interventionism. It has been shown in an irrefutable way that all measures of interventionism bring about consequences which from the point of view of the governments and parties resorting to them are less satisfactory than the previous state of affairs which they were devised to alter. If the government and the politicians do not learn the lesson which these failures teach and do not want to abstain from all meddling with commodity prices, wages and interest rates, they must add more and more regimentation to their first measures until the whole system of market economy has been replaced by all-round planning and socialism. However, my purpose here is not to deal with the policies recommended by the champions of interventionism. These practical policies differ from group to group. It is merely a slight exaggeration to say that not only does each pressure group have its own brand of interventionism, but so does every professor. Each is keenly intent upon exploding the shortcomings of all rival brands. But the doctrine which is at the bottom of interventionist ventures, the assumption that contradictions and evils are allegedly inherent in capitalism, is by and large uniform with all varieties of Progressivism and generally accepted with hardly any opposition. Theories which are at variance are virtually outlawed. Anti-progressive ideas are represented in caricature in university lectures, books, pamphlets, articles and newspapers. The rising generation does not hear anything about them except that they are the doctrines of the economic Bourbons, the ruthless exploiters and "robber barons" whose supremacy is gone forever. The Main Thesis of Progressivism The doctrines which are taught today under the appellation "Progressive economics" can be condensed in the following ten points. 1. The fundamental economic thesis common to all socialist groups is that there is a potential plenty, thanks to the technological achievements of the last two hundred years. The insufficient supply of useful things is due merely, as Marx and Engels repeated again and again, to the inherent contradictions and shortcomings of the capitalist mode of production. Once socialism is adopted, once socialism has reached its "higher stage," and after the last vestiges of capitalism have been eradicated, there will be abundance. To work then will no longer cause pain, but pleasure. Society will be in a position to give "to each according to his needs." Marx and Engels never noticed that there is an inexorable scarcity of the material factors of production. The academic Progressives are more cautious in the choice of terms, but virtually all of them adopt the socialist thesis. 2. The inflationist wing of Progressivism agrees with the most bigoted Marxians in ignoring the fact of the scarcity of the material factors of production. It draws from this error the conclusion that the rate of interest and entrepreneurial profit can be eliminated by credit expansion. As they see it, only the selfish class interests of bankers and usurers are opposed to credit expansion. The overwhelming success of the inflationist party manifests itself in the monetary and credit policies of all countries. The doctrinal and semantic changes that preceded this victory, which made this victory possible and which now prevent the adoption of sound monetary policies, are the following: a. Until a few years ago, the term inflation meant a substantial increase in the quantity of money and money-substitutes. Such an increase necessarily tends to bring about a general rise in commodity prices. But today the term inflation is used to signify the inevitable consequences of what was previously called inflation. It is implied that an increase in the quantity of money and money-substitutes does not affect prices, and that the general rise in prices which we have witnessed in these last years was not caused by the government's monetary policy, but by the insatiable greed of business. b. It is assumed that the rise of foreign exchange rates in those countries, where the magnitude of the inflationary increment to the quantity of money and money-substitutes in circulation exceeded that of other countries, is not a consequence of this monetary excess but a product of other agents, such as: the unfavorable balance of payments, the sinister machinations of speculators, the "scarcity" of foreign exchange and the trade barriers erected by foreign governments, not by one's own. c. It is assumed that a government, which is not on the gold standard and which has control of a central bank system, has the power to manipulate the rate of interest downward ad libitum without bringing about any undesired effects. It is vehemently denied that such an "easy money" policy inevitably leads to an economic crisis. The theory, which explains the recurrence of periods of economic depression as the necessary outcome of the repeated attempts to reduce interest rates artificially and expand credit, is either intentionally passed over in silence or distorted in order to ridicule it and to abuse its authors. 3. Thus the way is free to describe the recurrence of periods of economic depression as an evil inherent in capitalism. The capitalist society, it is asserted, lacks the power to control its own destiny. 4. The most disastrous consequence of the economic crisis is mass unemployment prolonged year after year. People are starving it is claimed, because free enterprise is unable to provide enough jobs. Under capitalism technological improvement which could be a blessing for all is a scourge for the most numerous class. 5. The improvement in the material conditions of labor, the rise in real wage rates, the shortening of the hours of work, the abolition of child labor and all other "social gains" are achievements of government pro-labor legislation and labor unions. But for the interference of the government and the unions, the conditions of the laboring class would be as bad as they were in the early period of the "industrial revolution." 6. In spite of all the endeavors of popular governments and labor unions, it is argued, the lot of the wage earners is desperate. Marx was quite right in predicting the inevitable progressive pauperization of the proletariat. The fact that accidental factors have temporarily secured a slight improvement in the standard of living of the American wage earner is of no avail; this improvement concerns merely a country whose population is not more than 7% of the world's population and moreover, so the argument runs, it is only a passing phenomenon. The rich are still getting richer; the poor are still getting poorer; the middle classes are still disappearing. The greater part of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few families, Lackeys of these families hold the most important public offices and manage them for the sole benefit of "Wall Street." What the bourgeois call democracy means in reality "pluto-democracy," a cunning disguise for the class rule of the exploiters. 7. In the absence of government price control, commodity prices are manipulated ad libitum by the businessmen. In the absence of minimum wage rates and collective bargaining, the employers would manipulate wages in the same way too. The result is that profits are absorbing more and more of the national income. There would prevail a tendency for real wage rates to drop if efficient unions were not intent upon checking the machinations of the employers. 8. The description of capitalism as a system of competitive business may have been correct for its early stages. Today it is manifestly inadequate. Mammoth size cartels and monopolistic combines dominate the national markets. Their endeavors to attain exclusive monopoly of the world market result in imperialistic wars in which the poor bleed in order to make the rich richer. 9. As production under capitalism is for profit and not for use, those things manufactured are not those which could most effectively supply the real wants of the consumers, but those the sale of which is most profitable. The "merchants of death" produce destructive weapons. Other business groups poison the body and soul of the masses by habit-creating drugs, intoxicating beverages, tobacco, lascivious books and magazines, silly moving pictures and idiotic comic strips. 10. The share of the national income that goes to the propertied classes is so enormous that, for all practical purposes, it can be considered inexhaustible. For a popular government, not afraid to tax the rich according to their ability to pay, there is no reason to abstain from any expenditure beneficial to the voters. On the other hand, profits can be freely tapped to raise wage rates and lower prices of consumers' goods. These are the main dogmas of the "unorthodoxy" of our age, the fallacies of which economic education must unmask. Success or failure of endeavors to substitute sound ideas for unsound will depend ultimately on the abilities and the personalities of the men who seek to achieve this task. If the right men are lacking in the hour of decision, the fate of our civilization is sealed. Even if such pioneers are available, however, their efforts will be futile if they meet with indifference and apathy on the part of their fellow citizens. The survival of civilization can be jeopardized by the misdeeds of individual dictators, Führers or Duces. Its preservation, reconstruction and continuation, however, require the joint efforts of all men of good will. Extracts from a memorandum (1948) to Leonard E. Read, founder and president of the then newly established Foundation for Economic Education; previously published only in Spanish translation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------