Posts Tagged ‘KIM’

 

In an interview with RT in 2015, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uttered perhaps one of his most intriguing statements since the Syrian conflict erupted in 2011. Assad stated:

“Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That’s how they oversimplify things in the West.” [emphasis added]

He continued:

“Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar…This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better.” [emphasis added]

Putting aside Assad’s vast and extensive list of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Assad highlighted one of the major flaws in Western thinking regarding America’s hostile policies toward a number of independent states.

Just look at the current to-and-fro-ing between North Korea and the United States to gather an accurate picture of what is being referred to here. The problem of North Korea is consistently portrayed in the media as caused by one person (current leader Kim Jong-un), a narrative that ultimately ignores the role America and its allies have played in this current crisis. As Anti-Media previously highlighted:

 

“…the problem [North Korean crisis] is constantly framed as one caused by North Korea alone, not the United States. ‘How to Deal With North Korea,’ the Atlantic explains. ‘What Can Trump Do About North Korea?’ the New York Times asks. ‘What Can Possibly Be Done About North Korea,’ the Huffington Post queries. Time provides 6 experts discussing ‘How We Can Solve the Problem’ (of North Korea). ‘North Korea – what can the outside world do?’ asks the BBC.”

What the media is really advancing here – particularly when one talks about a military option as a response to dealing with North Korea’s rogue actions – is the notion that if the U.S. could only take out Kim Jong-un, the problem of North Korea would disappear.

Would the death of one man rid every single North Korean of the hostility and hatred they harbor toward the United States when many know full well that in the early 1950s the U.S. bombed North Korea so relentlessly they eventually ran out of targets to hit — that the U.S. military killed off at least 20 percent of the civilian population?

If Kim Jong-un is removed, will North Koreans suddenly forget that nearly every North Korean alive today has a family relative that was killed by the United States in the 1950s?

In the simple corporate media narrative, yes they will. Killing that one person and removing them from office will not only save the country they brutalize but will also provide security and stability for the rest of the world.

Never mind that prior to the U.S.-NATO onslaught of Libya in 2011, Libya had the highest standard of living in the African continent. The Times once admitted that its healthcare system was the “envy of the region.” Now, the country has completely collapsed, with well over two million children out of school, countless migrants drowning in its waters, extremism running unchecked and unchallenged, and traders openly selling slaves like a commodity.

Let’s suppose every single accusation against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was true (they weren’t); how can it be said that destroying a country’s infrastructure and assassinating its leader in flagrant disregard of international law is a realistic solution to any problem? If you oppose Donald Trump, would a Russian-led military intervention solve your problems with the country he rules over?

Forget what you think you know about Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro – the narrative Western governments and their media mouthpieces have promulgated for the last few decades remains completely nonsensical. You can’t solve Syria’s or Venezuela’s problems by removing their current leaders, especially if you attempt to do it by force. Anyone who claims this is possible is lying to you and is also too naïve and indolent to bother researching the current situations in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq – to name a few.

The fact that the U.S. evidently doesn’t want to solve any problems at all – that it merely seeks to overthrow leaders that don’t succumb to its wishes – is a topic for a separate article but is certainly worth mentioning here as well.

The same can ultimately be said of Donald Trump. Since his election victory, many celebrities, media pundits, and members of the intelligence community have sought to unseat and discredit him. Yet Donald Trump is merely a horrifying symptom of America’s problems; to think he alone caused them and that by removing him from office the U.S. would suddenly become a safe-haven of freedom and liberty is nothing short of idiotic.

If you agree with the latter sentiment, you must also concede that the problems facing North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere could never be solved by the U.S. forcibly removing their leaders.

If Assad was removed from Syria, would extremism disappear or would it thrive in the political vacuum as it did in Iraq? Could Syria’s internal issues — which are much more extensive than the corporate media would have us believe — be solved by something as simple as removing its current leader? Can anyone name a country where this has been tried and tested as a true model for solving a sovereign nation’s internal crises? Anyone who truly believes a country’s problems can be solved in this facile way needs to do a bit more reading.

If you can recognize this dilemma, you can agree that it’s time for the media to completely undo the simplicity in its coverage of these issues and start reporting on the genuine diplomatic options that could be pursued, instead.

Advertisements

In the fifth century B.C., Greek dramatist Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Quite so. Whenever national leaders decide to go on the warpath for the sake of their own ambition or self-aggrandizement, it’s the citizenry that will pay the blood price for their aspirations. Since war is rarely desired by citizenry, it has be sold to them. Some form of deception, exaggeration, or outright lies must be put forward to con the populace into getting on board with the idea.

War, after all, represents a monumental failure of national leaders to serve the rightful national objectives of a citizenry – peace and prosperity. of course, in the case of an empire going to war, this represents a monumental failure on steroids – the outcome may well be world war in such a case.

Readers of this publication will no doubt be well-versed in the knowledge that, when an empire is nearing the end of its period of domination, war is almost always used by leaders as a last-ditch attempt to maintain order. (During wartime, a populace tends to focus more on the war than the failure of its leaders. In addition, they’re likely to tolerate the removal of freedoms by their leaders to be “patriotic”.)

This being the case, we might surmise that an empire in decline would be likely to display symptoms might well be the loss of truth, not just as it relates to warfare, but as it relates to society as a whole. A nation in decline might even welcome the disappearance of truth, as it would allow people to continue to feel good about themselves at a time when a truthful outlook would be too unpleasant to be tolerable. Further, the closer to collapse the country may be economically, politically, and socially), the more extreme the self-created loss of the truth would be likely be.

Silver Versus Chocolate

As I described in January in “Running out of candy,” Californian Mark Dice stood on a street corner offering passers-by either a free ten-ounce bar of silver or a free bar of Hershey’s chocolate. Without fail, each one chose the chocolate. Even though Mister Dice was standing in front of a coin shop where the silver bar could be redeemed, they rejected the silver which they knew had to have greater value.

Only twenty year ago, people would have been far less likely to deny truth in favor of a falsehood that was more palatable – the instant gratification of candy. In effect, this is the abandonment of basic truth in favor of whatever perception is more pleasant.

Kim Jong-Un on “Dancing With the Stars”

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked people on the street if they had seen Korean leader Kim Jong-Un on the popular television show “Dancing With the Stars.” Clearly they had not, as the idea was absurd, yet many answered yes, then went on to describe their appraisal of his performance as though they’d seen it. (Some went into depth, expounding on the artistry and social value of non-existent performance.) The interviewer went on to remind the interviewees that Kim Jong-Un is in fact a dictator and asked whether they thought it was in good taste for him to have pointed a machine gun at the audience. In spite of the now-blatant absurdity, interviewees continued to pretend they had actually witnessed the performance, offering their opinions on how well he performed. They responded in accordance with what appeared to be expected of them rather than choose the less-pleasant option of saying, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t se it.”

Now, the video was clearly offered by jimmy kimmel to show his audience “how dumb people can be,” but it demonstrates something more. It shows us that a significant segment of the population is quite prepared to simply abandon reality by, first, pretending to have witnessed something they have not and, second, offering firm and even complex opinions on something that did not occur.

Political Candidacy

Certainly, political hopefuls have always had a reputation for being less truthful and any responsible voter would be advised to look at every candidate with a jaundiced eye. But what if the voters choose to lie to themselves in order to validate candidates?

Back when the US became the unquestioned empire in the world (just after World War II), Americans took a great deal of pride in truth and honor. A candidate might be suspected of personal immoral behavior and/or corruption and still be elected, but if it blatant, he would not.

Today, the liberal media regularly refer to the record of presidential candidate Donald Trump, highlight the companies that have gone bust and people who have been financially ruined as a result of his dealings. They also highlights his ever-changing political viewpoints, arrogance, and disdain for virtually everyone but himself. Yet, supporters to Mister Trump virtually block out the repeated reports, focusing only on their enjoyment of his bombast toward the establishment.

And the conservative media have been equally persistent in calling attention to candidate Hillary Clinton’s long history of shady business dealings, her failure with regard to the Benghazi incident, her selling of state, her acceptance of large campaign donations from Wall Street and, most prominently, her (very possibly illegal) abuse of top-secret government documents.

Yet, half of all democrats at present are content to simply treat all that evidence as though it has no significance.

All of the above I believe are symptoms of greater problem. As a Briton, I’m very aware that, during the decline of the British Empire, many of my fellow Brits pretended that it wasn’t happening, saying, “There will always be Britain,” and “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” And, tellingly, they continued to the neighborhood. (We still had vestiges of this, right up until the 1980s, decades after it was clearly all over.)

The US, in its own decline, is showing this same self-destructive tendency. The worse things get, the greater the inclination of the citizenry to say, “Carry on, everything’s fine.”

When a ship is going down, the very worst reaction is to pretend that everything’s fine and that it will all turn out okay. Yet, just as it occurred in Britain, we see today in the American people a desire to pretend that, although all is not well, there’s a rainbow just over the next rise, and that if the people (and their presidential candidates) will only make their hopes and promises big enough, the greatness will return along with good times for all.

I wish that were the case, but I’m inclined to believe that self-deception does not improve the situation; it exacerbates it. better to face reality then create a plan to address that reality.