I mean, my take on North Korea is that it sucks, but it's because we made it suck, literally destroyed every building and killed 20% of the population. Like remember how fascist things got after 3 American buildings got hit by planes? The USA lost its shit even more than it already had. Now imagine instead of 3 buildings, it was all buildings, literally every skyscraper, every home, every shop, hit by an airplane and burnt to the ground. And if we lost like, 75 million people.
The USA in that circumstance would nuke the world - just end life on Earth immediately. We'd be choked out by our own nuclear ash. The DPRK reacted absolutely tamely in comparison, and while most of the propaganda about them is just unhinged lies, it's not like, a good place with a good system. It's approximately the best it could be though, given what happened.
It's a lot more of an obfuscated place than Israel. The lies about Israel are so blatant, and the truths are really so bare. It's right in front of us. That's why it's a better litmus test.
The lies about Israel are so blatant, and the truths are really so bare. It’s right in front of us.
This just makes it an easier test to pass. To find people who are actually serious about anti-imperialism, using the DPRK as a gauge actually challenges people to go against the overwhelming negative public perception. It was more difficult to challenge propaganda on Iraq BEFORE the US went in and that was when it mattered the most. It's easy to go along with the herd and sit there after the fact of millions of destroyed lives and condemn the US. Such a weak anti-imperialism can't prevent wars, all it does is react after the US is done wrecking a place.
That's fair. The problem is values alone is what the US weaponizes so effectively. They throw up atrocity propaganda in Iraq and people with the correct values fall in line. Knowledge is what prevents a person from being used by the US.
I mean, my take on North Korea is that it sucks, but it's because we made it suck, literally destroyed every building and killed 20% of the population. Like remember how fascist things got after 3 American buildings got hit by planes? The USA lost its shit even more than it already had. Now imagine instead of 3 buildings, it was all buildings, literally every skyscraper, every home, every shop, hit by an airplane and burnt to the ground. And if we lost like, 75 million people.
The USA in that circumstance would nuke the world - just end life on Earth immediately. We'd be choked out by our own nuclear ash. The DPRK reacted absolutely tamely in comparison, and while most of the propaganda about them is just unhinged lies, it's not like, a good place with a good system. It's approximately the best it could be though, given what happened.
It's a lot more of an obfuscated place than Israel. The lies about Israel are so blatant, and the truths are really so bare. It's right in front of us. That's why it's a better litmus test.
This just makes it an easier test to pass. To find people who are actually serious about anti-imperialism, using the DPRK as a gauge actually challenges people to go against the overwhelming negative public perception. It was more difficult to challenge propaganda on Iraq BEFORE the US went in and that was when it mattered the most. It's easy to go along with the herd and sit there after the fact of millions of destroyed lives and condemn the US. Such a weak anti-imperialism can't prevent wars, all it does is react after the US is done wrecking a place.
All I'm saying is that Israel tests a person's values, DPRK tests a person's knowledge.
That's fair. The problem is values alone is what the US weaponizes so effectively. They throw up atrocity propaganda in Iraq and people with the correct values fall in line. Knowledge is what prevents a person from being used by the US.
True we need both