Anthony Ruggiero: “…the North Korean regime is not actually as interested in the North Korean people as these humanitarian organizations.”
WRONG. KJU is ACTUALLY doing everything he can to boost economy, grow food & build housing UNDER BRUTAL SANCTIONS. giphy.com/gifs/filmrise-…
2/Ruggiero typifies the error of erudition not based in the real world but in a fictitious construct that is real only in the subjective imagination. I.e that's "all in the mind". He's actually saying that the Workers' Party of Korea "isn't interested in the North Korean people".
3/He gets to be taken to task for what is one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard from a supposed "expert". So KJU is "not interested" in improving DPRK's economy??
THE LIE:👇 nknews.org/pro/its-time-f…
“Sanctions proponents counter that if ordinary people are hurt by these policies, it’s the North Korean government’s fault. Alongside this argument is an oft-repeated refrain that “North Korea starves its people while building nuclear weapons.””
2/THE TRUTH: The US & UN hope sanctions cause economic collapse or revolt leading to regime collapse/change & a US-friendly a##-kissing gov’t that gives DPRK’s nukes to D.C. like an obedient dog rewarded w/ the bone of “subtracted Western capitalism” from its imperialist masters.
3/The DPRK is fighting for its right to survive and live by its collective socialist system (aka Juche ideology), striving towards “the complete victory of socialism in North Korea”. You survive thru building your economy and a strong military defense. Without its nuclear
North Korea's No First Use Policy Self-Defense:
“We will coerce the Americans to peace and respond to fire with fire. We have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, but we will not use them if there is no threat." - Choe Son Hui in 2017
[Nov 17, 2017] usatoday.com/story/news/wor…
2/On Oct. 20, Choe Son Hui, who heads the North Korean Foreign Ministry’s North American Department, reiterated her country's self-defense message at a Moscow conference on nuclear non-proliferation.
"Our leader Kim Jong Un has explained our stance: We will coerce the Americans
3/"'to peace and respond to fire with fire,” Choe said, according to the official Russian news agency Tass. “We have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, but we will not use them if there is no threat."
"Our weapons are meant for protecting our motherland from the permanent
2/IF the US is NOT prepared to co-exist w/ a nuclear DPRK, THEN DPRK's nuclear weapons are NON-negotiable.
IF US IS prepared to co-exist w/ a nuclear DPRK, THEN DPRK's nuclear weapons are NEGOTIABLE.
To negotiate or not to negotiate. That is the question.
Seen thru jaundiced Western lenses, some think Kim Jong Un does nothing for the people of DPRK except “brutally oppress” them. In actuality, under relentless pressure of sanctions that hamstring DPRK’s economy, "the Marshal" harnesses science & tech to improve agricultural yield.
2/“The problem of properly setting the right season for crops to withstand adverse weather conditions and transplanting rice seedlings on a qualitative footing was handled most importantly of all others in the courses.
To proceed, the attendees were taught in detail how to
3/"scientifically and technologically fertilize paddies and controlling their water according to the stage of rice growth."
Farming is the agricultural basis for any people, primitive or civilized, going back to Neolithic times. Something often lost on the jet set bourgeoisie.
Commentary on:
Biden can save lives by focusing on everything but North Korea’s nukes
Stopping more conventional weaponry probably won't win leaders a Nobel Peace Prize, but it would improve security threadreaderapp.com/thread/1391637…
2/post-thread comment:
I realized that Lee's: “The core outline of this deal would be to offer limited sanctions relief in exchange for significant NON-NUCLEAR disarmament measures.”
doesn't match Kim Yo Jong's: ""denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions" should be
3/changed into a formula of "withdrawal of hostility versus resumption of DPRK-U.S. negotiations"."
And that "elephant in the room" alludes to raising the question of nuclear disarmament, not the DPRK's nukes & ICBMs themselves that arguably are strictly meant as a deterrent.