The impeachment of South Korea's President Park - a topic much gloated over and celerbrated in the North Korean press - is becoming a subject of keen interest now on the North Korean street. From the Daily NK:
As North Korea’s state-run media report on the impeachment of Park Geun Hye, residents are treating the issue as a hot topic.
Of particular interest is the labeling of the event as a “victory of the people” referenced across these media platforms. A source in Ryanggang Province told Daily NK on March 16 that many locals were surprised to hear that the South Korean people succeeded in bringing down the president.
“For North Koreans,” he said, “this is unimaginable. Everything is about unwavering and absolute loyalty to the Suryong (Supreme Leader).”
North Korea is a society that demands its citizens act and think in accordance with the Suryong’s wishes, following the “Ten Principles for the Establishment of the One-Ideology System.” The ruling Korean Workers’ Party is regarded as above the law and the people, with the Suryong at its helm. The ten principles act as guidelines to rule the entire country, and those who act against the Suryong's will are thoroughly repressed.
"People are stunned by the fact that the South Korean people have deposed the president through protests. We’d lose our lives in any attempt to counter the Suryong’s omnipotence,” he explained.
A source in North Hamgyong Province confirmed these reports, adding, “A lot of people didn't believed it when they first heard the news of Park's impeachment through KCTV (Korean Central Television) and Rodong Sinmun (state-run publication), and therefore asked for confirmation [via Chinese-manufactured phones] from relatives living in China or South Korea. This led to hushed conversations among the like-minded that North Korean society should change to be more like that of South Korea.”
For their part, state-run enterprises have been delivering morning lectures stating that, “the true face of rotten South Korean society has been revealed.” However, residents have largely felt otherwise, a separate source in Ryanggang Province noted, adding that, “there are a growing number of people whose interest and respect for South Korea has increased over the course of the impeachment proceedings.”
Scholars have long known that the American eugenics movement inspired the Nazis; now Whitman adds the influence of America’s immigration policy and its laws about race....
Historians have downplayed the connection between Nazi race law and America because America was mainly interested in denying full citizenship rights to blacks rather than Jews. But Whitman’s adroit scholarly detective work has proved that in the mid-’30s Nazi jurists and politicians turned again and again to the way the United States had deprived African-Americans of the right to vote and to marry whites. They were fascinated by the way the United States had turned millions of people into second-class citizens.
Strange as it may seem to us, the Nazis saw America as a beacon for the white race, a Nordic racial empire that had conquered a vast amount of Lebensraum. One German scholar, Wahrhold Drascher, in his book The Supremacy of the White Race (1936), saw the founding of America as a “fateful turning point” in the rise of the Aryans. Without America, Drascher wrote, “a conscious unity of the white race would never have emerged.” Rasse and Raum—race and living space—were for Nazis the keywords behind America’s triumph in the world, according to historian Detlef Junker. Hitler admired the American commitment to racial purity, praising the anti-Indian campaigns that had “gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand.”
Hitler was not wrong to look to America for innovations in racism. “Early 20th-century America was the global leader in race law,” Whitman writes, more so even than South Africa. Spain’s New World Empire had pioneered laws tying citizenship to blood, but the United States developed racial legislation far more advanced than that of the Spaniards. For nearly a century African-American slavery was a monumental stain on Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and its claim that “all men are created equal.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “any alien, being a free white person” could become an American—the Nazis noted with approval that this was an unusual case of racial restriction on citizenship. California barred Chinese immigration in the 1870s; the whole country followed suit in 1882.
World War I gave an added impetus to the focus of racialist doctrines on immigration and immigrants. The Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1917 banned Asian immigrants along with homosexuals, anarchists, and “idiots.” And the Quota Law of 1921 favored Northern European immigrants over Italians and Jews, who were mostly barred from immigrating. Hitler praised American immigration restrictions in Mein Kampf: The future German dictator lamented the fact that being born in a country made one a citizen, so that “a Negro who previously lived in the German protectorates and now resides in Germany can thus beget a ‘German citizen.’ ” Hitler added that “there is currently one state in which one can observe at least weak beginnings of a better conception … the American Union,” which “simply excludes the immigration of certain races.” America, Hitler concluded, because of its race-based laws, had a more truly völkisch idea of the state than Germany did.
Global Jihad and Islamic Radicalism started in 1928 with the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood. This happened during the same decade in which Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s National Socialism came into being.
The Muslim Brothers constitute for the global Islamist movement what the Bosheviks were for the Communist movement during the last century: the ideological reference point and organizational core that decisively inspired all subsequent tendencies. Al Qaida’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri started as a member of the Muslim Brothers, Recep Tayyip Erdogan stems from a party which was massively influenced by the Brotherhood, Ruhollah Khomeini got his inspiration from them while Hamas serves as the Brotherhood’s official branch in Palestine....
Not every Muslim who refers to the Koran, is an Islamist. But each and every Islamist refers to the Koran.
We know that the bulk of the Muslims do not share the Islamists’ interpretation of the Kor’an. It would be wrong and self-deluding however, to claim that those who understand certain passages of the Koran literally, misuse or misunderstand this text. For there is today no authority to decide whether, for example, the command to >strike off the disbelievers’ heads< (Sura 47, verse 4) is to be understood literally or metaphorically.
There are, however, four common features that earmarks the global Islamist movement’s interpretation of the Kor’an; features that constitutes the common ground for al-Qaida, the Islamic state, Hisbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the rulers of Iran....
This four-point program – only Allah’s law is valid, jihad is our path, the Jew is our main enemy and death is better than life – applies to the IS and to Iran, to Shiite Hezbollah and to the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. It is a common program and a common global war and thus a global challenge to Europe and the world. But what about the Western response, today?
There is no response to global Islamism as such. There is no common effort, for example, to outlaw suicide bombing politically and legally as a crime against humanity.
Instead, European governments make the goat the gardener and recommend a partnership with Iran in the fight against the Islamic State. That is like recommending a partnership with Hisbollah in order to fight Hamas.
Iran has been a silent supporter of al-Qaida and the Taliban – both Sunni-oriented – for decades. They tactically supported the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and they tactically support the rise of the Islamic State in the Sinai right now.
We all recall that the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the Eighties in order to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Washington, at that time, ignored bin Laden’s ideological program. 9/11 was the result of this mistake.Today, the West seem to be willing to repeat this very mistake by ignoring Teheran’s ideological program and the global program of Islamism as such.
This is my critique of the policy of the European Union and the West: It refuses to take the ideological program of Islamism as a new and totalitarian movement into account. However, if you refuse to recognize the ideological basis of Islamism, you cannot draw the necessary conclusions. You betray the progressive Muslims throughout the world and you show fear where you may have to prove your strength. The result is a feeling of helplessness, not determination.
[S]he tells me about her teenage daughter, Ripley, who went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child for the fourth time recently, and spotted Boris Johnson in the theatre. She went over to say: “Hello, Mr Johnson, my name is Ripley Parker and I just wanted to tell you you’re a c***. I hope you enjoy the show.” Newton cackles, “I’m so proud of her.”
I'm no fan of Boris, but...bloody hell. Is that what we're teaching our children about politicians?