Kim Jong-un and Jim Jones
Anyone else see a resemblance in the way they operate[d]?
The North Korean leader is operating on a much larger scale, of course. His weaponry is decidedly more advanced, as well. But both tried to instill in their followers a blind devotion, and both depended on blocking information from outside and replacing it with their own insular and paranoid reality. Both also made sure their subjects believed they were threatened by an outside world that was about to pounce on them, and that violence might be necessary—even a preemptive strike—to prevent or stop it.
Most people remember the Jonestown massacre/suicide. But few remember its details or even knew much about them at the time. You can refresh your memory here. You may be surprised at what you read.
My fake email address is back.
You think Kim Jong Il is a Jim Jones Type? I dont see him as willfully self destructive. I think hed rather wallow in power. I think its clear he’s paranoid, but not suicidaly so. Do I got him wrong?
So, I will comment as I intended…..
The hard left here at home are a death cult of a different sort. They want the death of all who oppose their perverted agenda. At the very least they want to make us pariahs who can be marginalized. Stormy weather ahead. This will be a dangerous summer in the metro areas.
Yes, the Kims have ruthlessly ruled but I suspect they’ve also inculcated cooperation in the N. Korean public by selling that public an unrelenting propaganda meme of reunification of Korea under a just North.
I’m highly doubtful that the N. Korean public has ever given up on perceiving that to be a just goal for their society.
I do not see Kim as suicidal and thus discount a nuclear first strike attack by him upon America. That is the one scenario in which China would not react against an American nuclear reprisal.
Nor do I see the N. Koreans as believing that only nuclear capabilities will deter a future invasion by America. As, if that were our intent, we would have done so long ago and, they still retain their Chinese alliance to deter invasion.
Which begs the question, why then their pursuit of nuclear ICBM capability? Only one answer suggests itself; Kim’s pursuit of nuclear ICBM capability is to ensure non-interference by America when he invades S. Korea.
Once N. Korea reaches a certain capability, Kim can threaten major population centers in Japan, the Philippines, India, Australia, etc. etc. In such a circumstance, who would doubt that he wasn’t serious in that threat? Would America risk the nuclear immolation of 150 MILLION+ innocents to stop Kim?
I think not.
Since, Congress would impeach Trump should he attack N. Korea absent an inarguable Casus belli, I see little prospect for change as Kim advances toward nuclear ICBM capability.
Should that capability eventuate, S. Korea is living on borrowed time.
I’m currently reading ‘The Road To Jonestown’ by Jeff Guinn who has written some pretty comprehensive and balanced popular histories on Manson and Bonnie and Clyde. Book goes pretty deep on Jones from his youth (he was strange from go) all the way to the end. Pretty good read if you have an interest in the topic.
If you want a large scale cult with a lot of weapons, how about
Aum Shinrikyo?
One thing that I think bears pointing out about the Rev. Jim Jones was that before he went off to find his own heart of darkness in Guyana he made his career in San Francisco. And there he was very well connected with the Democratic Party establishment. He was ideologically simpatico with them. After all he was running The “People’s” Temple. He preached to the poor that the reason they were poor was that they were being exploited by the greedy, racist capitalist establishment. And on the level of practical politics Jones could delivery not just the votes of his congregation but plenty of “volunteers” to stuff envelopes, work phones and knock on doors for those politicians he endorsed. Many prominent Democrats were eager then to shake his hand and have their pictures taken with him (now Senator Dianne Feinstein is one example, also the Carters).
Most of all Jerry Brown.
As someone who wasn’t even ten years old when Jonestown went down the thing that has somewhat surprised me was how totally un Christian the Peoples Temple was. Jones would rail against the bible (unless it suited him to go the other way for money) endlessly. His real emphasis was socialism more than any kind of real religion. His wife Marceline comes across as a real puzzling character in the book. Up until the very end she worked for the state of California health services and was a pretty intelligent woman but yet she remained devoted to Jones even after he fathered children with at least two other women and basically lived apart from her. She even went to Washington DC and lobbied on Jonestown’s behalf before going to Guyana in the months preceding the massacre.
The whole thing is incomprehensible in many ways.
George Moscone the mayor of San Francisco was probably the politician that used Jones and Peoples Temple the most for electoral gain. Then he did all he could to avoid them until Jones fled to Guyana. Moscone of was assassinated nine days after the Jonestown massacre.
Another odd thing is the emphasis that it was The Peoples Temple’ not The People’s Temple’. Peoples not People’s.
Kim is FORCING Japan and South Korea to nuke up.
This is another legacy from Barry Soetoro.
Red China is going to have every significant neighbor — close by, too — as atomic powers.
Taiwan
Japan
S. Korea
Russia
USA (Guam)
Pakistan
Iran
India
BTW, Kim has no atomic shield courtesy of Beijing.
Kim’s larger problem is that Xi’s faction is hostile to him, as he was aligned with Xi’s rivals in the past.
Xi is still purging his opponents.
Kim fully realizes all of this.
His end game is probably not invasion — but blackmail.
He wants to run a protection racket.
blert,
It’s questionable that either Japan or S. Korea have the time they need to secure a consensus to nuke up before Kim achieves his needed nuclear ICBM capability that will allow him to prevent American interference, if (IMO, when he) he invades S. Korea.
I do agree that Kim is forcing Japan to consider nuking up but I’m under the impression that there is still significant internal resistance to doing so. The recent election of Moon indicates that there is even stronger resistance to doing so in S. Korea.
GB, my ‘take’ on Trump is that he’s deliberately stressing Kim… with the intention of keeping Kim’s military assets deployed in an excessive state of alert.
It’s rice planting time.
Kim needs his troops to begin planting.
Any invasion by Kim would go off the rails immediately… since he does not have an air force to speak of.
The American MLRS can knock out artillery ( its primary function ) at an astounding clip. The ROK army has the MLRS, too.
I expect to see this Kabuki dance go on and on.
Isn’t it curious that the simple solution is never considered? Same solution applies to NK, VZ, and the nations of islam. But keep it simple stupid never gets through to the stupid.
One difference between the two: Jim Jones was a player in San Francisco politics, on the Democrat Party side. (Is there any other side in San Francisco?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
I read all, except the comments on the old article. One thing missed, or not emphasized, was the duplicity of the actual worship.
Outwardly, it was a Christian church with plenty of quasi traditional worship. These documentaries/biographies point out that in private, with his wife or immediate family members, Jim Jones expressed nothing but scorn for the worship of the “sky God.”
It may be overstating the case slightly to say that the Christian religious component of his flock was purely a scam. To Jim Jones, worshiping Jesus or the Lord was a come-on, a blue-light special designed to get people in the door and keep them there long enough for the other entrapment mechanisms to take hold.
Marx and all other forms of Marxism are clear that religion is “the opiate of the masses.” Government must be the opiate! Anarcho-Syndicalism, a major branch of Marxism, is very thorough in its study of wielding power and amplifying that power, or asymmetric warfare.
Jones was quite creative in marrying the religious with the anti-religious. Or more precisely, he married a faith-based religion with a faith-based governmental ideology. Jones could dispense with most rational arguments pro or con. NoKo doesn’t need a lot of rational argument either because they have armies and gulags. Jones needed psychological entrapment, but NoKo has actual prisons in vast quantities.
blert: “His end game is probably not invasion – but blackmail.
He wants to run a protection racket.”
That has always been the main modus operandi. Kim thinks he needs to keep being more threatening and he has been encouraged by both China and Iran. In the past China didn’t do much to keep him under control. That may change with Xi.
I agree that Trump seems to be trying to force Kim into penury by keeping his army on high alert. Gasoline has never been plentiful, now they have shortages. Rice not getting planted. That’s bad news. The plight of the people grows worse. Although Kim will undoubtedly allow many to starve before he gives in, if ever. Like Jim Jones, he’s nuts. Too bad, life in North Korea could be a lot more pleasant if their leader would decide to quit running a rogue nation.
I find no similarity between Jones and Kim.
The best place to be in North Korea is in its armed forces. Food, housing and healthcare guaranteed, and all that’s needed is to follow orders (e.g. strutting every May Day).
The NK military numbers well above 1 million, which is fine for keeping domestic order by oppression. No cult needed.
We laugh at Kim for being fat, having a goofy haircut by our standards (looked around lately? there’s lots of weird hair here), and being a sadistic monstrosity. Those are hardly unusual in a despot. Check back over the last 3000 years.
South Korea is getting fairly craven about the North. Reunification will be a multigenerational disaster.
We should get all US troops out of the country ASAP. They are little more than hostages, a futile barrier against the North.
Finally, we can all thank Harry Truman for making this Korean mess messier by firing MacArthur.
Here is the conclusion of a letter by MacArthur some years post firing:
“It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory.”
Jim Jones was a mere blip in history, a case study, but not nearly a Kim. Orders of magnitude matter.
neo writes, “But both tried to instill in their followers a blind devotion, and both depended on blocking information from outside and replacing it with their own insular and paranoid reality. Both also made sure their subjects believed they were threatened by an outside world that was about to pounce on them, and that violence might be necessary–even a preemptive strike–to prevent or stop it.”
. . . and either of these is different from the present-day mainstream media / hollywood / academia / lefties, how?
I read all of the Jim Jones post and comments.
Very interesting on the main topic, and rather nostalgic on the tangents.
I don’t think I ever knew before about Jones’ connections to Communism.
Q: gee, you think maybe that didn’t figure heavily in the news stories back in the day?
A: read about the destruction of Venezuela today.
I pulled this one out because of a serendipitous concurrence of events: I read “Fahrenheit 451” again today for the first time in probably 40 years (it was published in 1953).
Occam’s Beard Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
The moonbat infestation in California raises an interesting moral dilemma: tolerance for rubbish generates more rubbish. Or, to put it another way, making provision for a problem guarantees the existence of the problem.
SF tolerated homosexuals and eccentrics of various stripes, and while that was desirable, it led to homosexuals and assorted whackos moving there, which was not. Pretty soon the inmates had taken over the asylum, and what in other cirucmstances would have been a colorful adjunct to local society became the society. Then it wasn’t colorful at all, but then a civic nuisance. That nuisance is most apparent in connection with the homeless in SF, who now are a serious problem that the vigorous application of a few nightsticks 30 years ago would have precluded.
Leftists always escalate bad things.
* * *
Not saying I support Occam’s solution (not rejecting it either…), but the point is that where a little bit of salt seasons the soup, a full jar of it makes the soup inedible.
Most societies can survive a relatively small contingent of “non-normative” members (is that a safe enough adjective? Don’t want to trigger anyone…) whereas a larger cohort will, to mix metaphors yet again, swamp the life-raft.
Jones, Korea, Venezuela reached the point where the SANE people were the “salt” —
Another nugget of wisdom from the past:
FredHjr Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
One of the chilling facets of that whole drama is the fact that the Big Media did not then and do not now report that Jones was a Communist and his cult was a heavy dose of it. They called it a cult or refer to it as a cult of personality, but a cult of personality only works if you, as a participant, agree with the vision and ideas the man is espousing. Folks, there was a content to what Jones was uttering. He didn’t put these people in a trance.
* * *
Applies to other “cults” of the political persuasion; Obama was the target in 2008, Trump is now (see final comment at the link in Dec 2016).
However, the problem is not the messenger but the perception of the message: if you liked what Obama was selling, then he was The Messiah (ditto Trump or anyone else). Some Venezuelans still revere Chavez and that’s not the only example of national Stockholm syndrome.
Some people might get sold on the message if they like the messenger enough. That worked for Obama, but pretty much back-fired with Trump. The ONLY selling point for Hilary was the ideology she represented.
And JFTR none of these examples had or could have the power over lives that Jones did (he had to take them to Guyana to keep control), or that Hitler & Stalin & etc wielded.
The lesson of Fahrenheit 451 is that the only way we can become powerless is to cede power – give it away – out of fear or cupidity or laziness or ignorance.
Well it’s too late and too long, but you get the drift.
Following the rabbit trail of links finally brought me to this one, and perhaps the really sad conclusion that, as with the Peoples’ Temple parents, we are the ones giving our children the Kool-Aid.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/11/how_the_academic_left_elected.html
November 18, 2008
How the Academic Left Elected Obama
By Paul Kengor
Of all the reasons why America voted the way it did on November 4, one factor stands out: young people and first-time voters turned out and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.
..
While these categories are not monolithic, and overlap, they capture the current generation of college students, who clearly went bonkers for Barack Obama. Why? What are they learning — and not learning?
These youth live and learn on college campuses where “diversity” and “tolerance” and “multiculturalism” — bogus buzzwords that apply only to ethnic, gender, and sexual diversity, not genuine diversity of ideas — reign supreme. Racial diversity is at the crux of this academic trinity, the source and summit of the faith. It is the molten, golden calf, where much of the intelligentsia and their disciples gather to worship. Political correctness has supplanted traditional religion.
Thus, when the university community was presented with Barack Obama, a charismatic, impressive, seemingly excellent Democratic presidential candidate — who happened to be African-American — the reaction was nearly reverential, bordering on idolatry. The good senator’s bracing radical associations — enough to deny any other American a security clearance — and which were not coincidental to a man ranked the most leftist member of the most leftist Senate in U.S. history, didn’t matter to the academic world. Quite the contrary, those who dared to point out these associations — FoxNews, talk-radio, the McCain-Palin ticket — were deemed loathsome Neanderthals deserving of being burned in effigy from the nearest dorm.
..
This is the atmosphere in which these young people are being educated. That’s what they’re learning. Equally crucial to this election, however, is what college students are not learning:
As I noted earlier, Americans don’t care about Barack Obama’s radical past, including his links to the likes of Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, and Saul Alinsky, because of the failure of our educational system to teach the lessons of the Cold War and horrors of communism. This is especially true of higher education, where the leftist worldview is so extreme and so upside down that America’s professors share a hearty contempt not for communism but for anti-communism.
Think about this: The current generation of college students was born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. These modern products of elite education are not Reagan babies. They were not inspired by the Westminster Address of June 1982, by the Evil Empire speech of March 1983, by Reagan meeting with Pope John Paul II to topple communism in Eastern Europe throughout the 1980s, or by Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 1987, demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down that cement tombstone to human freedom. No, today’s freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, who voted for the first time on November 4, 2008, were born after these historic events. They’ve received their education on communism from their professors, which means they’ve received either no education at all on the unparalleled slaughter formally known as Marxism-Leninism, or, to the contrary, they’ve heard only dark, dire lectures about the malevolence of anti-communism — of McCarthyism.
…
This is an abbreviated way of explaining why Barack Obama’s communist connections didn’t matter in this election, and how the Ivory Tower paved the road to victory. We won the Cold War but seem to have lost the long-term, crucial ideological struggle at home. We lost not on the battlefield but in the classroom. On November 4, it finally came back to bite us, and at a time (economically and politically) that couldn’t be worse.
Finally, I should add that I’ve received emails in the last couple of weeks from distraught conservative parents saddened to learn that their college-student children voted for Obama. They shouldn’t be surprised; sadly, these parents have unwittingly paid for precisely this. In the vast majority of the nation’s colleges, this is what their children are learning at a cost of the parents’ lifetime savings. I’m reminded of the statement from the late atheist philosopher Richard Rorty, who said that the job of professors like him was “to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own” and “escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”
This has been the personal mission of many professors for decades now — in flagrant violation of the scandalously fraudulent mission statements of the colleges where they teach. They’ve been enormously successful. The left’s gradual takeover of academia is complete — the Long March a stunning success. Behold: the presidency of the United States of America.
The fruits of the left’s dogged work were on display on November 4, 2008. And now, alas, to paraphrase the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, America’s chickens have come home to roost.
* * *
This sort of generational ideological shuffle is not new, perhaps, but it seems to be cycling faster. Despite all our modern media, computers, libraries, and other resources, students can’t learn something they are never introduced to.
What Bradbury wrote as a warning was, as happened so often with the Greeks and the Hebrews, an unheeded prophecy. Or in today’s meme, a how-to book.
Mild confusion: did you mean to refer to Kim Jong-un, the current NK dictator, or Kim Jong-Il, his father, now deceased?
The recent book “The Road to Jonestown” was very informative — I really didn’t know any detail of his pre-San Francisco life — would highly recommend it to anyone who’s interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Jonestown-Jones-Peoples-Temple-ebook/dp/B01HMXV0AQ
Neo:
You ask if Kim Jong Il is like Jim Jones. I think you mean Kim’s son, Kim Jon Un. Kim Jong Il was nowhere near as loud with his saber-rattling. He didn’t have to be, as there was a strong effort in the USG to placate the father with food aid in the hopes his nuclear program could be derailed. Our efforts delayed his nuclear program, but didn’t derail it.
Now the son comes along. He is not interested in the tepid threats his father used: he wants to ratchet up the noise and the rocket/nuclear tests in the hopes of — well, that’s the question. Does he really believe he can cow the US? He is king of the hermit kingdom, but he is a product of a western education in part, so he knows a little about what western military capabilities are.
Or does he want reunification? That would be a death knell for him and his regime. As much as the South Koreans hate the USA, they love selling cars and electronics into our market. They are unlikely to give that up and become flag-waving devotees of a megalomaniac who wants to control every facet of their life. In fact just the thought of cutting the south off from the rest of the world (they are the most connected nation in the world right now) is not tenable.
So what does Kim Jong Un want? Adulation by his people, who are so malnourished they stand on average 8″ shorter than their brethren in the south? Access to all the movies in the world? (He probably has that already.)
When I was working in the Foreign Service I knew some North Korean diplomats. I was stunned at how insular they were, and how devoted they were to the father, Kim Jong Il. They paid (in counterfeit $100 bills, BTW) a local newspaper to publish the collected works of the first Kim, Kim Il Sung, in Swahili. I got to know the editor pretty well and asked why. He said “for the money.” He also said he doubted any of is readers looked at a word of what he published from the Norks.
So we have three generations of Kims at the head of a reclusive nation that seems a lot like Jim Jones’ church in the unwavering devotion of the people. But the Kims have a vision — possibly only of keeping themselves in power, possibly of reunifying Korea under their leadership. Like Jonestown, their vision will probably come unglued at some point. Kim Jong Un’s job is to keep the theatre going as long as he can without losing his head. So far his generals have not threatened that vision, or the ones who do have died. One of these days, I think, a general will say “I could have all of this for myself.” If he keeps his mouth shut and does the deed single-handedly, it might work.
As for the nuclear threats, how many weapons would Kim need to mount a credible threat? Ten? Twenty? It has taken ten years for them to move from their first nuclear test to having perhaps 20 now, and the ability to mount their current model on an ICBM is doubtful.
But if they had 20 nuclear weapons, Kim’s calculus might be “is it better for me to launch these, or to sell them to Iran?”
Does selling to the Mullahs bring him closer to his supposed goal of reunification? Does attacking Japan or the US west coast do so? Or how about lobbing a couple of nukes into Beijing?
Right now, saber rattling appears to be his best course of action. When that calculus changes, we might see some nasty developments. In the meantime, as others have pointed out, rice is going unplanted. Next year will be a lean year north of the 38th parallel.
Aesop: Your analysis is spot on. Thank you for that.
Because of F’s remarks, I say again: the reunification of the Koreas will be a multigenerational disaster for the South. The Norks will simply bend the South to their own yoke.
Buy your Samsung now!
Beyond that, there is the message from MacArthur, beyond the grave: strive for victory. No armistice, no solicitude. Kill the enemy that seeks to kill us. Kill them first and kill them deader than dead.
F; raf:
I actually meant either or both. To tell you the truth, I sometimes merge the two to a certain extent, although I do believe the son to be a bit crazier and more potentially bellicose. But both somewhat resemble Jones, to my way of thinking, in the ways I listed (and more, actually).
And by the way, I don’t think Jim Jones’ main motivation/impluse for the deaths at Jonestown was a suicidal one. I think it leaned more towards the homicidal. I may write another post on that.
The biggest difference between the two is that Jones only cared about himself and his legacy, while Kim Jong Un (and Kim Jong Il before him, and every DPRK leader all the way back to Kim Il Sung) care about passing their legacy along to their successors. Different win conditions being sought, producing different end results.
Tatterdemalian:
Among other things, Jim Jones was a committed Communist. He cared about the things Communists cared about, in addition to his legacy.
Hmm. I thought there was someone else between Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, but it seems not to be the case. No wonder I couldn’t remember the name.
Any communist will tell you they care more about communism than any personal goal.
Not a single one actually means it, not even the Kim dynasty. Actions speak louder than words.
blert,
Do you think that should the North start starving, that a ‘humanitarian’ gesture of food supplies will not be provided? And that, a refusal by Trump to allow it, would NOT be painted as proof of his inhumanity? One more straw upon the impeachment camel’s back? It would not be politically feasible, so starving the North is of limited utility, especially as Kim has already demonstrated his willingness to starve his own people.
As for invasion, Seoul is 25 miles from the border. It would be overrun in a day. Once inside the city, air superiority becomes problematic. And, if Seoul falls… so too does the nation.
Once conquered, might not Kim emulate the Chinese and use S. Korea’s industrial might to strengthen and grow his military prowess?
When Kim threatens to launch his nukes at population centers in Japan, the Philippines, India, Australia… will the US call his bluff? And if he’s NOT bluffing, accept the deaths of 150 MILLION innocents?
Show me where that scenario is not credible. Lay out for me another nonsuicidal rationale for Kim’s pursuit of nuclear ICBM capability.
Tatterdemalian,
I don’t think you quite have it. Power seeking communists use communism to achieve their personal goals.
Actions do speak louder than words and the Kim dynasty’s consistent pursuit of nuclear ICBM capability are actions with a purpose.
Presumably Kim is NOT suicidal. A nuclear first strike upon America or any of our allies would be an undeniable justification for nuclear retaliation. Not even the Chinese would argue with that and given the disparity in armament that would be a suicidal action for Kim to take.
Nor does a nuclear defense against invasion make sense, since China is their protector. Besides, they have nukes to defend themselves with but continue to develop weaponry that extend beyond defense.
So WHY have generations of N. Korean leadership been committed to the development of nuclear ICBM capability?
The only thing that makes sense to me is as a deterrent against American interference when N. Korea attacks S. Korea.
GB
The 20 miles between the DMZ and Seoul is mined and obstructed beyond belief.
MOST of the North Korean army is on slim rations.
That army has no effective air force, no effective tank arm. (!!!)
Tatterdemalian:
Your point was, however, that Jim Jones was not interested in anything but himself, as opposed to the North Korean leaders. Now you’re saying that neither Jones nor the Norks care about Communism? That’s a different argument. I’m not at all sure it’s true, either. The Communists I’ve known care about both Communism and themselves. Jones was a dedicated Communist his entire life, long before Jonestown.
blert,
You may be right or you may be fighting the ‘last war’. ISIS has no effective air force or tank arm either. Remember the Maginot line? The old expression that, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” comes to mind.
The N. Korean artillery might be used to pave a safe path through the mines and obstructions for invasion, rather than directly attacking Seoul. In a quick, coordinated, surprise attack that artillery might accomplish that mission before it could be taken out.
Hopefully you’re right but if so, we return to the fundamental question; what purpose the generations long pursuit of useless nuclear ICBM capability? As, if they’re not going to invade and don’t need it to defend themselves, given Chinese protection and, won’t commit suicide in attacking the US or one of our allies… what do they need it for? Paranoia and control of pop. seem a bit too facile for me. Easy answers to put to rest something we’d rather not puzzle over.
“Your point was, however, that Jim Jones was not interested in anything but himself, as opposed to the North Korean leaders.”
Correct, and I also stated what I see as the Kim dynasty’s motivation: continuation of the dynasty, more than their own personal aggrandizement.
But that still isn’t placing Communism ahead of their personal goals, it’s just having a different personal goal that makes unlimited perpetuation of the totalitarian regime possible, rather than dooming it to end in a mass murder/suicide.
The only way the Norks are going to be stopped from having nuclear-armed IRBMs and ICBMs is if the Chinese stop them. And that’s only going to happen if China’s leaders are convinced that their prosperity requires their continued free access to American markets. (I think they are, which is why they are desperately trying to create new markets in Pakistan, Africa, and Central Asia through their public works programs in those areas.) I am cautiously optimistic about China stopping the NKs, because I think Trump said to Xi, “Nice little trade surplus with the U.S. you’ve got there. Be a shame if something happened to it. Now, what are we going to do about that lunatic on your border?”
Jim Jones and North Korea both utilize the Iron Fist of tyranny in obtaining control. From an outside perspective, this seems like near total control, but it’s weaker than it looks. NK’s best control is the faith and religion it inculcates in its members. They believe that the rest of the world is starving even worse than them. Same as the Soviets did.
The best control method for humans is to make them be their own slave overseers. Jim Jones had to control people at gun point, and that wasn’t ideal. But once you get Slavery 3.0 running where the slaves think themselves free, then you can run an entire nation and even an entire world.
Just look at the Demoncrats. The Left doesn’t control them with guns, they are their own slave overseers and happily so.
Ymar Sakar Says:
May 16th, 2017 at 6:30 pm
Just look at the Demoncrats. The Left doesn’t control them with guns, they are their own slave overseers and happily so.
* * *
True of all tyrannic regimes, because the official overseers are always outnumbered; they have to depend on out-gunning the slaves or brain-washing them to keep them quiet.
(Is that too harsh a word for the indoctrination we see by the Left these days? Back to Fahrenheit 451 – read Bradbury’s Coda in the 1978 re-issue).
Once those advantages disappear, civil war begins.
Who is playing the Jones role in this farce?
http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/16/michelle-obamas-crap-sandwich/
“Speaking at a health conference last week, Mrs. Obama expressed horror at Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s announcement that his department would be easing regulations on national school lunch dictums highly favored by the former first lady.
Perdue said, “If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition–thus undermining the intent of the program.” But common sense isn’t the Left’s strong suit. Control is its raison d’etre.
The former first lady’s reaction was predictable. “You have to stop and think: Why don’t you want our kids to have good food at school? What is wrong with you and why is that a partisan issue?” She continued: “Why would that be political?”
Her formulation is what we’ve come to expect, isn’t it? Obama accuses Perdue (and Trump) of not wanting “our” kids to have good food at school. But as Perdue noted, if they aren’t eating it, what’s the point? And, as hundreds of thousands of school-aged children around the country have complained, the food isn’t good. It’s often inedible and thus wasted, or there’s so little of it the kids end up hungry in the afternoon.
To return the favor, we should ask Michelle, “Why does Madame Antoinette want our kids to starve? What is wrong with her?”
But of course that would be silly. We aren’t Leftists. We are realists. If the food at school is inadequate, normal Americans adjust and ignore the goofballs who made the menu―either with wink and nod defiance or by simply packing lunches our kids will eat. But Michelle Obama and others Leftists like her want their hands in everything we do so that we know our place. They know best. The point is, and has always been, control.
…
Trump and Perdue’s decision should be welcomed by all sensible souls and life will go on. Yet if that’s the end of the story, if we don’t take from this episode some realization of why those ridiculous and controlling rules were put in place in the first place, we will miss an opportunity to understand the difference between being ruled and governing ourselves.
We need to always be asking this most important question when fighting the Left: “Who died and made you king?” And in this case, who died and made the former president’s wife the arbiter of what, when, and how our kids should eat while they’re at school? Why in heaven’s name did we acquiesce to this? Why didn’t we tell her to leave us the hell alone? Why are American citizens so easily cowed over something it should have been quite simple to defy?
If we give in so easily in matters this petty and obviously ridiculous, how will we ever be able to stop more egregious usurpations of our liberty? …
She can’t seem to understand that her entire premise is flawed; the federal government should not be in charge of what or how much the children of America should eat at lunchtime. They can decide. But for Michelle Obama, all those decisions are for her and people like her to make for us. You see, this is how they do it in advanced societies . . . like Venezuela. (Speaking of places where people have to eat crap.)
The hysteria over everything Donald Trump does or intends to do should not fool anyone. It’s really not about Trump. It’s about you and me. We are the real targets of their disdain. Those who think they know better than we do about every manner of practical thing want us to know our place because insofar as we become a citizenry willing to thumb our noses at Washington, we are a threat to their very existence. So Michelle Obama has to raise the level of hostility and charge Perdue and Trump with wanting our children to eat “crap.”
This is pure nonsense, and she must know it. But she needs to believe that she can persuade enough vulnerable Americans to buy the fear that she is selling. Let’s hope those who don’t buy it can convince the rest of the country that this brand of “caring” is the real crap on offer.”
Communism in the Cafeteria.
Let’s start a food fight.