Kim Jong Un: The most lied about man in the 21st century

Published in

Common Revolution Disrupts Monopoly

28 min readJul 9, 2023

Why are so many lies disseminated about North Korea?

Propaganda has been the tool of deliberate dissemination of information, ideas, and opinions, with the aim of influencing public opinion or shaping people’s beliefs in a particular way.

It is a tool commonly used in politics, advertising, and warfare to manipulate perceptions, promote a specific agenda, or gain support for a particular cause. Propaganda can take various forms, such as posters, speeches, news articles, social media campaigns, or even art and entertainment. Its techniques can include selective presentation of facts, emotional appeal, loaded language, and the manipulation of symbols or imagery.

Propaganda possesses the power to influence individuals into adopting irrational perspectives. Those who have been indoctrinated with falsehoods from birth, regardless of their illogical or infantile nature, often remain staunch defenders of those beliefs until the end. This pattern has persisted throughout history, starting from the time when early civilizations formed empires and nations that shaped the political landscape of their respective epochs.

This enduring pattern highlights the profound impact propaganda can have on shaping societal attitudes and beliefs. Whether through deliberate manipulation or unintentional dissemination of misinformation, the ability to sway public opinion has been a strategic tool employed by various entities across different historical periods. The influence of propaganda extends beyond mere politics, seeping into cultural, religious, and social domains.

Consequently, it becomes crucial for individuals to critically evaluate the information they encounter, challenge ingrained biases, and seek out multiple perspectives to foster a more balanced understanding of the world. By doing so, they can mitigate the detrimental effects of propaganda and strive towards a more enlightened and informed society.

Kim Jong Un. When pondering upon this figure, certain words readily spring to mind: Dictator, tyrant, totalitarian, authoritarian, autocrat, despot, and the like. The Western media, through its nefarious machinations, has successfully indoctrinated the people of the West, distorting their rationality, corrupting their speech, and inciting irrational actions.

The Western media has shamelessly propagated, for example, the notion that Kim Jong Un enforces a homogenous hairstyle for every individual in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). To label this assertion as absurd would be an understatement of colossal proportions. The origin of this claim can be traced back to an anonymous source who never furnished any tangible or credible evidence to substantiate such a policy.

This claim was disproved by user “boy boy” on youtube [1], who went to North Korea himself to get a haircut. One thing I noticed is that, in the section where they were interviewing Australians for opinions on this supposed North Korean policy, these Australians all had a very strong gutterall reaction toward this policy while, by coincidence, these Australians all had the same haircuts.

The reason find this to be a very interesting cultural anecdote because it is a cartoonish representation of wider western society. As westerners are very much oppressed by our governments everyday, but we always end up criticizing someone else in which we have been accused of having the same problem as us.

America has inundated black communities with a deluge of law enforcement personnel, waging an all-out war on Black America through mass incarcerations. However, it appears that the preoccupation remains fixated on discussing the alleged actions of Kim Jong Un toward his own people on the distant shores of the planet.

America has saturated Indigenous reservations with a toxic blend of alcohol, drugs, and an overpowering police presence. America has waged a relentless war against Indigenous peoples, decimating entire nations and leaving them under military occupation. Yet, once again, the dominant discourse fixates on the alleged actions of Kim Jong Un toward his own people residing far away.

But who is Kim Jong Un? First we need to understand the conditions that led to his rise.

History of the DPRK

The inception of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was shaped by a profound interplay of international forces, giving rise to the partition of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of distinct political entities in the North and the South. This division, meticulously orchestrated by the Soviet Union and the United States, laid the foundation for a resolute struggle for autonomy and reunification.

Korea, a land with an illustrious history and indomitable people, endured the yoke of Japanese colonialism for decades. However, with the conclusion of World War II, the stage was set for a transformative chapter in Korean annals. As the Allied powers deliberated the fate of Korea, the Soviet Union and the United States reached a consensus to provisionally divide the peninsula along the 38th parallel for strategic purposes. Ostensibly, this arrangement aimed to emancipate Korea and facilitate its recovery and self-determination.

Alas, as the icy winds of the Cold War howled between the Soviet Union and the United States, the partition of Korea solidified into an enduring reality. The two spheres of influence congealed, with the Soviet Union endorsing the establishment of a socialist regime in the North, while the United States lent support to a democratic government in the South.

In the aftermath of Japan’s surrender, the Korean people yearned for authentic liberation and the opportunity to shape their own destiny. Yet, they were swiftly confronted with the harsh realization that their fervent aspirations for independence were being overshadowed by the strategic interests of external powers.

The American-controlled zone in the South, under the stewardship of General Douglas MacArthur, manifested a heavy-handed approach that favored the preservation of reactionary forces. The native endeavors to establish a “People’s Republic” were summarily suppressed, with individuals associated with such movements relegated to the margins or forced underground. The Americans aligned themselves with pro-Japanese elements and exiles, fostering a political climate hostile to the aspirations of a united and autonomous Korea.

Conversely, the Soviet-administered zone in the North pursued a contrasting path. They acknowledged and bolstered the burgeoning “People’s Committees” as embodiments of grassroots initiative. Emphasis was placed on agrarian reform, nationalization of industry, and the empowerment of diverse mass organizations, including farmers’ unions, labor unions, and women’s associations. North Korean society became a fertile soil for popular participation and societal metamorphosis.

Efforts to resolve the division through negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States proved futile, ensnared by irreconcilable ideological disparities and power struggles. The Americans advocated for elections in the South under dubious circumstances, while the Soviets demanded the withdrawal of occupying forces and the establishment of a unified Korean government based on a national political conference.

The elections held in the American-controlled zone in May 1948 were marred by political violence and coercion, as right-wing factions sought to consolidate their dominance. Concurrently, a “National Unity Conference” unfolded in Pyongyang, North Korea, where representatives from both the North and the South voiced their opposition to separate elections, vehemently calling for a united national government.

These events laid the groundwork for the subsequent birth of the DPRK. In the North, a Supreme National Assembly was democratically elected, embodying the aspirations of a unified Korea, while in the South, power coalesced in the hands of Syngman Rhee, a leader bolstered by the United States.

The establishment of the DPRK burgeoned from the revolutionary fervor coursing through the Korean people, their ardent yearning for independence, unity, and social advancement. The division imposed by external forces, alongside the suppression of popular movements in the South, engendered a tempestuous milieu where the struggle for self-determination would continue to unfold in the years to come. Thebirth of the DPRK heralded a pivotal juncture in Korean history, propelling the nascent nation onto a trajectory characterized by its distinctive ideology, policies, and aspirations. It stood as a resolute testament to the indomitable spirit of the Korean people, fueling their unwavering commitment to break free from colonial shackles, champion proletarian ideals, and forge a society emancipated from the clutches of imperial dominance.

One good account of this moment in the history of korea is North Korea: First Eye-Witness Report by Anna Louise Strong, published in 1949 [2]

In the divided land of Korea, where the southern part is occupied by the American Army and the northern part by the Soviet Army, a veil of secrecy shrouds the truth about the situation. The few correspondents who have managed to visit South Korea have caught glimpses of intense strikes and brutally suppressed uprisings by the American Military Government. However, no journalist had ventured into the Soviet zone of North Korea until the arrival of one eyewitness.

This eyewitness, determined to uncover the hidden facts, faced resistance from major American news agencies who preferred relying on the accounts of refugees fleeing from the Soviet zone. Undeterred, the eyewitness persisted and obtained a visa to North Korea, where they embarked on a journey that would challenge the prevailing narrative. Their firsthand account sheds light on the reality of the situation.

Upon arriving in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, the eyewitness encountered a Russian major from the army’s press department. This courteous major offered assistance in navigating the country, arranging accommodations in a hotel with Western amenities and facilitating initial contacts. However, the eyewitness insisted on independence to ensure the credibility of their observations. Recognizing the importance of unbiased reporting, the major respected their request, allowing the eyewitness to forge their own path.

Traveling from coast to coast, the eyewitness explored villages, industrial plants, and rest homes within the social insurance system. Along the way, they relied on local interpreters, some of whom had learned English in American missionary schools. Conversations flowed freely with farmers, workers, factory managers, women, writers, and officials. Every fact the eyewitness gathered came directly from Koreans, who willingly shared their thoughts and experiences, unconstrained by external influences. Russians, when encountered, declined to comment on Korean affairs, deferring to the Koreans themselves.

The most striking impression the eyewitness gleaned from their time in North Korea was the Koreans’ belief that they were the ones in control. Their sense of agency was almost naive, with many attributing the “democratic government,” universal suffrage, land reform, and advancements in agriculture, industry, and education to their own efforts. According to their accounts, the Russians were present merely due to a treaty with the Americans and were there to offer advice.

“The Russians liberated us from the Japanese,” one Korean asserted, “but we Koreans did all the rest.”

When the eyewitness mentioned that the Russians handled foreign relations and defense on behalf of North Korea, given that it had no army of its own at that time, the Koreans dismissed it as inconsequential. In their view, Koreans were in charge of running the country, managing elections, police, courts, and government affairs. While Russians were more prominent in Pyongyang, particularly during the anniversary celebration of liberation, they maintained an equal footing with Koreans, mingling freely and celebrating together. It struck the eyewitness as an extraordinary sight, as they couldn’t imagine American occupying forces engaging with an Asian population on such equal terms. This equality formed one of Russia’s strong points in Asia.

Contrary to expectations, the Russians appeared popular among the Koreans, and their popularity had even grown over time. Initially, there had been some complaints against the tough troops that arrived from the German front in 1945, but they were swiftly replaced by selected experts in various fields. These experts, stationed throughout the country, fulfilled specific roles such as farming, industry, engineering, and governance. A Korean farm inspector noted that there were very few Russians in his area, and their role was limited to providing advice.

The Korean people expressed an almost mystical belief in their own power. They recounted instances where landlords willingly surrendered their lands without resistance, not due to the Red Army but because it was seen as a just law and the will of the Korean people. Similarly, those labeled as pro-Japanese traitors fled to the south, not out of fear of the Russians but due to their apprehension regarding the people’s wrath. It was evident that North Koreans possessed an awakened sense of their political power, albeit with an idealistic and uninformed outlook on international affairs.

The prevailing atmosphere in North Korea could not be attributed to Russian control of information reaching the Korean population. Radios capable of picking up American army broadcasts from Tokyo were found in every village. These radios, exclusively tuned to Tokyo propaganda, could not receive Moscow programs. Additionally, North Korea boasted twenty-four newspapers representing three political parties, including one privately owned paper driven solely by profit. Remarkably, according to reporters, writers, and editors, censorship did not exist in North Korea. The North Koreans claimed that censorship was unnecessary in their progressive and patriotic society.

The eyewitness attributed this idyllic and somewhat unrealistic self-assurance to the ease with which farmers acquired land, workers obtained employment, and the Korean people acquired Japanese industries, houses, and summer villas without any significant class struggle. These circumstances were a consequence of the events unfolding in the final month of the war.

When the Red Army entered Korea in August 1945, heavy battles took place in the north, but Japanese rule remained undisturbed in the south due to the Yalta agreement. The Americans arrived several weeks after Japan’s surrender and initially governed through the existing Japanese-appointed Korean officials and police. Consequently, all pro-Japanese Koreans, including former police, officials, landlords, and stockholders in Japanese companies, fled to the American zone in the south.

The mass exodus of these right-wing elements simplified North Korean politics dramatically. The Russians did not need to establish a left-wing government; they simply released approximately ten thousand political prisoners and permitted them to organize freely. Among these prisoners were radicals, including numerous Communists. The triumphant return of these political martyrs to their hometowns, where they were regarded as vindicated heroes, propelled North Korea further leftward. The Russians merely acknowledged the choice made by the Korean people.

People’s Committees emerged in villages, counties, and provinces, eventually converging into a provisional government led by the legendary guerrilla leader Kim Il Sung. Farmers organized and swiftly obtained land from landlords through a government decree, completing the process in just twenty-one days — an astonishing achievement compared to land reforms implemented elsewhere. Furthermore, the Russians transferred around 90% of major industries, previously owned by Japanese companies, to “the Korean people,” who nationalized them through another decree. Trade unions formed and successfully demanded a modern labor code, securing the eight-hour workday, the abolition of child labor, and social insurance. Decrees were issued to establish gender equality in all domains and to expand the education system. General elections were subsequently held, with a “democratic front” consisting of three parties sweeping unopposed to power. Meanwhile, the natural opposition had migrated to the south, where they received shelter and support from the Americans.

This context explains the North Koreans’ perception of an almost exaggerated “people’s power.” However, the eyewitness realized that the true test of their resolve was yet to come, as the impending class struggle had not fully impacted their society. The reactionary elements had fled to the south, where they brutally suppressed strikes. In contrast, North Korean farmers built new homes and acquired radios, no longer burdened by land rents, while workers enjoyed vacations in former Japanese villas.

North Koreans firmly believed that their freedom stemmed from the departure of the civil service and police apparatus that had previously served Japan and then America with the same harsh methods. In their eyes, the American Military Government ruling the South Korean territory would dispute this claim, searching for rulers untarnished by associations with the Japanese. However, the Koreans viewed the entire civil service and police structure as collaborators that had been ousted by the “people’s rule.” According to the North Koreans the south was still not liberated, as the Americans allowed the pro-Japanese traitors to remain in power.

In this eyewitness account, the author provides an insightful and nuanced perspective on the political situation in North Korea, challenging common misconceptions prevalent in the American press at the time.

The author shares their surprise at discovering that there is no Communist Party in North Korea anymore, as the American press often portrays it. Instead, the political landscape has seen various changes and the formation of different parties and civic organizations. The account focuses on the insights provided by Lee Kang Kuk, head of foreign affairs, who has a comprehensive understanding of the political developments in both North and South Korea.

Lee explains that after Japan’s surrender, the Koreans organized People’s Committees and set up local provisional governments throughout the country. However, the American forces that landed soon after refused to recognize these committees and instead supported the Japanese rule. This led to the split between North and South Korea, with political organizations flourishing in the north while facing suppression in the south.

The author delves into the history of political parties in North Korea, mentioning the formation of the Democratic Party, the Workers Party, and the Farmers’ Party (People’s Party). Eventually, the Farmers’ Party merged with the Workers Party, forming the North Korean Labor Party (now the workers party of Korea), which has become the largest party in the region.

The narrative then delves into the challenges faced by North Korea, such as food scarcity, rebuilding industries tied to Japanese war efforts, and the need for education in the Korean language. The account lauds the dynamic leadership of Kim Il Sung, a key figure in the Korean struggle against the Japanese, who played a pivotal role in the success of the Provisional People’s Committee of North Korea.

The author describes North Korea’s first general elections held in November 1946, where three political parties — the North Korean Labor Party, the Chendoguo, and the Democrats — formed a democratic front and put up a joint ticket. The villagers participated enthusiastically in the elections, with a woman miner highlighting the community’s engagement in the process.

The narrative also covers the voting techniques used in village competitive elections, demonstrating how the Koreans expressed their preferences in a subtle and precise manner. The villagers’ dedication to participating in the elections, even under challenging circumstances, showcases their commitment to the newly established “people’s power.”

The account concludes with a profile of Kim Il Sung, the president of North Korea at the time. Kim’s revolutionary background and leadership during the resistance against Japanese occupation are highlighted, making him a prominent figure in the nation’s history.

Kim Il Sung, also known as the Great Leader, is a highly revered figure in North Korea. From the North Korean perspective, Kim Il Sung is regarded as the founding father of the country and the leader of the Korean revolution against Japanese colonial rule. He is seen as the architect of the socialist system in North Korea and the eternal President of the country.

According to North Korean accounts, Kim Il Sung devoted his entire life to liberating and advancing the Korean people. Born in 1912, he witnessed the suffering and oppression endured by Koreans under Japanese colonial rule. Kim Il Sung actively participated in anti-Japanese activities from a young age, organizing resistance groups and fighting for Korean independence.

Under Kim Il Sung’s leadership, North Korea pursued Juche, emphasizing self-reliance, independence, and national sovereignty. North Korean accounts highlight Kim Il Sung’s efforts to create a self-sustaining economy, develop a strong military defense, and prioritize the well-being of the people through policies such as universal free education, healthcare, and affordable housing.

Kim Il Sung’s leadership is also associated with the successful defense of North Korea during the Korean War (1950–1953). North Korean perspectives portray Kim Il Sung as a resolute leader who resisted imperialist aggression, defended the sovereignty of the Korean people, and preserved the socialist system.

Throughout his rule, Kim Il Sung fostered a powerful cult of personality, with his image and ideology permeating all aspects of North Korean society. He is depicted as a paternal figure who deeply cared for the well-being of his people and worked tirelessly to build a prosperous and independent nation.

During the Korean War (1950–1953), the United States and its allies portrayed Kim Il Sung and the North Korean regime as aggressors and aggressors who violated international norms. The American government and military disseminated propaganda materials, such as leaflets and broadcasts, aimed at undermining support for the North Korean regime among its own people and demoralizing its soldiers.

In subsequent years, as tensions between North Korea and the United States persisted, the American government continued to criticize Kim Il Sung’s leadership and the repressive nature of the regime. Anti-North Korean propaganda often focused on highlighting often fabricated human rights abuses, lack of political freedoms, and economic hardships experienced by the North Korean population.

Various media outlets, including news organizations and government-sponsored initiatives, have contributed to the dissemination of anti-North Korean propaganda. This includes publications, documentaries, and news reports that highlight negative aspects of the regime and its policies.

Kim Il Sung’s ascent to power in North Korea coincided with the height of the Cold War, a period marked by intense ideological struggles between the capitalist West, led by the United States, and the communist bloc, led by the Soviet Union. As North Korea embraced socialism and aligned itself with the Soviet Union, it directly challenged the dominant American-led capitalist order in the region. This move posed a significant threat to the strategic interests of the United States in East Asia, which aimed to maintain its influence and contain the spread of communism.

American leaders, keenly aware of the geopolitical implications of a unified and socialist Korea, embarked on a sustained campaign of demonization against Kim Il Sung. They sought to portray him as a puppet of the Soviet Union and a grave threat to regional stability. This approach aimed to justify America’s intervention in the Korean War, a conflict that resulted in immense suffering and devastation for the Korean people. By framing Kim Il Sung as a communist aggressor, the American empire sought to garner international support for its military involvement, masking its own expansionist motives.

Moreover, Kim Il Sung’s commitment to building a self-reliant and sovereign nation posed a direct challenge to American economic interests. North Korea’s emphasis on Juche, a philosophy of self-reliance, threatened the West’s economic dominance and exploitation of smaller nations. By demonizing Kim Il Sung and North Korea’s policies, the American empire aimed to dissuade other countries from pursuing a similar path of independence, reinforcing the notion that alignment with the U.S. was the only path to prosperity.

As the decades passed, the demonization of Kim Il Sung intensified, reaching its peak during the post-Cold War era. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the American empire continued to portray Kim Il Sung as a despotic dictator who oppressed his people and posed an imminent nuclear threat. Such portrayals ignored the complex historical context, the lasting impact of war, and the systemic pressure imposed by external sanctions.

The demonization of Kim Il Sung also served to divert attention from America’s own transgressions and human rights abuses. By painting North Korea as a rogue state led by an evil tyrant, the U.S. could deflect scrutiny from its own actions, both at home and abroad. This tactic conveniently ignored America’s own history of interventions, destabilizations, and military occupations in various parts of the world.

Even after his death in 1994, Kim Il Sung continues to be venerated as the Eternal President of North Korea. His legacy is celebrated through numerous monuments, statues, and commemorative events. From the North Korean perspective, he is regarded as a visionary leader and the embodiment of the revolutionary spirit of the Korean people.

With the death of Kim Il Sung came Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Il is still highly revered and considered a revered leader and symbol of national pride. He is often referred to as the “Dear Leader” or the “Great Leader” by the North Korean people. According to the official state narrative, Kim Jong Il is portrayed as a visionary statesman, a military strategist, and a charismatic leader who dedicated his life to the welfare and prosperity of the North Korean people.

He is credited with successfully continuing his father’s legacy and advancing the ideology of Juche, which emphasizes self-reliance, independence, and the prioritization of North Korea’s national interests. Kim Jong Il is depicted as a symbol of unity, strength, and resilience in the face of external pressures and threats.

North Korea respects Kim Jong Il as a brilliant intellectual, an exceptional artist, and a masterful diplomat who skillfully navigated the complex geopolitical landscape to protect North Korea’s sovereignty. He is also respected as a defender of the working class, with a strong focus on promoting social welfare and equality within the country.

Kim Jong Il’s leadership is associated with achievements such as the development of nuclear weapons, which are seen as a symbol of North Korea’s self-defense capabilities and deterrent against foreign aggression. His military-first policy, known as “Songun,” is celebrated as essential for safeguarding North Korea’s security and maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula.

The development of Kim Jong Il’s nuclear policy can be argued as a necessary defense mechanism against the threat posed by the United States. The United States was, and remains, a hostile and imperialistic power, and the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent was seen as a crucial step to safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring the security of the nation.

We can also highlight the examples of other countries as evidence of the necessity of a nuclear deterrent. They point to instances such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003, where a country without nuclear weapons was attacked by a U.S.-led coalition, or the way Muammar Gadaffi was toppled after surrendering his nuclear weapons. From the North Korean perspective, the development of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent against real and relevant aggression and is seen as a means to avoid a similar fate.

From the North Korean perspective, the decision to give up its nuclear weapons could be viewed as a perilous path towards national suicide. The case of Muammar Gaddafi, the former leader of Libya, serves as a stark reminder of the potential risks associated with disarmament.

When Gaddafi renounced Libya’s nuclear program in 2003, it was initially hailed as a positive step towards disarmament. However, the subsequent events that unfolded deeply influenced North Korea’s perspective on the matter. The vulnerability that disarmament brought to Libya became apparent when a CIA funded civil uprising erupted in 2011, leading to external intervention under the guise of protecting civilians. The military campaign, spearheaded by NATO, resulted in Gaddafi’s downfall, capture, and violent death.

North Korea views its possession of nuclear weapons as a vital deterrent against potential aggression and interventions, particularly from the United States. Disarming would strip the country of its most potent means of defense, leaving it vulnerable to external pressures and coercion. The preservation of sovereignty is of utmost importance to North Korea, and nuclear weapons are seen as a symbol of strength and self-reliance.

The case of Libya serves as a clear example for North Korea, demonstrating how disarmament can lead to a loss of credibility and leverage on the international stage. The perception is that Gaddafi’s decision to disarm ultimately exposed his regime to external interference and eventual toppling. North Korea sees maintaining a nuclear deterrent as crucial for its survival and its ability to negotiate from a position of strength.

Given the North Korean perspective, the Gaddafi situation highlights the perceived risks associated with disarmament. North Korea views its possession of nuclear weapons as essential for national security, deterrence against potential aggression, and the preservation of sovereignty. The case of Gaddafi reinforces the belief that giving up nuclear weapons could expose a country to external interference, vulnerability, and even regime change. From this standpoint, relinquishing its nuclear arsenal would be seen as a perilous path, tantamount to national suicide.

Additionally, the United States has a history of using economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to coerce or topple regimes it perceives as adversarial. They assert that the possession of nuclear weapons provides a level of strategic leverage and bargaining power in dealing with the United States and its allies, acting as a deterrent against potential military interventions or attempts at regime change.

Moreover, the possession of nuclear weapons is crucial for maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula. The threat of external aggression from the United States necessitates a credible defense capability to ensure the survival of the North Korean regime and the safety of its people.

While the development of nuclear weapons is seen by the international community as a violation of international norms and non-proliferation efforts, it is a legitimate means of self-defense in the face of what it perceives as a constant threat from the United States. Possessing a nuclear deterrent is essential to preserving their sovereignty, deterring potential aggression, and ensuring the security and survival of the nation.

The Western media often portrayed Kim Jong Il as a dictator and authoritarian leader who suppressed dissent and denied basic human rights to the North Korean people. These portrayals served to undermine the legitimacy of North Korea’s self-defense programs and justified Western criticism of the country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

North Korea’s development of nuclear capabilities was depicted as reckless and provocative, posing a threat to regional and global security. This narrative conveniently shifted attention away from the Western powers’ own history of nuclear proliferation and military interventions in other countries.

Reports of (alleged) human rights abuses in North Korea, including political prisoners and forced labor camps, further contributed to the demonization of Kim Jong Il and his regime. Such reports were highlighted to present North Korea as a violator of human rights, conveniently diverting attention from human rights violations committed by Western powers.

The extensive cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Il and his family was frequently emphasized to portray the North Korean regime as oppressive and manipulative. This portrayal served to delegitimize the government’s actions and distract from the West’s own political and media strategies that manipulate public opinion.

Accusations of propaganda and disinformation were leveled against the North Korean regime, painting it as a source of falsehoods. However, this conveniently overlooked the Western media’s own role in shaping public narratives and disseminating biased information to further their own interests.

By demonizing North Korea and focusing on its perceived flaws, the Western media and political establishments effectively diverted attention from their own geopolitical interests and actions. This strategy allowed them to downplay their own military presence in the region and avoid critical scrutiny of their foreign interventions and mistakes.

On December 17, 2011, Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, passed away at the age of 69. His death came as a surprise to the world, and the official announcement cited a heart attack during a field inspection as the cause. Kim Jong Il had been the Supreme Leader since 1994, following his father’s death. His secretive nature had created speculation about his health. His son, Kim Jong Un, succeeded him and faced the challenge of continuing his father’s legacy. The international community watched closely, raising questions about North Korea’s future, its nuclear program, and potential power struggles. A state funeral was held in Pyongyang, with leaders from socialist nations attending. Kim Jong Il’s death marked a significant turning point, shaping North Korea’s trajectory, and leaving uncertainty about the nation’s future under his successor.

Enter: Kim Jong Un

Kim Jong Un

As you may have noticed, there is a pattern of those who take up the position of leadership in North Korea; both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il were demonized for upholding the self defence of the Korean nation.

What would it take to convince the average westerner that they’ve been told lies and have been victim to inaccurate and colonial propaganda? Well, let’s talk about some of the specific falsehoods of our time.

North Korean men and students are not forced to have the same haircut

The myth surrounding North Korean haircuts has been one of the most persistent misconceptions about the country. In 2014, news outlets, including the BBC, published an article claiming that North Korean university students were required to have Kim Jong Un’s haircut. This quirkiness of the topic fueled its spread on the internet, with memes and rumors circulating widely.

However, it soon became evident that this story was far from accurate. Tourists visiting North Korea at the time quickly debunked the myth, and numerous news articles supported their findings. The notion that people had to choose from a limited selection of approved haircuts was also proven false.

While North Korean hairstyles tend to be conservative, with an expectation for men to have short hair, the notion of a specific haircut mandated by the government is a misconception. There is no set number of hairstyles that barbershops are limited to, despite displays of example styles with numbers that might suggest otherwise. These numbers are merely used as examples, and individuals have the freedom to choose different styles within the realm of conservative haircuts.

Interestingly, foreign travelers in North Korea have the opportunity to ask for a Kim Jong Un haircut at local barbershops. They can also opt for other hairstyles that deviate from the conservative norm. This allows foreigners to experience different haircuts that may not be commonly seen among North Koreans.

The perpetuation of the myth surrounding North Korean haircuts serves a specific purpose — to portray North Korea as a country where its citizens cannot possibly appear as normal, everyday people leading regular lives. By emphasizing the supposed requirement for specific haircuts, the aim is to create a narrative of an oppressive regime that controls even the smallest aspects of its citizens’ lives.

This claim contributes to the larger effort of dehumanizing the North Korean population and depicting them as strange or alien. It reinforces the notion that the country is isolated and its people are not allowed to express themselves freely or conform to the norms observed in other parts of the world.

It is important to approach these claims with critical thinking and challenge the narrative that seeks to dehumanize and isolate the North Korean people. By doing so, we can foster a more nuanced understanding of the country and its inhabitants, recognizing that they, like people anywhere else, lead normal lives and aspire to fulfill their everyday needs and aspirations.

Otto Warmbier was never tortured in North Korea

This fact might upset you, but, Otto Warmbier was never tortured in North Korea.

Otto Warmbier was an American student who gained international attention after being detained in North Korea in January 2016. Born on December 12, 1994, Warmbier was a student at the University of Virginia when he visited North Korea as a tourist.

During his trip, Warmbier was arrested and accused of attempting to steal a propaganda poster from a hotel. In March 2016, he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for what North Korea considered a “hostile act.” His arrest and subsequent detention raised tensions between North Korea and the United States.

Warmbier’s health deteriorated while in captivity, and in June 2017, he was released by North Korea in a coma and returned to the United States. Tragically, he died just days after his return, on June 19, 2017, at the age of 22.

The circumstances surrounding Otto Warmbier’s detention and the exact cause of his coma remain unclear. His case drew significant international attention and condemnation, with the United States holding North Korea responsible for his mistreatment. The incident further strained relations between the two countries and highlighted the risks associated with traveling to North Korea.

But contrary to this western soap opra, Coroner’s report on Otto Warmbier shows no signs of torture. [3]

The report stated that Warmbier had small scars on his body but nothing severe. Additionally, the dental examination showed that his teeth were natural and in good repair, contradicting his father’s description of his teeth being severely damaged.

This information raises questions about the veracity of the torture claims surrounding Warmbier’s case. While his family described his condition upon return as evidence of torture, the official examination did not support these allegations.

It is important to approach such cases with objectivity and rely on credible evidence. In this instance, the coroner’s report, conducted by professionals, did not find conclusive evidence of torture. This discrepancy highlights the complexity of understanding the circumstances surrounding Warmbier’s detention and the need for a thorough and impartial investigation.

The absence of clear signs of torture, as indicated by the coroner’s report, calls for a careful examination of the information available. While it is crucial to empathize with the Warmbier family’s grief and concerns, it is also essential to base conclusions on verified facts and expert assessments.

This case underscores the importance of conducting comprehensive investigations to establish the truth and seek justice. It serves as a reminder that making definitive claims without sufficient evidence can lead to misinterpretation and potential harm to all parties involved.

This deliberate lie, again, portrays North Korea as a place alien to the rest of the world, where normal people could never exist and where normal things could never occur.

There is religious freedom in North Korea

Believe it or not, there is a strong Catholic church in North Korea [4]. In fact, I found an interview with an official of the catholic church of Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital. He is asked:

“There are many American websites that criticize freedom of religion in the DPRK. What do you think about that?”

To which he responds: “Americans criticize freedom of religion in North Korea… but in our republic, this liberty is constitutional, and it guarantees freedom of religion for churchgoers. Americans may criticize, but there have been believers for a long time, and their children can go to church as freely as they wish… and so do I. There are many foreigners who come to observe, and they can see and feel that we practice freely and devoutly”

According to the official, the constitution of North Korea guarantees freedom of religion for churchgoers. The official claims that believers have existed in North Korea for a long time and that both believers and their children can attend church freely. This suggests a level of religious activity and accessibility.

The official mentions the presence of foreigners who come to observe religious practices in North Korea, suggesting that they can witness the freedom and devoutness of the worshippers.

There are frequent ceremonies by buddhist monks in North Korea [5]. Independent video clips have been released of ceremonies in Kwangbop Temple North Korea, led by North Korean monks. This implies a sense of religious freedom within North Korea.

The existence of frequent ceremonies by Buddhist monks in North Korea, along with the release of independent video clips, suggests a certain degree of religious freedom in the country, particularly concerning Buddhism. These ceremonies and videos indicate that Buddhist practices are not only permitted but also publicly acknowledged and documented. Such visibility implies that the North Korean government does not prohibit or suppress the practice of Buddhism, at least to some extent.

The public display of these ceremonies and the release of independent video clips may indicate that the North Korean government recognizes and acknowledges Buddhism as an important cultural and religious heritage within the country. By allowing these ceremonies to take place and be publicly documented, the government shows a level of acceptance and possibly even support for the Buddhist community and its practices.

The fact that the ceremonies are publicly documented suggests that the government is willing to showcase the practice of Buddhism in North Korea to both domestic and international audiences. This may serve multiple purposes, such as promoting cultural diversity, highlighting religious tolerance, or even attracting tourism. The government’s willingness to present these ceremonies publicly can be seen as a sign of a certain degree of openness and confidence in its approach to religious practices.

The release of independent video clips of these ceremonies indicates a level of transparency regarding religious activities in North Korea. Independent videos imply that there is some access or freedom for individuals or organizations to capture and document these ceremonies without significant government interference or censorship. While the extent of government control over such recordings is unknown, the fact that independent video clips exist suggests a level of openness and possibly a desire to portray religious freedom.

Religious history is also respected in North Korea [6]. The DPRK has allowed 80,000 Blocks of the complete collection of buddhist scripture, or tripitaka.

The statement that religious history is respected in North Korea and the allowance of 80,000 blocks of the complete collection of Buddhist scripture, or Tripitaka, suggests a recognition and preservation of religious heritage in the country. This acknowledgement of religious texts is noteworthy as it indicates an appreciation for the historical and cultural significance of Buddhism in North Korea.

Preserving religious scriptures can be seen as a positive step towards the protection of religious heritage and the promotion of cultural diversity. By allowing the collection of Buddhist scriptures, North Korea demonstrates an openness to preserving and acknowledging religious traditions that have shaped its history.

So not only does North Korea respect the right to freedom of religion, North Korea actively supports and encourages religious preservation.

North Korea is portrayed as a place which suppresses religious freedom, and is also portrayed as a godless dictatorship in the West, this narrative serves the interests of the ruling class. This narrative aims to distinguish North Korea from Western liberal democracies by highlighting alleged religious repression within the country.

The portrayal of North Korea as a godless dictatorship contributes to a broader narrative that reinforces the perceived superiority of Western democratic systems. By emphasizing the suppression of religious freedom, the West can assert its own values and present itself as a champion of individual liberties.

Such a narrative serves the interests of the ruling class by reinforcing the perceived legitimacy and moral authority of Western governments. It allows them to contrast their own systems with North Korea, positioning themselves as defenders of religious freedom and human rights, thereby justifying their own political agendas and actions.

While these are just a few examples of falsehoods of North Korea, they demonstrate the bankruptcy of the western media and the propagandistic nature of western journalism.

References:

This article was written by Max Jones, this article was published by Common Revolution Disrupts Monopoly, to see more brilliant work like this, follow our publication as well as giving 50 claps to this article.

Max Jones is a Marxist and Materialist writer.

The author has a particular ideological perspective that they bring to their writing. Marxism is a political and economic theory that focuses on the struggle between the ruling class and the working class, while materialism is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the importance of material conditions and physical reality in shaping human experience.
By identifying themselves as a Marxist and Materialist writer, Max X is signaling to readers that their analysis of the topic at hand will be informed by these perspectives. This can help readers understand the underlying assumptions and values that shape the author’s viewpoint.
By encouraging readers to follow, comment, and clap for the article, the author is seeking to increase the visibility and impact of their work. This engagement can help to attract new readers and build a sense of community around the author’s ideas.
However, it’s important to note that readers should engage with the content on its own merits, rather than simply showing support for the author’s ideological perspective. Critical engagement with ideas and arguments is essential for advancing knowledge and understanding, and can help to foster constructive dialogue and debate.

Completed on 7/9/2023