Of Nukes, Dogs, North Korea, & Necessary Evil

KIM, THE HEREDITARY KING OF NORTH KOREA, MAKES A NEW NUCLEAR H BOMB EVERY SIX WEEKS. His engineers are trying to build reliable intercontinental missiles. The fear of a heat wave in Los Angeles will take a whole new meaning soon. (And what did the president do about this security problem? Less than Bill Clinton. Oops.)

Kim Jong Un killed entire “groups” of people in his own family, including his uncle, who was instrumental to get him to power: “the discovery and purge of the Jang group… made our party and revolutionary ranks purer…”[117 In 2015, the defence minister was executed by anti-aircraft fire, for “talking back”.

Certainly the uncle was arrested, humiliated, and executed. “Despicable human scum…worse than a dog” is how North Korean state media described the once-powerful uncle of leader Kim Jong-un. It was claimed that Jang Song Thaek admitted trying to “overthrow the state”.

Kim & Wife: Expensive Dior Purse. Feeding People To Dogs. Not Yet Personally On The Menu.

Kim & Wife: Expensive Dior Purse. Feeding People To Dogs. Not Yet Personally On The Menu.

Speaking of dogs, four star general Jan Song Thaek, once thought to be the most powerful leader in North Korea, was stripped naked, with five colleagues, thrown into a cage, and eaten alive by a pack of ravenous dogs… according to a newspaper close to China’s Communist Party. The dogs had not eaten for five days, and the execution lasted an hour. In the end, the dogs cleaned the plate. (Others said that he was executed by machine gun.)

Whatever the rumors, higher-ups in North Korea, and their families, have been executed in large numbers. Differently from Stalin, Kim does not even bother with the appearances of fake trials. Yesterday’s horrors have become quaint.

Kim has gone to the furthest, darkest side. Supremely educated in Switzerland, the North Korean dictator knows all too well that any reason too removed from the law of the jungle, would be his demise. The North Korean leaders have long made Switzerland their central access point (say to the French Riviera and French medical treatments).

With North Korea, the world is confronted with the Hitler problem, not just an uneducated immigrant loser, of the most modest origin, but with someone who is immensely rich, a proven killer, close, personal, whimsical, well-educated and in command of weapons Hitler could not even dream of.

If Kim has the choice between being eaten alive by dogs and threatening, or starting, a nuclear war, he will, of course, chose the latter. Indeed, people who brought him up have explained he was definitively a brat, even as an eight year old (see the Washington Post report of May 27, 2016).

Unfortunately, the only reasonable prospect, then, is for democracies to prepare for what Kim is, namely, the worst: very clever, and very nasty. And that reasoning with him will not help. This is clearly a case where the strongest, darkest means are required.

We have to dial back to 1935, and ponder another crazed, demonic dictator, Hitler (who had just consolidated power with an accord with the German army making him Chancellor and President).

What should have been done with Hitler? What should the democracies have done? Now we know, with today’s mentality and morality: going all out against him.

(But the sordid truth is that it was in the best national interest of the USA to proceed with Nazism and the Second World War… just as it was to have Jefferson and Jackson massacre the Indians, steal their lands, and quintuple the area of the US… Agreed, the USA has changed: the collaboration of the US with Hitler could happen, and did happen, because of the mentality reigning then).

So let’s reconsider Hitler 1935 with today’s mentality: let’s do as if we wanted to avoid World War Two, the death of 5% of humanity, and serious fears, threats, hardships and problems for much of the rest.

Before I come to what to do, we have to remember that this time the stakes are much higher: Kim intents to use nuclear blackmail, with intercontinental missiles aimed at the largest cities of the West. Kim’s government said as much last year, he will do it again, and, this time, with power to back him up.

North Korea, right now is the Nazi Reich, in a potentially even worse version, but this time, we know the program ahead of its attempted implementation, through vast annihilation of uncountable multitudes. Insane? Sure. That’s the entire point, and that is why Obama could not handle it. Obama, fed on a steady diet of Financial Times and University of Chicago, believe people are rationally greedy. But of course, there is much more to humanity than that: the Will to Extermination, for example. The Will to Extermination is a gift: like playing tennis, it can be developed to a fine art, through enough practiced. Kim had plenty of practice (just as Hitler did).

So what to do? Forget the sanctions against North Korea as a plausible long-term solution: that would be about reason. Kim is not about reason (and he can leverage China, as his family long did). Get ready for war. Nuclear war. Or then target Kim and do away with him. There is a precedent for the latter.

In 1938, Hitler’s generals approached British and American diplomats and authorities, asking their governments to declare that they would stand with France in irremediable opposition to Nazi Germany. Then, they explained they would make a coup against the Nazis, arguing that Germany was in danger. Something similar done against Kim is what should be done now.

In 1938, the British and American governments not only did not do what the German generals had asked them to do, but they warned Hitler of the plot against him. (However, Germany had been a democracy just prior, and, even under the Kaiser, was a softer sort of fascism).

Let’s learn from history; let’s not repeat history. Time for a dark and dirty vaccination. To prevent incomparably worse.

The nuclear poker of Truman on August 6, 1945, worked: Japan capitulated within 6 days. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were moral sacrifices. However, what Kim prepares for us all, until he dies, is worldwide nuclear blackmail. Kim is only 33. And North Korean geology is very wealthy. Is that how we can live? (Kim already threatened to nuke Los Angeles and New York).)

Kim’s threats with nukes call for the darkest side… to remedy the situation. Morality comes from sustainability (that’s shown both by etymology and logic). Is a world where a few rendered insane by cruelty, fear and rage are armed with nuclear weapons sustainable? No.

Obama, and countless pacifists in the last 71 years have said they wanted to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. However, we need first to get rid of those who want to mass destroy, and that means destroying the mentalities conducive to this sort of concentration of power.

Meanwhile, the only sane, let alone moral, thing to do is to acquire military technological superiority.  Eight years ago, Obama said that Pakistani nukes were his number one worry. Rogue Pakistani Muslim supremacy and greed supreme scientists helped North Korean nukes. As president, Obama undermined the safety of the world, because he actually helped the North Korean dictatorship, and is still actively doing so.

How? By demolishing the US high-tech innovation system by fostering tech private tech monopolies. The latest example is his latest change in the laws directing the US Patent and Trademark Office. New laws guarantee that people and corporations who gave Obama big money will be favored. So what will suffer? Real innovation. And what will make democracy sustainable? Real innovation.

Hitler happened in a worldwide mental ecological system. So does Kim, and Islamism, and global plutocracy, of course. These are all examples of the rule of demonicity (plutocracy).

Ultimately, anything which favors plutocracy here,  favors plutocracy there. Such as all the colossal, blatant advantages given to those who financed Clintons, Obama and Bushes (from the Koch brothers, to the Spy Network booking your face). The North Korean dictatorship, Putin, the Islamists, and all the powerful rotten ones around the planet feel this, know this, see this, and play it like a violin.

Those “leaders” grabbing all the levers of power are not demented, they are not crazy, they are not sick, they are opportunists. And the opportunity of power, not to say power itself, has transformed them, neurohormonally, and perhaps even epigenetically (we know this happens in fishes, so why not in humans: are we not more sophisticated than fishes?) What they call reason, sustainability calls insanity: a nuclear strike on Los Angeles, successful or attempted, would make North Korea into a radioactive desert. The “leaders”, all over, have more power than ever, are more corrupt, therefore, than ever, and have become, more than ever, monsters made to rule, by all and any ways they can access.

It is for a new moral code invented by We The People to bar this sort of access to evil. “Equality” in “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, is not just a matter of the pursuit of happiness, but of the pursuit of survival. Of humanity as a species.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Of Nukes, Dogs, North Korea, & Necessary Evil”

  1. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    It seems to me that the preceding essay resonates with the critique you made of Camus’ Stranger in recent answers you made to comments. The Stranger is not sick, there are just people like that. Kim is the Stranger, but he has more than a gun. There are no treatment, just take him out.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Camus’ Stranger is feeling weird because of too much sun and heat (something whoever has lived in most of Africa is familiar with). So he undergoes some mental transformation enough to nudge him into insanity.
      Such mental transformations can be much deeper when the environment has been transformed in a much more conducive-to-aggression ambiance, for much longer.
      Yes, just take him out, or prepare if he is not.

  2. Omnnmei Says:

    omnnmei wrote:
    “In 1938, Hitler’s generals approached British and American diplomats and authorities, asking their governments to declare that they would stand with France in irremediable opposition to Nazi Germany. Then, they explained they would make a coup against the Nazis, arguing that Germany was in danger. Something similar done against Kim is what should be done now.”

    Where did you get this crap?

    Cite a RELIABLE source or be known as a typical fact-free TE blowhard spouting nonsense.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are ignorant of an important part of history. It is important, because it changes many perspectives, and interpretations. So you are angry, because, if true, it shows you have understood, and know, nothing important on that primordial subject.

      I am a philosopher not an electronic encyclopedia. Just a biological one, which makes me superior, because I concentrate on superior, most meaningful facts. For example, I know very well the entire subject of the collaboration between Hitler and plutocratic leadership… which made Hitler possible. Indeed. Quite enraging for people like you, who have been played all along.

      There are hundreds of references, you can start by googling: “Patrice Ayme XYZ” where XYZ is what you want to know. Generally it works.

      You can also read the following American book: “In the Garden of the Beasts“. The Tiergaten was where the French ambassador and the US anti-Nazi ambassador, Dodd, were meeting, to avoid Nazi listening: their embassies were thoroughly bugged. FDR replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi (he did the same in London).
      The book: “IBM and The Holocaust” is also a must.

  3. Gmax Says:

    Many Americans feel as you do, yet they don’t know why. So they will vote TRUMP. Make no mistake: I am a registered Democrat but HRC is a terrible choice.

    Obama’s neglect of Korea is his worst failure

  4. tom Says:

    The counter-argument runs as following: Stalin, Mao or Ahmadinezad was no angel either; Yet the West did not engage militarily and many will argue that the result is millions that did not die. There may be hope that Kim will not strike (this will mean his own obliteration) and at some point N.Korea will also change from within, either via an uprising, coup, or peaceful succession such as Franco, Pinoset or tsausesku. Of course the suffering of the N.Korean population will continue and the key issue is that criteria for intervention are not widely agreed upon. Why for instance intervene when Saddam annexed Kuweit, but not when Turkey invaded Cyprus? Why bomb Yugoslavia for ‘oppressing the majority in Kossovo Albanians’, who were of course super nice to the minorities and not Turkey or Syria for oppressing much more the Kurds? So when should intervention occur? When the offending side has nukes? IMHO, it is too late then, it’s much better to do so BEFORE they get them. When they have oil (as in Kuweit)? When the regime is brutal? Thacher was quite friendly to Pinochet. When we have economic interests in doing so? When we feel like it? No matter what the reason, two things need to be done: Convince the public that blood (our own troops as well as the inevitable enemy soldiers and -inevitably-civillians) are worth it (it’s always easy to make such calls when someone else’s life is at stake) and pay the price. This also means rebuilding (see for instance Iraq and Afghanistan), and having in mind that to someone who has lost his civillian family as a collateral damage, all the citizens of the countries that bombed them are no less evil or terrorists. All of which is not to say that one should never intervene(as the Hilter example illustrates), but that there should be a clear thinking and understanding or when and why (not necessarily as a checklist, but at least in general considerations). This is lacking today and as a result people are quite reluctant to support anything but -relatively cheap in OUR human lives- air strikes. The alternative, to intervene on behalf of justice and human rights is Extremely costly, as the Korean wars and lately even Iraq and Afghanistan showed and will take very large investments in lives and expenditures.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All the state to state relationships are, more or less, evil. In the case of Turkey and Cyprus, the answers, are, first, military: to stop Turkey, one had to go in all-out war against Turkey… Which is huge (80 million right now) and part of NATO.
      So it’s pretty much a case by case thing.
      In the case of Assad, there may not have been a plan B (who, among the Alawites, to replace him with).

      In the case of Kim, one can always pray for a successful coup. There were some already. They failed. That’s exactly what I prescribe.
      In the worst case, with KIM, it will be nuclear war. That’s new.

      Kim, if he has the choice between being eaten by dogs, and threatening a nuke war, will chose the latter. So it has to be made clear to the leadership in Korea that, should Kim engage in nuke action, his country will know 100 Hiroshimas in minutes. And one has to be ready to deliver. Only the public knowledge of this will encourage (and excuse!) Kim’s generals and colonels to attempt a successful coup. Because the scenario is like that of Hitler and his generals in 1937, as I related… Sanders, Trump and Clinton are all tougher than Obama, so there is a good probability this more meaningful course will be followed.

      5 days after this essay was published, the Obama administration announced sanctions on banks dealing with North Korea (within 60 days).
      So Obama is finally moving… ;=)

  5. tom Says:

    Thanks Patrice for a very blunt answer. Basically the rule of thumb is ‘intervene where it’s cheap to do so’, which is basically school bully rules. With Kim, it’s no longer cheap to do so, if he does have the capability of a nuclear strike to say NY or LA. It would have been much cheaper to destroy nuclear facilities early on, as Israel did with Saddam’s program. Even this, as Iran demonstrated is not terribly effective against a determined regime. If your analysis of Kim’s personality is correct, this is much more ‘dealable’ than a regime with nukes that believes that the great Allah’s will is to exterminate all nonbelievers and if they die doing so, they go to hell and are rewarded with plenty of virgins and rice….

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Tom: General economics has general physics as a particular case. IMHO, what I call the Principle Of Least Axiomatic Reason flows from the Principle Of Least Action.
      The Israeli strike against the Osirak French built reactor was very effective one way, but it was probably too early, considering other factors. It was part of an obscure dance of influential circles in Israel, France, the USA (the USA wanted to have its way, and it was not the French way; the French way had given Israel the Bomb… So the French, to keep influence had to be a bit nice to Iraq). It contributed to the fall of one more Arab secular pseudo-republic into ever worse decay.

      The case of Iran was something else. Iran is a gigantic country with a gigantic history. A civilization onto itself, unfortunately under a theocratic, anti-Iranian, dictatorship (which it may get pacifically out of).

      Striking Kim the Israeli way was not an option for a number of reasons, mostly that it would be a very bad example. However, once Kim has a credible attack capability on the US mainland, the US should certainly, first establish defense rings around the West Coast cities. Then prepare for a pre-emptive war. To avoid all of this, the US should do what the Obama administration finally did five days after my essay: start the process of preventing banks from interacting with North Korea.

      It’s true that one could make a deal with Kim, where he goes back to Switzerland and swimming on the French Riviera. On the other hand, he is just one guy, so he could go any direction on the spur of the moment. This is exactly why the dirtiest means should be used to make Kim see the light, or to get out of the way.

      One has to avoid situation where blackmail becomes a way of life, as it has become with Great Britain inside the EU. As for the Jihadists, witnesses, Jihadists themselves, inside the Islamist pseudo-Caliphate, all agree that the upper echelons do not believe into anything they preach (such as cutting off hands of smokers: top Jihadists smoke themselves behind closed doors). In other words, be it Kim or the top Islam fanatics, they all play a game, they know where civilization is, just they are trying to find what they can get away with… Quite a bit like the Brexiters…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: