Welcome to North Korea

[spartan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU

What is your opinion of this documentary by Peter Tetteroo and Raymond Feddema?

I personally feel that they exaggerate some bits and make ludicrous claims on other parts, but as a whole this will sort of reinforce the view of many people (Leftists included) that North Korea resembles Oceania from George Orwell's "1984" book.

The personallity cult is really shocking.

I know that this is really long but it is well worth the time to watch it believe me.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What a strange place.

[Marsella]

Obviously quite biased.

I like the comment on the page:

'The country although still in a terrible condition was better when kim il sung was president. I feel we should invade cuba and north korea.'

:rolleyes:

[spartan]

Obviously quite biased.

Well thats a given but if you ignore some of the more outrageous claims you are still faced with a quite shocking picture of the situation in North Korea.

[jake williams]

North Korea completely sucks. Like really it's a horror story and I have no idea how to approach it. In a lot of horrible countries there's at least a domestic opposition to get behind.

[BobKKKindle$]

North Korea completely sucks. Like really it's a horror story and I have no idea how to approach it. In a lot of horrible countries there's at least a domestic opposition to get behind.Why do you describe North Korea as a "horrible country" and a "horror story"? This is a poor attitude.

North Korea has faced severe economic hardship, as a result of several years of drought in succession, which has limited the size of the harvest, and isolation from the rest of the world, which has intensified due to the collapse of the former Soviet bloc. However, despite this hardship, unlike most of the world's inhabitants, North Korea's citizens are still able to access education, which means that almost everyone is able to read and write, and, even in rural areas, the government ensures that a basic level of health care is available, unlike other countries, where people die of diseases that could be easily prevented, because they are unable to purchase medication. In addition, women in North Korea are able to attain prominence in government, and have access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy, whereas in the developing countries of Africa women are still relegated to an inferior social role.

We should therefore not remain blind to North Korea's achievements. The government has also, through its nuclear program, posed a challenge to imperialism, and has also helped other countries to develop their own weaponry, through the provision of missile technology, which has weakened the strength of Imperialist hegemony.

The development of nuclear weapons was a victory for the anti-imperialist forces of the world. We should encourage other countries, especially Iran, to follow the example set by the DPRK. The development of a nuclear arsenal should also allow the government to reduce military expenditure and devote more resources to the regeneration (and modernization) of the agricultural sector as as to avoid further famine.

Trotskyists call for the unconditional defense of North Korea, as a workers state (suffering from severe bureaucratic deformation) and as a nation facing the forces of Imperialism. At the same time, we call for internal political revolution, to destroy the bureaucracy, and to develop workers democracy. If political revolution (which distinct from social revolution, will not change the property relations) does not occur, it may be possible that the bureaucratic caste will attempt to convert itself into a class through gaining ownership of state property, which would result in counter-revolution, and a return to capitalist property relations.

[spartan]

This is a fascinating insight into daily life in North Korea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzDqbMUlrU

Apparently it was made by the North Korean government for Al Jazeera.

[spartan]

American defector to North Korea part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwQQjDGbak

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A23JdXsr8_s&feature=related

[Bud Struggle]

American defector to North Korea part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQwQQjDGbak

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A23JdXsr8_s&feature=related


Do-de-do-do
do-de-do-do
do-de-do-do
do-de-do-do...

You are entering a dimension of sight and sound.....

[jake williams]

Why do you describe North Korea as a "horrible country" and a "horror story"? This is a poor attitude.

North Korea has faced severe economic hardship, as a result of several years of drought in succession, which has limited the size of the harvest, and isolation from the rest of the world, which has intensified due to the collapse of the former Soviet bloc. However, despite this hardship, unlike most of the world's inhabitants, North Korea's citizens are still able to access education, which means that almost everyone is able to read and write, and, even in rural areas, the government ensures that a basic level of health care is available, unlike other countries, where people die of diseases that could be easily prevented, because they are unable to purchase medication. In addition, women in North Korea are able to attain prominence in government, and have access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy, whereas in the developing countries of Africa women are still relegated to an inferior social role.

We should therefore not remain blind to North Korea's achievements. The government has also, through its nuclear program, posed a challenge to imperialism, and has also helped other countries to develop their own weaponry, through the provision of missile technology, which has weakened the strength of Imperialist hegemony.

The development of nuclear weapons was a victory for the anti-imperialist forces of the world. We should encourage other countries, especially Iran, to follow the example set by the DPRK. The development of a nuclear arsenal should also allow the government to reduce military expenditure and devote more resources to the regeneration (and modernization) of the agricultural sector as as to avoid further famine.

Trotskyists call for the unconditional defense of North Korea, as a workers state (suffering from severe bureaucratic deformation) and as a nation facing the forces of Imperialism. At the same time, we call for internal political revolution, to destroy the bureaucracy, and to develop workers democracy. If political revolution (which distinct from social revolution, will not change the property relations) does not occur, it may be possible that the bureaucratic caste will attempt to convert itself into a class through gaining ownership of state property, which would result in counter-revolution, and a return to capitalist property relations.
A few points:

- I'm skeptical about your arguments about "achievement" because we get so little reliable information about the country and very little of it is positive.

- Nuclear weapons proliferation of this sort is virtually never defensible. It's just too dangerous. There have been sort of peripheral "positive" effects, sure, but it's not at all worth it.

- Virtually everything you hear from that country is a lie. It seems like almost every thing said is obvious propaganda with virtually no truth value.

- You're not allowed to do anything or say anything and the people are starving and miserable.

[BIG BROTHER]

One thing is Cuba, were one for example can actually go there an freely look and see how everything is.

If in North korea they hide nearly everything to the outside world, that most likely means that they have something to hide. The acomplishments that bobkindles may be true but one cannot know. North korea's official ideology is not even communism or socialism its juche, and they said that "the military is first"

So as far as I'm concerning they only real positive about North korea is that they pose a challenge to the imperialists powers.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nuclear weapons proliferation of this sort is virtually never defensible. It's just too dangerous. There have been sort of peripheral "positive" effects, sure, but it's not at all worth it.Care to offer some analysis? Why is that only the United States should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? The US retains the largest stockpile of weapons in the world, is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another state, and is actively researching new weapons with enhanced destructive power - and so why is it that other countries, which need a deterrent, should not develop a nuclear arsenal? Nuclear weapons allow a small country to deter an attack- and so it is important that North Korea, a country facing the threat of invasion from the US forces stationed in the southern part of the peninsula, possess nuclear weapons. They can also be used to force the imperialists to make concessions, which can assist in North Korea's economic regeneration.

You sound like a bourgeois liberal.


I'm skeptical about your arguments about "achievement" because we get so little reliable information about the country and very little of it is positive.
You're not allowed to do anything or say anything and the people are starving and miserableContradiction. If your first point is true, then how can you be so sure that everyone in North Korea is "starving" and "miserable"? Have you been to North Korea and traveled the country, talking to the people who live there? What evidence do you have for this?

Although it is true that North Korea has experienced problems providing sufficient food for its people, the "famine" has not been as severe as the media reports suggest, and is mainly the result of natural disasters, such as drought and floods, which are beyond the control of the government. North Korea's climate and topography is not well suited to growing arable crops, and since the collapse of the Soviet bloc they have been unable to obtain fertilizers.

Famine is not specific to North Korea, however. Many capitalist countries have also experienced famine - and yet it is never suggested that such famines might be the result of capitalism.


Virtually everything you hear from that country is a lie. It seems like almost every thing said is obvious propaganda with virtually no truth value.Again, if this is true, then why do you accept the reports of "famine" as absolute truth?

Even in the accounts of people who have fled the country (which are, of course, of dubious objective value, because they want to present a negative image of the country) there is a recognition that there is guaranteed education and health care.

[spartan]

I am no lover of North Korea (Far from it in fact) but most people (Including its many detractors) have to admit that it holds a certain unexplainable fascination that draws you in.

The trouble is that there is no way of knowing what it is truely like there as the western media always reports that the people are starving and that the country is one big labour camp, whilst the DPRK propaganda machine always shows the country as some sort of paradise with its "Great" and "Dear" leaders.

The truth is obviously somewhere inbetween the two but where is anyones guess.

All independent journalists travelling there never get a clear picture of the country as they are always accompnied by officials from the government (Whoch is hardly going to endear them to North Korea).

I think that the narrator from the "Welcome to North Korea" documentary put it best when he said:

"True or false? Its a question that applies to almost everything in North Korea. We received permission to travel across the country under strict supervision and the only conclusion that we were able to draw at the end of this week was that we now understood even less of what goes on in this country".

[jake williams]

You sound like a bourgeois liberal.
How dare you.


Care to offer some analysis? Why is that only the United States should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? The US retains the largest stockpile of weapons in the world, is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another state, and is actively researching new weapons with enhanced destructive power - and so why is it that other countries, which need a deterrent, should not develop a nuclear arsenal? Nuclear weapons allow a small country to deter an attack- and so it is important that North Korea, a country facing the threat of invasion from the US forces stationed in the southern part of the peninsula, possess nuclear weapons. They can also be used to force the imperialists to make concessions, which can assist in North Korea's economic regeneration.
I routinely argue in every forum I can eke out for myself that the Empire is the most violent and dangerous and illegal nuclear organization (calling America a "state" at this point is a little bit of an understatement, states don't generally set up a military-colonial system everywhere in the world) in the world, with the same points as have you, their violence, their history, their illegal threats, their constant furtherance of international proliferation, their hypocrisy, their violation of all relevant treaties and so on. The question of how to answer this however is not a simple one. I think that the development of nuclear weapons is counterproductive for several reasons. Its capacity as a useful deterrent isn't trivial but I don't think it's absolute either. Moreover it's not too predictable and has plenty of capacity to be dangerous on its own. And something we have to be aware of is the justification it can give to imperialist powers to build, advance, and even use large weapons. While we shouldn't let this preclude any action ever, we have to be conscious of it.


Contradiction. If your first point is true, then how can you be so sure that everyone in North Korea is "starving" and "miserable"? Have you been to North Korea and traveled the country, talking to the people who live there? What evidence do you have for this? Again, if this is true, then why do you accept the reports of "famine" as absolute truth?
If I made any claims of certainty than it was in error. The picture is extremely cloudy, which I take to be a condemnation of the country in and of itself. Free press and information is an objective value, if only for its critical utility for the development of healthy societies. And of course, as has been pointed out, there's a strong suggestion that they're more likely to be hiding hell than paradise. If their "experiment" were genuinely successful the propaganda would be easy and effective, I mean, yes, they'd face opposition, but at least there'd be something for free, independent journalists, allowed to talk to the population, allowed into the country without being stalked by government agents, to find. That they're not open suggests they're hiding something. And yes, there is good suggestion that the country isn't all too cheery.

[Sam_b]

Without playing party politics again, Bob - are you still an SWP member?

The SWP has never (and I hope will never) defend North Korea's 'right' to nuclear weapons, and will never analyse it as a challenge to imperialism. We have never presented DPRK as anything less than a backward stalinoid dictatorship which has never presented any benefit to the working class either internationally or in the country istelf. Are your beliefs here not at odds with the party?


Trotskyists call for the unconditional defense of North Korea, as a workers state

no we don't.

[bcbm]

Nuclear weapons allow a small country to deter an attack- and so it is important that North Korea, a country facing the threat of invasion from the US forces stationed in the southern part of the peninsula, possess nuclear weapons.

Beyond the fact that a US invasion is, at this point, completely implausible.... what if the US invaded anyway? What to do with the nuclear weapons then?

[jake williams]

It's worth pointing out that current American nuclear policy is in large part based that now we can't count on third world countries not having nuclear weapons, so we have to build even bigger weapons to instantly neutralize all weapon threats anywhere in the world at will.

[Dr Mindbender]

Nothing new here. I was hoping they would refrain from going for the jugular when filming this but I can't say I'm surprised. While I won't deny its nigh on impossible to portray NK in a positive light, I hate it when anti-communists keep parroting the DPRK example to disparage communism and score political points.

It isn't an inditement of communism, but only what happens when you try to apply it on an insular national scale (especially alongside rival capitalist economies).

[BobKKKindle$]

Without playing party politics again, Bob - are you still an SWP member?I am - although I am not in agreement with the SWP on certain issues, there is no other party which has been able to avoid sectarian polemics in their publications, and there is no other party which has shown consistent opposition to islamophobia. I assume there are also certain areas in which you do not fully agree with the party program.


It's worth pointing out that current American nuclear policy is in large part based that now we can't count on third world countries not having nuclear weapons, so we have to build even bigger weapons to instantly neutralize all weapon threats anywhere in the world at will.What are you trying to argue here? Are you saying that, if other countries were to stop any nuclear programs and eliminate the nuclear weapons that they currently possess, the US would stop it's own nuclear program? This is a very naive (and reactionary) approach to the issue. Your position is essentially an apology for the US government's drive to expand military power - you're making it seem as if this is merely in response to other countries, not due to the drive for imperial hegemony, which necessitates a powerful nuclear arsenal, to intimidate other states, especially those that do not possess nuclear weapons. Your position also shows a failure to understand the focus of the US nuclear program. The US current nuclear program is not solely concerned with creating "bigger" bombs, rather, the government also aims to develop weapons that are geared towards a specific task on the battlefield; for example, the destruction of underground bunkers that are situated too deep for conventional arms ("bunker-busting") a task that clearly would still exist (and thus would necessitate development of specialized nuclear weapons) even if other countries did not posses nuclear arms.


That they're not open suggests they're hiding something.

Yes, they are hiding something, and with good reason - North Korea is surrounded by hostile Imperialist powers, and the US has made repeated efforts to infiltrate North Korea (see the USS Pueblo Incident) and so it makes sense that the DPRK would be suspicious of foreigners who want to enter the country. You clearly want the defense secrets of the DPRK to become available to everyone.


Beyond the fact that a US invasion is, at this point, completely implausible.... what if the US invaded anyway? What to do with the nuclear weapons then?North Korea's missiles do not have sufficient range to strike the US (apart from part of Alaska) but would be able to target Japan and South Korea, two key US allies in the region.

[Red Lobster]

I am - although I am not in agreement with the SWP on certain issues, there is no other party which has been able to avoid sectarian polemics in their publications, and there is no other party which has shown consistent opposition to islamophobia. I assume there are also certain areas in which you do not fully agree with the party program.

What are you trying to argue here? Are you saying that, if other countries were to stop any nuclear programs and eliminate the nuclear weapons that they currently possess, the US would stop it's own nuclear program? This is a very naive (and reactionary) approach to the issue. Your position is essentially an apology for the US government's drive to expand military power - you're making it seem as if this is merely in response to other countries, not due to the drive for imperial hegemony, which necessitates a powerful nuclear arsenal, to intimidate other states, especially those that do not possess nuclear weapons. Your position also shows a failure to understand the focus of the US nuclear program. The US current nuclear program is not solely concerned with creating "bigger" bombs, rather, the government also aims to develop weapons that are geared towards a specific task on the battlefield; for example, the destruction of underground bunkers that are situated too deep for conventional arms ("bunker-busting") a task that clearly would still exist (and thus would necessitate development of specialized nuclear weapons) even if other countries did not posses nuclear arms.



Yes, they are hiding something, and with good reason - North Korea is surrounded by hostile Imperialist powers, and the US has made repeated efforts to infiltrate North Korea (see the USS Pueblo Incident) and so it makes sense that the DPRK would be suspicious of foreigners who want to enter the country. You clearly want the defense secrets of the DPRK to become available to everyone.

North Korea's missiles do not have sufficient range to strike the US (apart from part of Alaska) but would be able to target Japan and South Korea, two key US allies in the region.


Yes.I believe DPRK is acting in self-defense and I think Kim Jung is a decent man.Kim Jong cares about the people and isn't brainwashed by capitalism.Every socialist country should look to DPRK as an example. Dissidence must be crushed for the good of the people.Kim Jung knows that. All praise.

[jake williams]

What are you trying to argue here? Are you saying that, if other countries were to stop any nuclear programs and eliminate the nuclear weapons that they currently possess, the US would stop it's own nuclear program? This is a very naive (and reactionary) approach to the issue. Your position is essentially an apology for the US government's drive to expand military power - you're making it seem as if this is merely in response to other countries, not due to the drive for imperial hegemony, which necessitates a powerful nuclear arsenal, to intimidate other states, especially those that do not possess nuclear weapons.
I don't know if you're just really bad at understanding what I'm saying or if you're being deliberately confrontational, but this isn't at all my point. First, no, the United States wouldn't immediately dismantle its weapons just because everyone else did, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is that it might be a useful tool in terms of public opinion, especially American public opinion, for countries to do what they can to make it explicit that they don't intend to be a military threat to anyone. It's difficult, but I expect that could be useful.

I'm not apologizing at all. I think the entire U.S. leadership, official and corporate, should have been and should be in prison forever, back since they were British. But look, they don't just make weapons for fun. They do what they feel they can get away with, and think they need, and as long as either or both of these is high, the world's a more dangerous place. The urge to put on a good Ideologue face and fight the grand evil of being Not Revolutionary Enough is one thing when you're spanking around on the internet, but nuclear weapons aren't toys, and sometimes you have to be pragmatic and let's-not-turn-all-inhabitable-land-into-a-moonscape about it, at least short term.


Your position also shows a failure to understand the focus of the US nuclear program. The US current nuclear program is not solely concerned with creating "bigger" bombs, rather, the government also aims to develop weapons that are geared towards a specific task on the battlefield; for example, the destruction of underground bunkers that are situated too deep for conventional arms ("bunker-busting") a task that clearly would still exist (and thus would necessitate development of specialized nuclear weapons) even if other countries did not posses nuclear arms.
Bunker busters are indeed smaller in the technical sense, the explosive yield sense, but strategically it's a little bolder. It's nothing new of course though. If I remember the literature though, the policy arguments about it, it's targeted at other countries', say Russia's, nuclear weapons and so on. That's how it's described.

[Orange Juche]

You sound like a bourgeois liberal.

One thing that stands out to me more than anything else, that I frequently hear from Leninists or vanguard types, is this accusation that ANYONE that challenges them is a "bourgeois liberal" or "counter-revolutionary" or some other bullshit.

They love to try to silence others and just cut off debate with little catch-phrases, and the bullshit sentiment that comes along with it.

[bcbm]

North Korea's missiles do not have sufficient range to strike the US (apart from part of Alaska) but would be able to target Japan and South Korea, two key US allies in the region.

So you support the nuclear attack on major civilian centers in the event of an invasion?

[BobKKKindle$]

The point is that it might be a useful tool in terms of public opinion, especially American public opinion, for countries to do what they can to make it explicit that they don't intend to be a military threat to anyone.If countries do not pose a military threat, it will simply be easier for the US military to invade and occupy these countries, and thus impose a political hegemony over the entire world. The US government will always be able to find a way to make it seem as if a country poses a threat, even if there is no evidence to suggest that a country possesses nuclear weapons (for example, Iraq) and can also frame a country as a viable target for intervention for non-military reasons (perhaps for alleged humanitarian abuses) and so the abandonment of nuclear weapons would not improve the image of countries such as North Korea, it will simply leave these countries defenseless (or with a reduced defense capability) in the face of imperialist aggression. Imperialism is driven by economic dynamics, and the public reasons that are given (to obscure the underlying economic factors) do not have to be rational, they must only be believed by the populace, and unfortunately, citizens often accept arguments that have no rational basis.


So you support the nuclear attack on major civilian centers in the event of an invasion?Nice try. I support North Korea's nuclear program because it would act as a deterrent, not because I would derive enjoyment from the deaths of innocent workers. Nuclear weapons are not developed because the government wants to use them, they are developed to discourage attack.

[spartan]

Videos of the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il (He sure is a busy man).

Kim Jong Il the gifted economist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQdKnS0x12k

Kim Jong Il the great athlete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDBCGNGAypY&NR=1

Kim Jong Il the great architect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzBfRKqz3a0&feature=related

Kim Jong Il the great diplomat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvAUiN4jr6g&feature=related

Kim Jong Il the great traveller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlrqdVVb5Y&feature=related

Kim Jong Il the great dietetician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTu_KsS_T8&feature=related

Kim Jong Il the great media man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssJ_l2HbaTM&NR=1

Kim Jong Il the fashion designer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IcCVPWixn4&feature=related

Kim Jong Il the great warrior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2STc6mvIzY&feature=related

You have to love Songunblog.

[Bud Struggle]

Sounds like he's looking for a date on E-harmony.com. :D

[pusher robot]

Sounds like he's looking for a date on E-harmony.com. :D

Probably - I hear is is rather ronery.

[bcbm]

Nice try. I support North Korea's nuclear program because it would act as a deterrent, not because I would derive enjoyment from the deaths of innocent workers. Nuclear weapons are not developed because the government wants to use them, they are developed to discourage attack.

Nice dodge. I suspect it means you're trying to hide the fact that, in the event of a military invasion of North Korea, you would support a nuclear attack on South Korean and Japanese civilian centers- and that is insane.

[TC]

That film is so racist and makes so many unsubstantiated claims its ridiculous. Its like english explorers reporting on the 'exotic orient' in the 19th century except with more than the typical amount of contempt.

Anyone who believes this stuff is stupid...just because a narrator in a documentary makes a claim doesn't mean that claim is accurate, similarly you have to look at how the film is edited.

"north koreans are careful not to look us in the eye, its against the law! Automaton-like, they pass by in the thousands"

Yah, right, lets see a statute citation for that eh? These racist westerners think they're automaton like just because they managed to get a few seconds of photage were no one seemed to be paying attention to them (you know, they might have had lives or something)

"the last stop is paradise but we're not permitted to go there, its questionable whether anyones ever been there" Yes...because...north Korean society revolves around western documentary film crews, in fact, although there are apparently (according to the documentary) almost never any foriegners in north Korea, the entirety of Pyongyang is some kindof elaborate facade for them.

Even the oppressive music used in the documentary...its like...you know they're the bad guys cause of the sound track lol.


The narrator says "without any trace of irony whatsoever, she [their guide] attributes super-human achievements to the most beloved leader, again and again"...and yet...lol the film makers never capture the guide on video attributing any superhuman achievements to kim jong il/kim il sung at all!

"no doubt just one critical remark by this woman directed against the regime could condemn her to a life in the labour camps", no doubt, when it comes to north Korea, Westerners are stupid enough to believe anything claim no matter how ridiculous without any attempt at providing a shred of evidence.

It also drives me crazy how racist and chauvinist it is for westerners to find references to Kim il Sung as a "Great Leader" and bringing tours to statues of him somehow cultlike while finding it totally normal for pro-government Americans to refer to bush as the "Commander In Chief" and conduct tours in DC of monuments to American leaders. I mean, they have Jefferson and Lincoln in buildings designed to look like greek temples and actually carved their dead leaders faces into the side of a mountain, but oh, if you have a statue of Kim il Sung than that must be a real shrine and oh so weird and foreign.


The idea that the "sole purpose" of pyongyang is "to present an ideal image to the visitors" is so profoundly stupid and unbelievable that it just goes to show what idiocy you can get away with when talking about the DPRK. I'm sorry but if 'dictatorships' could just magically construct expensive cities without any people for the sake of visitors, they'd all be doing that, you'd see it in Somalia. Like apparently because pyongyang isn't over populated and the unusually wide streets aren't congested then there is "no one to marvel" at the buildings but the foreign visitors (the notion that perhaps people might be working during the day and they primarily use the subways which are clearly shown to be crowded apparently doesn't occur to the propagandists). This is an obvious use of selective editing for propaganda purposes as in the very next scene you see crowded sidewalks. Some of it is also just so remarkably idiotic, like the propagandists thinking that children practicing instruments and ballet are performing for them when really they're just being led around a performing arts center with children practicing different things in different rooms.

This is all just racist filth, its

[chimx]

"no doubt just one critical remark by this woman directed against the regime could condemn her to a life in the labour camps", no doubt, when it comes to north Korea, Westerners are stupid enough to believe anything claim no matter how ridiculous without any attempt at providing a shred of evidence.

I posted a DPRK documentary in the Film forum called Children of the Secret Regime. They do a lot of interviewing of refugees, some of whom are former guards in North Korea's concentration camps. It's worth a watch despite the obnoxious narrator.


The idea that the "sole purpose" of pyongyang is "to present an ideal image to the visitors" is so profoundly stupid and unbelievable that it just goes to show what idiocy you can get away with when talking about the DPRK

Well documentaries have provided evidence showing the stark contrast of life in areas outside of Pyongyang. Maybe you could provide some evidence too?


This is all just racist filth, its

North Koreans aren't a race.

[jake williams]

TC: There was a very apparent racist element to the documentary, yes, and a very disturbing one. Granted, virtually all of Western discourse is racist, but yes, it was definitely here, maybe in an unusually stark form. It wasn't the whole of it though. And yes, it was biased and propagandish, but you could read between the lines a bit and gain some useful, plausible information. Not exactly the picture presented by the creators of the documentary, but not at all a pretty one either.

And there are disturbing parallels in Western culture too, yes, I was thinking similar things. More about Christ though. I'd be very tempted if making a documentary about the West to comment on the fact that there are people who actually believe the Bible and how ridiculous that is, maybe with similar language as did they.

[Digitalism]

saw both of those cos, Daily Life, and Welcome to.

But this was the best one I've seen so far.

http://www.crossingthelinefilm.com/

little clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FmtH0GJKCo

[Wanted Man]

words
Exactly. Spot on as usual.

chimx, the point about Pyongyang isn't just about the standard of living compared to the countryside. I'll happily believe that Pyongyang looks nicer than Hicksville. Amsterdam also looks (and IS) more prosperous than the countryside in East Groningen, or the neglected mining region in Limburg. That doesn't mean that Amsterdam is a neat facade to fool foreign tourists, which is the claim that TC is dealing with. It's about the ridiculous assumption that a city of millions is actually just a big empty shell, all an elaborate sham to fool the small trickle of western tourists that visit yearly. It seems to be something that western tourists themselves make up, to give themselves the idea that they're going through a big exotic Asian empire. When reading travellogs, they tend to start out with assumptions like: like: "you can't take photos", "your room will be bugged", "you will be brainwashed", "if you criticize the leader you'll be tortured".

As for 'evidence' about life outside of Pyongyang, two Russian guys went to the country in 2004. Their experiences can be seen here: http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/index_e.html But I guess it's also propaganda, because 'Ruskies' can't be trusted. :rolleyes:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Interesting. Any other neutral sources?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

TC is absolutely right. Because my speakers aren't working at the moment, I had to watch the documentary without sound - which cut out the background music and the narrator's commentary. When North Koreans speak, though, there are subtitles, so I got to read what they actually said but not what the narrator said about them. And at the end of it all, my impression of North Korea was actually significantly improved.

Try it: Watch the documentary without sound and tell me if the things you actually see (or the subtitles you read when North Koreans speak) make North Korea look that bad.

[danyboy27]

Yes.I believe DPRK is acting in self-defense and I think Kim Jung is a decent man.Kim Jong cares about the people and isn't brainwashed by capitalism.Every socialist country should look to DPRK as an example. Dissidence must be crushed for the good of the people.Kim Jung knows that. All praise.

ROFL!!!

but seriously, north korean regime is pretty brutal, and beside the bias emaning from this video, i think there is enough stuff in to confirm that this regime is no only tyrannical, but an epic fail. if this system would work at least ..but no.
you just cant forgive how profound is their economical failure, you cant even compare them to cuba, or burma.

[Tatarin]

Now when I think back to the documentary Welcome to North Korea, something came to my attention. It's the part where they compare how the North and South looks like during a certain time on any given day. We see the North as a dark, empty place - in contrast to the South, where we have all these lights and ads and many tourists and all.

The narrator seems to have this sad tone in his voice - but why? Since it's evening, aren't people supposed to be home, after work, with their families or sleeping? In contrast to the South, where people are forced to work all day long just to survive.

I think this says quite a lot about the people behind the documentary.

Also, the same thing could be done with any place. Why not compare the city center of Washington DC and the slums around it?

[danyboy27]

Now when I think back to the documentary Welcome to North Korea, something came to my attention. It's the part where they compare how the North and South looks like during a certain time on any given day. We see the North as a dark, empty place - in contrast to the South, where we have all these lights and ads and many tourists and all.

The narrator seems to have this sad tone in his voice - but why? Since it's evening, aren't people supposed to be home, after work, with their families or sleeping? In contrast to the South, where people are forced to work all day long just to survive.

I think this says quite a lot about the people behind the documentary.

Also, the same thing could be done with any place. Why not compare the city center of Washington DC and the slums around it?


except that this city is supposed to be the capital of north korea.

i dont remember having see any capital who was that quiet before the video.
also, the unfinished buildings in construction is not really a good indicator that things goes well.
i remember having see a video of U.N medics going in north korea to help people of pyongyang for disease, and many living habitant of the capital itself where completly blind due to a lack of mineral in their foods, they also visited some priviledgied bureaucrat in their appartements and the whole place was a slump, litteraly.
they had to bring most of their stuff and use a generator to make most of the stuff working.

after the invervention that allowed most of people to recover the ability to see, many of them blessed kim jong il for making all this for them.

scary.