Main Edition
US
FR
Kim Jong-un meets Moon Jae-in. Credit: PA
When Rocket Man landed on Moon, the world held its breath – and then watched with amazement. The North Korean leader who had taken us to the brink of war just a few months ago, was subsequently delivering an unprecedented and historic message of peace and reconciliation for the Korean peninsula.
What to make of it?
There are two extremes to avoid. On the one hand, there’s temptation to dismiss this as a stunt, a cynical public relations exercise, a manipulation by a regime that cannot be trusted. It’s tempting to do so, given the North Korean regime’s history of histrionics, followed by charm offensives, followed by broken promises. On the other hand, there’s the impulse to embrace it and to think it is a Gorbachev/Thatcher/Reagan moment, or an FW de Klerk/Mandela one. Both instincts would be wrong.
When it comes to the North Korean regime, I am a cynic. I have met too many escapees from the North Korean gulags, heard too many testimonies, read too many human rights reports and books, seen too many scars on the bodies of survivors to think that this is a regime that could be trusted. And that is my problem with what is going on – the atrocities committed by Kim Jong-Un and his father and grandfather are being conveniently swept under the carpet. They must not be.
The United Nations Commission of Inquiry has claimed that “the gravity, scale and nature” of the appalling human rights violations by North Korea’s regime “reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”. It has recommended that Kim Jong-Un’s crimes against humanity be called to account at the International Criminal Court.
Yet clearly, if an olive-branch is offered, however insincerely, it would be foolish to turn it away after 65 years of a state of war. President Moon Jae-in knows that. And he played his hand with dexterity. His footsy with Kim Jong-Un over the borderline was bizarrely charming. And the promise of people-to-people links and a peace treaty, an end to war and denuclearisation are hard to argue with.
For his next move, he should brush up on Ronald Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech. Speaking to the people of Berlin, Reagan said that American presidents come “because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom”. That message should never be lost in Seoul, Pyongyang, or Panmunjom. “Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides,” the President continued. He spoke of “a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers” that could perfectly describe North Korea today.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeVery good analysis.
When these immature, over-emotional pants-wetters cavorted and capered around their university campuses shouting down free speech and being offended at every sparrow’s fart, we laughed and said things like “just wait ’til they get into the real world.”
The trouble is, they’re in the real world now and they’re taking over.
I don’t suppose any of the young journalists currently intimidating older colleagues who should know better have given the slightest thought to why we think it’s a good – even essential – idea to strive for impartial news reporting.
Once you say that everything that works and has worked and is the product of many, many clever and decent minds over many many decades is “just part of white supremacy” there’s nowhere left to go.
You can’t rationalise with these people because they also see rationality as being part of white supremacy.
Bad times are coming.
Coming? They’re here.
I find the analysis weak, chiefly because the assertions are unsupported. (See my previous comment). Here’s a tip: much that appears irrational during a period of intense change are, when a tipping point is reached, suddenly revealed to make perfect sense. Kuhn explains this in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Or, more simply, consider that Churchill’s positions seemed beyond reason while Chamberlain negotiated. Dylan described this phenomenon: “Something is happening, and you don’t know what it is. Do you Mr. Jones?” And to suggest right now that “Bad times are coming?” Lynching, poll taxes, segregation, discrimination in housing, banking, education, redlining, police brutality. For people of color, bad times have been here for a century. To trot out one more cliche, open your eyes: there’s an elephant in our room.
Such a measured explanation of the balance of nature in relation to today’s society and belief systems. The debunking of the world of fluffy sentimentality has never been needed more in a society where animal charities give away planet-destroying toys in return for your subscription. Bye bye Care Bears!
“…those who fear for their job security will simply opt to say nothing…”
That won’t work, because saying nothing is also “racist”.
So reassuring to hear that everything is Trump’s fault and that there is no reason to be concerned about declining birth rates, the hollowing out of America’s manufacturing and the assault on the western canon.
I truly hope Prof. Gray is wrong.
This is a mind blowing analysis. Thank you.
Your conclusion, “the resolution between such categorically-different life experiences can only be achieved through the expression of force”, is spot on in my opinion.
One only needs to exchange force with shaming and for me the jig saw puzzle is complete.
In this respect, nominalism or naming (which is reinforced with capitalisation) is the conduit by which people can arbitrarily shame. I mean on a very basic level it is just name calling (a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea) so is rooted in logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, to various degrees we are all to blame and so must take some responsibility since even Woke is name calling.
That said, if a group of people are adamant about needing to name in order to shame, then the fact that these people are actively choosing to use naming and shaming as a politically divisive tool needs to be named in order to be shamed.
So WE have justified shaming (Anti-Wokism) in order to protect societal Universals intact and we have unjustified shaming (Wokeism) which seeks to erode societal Universals.
This I presume, and as you point out, is why unjustified Shamers reject Universals because Universals reduce their ability to name and shame and so Universals are characterised as forms of Oppression against the ability to unjustifiably name and shame.
This brings me to the absolutist versus the relativist
with absolutism making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules and relativism making normative ethical decisions based on subjective rules.
In this respect, unjustified Shamers are absolutist (black and white) about their relativism and justified Shamers are relativist about their absolutism (black and white).
So WE have in very broad polarised terms,
Absolute relativists
and
Relative absolutists.
Interestingly, this may be reducted to positive and negative rights and duties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/….
with positive rights and duties being broadly promoted by Wokes with naming and shaming being used as a political vehicle to enforce positive rights and duties and negative rights and duties being broadly promoted by anti-Wokes with naming and shaming being used as a political vehicle to enforce negative rights and duties.
Closer to reality, these circles will intersect in the middle which is where we find Red Toryism and Blue Labour with the positive circle broadly characterising the Liberal Left and the negative circle broadly characterising the Conservative Right. (I’ve posted the revised model/map on your twitter).
In this respect it was interesting to have an online conversation that reflected these different positions in that I thought shaming on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and belief should be banned with certain exception to the rule (negative I think) and the other guy thought shaming should be allowed but only within certain limits (positive I think). This I thought broadly characterised the Left of radical centre position (Blue Labour) and the right of radical centre position (Red Tory).
So overall, a muddle it certainly is but I think the way forward is trying to bridge the two which I have been trying to do through my online activism by conceptualising the entirety of this broad ranging cultural transformation debate with the universal of
#OurSociety – The Inclusive Variety.
For me, the first step is to acknowledge the historical formation of societal/structural inequalities as a consequence of the historical inequalities between class which historically has unequalised value, worth, dignity and respect on the hierarchical basis of class. As such, #OurSociety needs to deeply acknowledge the interdependent functionalism between the different classes and in so doing equalise value, worth, dignity and respect between the different roles and functions that collectively creates the basis of Our Society’s prosperity.
Most seem to be on board except hardened Conservatives and hardened Liberals who need an enemy to justify either their identity driven selfishness or justify their identity driven shaming.
Of course, in reality organic Universals only exist as conceptual totalities so at least in terms of ethics, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but I think generalised Universals can be conceptualised which the Ten Commandments tried to achieve.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
The difficult bit is trying to conceptualise Universal ethics whilst at the same time circumnavigate the life death relationship between all beings.
#AllBeingsMatter
P. S sorry about previous post, discus and mobile phones do not mix very well especially when selecting and copying text.
Great column. The 2016 Disney film Zootopia, where a male fox and a female bunny rabbit team up to solve a crime was a particularly silly case of a film for children that denied essential predator-prey relationships.
In referring to Rachel Zegler as an actor when she is, in fact, an actress, shows even you have taken the Kool Aid, Michael.
I am delighted to read this article, I feel in complete resonance with Katherine . I fear (without being condescending) that some BLM supporters popularising token recognitions as black box on social media sites , taking the knee or chanting slogans like ‘don’t shoot’ are not asking what they can DO better . What would be more useful is not just to be seen to be doing but to be doing . Improvements in society can only only happen if one looks inwards (without blame ) with a resolution to be a better person , to set an example , to inch forward in that manner day after day rather than to play the blame game today and meaningless gestures that topple statues and change products names and iconic brands . If this struggle does not distance itself from those for whom gestures is everything it is allowing its noble goal to be demoted . Take Rashford for example – he is one that is doing , not blaming not gesturing but just using his persuasive skills that are admired by all.
A good analysis, but your point about the white majority who are likely to be looking on with bemusement is, I suggest, wide of the mark. BLM is racist, discriminatory, divisive and, above all, profoundly insulting to the white and other non-black majority and, I suggest, has greatly set back race relations in this country. ‘Taking the knee’ and raising a clenched fist are deeply offensive gestures and in my own case, alas, have created strong resentment. BLM deserves no respect for its aims which have now diverged so widely from the justified protest over the killing of Floyd.
An excellent article and very true. Sadly a lot of younger women who call themselves feminists have been so indoctrinated by the Stonewall agenda at university (and the collaboration of most academics) that they are in the process of giving away our hard earned sex based rights to the pro self-ID / Trans lobbyists. Thank heavens the government has had the sense to scrap the review of the GRA and protect women’s only spaces. We now need to ensure this is adhered to and work on Sporting Bodies to ensure women’s sport is just for those with XX sex chromosomes. The current trend to allow anyone who identifies as female into female sport will lead to the end of women’s sport as we know it. The IOC must make the right decision on this.
The answer is “no.” The multilateral genome research and identification projects, as well as similar pursuits with historical mitochondria are putting an end to the fantasey of both the one-people-one-race fantasy, not to mention the out-of-Africa hypothesis, which has been crammed into every class room and TV documentary with a passionate and entirely political zeal since WW II.
If Trump is the problem – or one of the problems – is Biden the answer? Were any of the Democrat alternatives the answer? Does anyone have the answer? Apparently not.
This is a mind blowing analysis. Thank you.
Your conclusion, “the resolution between such categorically-different life experiences can only be achieved through the expression of force”, is spot on in my opinion.
One only needs to exchange force with shaming and for me the jig saw puzzle is complete.
In this respect, nominalism or naming (which is reinforced with capitalisation) is the conduit by which people can arbitrarily shame. I mean on a very basic level it is just name calling (a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea) so is rooted in logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, to various degrees we are all to blame and so must take some responsibility since even Woke is name calling.
That said, if a group of people are adamant about needing to name in order to shame, then the fact that these people are actively choosing to use naming and shaming as a politically divisive tool needs to be named in order to be shamed.
So WE have justified shaming (Anti-Wokism) in order to protect societal Universals intact and we have unjustified shaming (Wokeism) which seeks to erode societal Universals.
This I presume, and as you point out, is why unjustified Shamers reject Universals because Universals reduce their ability to name and shame and so Universals are characterised as forms of Oppression against the ability to unjustifiably name and shame.
This brings me to the absolutist versus the relativist
with absolutism making normative ethical decisions based on objective rules and relativism making normative ethical decisions based on subjective rules.
In this respect, unjustified Shamers are absolutist (black and white) about their relativism and justified Shamers are relativist about their absolutism (black and white).
So WE have in very broad polarised terms,
Absolute relativists
and
Relative absolutists.
Interestingly, this may be reducted to positive and negative rights and duties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/….
with positive rights and duties being broadly promoted by Wokes with naming and shaming being used as a political vehicle to enforce positive rights and duties and negative rights and duties being broadly promoted by anti-Wokes with naming and shaming being used as a political vehicle to enforce negative rights and duties.
In this respect it was interesting to have an online conversation that reflected these different positions in that I thought shaming on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and belief should be banned with certain exception to the rule (negative I think) and the other guy thought shaming should be allowed but only within certain limits (positive I think). This I thought broadly characterised the Left
Closer to reality, these circles will intersect in the middle which is where we find Red Toryism and Blue Labour with the positive circle broadly characterising the Liberal Left and the negative circle broadly characterising the Conservative Right. (I’ve posted the revised model/map on your twitter).
So overall, a muddle it certainly is but I think the way forward is trying to bridge the two which I have been trying to do through my online activism by conceptualising the entirety of this broad ranging cultural transformation debate with the universal of
#OurSociety – The Inclusive Variety.
For me, the first step is to acknowledge the historical formation of societal/structural inequalities as a consequence of the historical inequalities between class which historically has unequalised value, worth, dignity and respect on the hierarchical basis of class. As such, #OurSociety needs to deeply acknowledge the interdependent functionalism between the different classes and in so doing equalise value, worth, dignity and respect between the different roles and functions that collectively creates the basis of Our Society’s prosperity.
Most seem to be on board except hardened Conservatives and hardened Liberals who need an enemy to justify either their identity driven selfishness or justify their identity driven shaming.
Of
My sweet childhood Teddybear, who I still have, would weigh 800 pounds in real life and would eat me without giving it a thought. I’m glad my parents didn’t explain that to me when I was four.
Just a paste of myself!
It sure is funny reading a title like this one after what we have seen this lovely year of 2020!
After that I just read some parts!
Lucky for me I read this one:
Are we still in the exploration phase?! That sure does not sound compatible with a premise of “able to think for oneself”!
The nature is in our Memory & Thought.
The solution is quite simple: Forget Time, Embrace Compassion.
As Jordan Peterson has said on multiple occasions, the deconstructionist will keep fractionating groups and classes, e.g. the gender list will continue to grow, until you’re out of groups to deconstruct, and you’re right there at the individual.
“And that’s what the West already discovered.”
It’s funny to watch “progressives” participating in this venture of group conflict, and thinking they are uncovering new information.
Just a small heads-up!
Pre-Censorship of comments is a Herd Mindset.
So it seems that “Our Mission” must be reviewed.
Sorry to disappoint people but Trump will win in November and the more Democrat-governed cities abolish their police forces the bigger that win will be.
It seems that postmodern democracy in the US is the politicisation of mass society using media manipulation, targeted privilage grievances and mass shaming in opposition to selected political opponents.
Foucaultism and manufactured consent is the new political reality in America with the Black Lives Matter movement using the same fundraising platform as the Democratic Party.
Similarly, NGOs in the UK are now largely aligned with the Progressive Alliance which will no doubt be headed up by the Labour Party at the next General Election.
Excellent grounding back to reality. I needed that. Thanks.
It is quite easy to lose perspective when in the thick of it.
So what do you think is driving this cultural aberration. Survival anxiety, status anxiety, some other anxiety or a crazy combination of anxieties.
And will these anxieties go away through resolution or will they continue simmering away.
‘the events of 2016’
You mean someone legitimately won an election. That’s all that happened. Please don’t make it sound like World War Three and the Pacific tsunami combined.
Black lives matter, no they don’t!
That is a nonsensical mantra.
The correct version, which must be adopted immediately is, BLACK LIVES SHOULD MATTER.
All folk of independent mind and good will outside the U.S.A. will hope and pray you are wrong and the second-greatest country the world has ever seen will pull itself together and get back on the road of courage and common sense. But I fear you are right.
Thanks. I hope you are right, and widely read.
What an excellent piece Katherine.
Thank you! A well-argued article that hits the bullseye it sets up at the beginning.
Well done, David, it’s good to hear reason and balance. That’s why I’m here.
“Conservatives” don’t have a vision for the future either.
The only vision they have is fixing voting lines to win an election.
Embarrassing.
And that, my dear is what you call a conspiracy theory.
In this piece, the effort to support the central assertion is laughably minimal. The author suggests there’s a widespread trend that journalists “have been offered explicit institutional support to actively participate as protesters.” He says, “Some of these authorisations have been made public, while others have not.” The words “made public” are linked to a NYTimes article that cites only one institution and that portrays the support of that particular employer–Axios–as ambiguous. Nothing else, zero, is offered as an example of such support, either public or not public.