User talk:Bjornar/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just strolling across stuff, being interested in North Korea myself, and came across the Template:PD-DPRK, which you created. I've since moved a copy to commons and added it to a few propaganda posters, though I'm not exactly sure when any of the posters were made. Hence, my question--what convention did North Korea become a party to on April 28, 2003 which copyrights works of their governments in other countries? Also, on a personal note, I'm interested to know from someone who has actually been (since as an American I've no hope of ever visiting the country), what is your appraisal of the human rights situation in North Korea? Regards--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to above can be seen in People's Korea: [1] --Bjornar 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As an American you don't have *no* hope of visting; Americans are occasionally admitted to the country for special occasions such as the Arirang Festival. The DPRK's official appraisal of the human rights situation - and thus what you'll hear from Bjornar - is that there is no human rights situation. M.C. Brown Shoes 13:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

and thus what you'll hear from Bjornar - is that there is no human rights situation. You could say that Bjornar is the Supershadow of North Korea. Where Supershadow is to the insider information on Star Wars, Bjornar is to North Korea's insider info. Check Supershadow's article and figure out my analogy that way. --Shultz 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When have we ever got insider info from him? He's just a mouthpiece for their lies. Whether he honestly believes them or not I'm not sure. M.C. Brown Shoes 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When have we ever got insider info from him? As you put it, probably never, like Supershadow. If you haven't read his article already, he's given a lot of his false "insider info" to the Star Wars community ever since Star Wars Episode I

First, There is no insider information that I have given that could not be otherwise examined by other visitors to the DPRK, including the members of our delegation, with the notable exception of my own subjective views, which should be interpreted as such. Never did I once imply that my own view is the same thing as hard evidence. Second, everyone wants to ask me about human rights issues in North Korea, because they beleive the lies of the imperialist media that atrocities happen in North Korea. My own impression from having visited the country many times, is not just based on what I've seen or not seen, but my impression of the people and the society and how these factors come into life through the DPRK ideology. I can claim that I know how the North Korean society works, and based on what I know, I don't find the things being portrayed in western media compatible with the North Koreans with regards to allegations about human rights abuses.

To make one thing perfectly clear: Yes, there has been a period of food shortages in the mid-90's, and an economical recession of which the country has slowly recovered to an extent tbat the country now enjoys an uplift in the economy for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union. And yes, the North Korean society puts some limits on behaviour and what to say and do, and yes, I think it's a good thing, it reduces crime and problems in society. The limitations are designed to make the society function as a collective, thus putting the needs of the many before the needs of the one. There is only one main political entity, but it still has democratic functions, a Supreme People's Assembly and a people-run apparatus to decide on matters of importance to the people. I don't know how to explain this any more clear to you in a way that you could catch a glimpse of what I consider to be reality. Sometimes I will ask people to read the works of our leaders instead of asking me to repeat what the DPRK society is like. Either you believe it or you don't - my job is not to convince you of either - but my job is 1) helping people obtain access to the DPRK through communication, internet or travel and 2) providing official information and services from the DPRK and 3) assisting in foreigners who want to invest in the DPRK.

Some day I hope to convince our ministry that sometimes the benefit of open dialogue outweigh the risks. Although Wikipedia has problems being a neutral medium, life is not neutral and we should all learn from our experience in trying to communicate as human beings.--Bjornar 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thought I'd have you take a look at this 2 Star Trek 3 Two books from DPRK victims 4 Answer

[edit] Thought I'd have you take a look at this

I look forward to seeing this on more & more userpages after the Korean Reunification. Do you? Also, Category:Wikipedians from Pyongyang is tied to the userbox, and once Korean Reunification occurs, I hope to see its list grow. MC Brown Shoes, feel free to comment on it too. --Shultz 07:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope there will be some important changes, and we'll see North Koreans on the internet. --Bjornar 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bjornar. I like this comment very much, I really do. Changes are important. Nethency 12:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

Just noticed your comparisons of the United Federation of Planets' ideology of a society without war, poverty etc to the DPRK. I thought you might like to know that the creators of Star Trek intended the Borg as a metaphor for communism: a travelling evil spectre that seeks to assimilate the universe into a frightening, all-consuming and horribly oppressive ideology and take the life and soul out of life. M.C. Brown Shoes 07:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a connection there, MC. He probably meant to type "Borg" but put the UFP in place to not cause a flame war (or something like that). Remember a long time ago when trolls would vandalize his userpage with these types of comments? Also, this was certainly memorable!

I think if he was more direct on what he wanted to say (like making comparisons to the Borg instead of the UFP), he'd face more volleys of vandalism thrown his way. --Shultz 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and MC, did you see this yet? --Shultz 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK MC and Shultz, I've answered on relevant places. I hope you other lot have all got better things than digging up that crap. I've got two questions for you, MC. Question One: Where did you get that horrible idea that the Borg are introduced intentionally as a metaphor for communism?

I'm not sure, MC Survey mentioned that he heard it on the DVD commentary or something. I'll get back to you on that. M.C. Brown Shoes 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the DPRK isn't communist by itself, it is a unique political entity. Second, the Borg can only be compared to any type of imperialist hegemonist expansionist swarm, yet admittedly it's a collective as such. But collective the Federation is as well. Infact the only comparison with communism I've ever seen online is exactly Federation. The Borg idea "improve the quality of life for all species" seems to me more like "bring democracy to all the world". Also, the way the Borg constantly assimilate other cultures resemble capitalism: conquer, assimilate by merger and aquisition. The idea of expansion or assimilation is totally alien to the DPRK. So is the idea of becoming "drones" or the idea of not thinking for oneself.

The way I understand North Korean thought, it is less "We are not allowed to criticize the Dear Leader" and more "Who needs freedom of speech when we all agree?". Who says communism didn't want to expand and grow throughout the world? What about Comintern and the Domino Theory? Will write more later. M.C. Brown Shoes 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply reducing DPRK society and life down to "We are not allowed" is not an accurate description of what DPRK thought is. The DPRK society is that you contribute to maintain a harmonious society at all cost, results in a society where the norm is not individualism but care for eachother and politeness. The Leaders are the epitomy of ideals and betraying them is to betray your own ability to improve yourself as a human being. Communism isn't what you think either. Just because between 1950 and 1980 communism grew and expanded, doesn't mean that "communism" has a mind of its own. There were a lot of tension between the Soviet Union, PR China, Vietnam, Democratic Kampuchea, Laos and so on. Especially deep was the rift between the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge. They are both communist, but went to war against eachother (Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979). Relations between PRC and the USSR were always up and down. It proves that Communism isn't Communism and confirm the idea of Kim Il Sung that "all nations must find their own revolution" and that "revisionism (trotskyism) and divisionism will be the downfall of socialism, it must be defeated at all cost". Indeed, in all failiures of socialism, the sole blame is lack of vigilance against revisionism and divisionism. So Communism does not have an expansionist nature by itself, but can be lead in each nation by the people under the right circuimstances such as the situation emerging in PR China when a new Maoist revolution is soon underway because of the oppression of the farmers. --Bjornar 11:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It contradicts the teachings of Kim Il Sung that "man is the master of his own destiny" i.e. think for himself and contribute to socialism through individual initiative and talents. The "Single-hearted unity" of the Korean people is highly collective yet not expanding and not at the cost of individualism. Also the DPRK has a monolithic culture, it doesn't assimilate anything. Question Two: Did you ever think I would be afraid of vandalism at all, did you really think I would corrupt my own ideas and thought in order not to upset a bunch of idiots hell-bent on Vandalism for the sole sake of reducing the quality of thoughts and ideas unconciously as a result of conditioning from western society that teaches you the drone-like impulse to generate this infantile reaction-pattern. --Bjornar 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people on the internet compare Microsoft with the Borg. Since Microsoft isn't the epitome of communism but capitalism, Microsoft inherit all the bad qualities of the Borg. "Resistance is futile". The DPRK would never say such a thing. The DPRK would instead say: "we fight with honour to the death" thus comparing to the Klingon society in terms of warfare, and, in my own opinion, the Romulan in terms of militarism, if you make the Romulans peaceful like Vulcans but not telepathic or completely non-violent. --Bjornar 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: United_Federation_of_Planets#Economics --Bjornar 23:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this... It is pretty nutty. My acquaintances who are/were Star Trek writers and invented the Borg idea from my college dorm (Oldenborg, also called "the Borg", known for its similarity to a spaceshipe in shape, twisty hallways and difficulty in finding an exit, and allowing one to be "assimilated") and introduced "47" and MANY other inside references to Pomona College. I mailed one of them about this subject, and he was so shocked (though not surprised) that someone can misconstrue Star Trek fandom into strong support for ANYTHING in the real world, let alone the DPRK. I know it is a bit of a cop-out for im to not write this here personaly but he has no interest in being personally involved, aside from other things... One thing he told me about how North Korea and the Star Trek writers agree is the desire to be personally involved in a very selfish way. The dream of all Star Trek writers is to create a plot twist where it turns out that the Federation are actually the "bad guys", and the entire series shifts to one where the Federation struggles to keep power against heroic idealogues of the non-aligned races. Some of this was able to be fit into "Insurrection" but of course the Fed. had to come out noble in the end. Unfortunately for the writers, this desire to create more interesting TV would destroy the fan base and thus the franchise, and could never came into play. So, they must write the same things, sometimes just dicking around with it and writing in subversive things for their own amusement, over and over again, perpetuating the standard and including nothing that can shake things up (despite how great it would be). It is so similar to the DPRK state news... Of course, the series ended long ago, so I guess it doesn't matter so much any more on that end. Smoove K 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two books from DPRK victims

Good evening, I have just found your personal page here and I am wondering about your opinions. I read two interesting books recently. They are The Aquariums of Pyongyang and The Tears of My Soul. Did you also read them? If so, what do you think about them?

Thanks in advance for your answer, 'cause I am very interested. --Milhaus 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I have read Aquariums of Pyongyang. The book is written by what appear to be a defector who has sold his country to be able to live in South Korea. He did not write his book by himself, but was helped by a number of people. The stories and accounts he gives from the so-called Yodok camp are terrible by themselves, but Yodok is a normal village town, and the methods and cruelties described in the book is not in accordance with DPRK law. Some of the details in the book aren't correct, and there are some mistakes about the Leaders and some mistakes about geography that makes me think that this is all made up. I know North Korea well and don't recognize many of the things he mention. There are no high-res satelite footage from Yodok, such as the ones you can find of Pyongyang on Google Earth. If someone would enhance the quality and resolution, people would all be able to verify that it is indeed an ordinary village and that a "political reeducation camp" anywhere near Yodok is a complete lie. This can be done, for instance you can see a beautiful village at coordinates N40.1945860927,E125.522072691 (copy and paste into Google Earth --Bjornar 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not read The Tears of My Soul - but I read the book review [2]. The DPRK has not taken responsibility for the 1988 bombing of KAL 858, furthermore, I think whoever did blow up this airline came from a political faction group from within South Korea itself. I beleive the entire story of Kim Sung Il and Kim Hyun Hee is totally false. Interestingly, the book review points out that: "Kim's book - The Tears of My Soul - was probably 'co-authored' by Korean and US intelligence agents who spent years debriefing her. It is remarkable that the book follows the basic outline of the US CIA handbook of enemy agent interrogation." --Bjornar 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)