North Korea calls U.S. Ambassador to U.N. “a political prostitute,” usual suspects fall silent

The regime that called President Obama a “wicked black monkey” and an “ugly subhuman,” and called Justice Michael Kirby “a disgusting old lecher with a 40-odd-year-long career of homosexuality,” has responded to Ambassador Nikki Haley’s statement at the U.N. last week that Kim Jong-un was not rational:

KCNA Commentary Brands U.S. Representative at UN as Political Prostitute

    Pyongyang, March 11 (KCNA) — The U.S. representative at the UN Haley known for her capricious political savvy has now gone helter-skelter.

    At a press conference on March 8 that followed a session of the UN Security Council on discussing measures to counter the DPRK’s ballistic rocket launch, she said they are not dealing with a man of reason, meant the supreme leadership of the DPRK, not content with such words as “blame” and “no negotiations”.

    Her wild words are just sophism of political and diplomatic half-wit devoid of the ability to analyze and judge things and express oneself.

    She is no more than a crafty woman who rose to the post of representing the U.S. at the international body for her worldly wisdom and disguise.

(Update: Come for the sexism, stay for the racism!)

    In the past she posed herself as a white for her political purpose and at the 2010 election of state governor she was fined for hiding the case of lobbying only to be branded as political swindler and criminal.

    She is pointed as a political prostitute even from ordinary people for her chameleon-like nature.

    At the presidential election last year she opposed the present owner of the White House, saying that certain is the point that no support will be given, and flattered Rubio, key election rival, saying only when he is elected, every day will be pleasant.

    But no sooner had the present chief executive taken office than she twisted his arm to sending her to the UN to represent the U.S. She is, for sure, a matchless political prostitute.

    She has only pursued successful career and financial benefits, with no heed given to conscience and morality. Now she has become an idiot unable to judge whether it is realistic and reasonable or not to trumpet about the “north Korea’s denuclearization first”.

    We have no interest in dealing with such human rejects as Haley, wagging her tongue without elementary concept on the reason. -0-

On behalf of Gloria Steinem, Christine Ahn, Code Pink, and Women Cross DMZ, who were not available for comment, I condemn this vile sexism. Still, on occasions like these, North Korea becomes a useful reagent for separating liberals from the alt-left. To liberals, tolerance and the rejection of racism, sexism, and homophobia are among the highest social imperatives. The alt-left wields these imperatives as cudgels, but invariably falls silent when a totalitarian enemy of America offends them.

The North Koreans might have offered a better criticism of Haley by pointing out — without the use of nasty, sexist language — that she was muted in her criticism of Donald Trump when his most offensive statement about women came to light (for which, it must be said, Trump offered some form of apology for the first time in his campaign). One might attribute Haley’s response to partisanship or opportunism. One might also say that for Haley, as for most Americans, last November was about choosing which candidate she disliked less. (That Haley expressed this openly certainly wasn’t partisan, and may or may not have been opportunistic, depending on your interpretation.)

The fact that Gloria Steinem isn’t running for office, and that Ahn and the Code Pink crowd know they’re on the political fringe here in America, doesn’t mean that their silence isn’t its own form of opportunism. It’s just that their opportunistic silence is meant to avoid disfavor in another capital, in another hemisphere. Yet by their selective silence, they again show their hypocrisy and their tolerance of intolerance. Some of them seem to define themselves by their hatred of America, which they reveal by associating themselves with its most repugnant enemies. Others may be simply deluded. In all cases, all that is necessary for misogyny to triumph is for women to fall silent. Yet in the end, there is no equivalence here. You have every right to hate what Donald Trump said about women, but if you have a shred of principle in you, you should hate what North Korea does to women far more.


  1. Substitute the vocabulary ‘alt-left’ for ‘progressive’. A progressive will fight for the ability to censor and shut-you-up.
    Crossing the DMZ and making a statement is just that. Trying living vs visiting north of the the DMZ. 70% of all the DPRK defectors are women (national Geographic). (They are just better at imprisoning the men-folk).
    The rich-folk in the DPRK have strawberries (Andrei Larov), throw away laptop computers minus hard-drives (the star/Malayasia Culpa news) from their embassy, cheaper doctors,but….
    (how many Chinese women are queing up to get in?)


  2. Is it revealing that the regime took such offense at being called irrational? Just from a game theory perspective, I would think that a party with nuclear weapons and nothing else would embrace that label.

    As with the regime’s surprising sensitivity to criticism about human rights, have we stumbled across another emotional hot button here?


  3. Don’t forget Ann Wright of Veterans for Peace.

    When specifically challenged as to why she would not engage in the same type (indeed, any type) of criticism of the North and its dictators that she regularly levels at the USA and ROK and their elected leaders, she answered that such criticism of the North would not be helpful or appropriate. A double standard so blatant and so wide, one could fly an Antonov AN-2 through it.

    Remember, also, that several members of Women Cross DMZ have even signed a statement calling the ROK’s Jeju island naval base a “crime against humanity,” but when Christine Ahn is asked about the North Korean GULAG, she won’t reply and instead changes the subject to prison conditions in the USA.

    As for Gloria Steinem, she was once directly asked at a Women Cross DMZ press conference (by an intrepid member of the Human Rights Foundation) how she, as a feminist icon, could so entirely refrain from speaking out against the North’s public expressions of misogyny and racism before her visit to Pyongyang. Steinem
    replied that the very question was “bananas,” which essentially
    meant that she did not have any good answer, and was forced to
    therefore avoid the issue by mocking it.


  4. Following up on what Mark said, I’m a liberal who is pretty appalled at the extreme I.D. politics we see on the Left these days. Everything is in flux right now so the terms might change, but the “Alt-Left” crowd seems to be people like me who want to separate ourselves from the “Regressive Left.” It’s the Regressive Left that contains the America haters you mention.


  5. Next the Norks will be telling the President that his mother is ugly and wears combat boots.

    Maybe this stuff loses something in translation, but is sounds like its coming from an antisocial 8 year old on the edge of a tantrum.


  6. So we should be outraged that feminists are not outraged at the plainly outrageous and borderline comical North Korean press releases that no one even reads or takes seriously? And this is somehow a defense of Donald Trump? Good lord what happened to this blog.


  7. The surest test of a person’s values is how quickly they abandon those values when they become inconvenient.