I used to be a sweaty player mastering every rotation down to a second and learning all patterns and what not. But the burn out was getting to me. Slowly and gradually I didn't want to do this and that. When I first saw her in game I was in complete blown away by her beauty. I decided I'll get her even if she were to heal the enemies instead. When she first dropped a lot had bad things to say about her kit but I didn't care. I had woken up that day with a goal to simp for the queen. Months later as of today I have her c2 and weapon at r1. I have been loving the afk gameplay. Just 3 skill, sit back and see them suffer as I enjoy my tea. Nit only she does good damage she also looks so graceful while doing it. I don't think anyone will ever replace her for me.
Anyways this is my build. I had no resin so this is essentially a copypasta. Do let me know how my build is looking

​
THE JOURNEY TO THE SUNRISE
A Cherokee Legend
​
A long time ago several young men made up their minds to find the place where the Sun lives and see what the Sun is like.
They got ready their bows and arrows, their parched corn and extra moccasins, and started out toward the east.
At first they met tribes they knew, then they came to tribes they had only heard about, and at last to others of which they had never heard.
There was a tribe of root eaters and another of acorn eaters, with great piles of acorn shells near their houses.
In one tribe they found a sick man dying, and were told it was the custom there when a man died to bury his wife in the same grave with him.
They waited until he was dead, when they saw his friends lower the body into a great pit, so deep and dark that from the top they could not see the bottom.
Then a rope was tied around the woman's body, together with a bundle of pine knots, a lighted pine knot was put into her hand, and she was lowered into the pit to die there in the darkness after the last pine knot was burned.
The young men traveled on until they came at last to the sunrise place where the sky reaches down to the ground. They found that the sky was an arch or vault of solid rock hung above the Earth and was always swinging up and down, so that when it went up there was an open place like a door between the sky and ground, and when it swung back the door was shut.
The Sun came out of this door from the East and climbed along on the inside of the arch.
It had a human figure, but was too bright for them to see clearly and too hot to come very near.
They waited until the Sun had come out and then tried to get through while the door was still open, but just as the first one was in the doorway the rock came down and crushed him.
The other six were afraid to try it, and as they were now at the end of the world they turned around and started back again, but they had traveled so far that they were old men when they reached home.

​
https://preview.redd.it/iyxyvbjn5s3b1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c56e48ef624f148721eff4fa880e9223b11afb0

On Some Questions in the Study of the Juche Idea Clarified by Comrade Kim Jong Il

Vice-President Pak Yong Gon of Joson University
With the approach of the 21st century the socialist movement is faced with various problems which require solution, and the road to the independence of mankind is beset by manifold difficulties. Many people in world are seeking new ideas to solve these problems. The Juche idea has been evolved as an idea for carrying out the historic mission of the present era in the protracted struggle to build a new peaceful and independent world free from exploitation and oppression.
The Juche idea is a man-centred world outlook which approaches everithing with the main emphasis placed on man’s position in the world and his creative role in remoulding and developing the world, and a people-centred outlook on social history which clarifies the essence the socio-historical movement and its logical character regarding man, that is, the people as the main agent of social movement. The Juche idea is a collectivist view of life which clarifies the essence and value of the worthy and happy life, regarding the social collective as the parent body of human life.
The Juche idea arouses sympathy among many people and is widely spreading in the world because it is a new idea which places at the centre the people who strive to carve out their destiny, and indicates the way to it. Recently in south Korea the Juche idea has become not only an important ideological trend but also the guiding idea for the reunification of Korea and the democratic movement. Because of its influence in philosophical circles it has become the main trend of the time to make a serious study the Juche idea. (Philosophical Study compiled by the Philosophical Study Society, No. 29, autumn 1991.)
There is still clearly a tendency to fail to have a correct understanding of the relations of the Juche idea to former progressive ideas and their principles because it is a new idea and some questions require detailed explanation.
In view of such a situation this article briefly refers to some questions to be noted for a correct understanding of the Juche idea.
1
The Juche idea was evolved in the process of development of progressive ideas. Hence it should be made clear what development it has made in comparison with the former ideas, what position it holds in the history of ideologies and what practical significance it has.
The quintessence of the Juche idea can be grasped only when one adheres to the basic stand of considering the continuity of the Juche idea with main emphasis placed on the originality in the relations of the Juche idea to Marxism-Leninism.
Comrade Kim Jong Il said:
“First of all, the tendency to explain the merit and originality of the Juche idea from the viewpoint of Marx’s materialistic dialectics should be rectified.”
It is an undeniable fact that with the passage of time social ideologies progress. It is true that some people still tend to consider and interpret the Juche idea from the framework of Marxism-Leninism, holding its scientific accuracy and validity supreme.
As is known, Marxist materialistic dialectics was established on the basis of Feuerbach’s metaphysical materialism and Hegel’s idealistic dialectics. However, no Marxist has tried to interpret Marxist philosophy from the framework of Feuerbach’s or Hegel’s philosophy. Because there is an understanding that materialistic dialectics is entirely new and original although it inherited and developed Feuerbach’s materialism and Hegel’s dialectics. As to the Juche idea, however, there is still a tendency to interpret it from the framework of Marxism-Leninism. It is because of a lack of full understanding of the merit and originality of the Juche idea and of a proper understanding of the historical limitations of Marxism.
The Marxist philosophy made a historic contribution to the refutation d idealism and metaphysics by elucidating the basic principle that the world consists of matter, and that it invariably changes and develops. Proceeding from the understanding that the basic mission of philosophy is to show the way to carving out human destiny, the Juche idea raised it as a fundamental question of philosophy to elucidate the relations of man to the world, in other words, man’s position and role in the world, and established a man-centred philosophical world outlook. This shed a new light on the fundamental question of the former philosophy.
Needless to say, man is matter. However, man is not matter in general but a social being with independence, creativity and consciousness, and the most developed matter. The relation of man to his surrounding world is not the relation of consciousness to matter but the relation of the most developed matter with consciousness to matter without consciousness. It goes without saying that in the interactions between developed matter and matter in the lower stage of development the former holds a higher position and plays a greater role than the latter.
Man with independence, creativity and consciousness is not subjected to the environment but plays a decisive role in remoulding and developing the world, and in hewing out his destiny holding an independent position in the world because he acts on the world surrounding him in an independent, creative and purposeful manner. The Juche-oriented philosophical principle elucidates that through his creative activity man invariably carves out his destiny by his own efforts and enhances his position as the master of the world.
Proceeding from the philosophical principle that man holds the position of master and plays the decisive role in hewing out his destiny, the Juche idea requires that man should adhere to the independent stand and creative method in carving out his destiny. The independent stand and creative method advocated by the Juche idea can be said to be the most scientific and innovative ones which require that the world should not simply be regarded as a changing and developing material world but as one changing and developing to meet man’s independent needs through his creative activity. Unlike this, the fundamental principle of the Marxist philosophy holds that the development of all matter is a process of natural history, as clearly laid down in the foreword to Capital.
This means that it does not differentiate the social movement caused by man’s independent, creative and purposeful activity from me spontaneous movement of nature, and regards social progress as following the laws of change and development of nature.
The Marxist classics maintained that the development of all matter should be grasped as a process of natural history with a view to refuting idealistic views on the development of social history.
In the face of the developing natural sciences in those days, idealists could no longer deny that the natural world changes and develops following objective laws. Proceeding from the fact that social change and development are due to the activities of man with consciousness, they made a mystery of the conscious activity of man and held that objective laws were not the cause of social change and development.
The Marxist classics stressed that social change and progress is an aspect of development of nature, and, consequently, social progress follows objective laws like the development of nature since society is the product of the evolution and development of nature. That was why they focussed their efforts on proving the commonness of nature and social being rather than on the essential difference between nature and social being or on the essential difference in the change and development of nature and society.
The Marxist classics elucidated the general characteristic features of the physical world, the material character of the world and the general law governing its change and development, thereby making a historic contribution to the victory of materialism and dialectics over idealism and metaphysics.
They established a materialistic view of history by applying materialistic dialectics to society, and elucidated the objective laws governing social progress.
Proceeding from the fundamental proposition that social being decides social consciousness, the materialistic view of history held that the productive forces decide the relations of production, which in turn decide the consciousness of people and the political and legal institutions which reflect it. It characterized the essence of the process of historical development as the process of change of the mode of production. The materialistic view of history considered social being as the material condition of social life and that this is what decides the consciousness of people. Hence, it considered man acting purposefully himself as the subjective factor decided by the objective factors.
In contrast, the Juche idea does not regard man only as an isolated being with just a body, but as a social being with social wealth linked to social relations and as the main agent of social movement. As the cause and motive force of social movement lie in man, the main agent of the movement, man, that is, the people play the leading and decisive role in social movement. Although the objective factors are important conditions which influence human activity, they themselves cannot become the main agent which causes and pushes ahead social movement nor factors decisive of the fate of this movement. In this light, the law of the change and development of social movement can be said to be in essence the law of movement of man himself who, although subjected to certain limitations of objective conditions, hews out his destiny in an independent and creative manner. Man creates material wealth through interaction with nature, and forms social relations and social systems through interaction between human beings.
It is true that human activity is subject to limitations depending on the degree of development of material wealth of society and social relations. However, since social wealth and social relations are created by man, the degree of their development is eventually decided by the level of development of man’s independence, creativity and consciousness. It is true that creators and creation are in an inseparable relationship and limit each other, but in approaching everything emphasis should not be placed on the aspect of creation’s determining influence on the creators but on the aspect of the creators’ determining influence on creation.
2
Next, let us examine from the Juche viewpoint the law of unity and struggle of opposites which was recognized as an important methodology in evolving the theory of the materialistic view of history, which constitutes the kernel of materialistic dialectics.
Comrade Kim Jong II said:
“It can be seen from the explanation of the law of unity and struggle of opposites that the Juche philosophy is considered in close relation to Marxist materialistic dialectics.
“Marxist materialistic dialectics makes its major content the principle of unity and struggle of opposites. However, this problem is not a problem to be treated simply from the academic viewpoint alone. Like other theoretical problems of Marxism-Leninism the law of unity and of opposites, too, must be considered historically from the viewpoint of revolutionary practice. Importance was attached to the law of unity and struggle of opposites because philosophical exposition of the socio-economic contradictions and the law governing class struggle in capitalist society in those days was posed as an important historical task. Therefore, the principle of unity and struggle of opposites elucidated by the Marxist philosophy now has many irrational points when it comes to clarifying the law-governed process of development of socialist society, I think.”
Marx’s materialistic dialectics regards the law of unity and struggle of opposites as its main content. Marxist philosophy tries to elucidate all problems with this law. But the question is not one to be considered simply from the academic viewpoint alone. The so-called study of dialectics so far has recognized this law as a universal law applicable irrespective of time and space, and tried to substantiate theoretically why the law of unity and struggle of opposites constitutes the kernel of materialistic dialectics. But only when the law of unity and struggle of opposites is considered historically from the viewpoint of revolutionary practice and not from the purely academic viewpoint like other theoretical problems, can its validity be deepened.
The Marxist classics attached great importance to the law of unity and struggle of opposites because it was posed as an urgent task to give a philosophical exposition of the socio-economic contradictions of capitalist society of those days and the law of class struggle. The Marxist classics held that since all matter has unity of opposites, matter develops through the struggle of opposites in such a way that the old disappears and the new emerges. They tried to prove that the socio-economic contradictions of capitalist society are settled through class struggle by the law of unity and struggle of opposites and, consequently, capitalist society inevitably develops into socialist society. In other words, the law of unity and struggle of opposites served as an important theoretical method for the Marxist classics to prove the inevitability of the ruin of capitalism and the victory of socialism, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Today we are carrying on revolution and construction in historical circumstances different from those of the time when the Marxist classics were active. Therefore, the Marxist philosophical principle concerning the law of unity and struggle of opposites is not applicable to today’s reality.
It is evident that the principle of Marxist dialectics which holds that the inner contradictions of matter are the basic source of the development of matter and struggle is the motive force of development is insufficient for explaining the law-governed process of the development of modern socialist society. Today the source of social process in Korea lies not in inner contradictions but in the ideological unity of the leader, the Party and the masses that strive to effect the independence of the masses of the people. The motive force of social development does not lie in antagonism and struggle but in the might of unity based on comradely cooperation which involves helping and leading each other forward under the leadership of the Party and the leader.
The Juche idea is embodied in the three-point principle of national reunification—independence, peaceful reunification and grand national unity—to which the Korean people consistently adhere. The aim of the struggle for national reunification is to put an end to the division of the nation and recover the independence of the nation. Consequently, the entire Korean people is the main agent. Therefore, whether national reunification can be achieved or not depends upon whether all the national forces can be enlisted for the unity of the nation and reunification or not. If the principle of struggle is applied here to settle contradictions, grand national unity cannot be achieved and antagonism and distrust will be the result.
The historic lessons of the experiences of certain countries show that if the principle of Marxist philosophy on unity and struggle is applied to socialist construction it will not contribute to the unity and cohesion of socialist society but will rather increase contradictions and distrust within society and cause social confusion.
It goes without saying that if antagonistic contradictions exist the basic method of combatting them is class struggle and that the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential for protecting socialist society from the subversive moves of the imperialists. However, in a society in which the people hold power and social ownership is in force the factor of development lies in the ever-increasing independent demand of the people and in the might of unity. For this purpose, the people should be made the genuine masters of society. Therein lies the basic motive force of development of socialist society.
The former view which regarded the law of contradiction as the kernel of dialectics and contradictions as the cause and motive force of social progress was effective in proving the doom of capitalism and the victory of socialist revolution but may be said to be insufficient for demonstrating the law of today’s social progress and in increasing its practical effect. That is why materialistic dialectics has to be reexamined, placing man at centre.
3
The originality of Marx’s philosophical ideas lies in the materialistic view of history. It is theoretically grounded on social being and social consciousness. Therefore, it is very important to have a correct understanding of the problem in order to make a serious study of the Juche idea.
Above all, the question of whether the relations of social being to social consciousness can be interpreted by the general principle of materialism or not should be examined. In other words, the question of whether or not a formulation can be made simply in such a manner that social existence is primary and social consciousness is secondary should be examined.
As is known, the question of whether matter or consciousness is primary is the question of the origin of the world. The question of origin should be considered in the realm of nature. Only then has the question significance for a world outlook. Unlike this, in the realm of society characterized by human activities it is not the question of origin but the reflection theory that has philosophical significance.
It is evident that human consciousness reflects social being. However, there are no grounds for saying that social existence gives rise to social consciousness. In that case consciousness always has to follow the development of matter. However, reality shows that new things are created by the consciousness of people, and they are always used intentionally.
Secondly, understanding of social being, particularly the question of how to approach the position of ideas should be examined.
Former theories treated the concept of social being by setting against consciousness, in order to apply materialism to the realm of society. This can be seen from the fact that almost all the passages treating of this problem in the works of Marx and Engels invariably use the set phrases “social existence” and “consciousness”.
But the Juche idea puts forward the concept of social existence in relation to natural existence. This viewpoint deduces the original concept of social organism and brings the independent character of social law into bold relief.
Thirdly, it concerns the question of considering social existence, placing man at the centre.
Comrade Kim Jong Il said:
“Some articles which try to explain the Juche idea say that social wealth, too, belongs to social being. It is an erroneous view that regards man and the social wealth he has created as equal.”
The viewpoint advocating the material character of society poses the question of whether it is social existence or consciousness which is more important and, consequently, the methodology of distinguishing society by either material or ideological relations has been established. According to Lenin, this methodology is so important that it can be said to be the basic idea behind the materialistic view of history.
But by this methodology the view of social history cannot be developed into a man-centred view of history.
In order to embody fully the man-centred idea in the view of social history it is, above all, necessary to consider social existence placing man at the centre. For this purpose, special attention should be paid to the following:
Above all, it is necessary to combat the tendency to generalize both man and social wealth as social existence, considering them as equal.
Man alone directly embodies social attributes, and social wealth can be included in the concept of social existence only in relation to man. When reference is made to social wealth, above all, man should be borne in mind. It is taken for granted that man, the creator, and created material wealth cannot be considered as equal.
What is evident is that the concept of man in social science does not imply man with a body alone but man who embodies social attributes and uses objectified materials and cultural wealth. In other words, when man is referred to as social existence, he must be understood as social man with social wealth linked to all other men through social relations and not as an isolated man with a separate body.
Of course, since social wealth is a component part of society, there is no doubt that it belongs to society and not to nature. The wealth created by man exists objectively outside the body of man, but does not share its lot with nature. It is subjected to man and shares its lot with him. In order to ascertain the extent of development of society it is necessary not only to consider the extent of the development of independence, creativity and consciousness embodied in man but also to analyse how much social wealth and social relations have developed.
Thus when reference is made to man in the sense used in social science but not in a biological sense it is supposed that this includes social wealth as well as the human body. But they must not be considered as equal. When we say that man is the master of nature and society, regarding him as a powerful being, we mean such a man and not a man only with a separate body.
Therefore, social being in essence means man alone, and when reference is made to his composition it must be understood as meaning man and social wealth.
As mentioned above, when reference is made to the concept of social being, it is important to get rid of the former viewpoint which considers it as a concept indicating its material character and evolve a concept attaching significance to it as concept which discriminates between natural being and social being.
The emergence of man with consciousness, social relations and labour tools and other social wealth constitute an inseparable and linked integral process. Hence, as man is not conceivable apart from social relations, so man as a social being cannot be conceived of apart from social wealth.
Since individual man can have independence, creativeness and consciousness as a member of a social collective, the term social being is appliable to individual man on the supposition that man is a member of the social collective. However, originally man cannot be a social being if he has not social wealth and is not linked to other men through social relations. Therefore it would be right to consider social man having social wealth and linked with other men through social relations rather than individual man.
Next, to place man at the centre means to consider that man creates social wealth and unfolds historical movement as the process of manifestation of independence, creativity and consciousness, his essential attributes.
Another important question is to evolve a theory of social organism different from individual physical life, on a higher plane.
These two questions will be treated separately on other occasions since they are very important philosophical problems.
If one attempts to appreciate or criticize the Juche-oriented view of social history on the basis of different outdated theories including that of the social organism, this itself only means that one is prepossessed with outdated thinking and methods. Philosophy, particularly views of social history should be thoroughly linked with revolutionary practice and be evolved so as to contribute to the cause of independence of the people. I particularly stress this, taking into account the current international situation, in other words, the moves of the imperialists and emergence of modern social democracy in some countries.
4
At present, the national problem is posed as an important one. Hence consideration of the Juche idea’s view on the nation is of practical significance, I think.
The former progressive theory regarded the issue of national liberation as a component part of the class emancipation struggle. Hence, it can be said that not much attention was paid to the peculiarity of national liberation revolutions. Proceeding from the new viewpoint that the struggle against social subjugation and bondage, whether it is a national liberation struggle or a class liberation struggle, is a struggle to effect man’s independence, the Juche idea admits the peculiarity of the national liberation struggle as well as the class liberation struggle.
The former theory elucidated the question of the formation of the nation in connection with the emergence of capitalism (formation of modern states) and the question of the role of the capitalist class. Hence, it gave things of class character the first consideration and regarded things national as a matter of secondary importance. Viewed historically, it is true that, particularly in Europe, the capitalist class played the leading role in the formation of national markets and national states under banner of nationalism. Nevertheless, it is wrong to consider the question of the fate of a nation in relation to the capitalist class alone. It is wrong to try to interpret the essence of a nation, solely in relation to capitalism and to assess patriotism toward the nation-states as a manifestation of the ideology of the capitalist class and petty-bourgeoisie on the plea that the capitalist class once led the struggle for national independence under the slogan of democracy with a view to monopolizing the national market. Of course, the slogans of nationalism and patriotism the capitalist class put up in the beginning were appropriate for those days. But the capitalist class gradually distorted the substance of the slogans to suit its selfish aims, using them as if their class interests coincided with the interests of the whole nation. Nevertheless, if nationalism and patriotism themselves are negated, identifying them with the capitalist class alone, the working class and the working masses will have no beloved homeland or nation.
In all ages and in all societies it was the masses of the people who really loved, defended, strengthened and developed their nations and homelands. When the privileged position of the reactionary ruling class was threatened by the invasion of foreign aggressors, the reactionary ruling class often sold out the interests of their countries and nations, but the working people always fought for the interests of their nations. The working people always devotedly fight for the independence of the nation because they regard the life of the nation as their own and the fate of the nation as their own. True patriotism can be said to be an inherent attribute of the working people.
Some people in the past, when they considered the national problem, identifying it with capitalism alone, thought that with the disappearance of the capitalist system and establishment of the socialist system the national problem would no longer exist and the borders between socialist countries would disappear. But history shows that even when the socialist system has been established and is expanding in the world people live and develop in each country and nation as the basic unit. Of course, when the ideal society of mankind is established on a world-wide scale its looks will naturally change. But as long as there exist borders between countries and differences between nations the masses of the people will hew out their destinies in each country and nation as the unit.
It conforms with the principle of independence that even in socialist society each country and nation paves its own way, adhering to the principle of self-reliance. Nevertheless, in the past some countries failed to rectify the former wrong attitude towards the nation, and suffered serious setbacks in building new societies while neglecting the establishment of national identity and following the path to dependence on big powers. The Juche idea holds that at the present stage of historical development for working people to establish their own identity is nothing other than to establish national entity. This is because the destiny of the people is carved out in each country and nation as a unit.
Establishment of the national entity does not contradict the class interests of the working people and has nothing to do with national egoism.
Originally the working people have no class privileges. So they do not set the national interests against their class interests but value the national interests more than the interests of any class or social stratum. It is the masses who undergo the greatest sufferings and misfortunes when the independence of a nation is encroached upon and the country faces a crisis. The working people know that their independent lives and happiness are ensured only when the nation and the country exist.
Originally the country and the political power of the state are closely related to each other. Nevertheless, they are not the same concept. The view on the nation and state of the Juche idea differs greatly from that of the former theory which holds that the nation is capitalistic, and the country and the political power of the state are the means whereby one class holds sway over other classes, without discriminating between them. The Juche idea holds that the nation is a collective of fellow countrymen who share the same fate and understands that the concept of the country covers the popular masses living under unitary political leadership and the entire living environment. In exploitative societies the working people are opposed to the political power of the state which the reactionary ruling class abuses for its egoistic purposes, but not to the country itself. The spirit of genuinely loving the country and nation can be said to be one of the essential attributes of the working people.
The Juche idea does not regard any class or social stratum, but the masses of the people, as the main agent of history. The Juche idea is the ideology of the masses, who are the main agent of history. The independence, independent requirements and interests of the masses conform to the requirement of social progress and to the common interests of the nation moving towards independence. The common interests of the nation which conform to the essential requirements of social development are the same, although the requirements and interests of classes and social strata differ from each other. The class interests of the working class conform to the interests of the masses of the people and the common interim of the nation because the working class fights to abolish class privileges and differences, having nothing to do with egoism and exclusivism. Hence the Juche idea is called the idea of the masses or the idea of the working class.
The privileged class cannot represent the interests of the masses and the common interests of a nation because it is an egoistic class which protects its privileged interests. When its force is weak, the capitalist class exerts efforts to monopolize supremacy in a country under the slogan of opposition to another nation’s interference and domination, but when its force is strong it tends to trample on the independence of other nations and establish supremacy over them. Hence, bourgeois nationalism at times advocates the Monroe Doctrine and its like, calling for national or regional autonomy and noninterference, and at times puts forward cosmopolitanism, calling for unlimited sway and liberty.
In contrast, the nationalism and patriotism of the working people striving for the establishment of the national entity not only respect the independence of their nation but also advocate internationalism to develop friendship and cooperation between nations, proceeding from the independent stand of respecting the independence of other nations as well. The Juche idea prefers to use the term patriotism rather than the term nationalism because there is an essential difference between bourgeois nationalism and the nationalism of the masses. Proceeding from the viewpoint that the establishment of a national entity is the basic problem deciding the prosperity and ruin of a nation, the Juche idea applies other principles and methods different from the former theory in overcoming contradictions between classes and social strata within a nation.
The former theory regarded the process of historical development as a process of class struggle, and class struggle as the basic motive force of social progress. Hence, it placed class interests above national interests and gave priority to the struggle to settle class contradictions over the struggle to overcome national contradictions. However, the Juche idea gives priority to the realization of national interests and national independence, valuing national interests and national independence more than class interests and class independence. This is because as the nation existed classes came into being and because the nation is the parent body of classes and the classes are the component parts of the nation. Foreign imperialist aggressors are the common enemy of all the classes and social strata of the national entity. Consequently, the struggle against foreign aggressors requires national unity transcending the interests of classes and social strata.
Because the Juche idea puts the interests of the nation before class interests, it regards the establishment of national entity and its further strengthening as a historic mission to be steadily promoted for the welfare and happiness of the nation until the whole of mankind becomes one big family and holds that the conflicts of class interests within the nation should be settled on the principle of strengthening national unity and defending the common interests of the nation. In order to promote the unity and development of the nation, each class and social stratum should steadily strengthen solidarity and cooperation for the common needs and interests of the nation, thereby strengthening the national entity and gradually overcoming differences and conflicts of interests. The struggle within the nation is not the motive force of development, but the unity and cohesion of the national entity are. Not division and antagonism but national amity and unity based on fraternity is the source of welfare and prosperity of the nation. This is the quintessence of the Juche-orientated view of the nation.
― Great Successor to the Cause of Juche, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang 1995, pp. 26-42.