Donald Trump is in South Korea today.  All focus, of course, is on whether Trump and recently-elected Korean president Moon Jae-in will present a unified position against North Korean aggression. Or let me restate that in words that make sense within the current zeitgeist: "a unified position on how to avoid an escalation of tensions with North Korea."

In our worldwide progressive paradigm, suggesting that the problem to be solved here is the threat posed by a tyrannical rogue state's immoral behavior is considered inflammatory. Rather, we are all supposed to pretend that North Korea is "a sovereign state" with "legitimate concerns about being threatened by the U.S. military presence in Asia," and that its outrageous provocations, unprovoked violence, and frequent promises to annihilate its democratic enemies are merely "understandable responses to its increased global isolation."

Demonstrators reacting to Trump's visit

(Even many conservatives of the libertarian bent are wont to ask, "How would you feel if your neighbors were all discussing how to end your regime?" -- as though rationalizing a killing machine's sensitivities were anything but a moral absurdity.)

As for President Moon, a progressive appeaser in the mold of his old ally and boss, Roh Moo-hyun (of North-South "Sunshine Policy" fame), he may be a tough sell on taking a stronger stand against North Korea. He would likely accept the inevitable if necessary, however, especially since Japan has already signed on to America's "all options on the table" position, and since China has remained largely aloof from the situation so far.

But President Moon probably will have to be dragged to a harder stance by events -- a bizarre thing to have to say about the president of a nation that is technically at war with a communist madhouse dictatorship that tore his own country in half, has starved and enslaved millions of his countrymen, and has carried out repeated acts of murderous aggression against the South in recent years, in addition to its constant threats of all-out attack. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

But the depth of the moral problem facing this world -- in which most governments, media voices, and academics are progressive in their underlying principles and perspective -- may be seen in the sheer silliness with which people speak of what might cause an "escalation of hostilities" with North Korea.  Here is a perfect example, from Professor Koo Kab-woo at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. (Imagine the political perspective likely to prevail at a university with such a name.)

Addressing the concern that Trump might say or do something careless or bombastic during his South Korean trip, Professor Koo says, "If Trump says anything that can provoke North Korea, it could send military tensions soaring again."

Right. North Korea is calm and trying to restore a peaceful coexistence. But what if Trump goes and blows it with a stupid remark?

You see, the tensions, whatever might have caused them (who can say?), have settled recently, but if they rise again due to Trump's rhetoric during his visit to Seoul, then the resulting danger will be on America's head for having "provoked" it.

This is a classic moral equivalency argument (and an excellent preview of exactly how China will respond if an armed conflict begins on the Korean peninsula): "Both sides need to calm down. If Nation A (the world's oldest republic and traditional leader of the free world) causes things to escalate again by speaking too harshly, then Nation B (a bloody tyranny starving its own broken people and threatening the world with nuclear war) cannot be held solely responsible for the resulting rise in tensions."

This is the same argument used for decades to frame the Cold War as a battle between "two noble experiments," rather than between good and evil. It is the same argument used to equate the pro-Palestinian efforts by much of the Middle East (along with the UN and Europe and most of academia and the North American left) to wipe Israel off the map, to Israeli efforts to push back in defense of a nation the size of New Jersey.

Moral equivalency in international relations -- "both sides are to blame," or "both sides have understandable concerns" -- is the last refuge of the morally bankrupt. In this case, expressing peevishness that somehow Donald Trump's words might provoke North Korean hostilities is a convenient way of implying that North Korea is not inherently, essentially hostile to begin with, but rather that any hostility they display is merely a response to outside instigation. Thus, a tyranny is falsely portrayed as an equal participant in difficult diplomacy, rather than a victim of its own obsession with power and destruction. This in turn creates an aura of legitimacy around one of the most illegitimate regimes of modern times.

I myself have been critical of Trump's often careless rhetoric on North Korea, but my concern has always been that by speaking too cavalierly, Trump risks tipping his administration's hand unnecessarily, or painting himself into a strategic corner with Obama-like "red lines." My concerns, in other words, are related to American interests, not North Korea's "feelings." Under no circumstances would I ever suggest Trump's words or actions were to blame for North Korea's behavior.

Similarly, appeasers like Moon Jae-in, who has used moral equivalency arguments against his own nation and yet has somehow been elected president under the guise of a "champion of the people" -- reminiscent of Barack Obama in that regard, both in policy and in manner -- exacerbate a national tragedy by emboldening a dictatorship. But by no means would I suggest such appeasers are to blame for the murderous aspirations of Kim Jong-un's illegitimate regime.

North Korea is a brutal dictatorship with fantasies of eventually uniting the Korean peninsula under their communist bloodlust regime. They, and they alone, are to blame for their aggression; their aggression is not a response to anything, but rather their regime's raison d'être.

Progressives constantly use moral equivalency arguments and moral relativism to obscure the crimes committed in the name of their death cult ideology. They have thereby obliterated an extremely proper and reasonable category of political discourse: illegitimate power.

In this age, any tyranny that survives long enough to become stable in its authority, or that exists as a protectorate of a bigger tyranny, is regarded as "sovereign," in the sense of unassailable. The UN exists largely to reinforce and defend the "right" of unjust regimes to exist unchallenged, or to set strict limits on the conditions in which such regimes may be confronted by the so-called "international community."

North Korea, under its current and permanent government, is not a sovereign nation. It is an illegitimate tyrannical regime, a state governed by men without even a pretense of concern for the well-being of their trampled population, which exists not at all as citizens, but rather as slaves, without any modicum or memory of self-determination or self-ownership.

To legitimize that regime by worrying about whether Donald Trump might say something to "raise tensions" is to miss the point. Tensions are permanent and unavoidable when a tyranny feels its power threatened. But tyrannies deserve to feel their power threatened, and in fact they always will. As Plato taught us long ago, the tyrannical man is the most frightened man in the world, for he lives in the knowledge that his power is not deserved, and that everyone hates him for it. He cannot sleep at night, because he cannot even trust his own guards, or his own brother.

But today, we are told not to speak too loudly, lest we disturb the tyrant's sleep and make him angry, as if we would be to blame if our would-be killer's anger were roused. Thus, progressives defend one of their own -- an extreme and ridiculous one to be sure, but one of them nonetheless -- with moral equivalency arguments.

There is no equivalency here. North Korea's hostilities are their essence, not a product of outside provocation, real or imagined. Anything they do will be on their own heads, as will any destruction that gets unleashed upon them due to their actions. Theirs is a regime that has no moral legitimacy, and hence, while no one is obliged to do anything about that, neither does anyone owe their rule, their aspirations, or their tender feelings any respect.

The only moral considerations that have any weight in this issue are related to whether annihilating Kim's national death camp -- inherently justifiable -- is worth the risk it may bring to the lives of other nations' citizens.

Daren Jonescu lives in South Korea where he writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at http://darenjonescu.com/.