More on Ryan Faulk and "First Worldism"
I left a few stones unturned in the last post, so I'm going to circle back and talk a little more about Ryan Faulk and his paradigm shift from white nationalism to what he calls "first worldism". Specifically, I want to turn over the following stones:
1. The "Japan argument" for WN.
2. Ryan's attempt to save face by claiming that this is a minor change in his worldview.
3. Ryan's obsession with maps and sorting.
4. The real lesson of the European revolution.
The Japan Argument
Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?"
First, I should say that this doesn't have anything specifically to do with Ryan's former or current views, but I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism. It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealistic. If I am criticizing white nationalism as unrealistic and unpragmatic, the Japan argument seems to avoid those criticisms. However, I don't think it is a good argument for white nationalism in the current year. Let me explain why.
The Japanese don't want to flood their society with foreigners. They want to keep Japan Japanese for the forseeable future. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not think they have a moral imperative to allow millions of foreigners to live in their country for humanitarian reasons. They don't think diversity would make them stronger. They have a healthy sense of collective identity. They celebrate themselves, without hating on others (most of the time).
Of course, that wasn't always the case. In recent history the Japanese had a much more aggressive form of nationalism, one that resembled Nazism in many ways. Partly because they were defeated in WW2, and partly because they are no longer hungry, Japanese nationalism has transformed into a "live and let live" attitude, which is (I think) the ideal kind of nationalism if we want global peace and prosperity.
The current form of Japanese nationalism is more of a historical accident than a consequence of ideology. Japanese nationalism is mostly just implicit conservatism: a defense of the status quo because it is the status quo, not because it fits some ideological template. To put it simply, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary.
The Japanese aren't obsessed with Japaneseness in the way that white nationalists in the US are obsessed with the white race. It isn't the crux of their worldviews. It is mostly just an unexamined assumption -- part of the background mish-mash of their culture. Japanese culture (as far as I can tell) has no central organizing principle. It is not systematic. It a mish-mash of various things that fit together because they grew together. This mish-mash is accepted and defended because it is the status quo and seems to work. That is the ideal for conservatism: an emergent system that no one understands, but everyone accepts and defends simply because it exists and it seems to work.
There is a big difference between defending a status quo and trying to bring about a revolution. Reactionaries are revolutionaries of the right. While left-wing revolutionaries want to go forward to a utopia, right wing revolutionaries want to go back to a golden age. Conservatives, by contrast, want to maintain the status quo. In the modern West, white nationalism is reactionary, not conservative. It demands a radical transformation of society and culture. The West could have preserved its demographic status quo if it had adopted low immigration policies 50, 40, 30, or maybe even 20 years ago. Now it is way too late. Even if the borders were closed tomorrow, the white majority is projected to fade away due to low birth rates, and certainly the people living in the West will mix and mingle so that the existing racial categories will also fade away. Like it or not, the West has embarked on a huge social experiment, and it is too late to simply go back.
So, you cannot equate conservative Japanese nationalism with reactionary white nationalism in the West. They differ in their memetic structure (traditions vs. ideology) and in the policies they require. One is conservative, the other reactionary.
Also, all is not rosy in Japan. They have ultra-low fertility, a stagnant economy, and high levels of social alienation. Japanese conservatism is not sufficient to solve the problems of modernity. Conservatism can only defend a status quo. It doesn't generate progress and it can't dig us out of a mess.
On to the next stone.
Ryan's Face-Saving
Imagine that you are a Christian who goes to church every Sunday to listen to riveting sermons about Christianity by an eloquent pastor. After every sermon you walk out of the Church with your faith in Christ reaffirmed. Then, one day, with no warning, the pastor begins his sermon by saying "I am an atheist". He gives a sermon on the reasons why Christianity is wrong and stupid, why God doesn't exist, etc. Then he says "See you next week". You would probably be more than just shocked by this turn of events. You would be pissed off.
Ryan pulled that kind of stunt on his WN followers. He didn't apologize for being wrong, and he even tried to pretend that this is a minor change in his worldview. This is total bullshit. White nationalism was the crux of Ryan's worldview for years. The white race was his core value. His understanding of race and human nature may not have changed all that much, but he abandoned the core value of his worldview. His race realist views were selected and shaped by that core value. He was primarily an advocate, and only secondarily a truth-seeker. Ryan presented his views within the conceptual framework of white nationalism -- within a frame that was primarily moral and justificatory, not explanatory.
Why is Ryan pretending that this is a minor change to his worldview? Probably because he doesn't want to admit that his white nationalism was essentially a religious belief. Ryan's online career was largely based on pulling down false idols of the left, such as the belief that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan has often criticized opposing views as being religious dogma. For example, he used the term "race creationism" to describe the dogmatic assumption that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan is often very critical of atheists for having beliefs that are based on faith and off-limits to reason. I'm sure he doesn't want to admit that some of his beliefs were also faith-based assumptions.
Ryan's Obsession with Maps and Sorting
This is speculation, but I think Ryan's obsession with maps is related to his worldview.
More than once in his videos, Ryan has mentioned that he spent a lot of time as a child looking at atlases in the library. That's an odd thing to do, even for a mildly autistic person (as Ryan has described himself). If you go through Ryan's videos (most of which are audio plus a single still image), you will find a large number in which the image is a map. Ryan really likes maps.
Maps are simple, flat, models of reality. They divide the world up into territories that have crisp boundaries. The territories are colored differently. There is a certain aesthetic appeal to maps.
Most of Ryan's political proposals involved dividing the US into separate territories and sorting people into those territories based on either race, ideology, or a combination of the two. He has put forth many such proposals. I'm not saying that Ryan has never proposed anything else (he was an ancap), but this schema is a recurring theme in Ryan's thought.
Even the concept of race is kind of like a map. Race is a "flat" concept. It simply divides humanity into a number of categories. Until recent times, races corresponded to geographic regions. Many people (especially WNs) conceptualize evolution as group conflict between races, even though that is a very misleading metaphor. (Most people don't understand evolution.)
Ryan's views of human nature, evolution, and society seem to be "flat" and map-like. I'm not saying that Ryan doesn't know that races are genetic clusters -- he does. However, a lot of his thinking about race seems to be based on other, incompatible metaphors. That is true for white nationalists in general.
The Real Lesson of the European Revolution
Ryan said that his views on white nationalism were partly undermined by the work of Gregory Clark on the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection. Ryan has taken this knowledge and somehow used it to generate yet another partitioning scheme that he calls "First Worldism". He wants to create a society based on an ideological filter that selects for a "First World" mentality.
This proposal misses the point of the European revolution. The point is that eugenics is necessary to create and maintain modern civilization. Society is not simply an expression of biology. Society also affects biology. Society depends on the genome, but the genome also depends on society. Different societies create different selective pressures on their genomes.
Sorting people into different groups in a single generation isn't enough to maintain modern civilization (which is one of Ryan's concerns). Selection must occur in every generation. To exist in the long run, a society must select for the genes that make that society possible. In other words, those who make a positive contribution to society should have more surviving offspring than those who make a negative contribution. In other other words, selection must be eugenic rather than dysgenic.
That is the lesson that we should learn from the European revolution, although really we shouldn't have to learn it at all, since it is an obvious implication of the theory of evolution. Modern civilization was created (partly) by eugenics, and it is currently being undermined (partly) by dysgenics.
1. The "Japan argument" for WN.
2. Ryan's attempt to save face by claiming that this is a minor change in his worldview.
3. Ryan's obsession with maps and sorting.
4. The real lesson of the European revolution.
The Japan Argument
Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?"
First, I should say that this doesn't have anything specifically to do with Ryan's former or current views, but I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism. It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealistic. If I am criticizing white nationalism as unrealistic and unpragmatic, the Japan argument seems to avoid those criticisms. However, I don't think it is a good argument for white nationalism in the current year. Let me explain why.
The Japanese don't want to flood their society with foreigners. They want to keep Japan Japanese for the forseeable future. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not think they have a moral imperative to allow millions of foreigners to live in their country for humanitarian reasons. They don't think diversity would make them stronger. They have a healthy sense of collective identity. They celebrate themselves, without hating on others (most of the time).
Of course, that wasn't always the case. In recent history the Japanese had a much more aggressive form of nationalism, one that resembled Nazism in many ways. Partly because they were defeated in WW2, and partly because they are no longer hungry, Japanese nationalism has transformed into a "live and let live" attitude, which is (I think) the ideal kind of nationalism if we want global peace and prosperity.
The current form of Japanese nationalism is more of a historical accident than a consequence of ideology. Japanese nationalism is mostly just implicit conservatism: a defense of the status quo because it is the status quo, not because it fits some ideological template. To put it simply, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary.
The Japanese aren't obsessed with Japaneseness in the way that white nationalists in the US are obsessed with the white race. It isn't the crux of their worldviews. It is mostly just an unexamined assumption -- part of the background mish-mash of their culture. Japanese culture (as far as I can tell) has no central organizing principle. It is not systematic. It a mish-mash of various things that fit together because they grew together. This mish-mash is accepted and defended because it is the status quo and seems to work. That is the ideal for conservatism: an emergent system that no one understands, but everyone accepts and defends simply because it exists and it seems to work.
There is a big difference between defending a status quo and trying to bring about a revolution. Reactionaries are revolutionaries of the right. While left-wing revolutionaries want to go forward to a utopia, right wing revolutionaries want to go back to a golden age. Conservatives, by contrast, want to maintain the status quo. In the modern West, white nationalism is reactionary, not conservative. It demands a radical transformation of society and culture. The West could have preserved its demographic status quo if it had adopted low immigration policies 50, 40, 30, or maybe even 20 years ago. Now it is way too late. Even if the borders were closed tomorrow, the white majority is projected to fade away due to low birth rates, and certainly the people living in the West will mix and mingle so that the existing racial categories will also fade away. Like it or not, the West has embarked on a huge social experiment, and it is too late to simply go back.
So, you cannot equate conservative Japanese nationalism with reactionary white nationalism in the West. They differ in their memetic structure (traditions vs. ideology) and in the policies they require. One is conservative, the other reactionary.
Also, all is not rosy in Japan. They have ultra-low fertility, a stagnant economy, and high levels of social alienation. Japanese conservatism is not sufficient to solve the problems of modernity. Conservatism can only defend a status quo. It doesn't generate progress and it can't dig us out of a mess.
On to the next stone.
Ryan's Face-Saving
Imagine that you are a Christian who goes to church every Sunday to listen to riveting sermons about Christianity by an eloquent pastor. After every sermon you walk out of the Church with your faith in Christ reaffirmed. Then, one day, with no warning, the pastor begins his sermon by saying "I am an atheist". He gives a sermon on the reasons why Christianity is wrong and stupid, why God doesn't exist, etc. Then he says "See you next week". You would probably be more than just shocked by this turn of events. You would be pissed off.
Ryan pulled that kind of stunt on his WN followers. He didn't apologize for being wrong, and he even tried to pretend that this is a minor change in his worldview. This is total bullshit. White nationalism was the crux of Ryan's worldview for years. The white race was his core value. His understanding of race and human nature may not have changed all that much, but he abandoned the core value of his worldview. His race realist views were selected and shaped by that core value. He was primarily an advocate, and only secondarily a truth-seeker. Ryan presented his views within the conceptual framework of white nationalism -- within a frame that was primarily moral and justificatory, not explanatory.
Why is Ryan pretending that this is a minor change to his worldview? Probably because he doesn't want to admit that his white nationalism was essentially a religious belief. Ryan's online career was largely based on pulling down false idols of the left, such as the belief that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan has often criticized opposing views as being religious dogma. For example, he used the term "race creationism" to describe the dogmatic assumption that races are equal in mental abilities. Ryan is often very critical of atheists for having beliefs that are based on faith and off-limits to reason. I'm sure he doesn't want to admit that some of his beliefs were also faith-based assumptions.
Ryan's Obsession with Maps and Sorting
This is speculation, but I think Ryan's obsession with maps is related to his worldview.
More than once in his videos, Ryan has mentioned that he spent a lot of time as a child looking at atlases in the library. That's an odd thing to do, even for a mildly autistic person (as Ryan has described himself). If you go through Ryan's videos (most of which are audio plus a single still image), you will find a large number in which the image is a map. Ryan really likes maps.
Maps are simple, flat, models of reality. They divide the world up into territories that have crisp boundaries. The territories are colored differently. There is a certain aesthetic appeal to maps.
Most of Ryan's political proposals involved dividing the US into separate territories and sorting people into those territories based on either race, ideology, or a combination of the two. He has put forth many such proposals. I'm not saying that Ryan has never proposed anything else (he was an ancap), but this schema is a recurring theme in Ryan's thought.
Even the concept of race is kind of like a map. Race is a "flat" concept. It simply divides humanity into a number of categories. Until recent times, races corresponded to geographic regions. Many people (especially WNs) conceptualize evolution as group conflict between races, even though that is a very misleading metaphor. (Most people don't understand evolution.)
Ryan's views of human nature, evolution, and society seem to be "flat" and map-like. I'm not saying that Ryan doesn't know that races are genetic clusters -- he does. However, a lot of his thinking about race seems to be based on other, incompatible metaphors. That is true for white nationalists in general.
The Real Lesson of the European Revolution
Ryan said that his views on white nationalism were partly undermined by the work of Gregory Clark on the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection. Ryan has taken this knowledge and somehow used it to generate yet another partitioning scheme that he calls "First Worldism". He wants to create a society based on an ideological filter that selects for a "First World" mentality.
This proposal misses the point of the European revolution. The point is that eugenics is necessary to create and maintain modern civilization. Society is not simply an expression of biology. Society also affects biology. Society depends on the genome, but the genome also depends on society. Different societies create different selective pressures on their genomes.
Sorting people into different groups in a single generation isn't enough to maintain modern civilization (which is one of Ryan's concerns). Selection must occur in every generation. To exist in the long run, a society must select for the genes that make that society possible. In other words, those who make a positive contribution to society should have more surviving offspring than those who make a negative contribution. In other other words, selection must be eugenic rather than dysgenic.
That is the lesson that we should learn from the European revolution, although really we shouldn't have to learn it at all, since it is an obvious implication of the theory of evolution. Modern civilization was created (partly) by eugenics, and it is currently being undermined (partly) by dysgenics.
"Basically, Clark argues that the Industrial Revolution was partly caused by recent eugenic selection."
ReplyDeleteWould you say there are significant innate differences between different European peoples in terms of behaviour? Like, this guy argues a reduction in violence and a rise in low time preference happened in Western Europe from the 16th century onwards. What about Russians or Ukrainians, renowned for their violent, careless and negligent ways? Is that mostly due to poverty and the legacy of their violent political culture, or do you think specific selective pressures are to blame? If so, what are these?
Sure, there will be differences between different populations within a race. Races are also fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary categories. There will also be differences between individuals, of course. Evolution doesn't produce uniformity.
DeleteFor example, Jews had different selective pressures than peasants, so that probably explains why they have different mental traits on average. I think the Christian white population is pretty much the same across Europe, but there are some differences. For example, the Dutch have higher average IQs. It could be that Protestants and Catholics diverged to some extent. The Catholics took a lot of smart men out of the mating game, which would tend to lower IQ and prevent intellectual progress. It's hard to know what is due to biology and what is due to cultural or social factors, because they interact and what we see is their combined effects. So yeah, the Russians and Ukrainians had lower levels of civilization and that could have selected them to less biologically 'civilized' on average. The Russian average IQ is pretty close the European average though, so it's not a huge difference.
Hello, while your site has a lot of information, it is uninformed about Japan. I broke it into two, since it said together was too long. Part 1.
ReplyDelete>>>>Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?"
I believe in the Japan argument, not just for Japan, but every country.
>>>> I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism.
Japan's nationalism is not racial first. It's first based on culture. A 100% japanese american who speaks very "JSL" japanese is not considered remotely part of society. Of course, it has a racial element, which has been more or less prominent in history, but this element is not the first element. So racial white nationalists should begin to focus on white culture first, race second (but still race), if they want to follow Japan's way.
>>>> It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealistic.
In practice, Japan has very many idealisms. Just look at honorific level of language which is not always convenient for immediately communicating concepts compared to English or Mandarin, the TOTAL devotion to company (which is not pragmatic in an age of economy stagnating!) of "chusei jappurando". It's just different from the idealisms of the West, which are heavily and often unconsciously influenced by Christianity, while Japan has, instead of heavy Christian influence (though that does exist, especially in postChristian forms), has much Classic Chinese (Confucian) and Buddhist influence, of course with native Japanese traditions.
>>>> If I am criticizing white nationalism as unrealistic and unpragmatic, the Japan argument seems to avoid those criticisms. However, I don't think it is a good argument for white nationalism in the current year.
It mostly is.
>>>> The Japanese don't want to flood their society with foreigners. They want to keep Japan Japanese for the forseeable future. Generally speaking, the Japanese do not think they have a moral imperative to allow millions of foreigners to live in their country for humanitarian reasons. They don't think diversity would make them stronger.
Actually many of Japanese want the opposites. It's true that it's more like 35% than America's 65% who support foreigners, but many japanese political groups and even corporations are constantly pressing for more migration. It's become one of the great debates, with the exception that more Japanese, oppose mass migration, partly because the New left has a weaker presence here, but still a presence.
>>>> They have a healthy sense of collective identity.
Actually there were huge issues even regarding our flag and national anthem. Not the Naval flag but the civil one! when it became official in the 90s. Plenty of sometimes fanatical! teacher protests. We have our own "radical left" and a sizable, very pro-foreigner and antinationalist communist party.
>>>> They celebrate themselves, without hating on others (most of the time).
This is a western delusion. We have our own "skin head" types, maybe you've heard of the speaker vans, we have history revisionists who negate atrocities and are far more influential than any type of that in Germany would be!!! And of course we have the antinationalists, ultra-pacifists, etc... these hate "normal" (in their view) Japanese identity and have plenty of influence too.
You haven't identified any factual errors or lack of information in what I said. You just expressed your opinions and disagreements.
DeleteSome points:
"Japan's nationalism is not racial first."
Yes, of course. It is ethnic, as I said. Ancestry and culture are both part of the Japanese identity.
So, you're not disagreeing with what I said. You're "reading the phone book", as Ryan Faulk would say, which means displaying knowledge that is not relevant, as a way to show off or claim authority.
"In practice, Japan has very many idealisms."
Yes, but Japanese identity is not one of them. You're not making an argument against what I said. You're just reading the phone book again.
"It mostly is."
No, and I explained why. Again, no argument.
"Actually many of Japanese want the opposites."
In the very next sentence, you admit that the majority of Japanese do not want to flood their society with foreigners, as I said.
"We have our own "radical left" and a sizable, very pro-foreigner and antinationalist communist party."
Yes, I'm sure that there are some people in Japan who do not have a healthy sense of collective identity, but as a whole, in general, they do. Exceptions do not disprove generalities.
"This is a western delusion."
No, it's an accurate general statement. Yes, there is diversity of opinion in Japan, as everywhere else, but the general attitude is what I described.
Delete>>>> Yes, but Japanese identity is not one of them. You're not making an argument against what I said. You're just reading the phone book again.
It absolutely is, just talk to reactionary or even indifferent japanese people, just not communists. ^ ^
>>> Yes, I'm sure that there are some people in Japan who do not have a healthy sense of collective identity, but as a whole, in general, they do. Exceptions do not disprove generalities.
In reality about a third of japan is very patriotic and "Reactionary", a third indifferent, going along with whoever has the podium, and another third "leftist". I should say: Indifferent, not centrist. they vote LDP since they value stability, but are not "rightists" except by associating.
Let me explain the point about Japanese ethnic identity not being an ideal.
DeleteThe point is not that Japanese people don't care about Japanese identity. The point is that the Japanese identity is defined by what actually exists: the country of Japan and the Japanese people. A patriotic Japanese person venerates his country and people. He does not need to define what he venerates in abstract terms, because it already exists. He can see it. He lives it. It is empirical and practical.
White nationalism, by contrast, is based on the ideal of a socially unified white race. This is an abstraction, which does not exist now, and has never existed. Of course, European societies existed in the past, and were almost entirely white, but they were not organized around the concept of the white race. So, this is a purely hypothetical notion. It is something to be created, not something to be protected. A white nationalist wants to radically change the world.
This is the distinction between conservatism and reaction. Reaction is based on an abstract idea of how the world should be. In that way, it is similar to revolutionary leftism. Conservatism is about keeping things more or less as they are. Maybe the conservative wants to reverse a few recent changes, but his positive vision is simply the world of his youth, or the world in which he currently lives.
Part 2.
ReplyDelete>>>> Of course, that wasn't always the case. In recent history the Japanese had a much more aggressive form of nationalism, one that resembled Nazism in many ways.
The resemblance to Nazism is hugely debated. Some scholars consider Japan at the time to be a De Facto junta with nominal emperor with not much more power than the Emperor does today. Also the alliance between Japan and Nazi Germany was rooted in vaguely common fears especially of Communism more than shared objectives. During the war there was no especial collaboration between, NOTHING like the collaboration of the allies.
Also the Taisho era were an era of remarkable democracy, compared to Meiji or the early Showa.
>>>> and partly because they are no longer hungry,
This is very much nonsense, Japan did go through the great depression, and this did radicalize a lot of politics, but the situation was based on expansionism and the vision of East Asian empire and taking the colonies when Europe was weak and China divided, not famine. The worst time for hunger was actually 1945+, when pacifism rooted, probably because of how horrible the war was! Just like the 30 years war created many pacifists in Germany, because of the horrors.
>>>> Japanese nationalism has transformed into a "live and let live" attitude, which is (I think) the ideal kind of nationalism if we want global peace and prosperity.
Only for now. Every decade gets closer to remilitarization, because of
Concern about China
Concern about North Korea
What if America doesn't want to defend Japan. What if America becomes socialist. What if America becomes Isolationist. Japan then must forge a new path.
What if China takes Taiwan, North Korea the South, and America is nowhere. And russian ambitions. And Japan becomes alone!!!!!
And more...
"The resemblance to Nazism is hugely debated."
DeleteIt resembled Nazism in being expansionist and nationalistic. The degree of cooperation between Germany and Japan during WW2 is completely irrelevant.
"This is very much nonsense"
No, it's completely true and a very important point. It has nothing to do with the Great Depression. For most of human history, hunger was part of life. The late 20th century is an exceptional period in history for having relatively low levels of hunger. Yes, of course Japan was very hungry after WW2, because they had just been defeated in a war. They didn't have the option of resisting their occupation, so they had to suck in their guts until the economy got rolling again. In recent history, they have not been hungry, and so there is less internal impetus to expand. Wars are generally driven by population increase and the demand for food.
"Only for now."
Okay, so you agree with what I said.
>>>> It resembled Nazism in being expansionist and nationalistic
DeleteThen the following also resemble nazism as much as Xi Jinping (annex Taiwan, annex tibet, annex Xinjiang, make China #1) or Trump (annex Canada, annex Greenland, MAGA) - so are we in the second nazi golden age? Expansionism and nationalism aren't alone to nazism or japan.
>>> For most of human history, hunger was part of life.
True, as it still is for many today in the global south and even a few parts of the global north.
>>> They didn't have the option of resisting their occupation, so they had to suck in their guts until the economy got rolling again.
There was plenty of talk of resisting occupation, what occured was:
Two atomic bombs, of course
Soviet invasion in Manchuria
And Showa declaration of surrender. The people fought for the honor of the emperor as a vital component. Remember that Emperor = divine, even today many think the imperial family is divine in some way, even if not literally god. When the most honorable figure gave his assent to surrender, even most fanatical went along.
>>> Wars are generally driven by population increase and the demand for food.
Many of them, yes, but I repeat: "desire for food" wasn't factoring in 1931-1941! The desire was for empire, with China divided and Europe at war. Actually the loss of Empire made it very easy to develop the industry proper of Japan, without development in Korea, Taiwan, etc... instead of Japan.
The desire for empire came out of the need for natural resources to support a growing population. Japan's population was growing rapidly in the early 20th century, and a growing population needs food. Of course, there were other factors involved. There always are. But that underlying impulse is very important.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Empire_of_Japan
The recent absence of that underlying pressure explains why modern societies are more peaceful than premodern societies. It's not the whole explanation, but a big part of it.
Part 3
ReplyDelete>>>> The current form of Japanese nationalism is more of a historical accident than a consequence of ideology. Japanese nationalism is mostly just implicit conservatism: a defense of the status quo because it is the status quo, not because it fits some ideological template. To put it simply, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary. It isn't the crux of their worldviews. It is mostly just an unexamined assumption -- part of the background mish-mash of their culture. The Japanese aren't obsessed with Japaneseness in the way that white nationalists in the US are obsessed with the white race. Japanese culture (as far as I can tell) has no central organizing principle. It is not systematic. It a mish-mash of various things that fit together because they grew together. This mish-mash is accepted and defended because it is the status quo and seems to work. That is the ideal for conservatism: an emergent system that no one understands, but everyone accepts and defends simply because it exists and it seems to work.
"Au contraire" Japan is by far most insular major country in the world, maybe except for Islamic fundamentalist powers like Saudi Arabia. It is actually very reactionary for many people, and "indifferent" more than conservative for the majority. There is a big reason Christianity hasn't found many followers here, and that's not beacuse of some "rationalism" (many are very superstitious!) but because (I think) of the hundreds of years of Bakufu (Shogunate), which created a VERY defined culture, with defined roles, defined ideals, behavior, and Christianity wasn't part of that. In Korea you have Buddhism, Confucianism, but a LOT of Christians - why? IMO it's South Korea that's more like what you're talking about being emergently "conservative", with less definition.
>>>> So, you cannot equate conservative Japanese nationalism with reactionary white nationalism in the West. They differ in their memetic structure (traditions vs. ideology) and in the policies they require. One is conservative, the other reactionary.
Almost all young Japanese nationalists are looking to go back, but "back to the future". Think of Meiji restoration, Saigo Takamori. That's what it is, and what people look for in new parties like Sanseito.
>>>> Also, all is not rosy in Japan. They have ultra-low fertility, a stagnant economy, and high levels of social alienation. Japanese conservatism is not sufficient to solve the problems of modernity. Conservatism can only defend a status quo. It doesn't generate progress and it can't dig us out of a mess.
I agree, that's why something much more like "white nationalists", but wise, exists now with Sanseito. Read about the new constitution proposed. Japan is looking at a new path for the future.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the sanseito proposed constitution. Personally I like it a lot, more even than your Pragmatism ideas, which make me think of more Singapore and Deng Xiaoping. ^_^
"Au contraire"
DeleteBut what is your counter-argument? You just said (reading the phone book) that Japan is insular (aka nationalistic). That's not a point under debate. As I said, Japanese nationalism is conservative, not reactionary. It is a defense of the status quo, not a reaction against change. It might become reactionary if there is flood of foreigners into Japan, but that's not the case right now.
As for the difference in Christianity between Japan and South Korea, I don't know exactly why that would be the case, but you can see Christian symbolism creeping into Japanese culture. South Korean Christianity isn't particularly Western in style, and it isn't associated (afaik) with other aspects of Western culture. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it shows that Japanese culture is reactionary. Obviously, Japanese culture has incorporated a huge amount of culture from the West, including a lot of words. It's not that culturally insular.
"Almost all young Japanese nationalists are looking to go back, but "back to the future"."
I'm sure that there are reactionaries in Japan, as in all countries. But that is not the general attitude among the population. Sanseito is a fringe party with a small base of support, right?
I can't find much online in English about the Sanseito constitution, but it sounds like an attempt to restore the government and social structure that existed before WW2. That might help Japan in some ways, but it doesn't address the real problems, and it's not a long-term solution to anything.
"Personally I like it a lot, more even than your Pragmatism ideas, which make me think of more Singapore and Deng Xiaoping. ^_^"
This tells me that you're not actually thinking. You're just using lazy pattern-matching to make judgments, like "X reminds me of Y, so I'll treat X as Y". It's the same thing leftists do when they call anyone on the right "fascist" or "Nazi". I'm sure that my ideas are nothing like the ideas of Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping.
But you're not interested in my ideas, are you? You just came here to read the phone book at me.
>>>> I'm sure that there are reactionaries in Japan, as in all countries. But that is not the general attitude among the population. Sanseito is a fringe party with a small base of support, right?
DeleteNot anymore, it's become one of the largest parties with millions of supporters since most of the youth are no longer indifferent, but now reactionaries. But "Meiji" reactionaries against the even more reactionary shogun, reactionaries who also seek to modernize and respond to new problems in new ways, while restoring some traditions of the past as well. Synthesis of progressive and reaction.
>>>> it doesn't address the real problems, and it's not a long-term solution to anything
The real problems of the modern age are mostly addressed by restoring Japan's traditions to primacy, with renewed education (to avoid ultra-traditional stagnation) and military sufficiency.
>>>> I'm sure that there are reactionaries in Japan, as in all countries. But that is not the general attitude among the population. Sanseito is a fringe party with a small base of support, right?
DeleteNot anymore, it's become one of the largest parties with millions of supporters since most of the youth are no longer indifferent, but now reactionaries. But "Meiji" reactionaries against the even more reactionary shogun (now LDP, they, like Shogun, had their time, but now it's time for new), reactionaries who also seek to modernize and respond to new problems in new ways, while restoring some traditions of the past as well. Synthesis of progressive and reaction.
>>>> it doesn't address the real problems, and it's not a long-term solution to anything
The real problems of the modern age are mostly addressed by restoring Japan's traditions to primacy, with renewed education (to avoid ultra-traditional stagnation) and military sufficiency.
Apparently, Sanseito has 7% of the popular vote.
DeleteRegardless, Japan is in a completely different situation from the West. It can simply stop immigration, and restrictive immigration is normal for Japan (has been the status quo for decades). Simply maintaining the low immigration status quo is conservative, not reactionary. Sanseito might be reactionary in that they want to restore the pre-war political system, but that's a separate issue from immigration and ethnic nationalism.
Again, this is completely different from white nationalism. WN is not the demand that we keep the West white. The West is no longer white. WN is the demand that we restore whiteness somehow, either by evicting non-whites, or by creating separate white states within the West, etc. Japanese ethno-nationalism is just the demand that Japan retain its existing ethnic identity.
You don't understand the problems of modernity if you think that they can be solved by restoring traditions.
>>>> Apparently, Sanseito has 7% of the popular vote.
DeleteMassive. This is a genuine party only 5 years old! with staying power, not something like LaRouche or Perot in the USA. The reverence of the emperor and ancestor traditions inspires the people. They are on their way to become a major player, and as the older generations of Showa era pass away, the new generations will grow this even more.
>>>> Regardless, Japan is in a completely different situation from the West. It can simply stop immigration, and restrictive immigration is normal for Japan (has been the status quo for decades). Simply maintaining the low immigration status quo is conservative, not reactionary. Sanseito might be reactionary in that they want to restore the pre-war political system, but that's a separate issue from immigration and ethnic nationalism.
Maybe America, in that case you should specify America, Canada, as should the white nationalists. Maybe America and Canada, and the UK and France no longer be "white" at all in next century. But there are many european countries which are almost as homogenous as Japan. Think Poland, Hungary, maybe even Italy or Greece. These can be like Japan, even complacent LDP Japan! They have not been heavily immigrated to (especially eastern bloc countries!!!!) at a point where they are going to loose their European-descent majority in this century, unless they try to be like Joe Biden regarding immigration.
>>>> Again, this is completely different from white nationalism. WN is not the demand that we keep the West white. The West is no longer white. WN is the demand that we restore whiteness somehow, either by evicting non-whites, or by creating separate white states within the West, etc. Japanese ethno-nationalism is just the demand that Japan retain its existing ethnic identity.
There are factions of whites. Some want diversity, of course. Some want a pan-White ethnostate. Some what just to keep their countries white. Maybe this will fail in USA? Maybe it's too diverse now? But Poland, Hungary, they can "just be like Japan". The whole west? No, but the whole west has never been ONE nation, ever, at least the "white" west. But some countries can still decide to be like Japan and maintain their unity and ethnic traditions.
part 2
Delete>>>> You don't understand the problems of modernity if you think that they can be solved by restoring traditions.
Disagree. Consider Japan's history. Meiji restoration confronted the problems of modernity with this motto:
Revere Emperor, Expel Barbarians.
And Japan became the great power of the world. We had heroes of tragedy like Takamori, fighters, patriots, and geniuses. Japan defeated superpowers like Russia and China and became prosperous.
In the 30s, after the deaths of Meiji and democratic Taisho, yes, early Showa became terrible. The world was terrible, at the time, there was atrophy of harmony and abandoment of traditions for fads like Stalinism or Nazism. Russia had Stalin, Germany had Hitler, America had lynching blacks, etc. But the return of traditions like America's tradition of liberty, Japan's tradition of honor, this saved the world and we got the Asian tiger economic miracle, reforms in China, and the fall of the Soviet Union, liberty in Eastern Europe, through revival of tradition. Consider this Confucian statement, which is the greatest political philosophy:
"""" The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the Kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides. It cannot be, when the root is neglected, that what should spring from it will be well ordered. """"
You have typical reactionary delusions about the glorious past.
DeleteYes, they had a slogan "Revere the Emperor, expel barbarians". But European influence continued regardless, and increased. Emperor Meiji was a modernizer. In a famous picture, he's wearing a Western style military uniform with a Western style sword. Japan did not become a great power in the world until it had absorbed a huge amount of European culture, creating a modern civilization. Japanese success was due to their ability to modernize faster than their nearby competitors.
This influx of knowledge from the West had a huge impact on Japanese life. The most important impact was that most children now lived to adulthood, which caused the population to grow from about 30 million to 120 million, until low fertility replaced high fertility.
The ancients didn't have some great perennial wisdom that can save the world. Sorry, that's all delusion. There's no great wisdom in Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. They are pre-modern worldviews, tied to an agricultural way of life, and have no relevance to modern life.
The problems of modernity come from the successes of modernity, not from abandoning ancient traditions. You can't fix modern problems with words from the past. You have to understand what is going on now.
>>> This is the distinction between conservatism and reaction. Reaction is based on an abstract idea of how the world should be. In that way, it is similar to revolutionary leftism. Conservatism is about keeping things more or less as they are. Maybe the conservative wants to reverse a few recent changes, but his positive vision is simply the world of his youth, or the world in which he currently lives.
Delete"reactionary" was originally applied to the monarchists during the French Revolution who wanted to keep the king and his power instead of the republic, not an abstract idea, but reversing just recent changes and restoring the world of "their youth" and the one they "currently live" in. Reactionaries are bascially just the staunchest conservatives. Don't confuse reactionaries with right-wing revolutionaries, who do have abstract ideals on creating a new world. Example:
1860s japan:
Reactionary right-wing: Keep japan traditional, support the shogun who held power for centuries
Revolutionary right-wing: Meiji, restore power to the emperor (maybe this detail is ultra-reactionary! but if so, also revolutionary), modernize Japan
1920s germany:
Reactionary right-wing: Monarchist. restore the Kaiser, use Fraktur, make the flag the Imperial tricolor, Jews have rights
Radical right-wing revolutionary: National Socialism, ban Fraktur, ban the Imperial tricolor, Jews loose rights
How revolutionaries became reactionary:
1990s Russia:
Center-right and center-left revolutionary: Dissolve soviet union, abandon communist party rule, institute democracy
Far-left Reactionary: Launch coup against Yeltsin, keep union/party, avoid "bougeois" democracy
Sometimes today's revolutionary becomes tomorrow's reactionary, if he takes power and his ideas never change while encountering new movements.
>>>> Yes, they had a slogan "Revere the Emperor, expel barbarians". But European influence continued regardless, and increased.
Of course, just as nobody in Japan today hates american influence when beneficial. But Japan never took millions of migrants or allowed itself to remain bound to unequal treaties. We did take a few foreign experts, just as we're willing to do also today! This is the vision of Sanseito, basically. Continue to march to the future, but don't march blindly, and allow nobody to abuse us.
Deletepart 2
>>>> The ancients didn't have some great perennial wisdom that can save the world.
I don't think of "ancients" or "moderns". What I do is to consider the applicability of any philosophy to the current situation, regardless of age. Over 2500 years of thought created many excellent ideas, some of which are timeless in their applicability. Nowhere did I argue that the ancients alone have all the answers, and they if we could talk to them, I think they would be the first to disagree!
>>>> Sorry, that's all delusion. There's no great wisdom in Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. They are pre-modern worldviews, tied to an agricultural way of life, and have no relevance to modern life.
with all due respect, have you actually read any confucious, for example? There is great wisdom in philosophy of ages because a good part of it isn't tied to societal systems or agriculture (confucious especially lived in a very urban civilization! and buddha was that one who rejected urbane hedonism for enlightenment), but contains value to humans to help them order their minds, and with ordered minds, ordered lives and ordered societies. Of course a rigorous, blind fundamentalism is counterproductive, but none of these great systems calls for that. That's a decision of followers: Pharaisee-types, wahabbists, etc. Your idea of every premodern being the same as hesiod's works and days (in which there is still wisdom!) is absurd, so I encourage you to do reading.
>>>> The problems of modernity come from the successes of modernity, not from abandoning ancient traditions. You can't fix modern problems with words from the past. You have to understand what is going on now.
"Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things."
my argument is this "traditional" philosophy of the rigorous pursuit of practical knowledge and ideal of social harmony is more correct than endless abstract novelties and idealisms. This philosophy of confucianism is probably the main reason Asia doesn't have as many stupid "woke" movements, and why every anticonfucian movement like the Cultural revolution in China failed badly, even to the communist party.
It is why TSMC dominates semiconductors, why Korea dominates so many electronics, etc. The ethic of confucious isn't obsolete!!! In the era of information and AI, it's MORE applicable than ever.
If you want, we can discuss these issues in voice. I think that would be easier than text.
Delete"my argument is this "traditional" philosophy of the rigorous pursuit of practical knowledge and ideal of social harmony is more correct than endless abstract novelties and idealisms. "
But you haven't made an argument. You haven't even defined the problems of the modern world, let alone explained how they could be solved.
Like I said before (this is not an insult) I don't think you understand the problems of the modern world. Very few people do. Modern problems are counter-intuitive. They are new. The problems of the past were different, and we are culturally and biologically adapted to the problems of the past.
The reactionary believes that our modern problems are caused by the loss of traditional morality and religion (maybe also a political system), and that our problems can be solved by restoring those things. This is a delusion. The reactionary doesn't understand the problems of the modern world.
What is "practical knowledge"? When you are starving, practical knowledge is knowing how to grow food. Practical knowledge is about expanding human agency. But our new problems are created by the expansion of human agency. They are created by abundance, technology, the state, the market, etc. They are created by solutions to past problems.
You point to Korea's recent economic success. But in many ways, Korea is the most degenerate society in the world. They have one of the lowest birth rates, for example -- less than 1 child per woman. This is a good example of a modern problem that can't be solved by words from the past.
I haven't read Confucius, or if I did read some of it once, it wasn't memorable. I have read about Confucianism in books comparing religions, etc. What I remember is the emphasis on "virtue": the need to have virtuous citizens and virtuous leaders, etc. Based on that, it seems completely uninteresting. More generally, I don't think there is much value in old texts written by people who didn't understand the theory of evolution. In their time, Plato and Aristotle were very smart and interesting. But not now. Now, they have only historical interest.
But like I said, if you want to discuss Confucius in voice, and explain how his words can solve our problems, we can do that.