[Samseau]

(02-09-2018 03:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 01:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

...

Because it's not enough to merely call oneself a Christian, or to simply state you believe Christ was the son of God.

You actually have to follow the basic teachings, 1. Love God and 2. Love your Neighbor as yourself.
...

You have provided no evidence to counter my claim that the election of Trump was not due to a Christian resurgence, and you have seemingly reinforced my claim that racial factors were the prevalent issue.

After that there's a bunch of here-and-there stuff that I couldn't find to be tied to anything we were discussing. As usual you cap it off with prophesy absent evidence or correlating evidence and apply it to a vast timeline, so basically it's all emotionally driven conjecture. Whatever floats your boat, but I'd like this thread to stick to evidence based approaches thanks.

I actually provided you with lots of hard evidence, but you're still in hard denial I see.

Quote:

Quote:

Religion in Japan is dominated by Shinto (the ethnic religion of the Japanese people) and by Buddhism. According to surveys carried out in 2006[1] and 2008,[2] less than 40% of the population of Japan identifies with an organised religion: around 35% are Buddhists, 3% to 4% are members of Shinto sects and derived religions, and from fewer than 1%[3][4][5] to 2.3% are Christians.[note 2]

^One of the safest and most sophisticated societies on the planet. < 3% Christian which according to you is not possible because without Christ they should be in the throes of primal savagery. But like Europe they simply underwent some changes and adapted over time to become better than they were before. No Christianity necessary, and proof positive that Western civilisation can live beyond Christianity if that's what it takes to survive.

Japan got nuked into the ground by a Christian nation before it turned into something gentler and kinder. It's been Christianized, the hard way. And the reason Japan even had a chance was because it was conquered by a Christian nation that showed them mercy instead of doing the usual of killing the men and enslaving the women.

[Leonard D Neubache]

So Japan is a "Christianised" nation that became so by being nuked by "benevolent Christians" but only 3% of the population are actual Christians.

Well at least you've proved my point. Christianity and Christian doctrine are not required to secure a civilised future. People just have to "act Christian" which I suspect is code for "acting white" since that's all the Japanese had to start doing to succeed.

If Christianity was an essential part of the mix then you wouldn't have to go through their nation with a fine tooth comb to find one.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Christianity has been helpful in humanitarian terms and has influenced certainly the world, but we should not forget that the church willingly tortured people and actively held back progress.

I don't think that the progress that happened in Europe was due to Christianity. It was a mix of high intelligence, individualistic thinking and behavior amid a few good steps that really boosted things forward like mass public education which was a revolution back then - even resisted by many people who did want their kids to learn to read and write.

Japan had been actually rather civilized before with a good set of rules - it was just feudal and backwards similar to China. They had a bad system. But due to their rather high intelligence they quickly recognized what was beneficial and adopted what they wanted from the West. Whether Christianity had shaped their personal ethics that much is frankly moot - the Japanese adopt what they like and refuse what they don't like. They had very ethical ingroup-clan thinking before. Then later it simply shifted towards an ethical all-Japanese group thinking.

Somehow I doubt that Christianity had much to do with it for the few short years where the Americans had been dominant in Japan after WWII.

Besides - there are spiritual paths and religions on Earth which are far higher in consciousness than Christianity, though we can disagree on that and I have no beef with Christians - I recognize the value of the teachings.

[Samseau]

(02-09-2018 04:24 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So Japan is a "Christianised" nation that became so by being nuked by "benevolent Christians" but only 3% of the population are actual Christians.

And once America's Christian influence wanes on them, they will go back to their old barbaric ways.

Quote:

Well at least you've proved my point. Christianity and Christian doctrine are not required to secure a civilised future. People just have to "act Christian" which I suspect is code for "acting white" since that's all the Japanese had to start doing to succeed.

Wrong, I demolished your point. Japan was nothing special before it got conquered by a Christian nation.

On top of that, there is no such thing as "acting White." The average White was a savage before Christianity came along.

Quote:

If Christianity was an essential part of the mix then you wouldn't have to go through their nation with a fine tooth comb to find one.

Apparently you enjoy being in denial, Japan was reformatted by a strongly Christian nation.

Zelcorpion:

Your history needs work as well.

Quote:

Christianity has been helpful in humanitarian terms and has influenced certainly the world, but we should not forget that the church willingly tortured people and actively held back progress.

Church? You mean the Catholic church, which has done 1000000x more help than harm.

No other churches have engaged in torture.

Quote:

I don't think that the progress that happened in Europe was due to Christianity. It was a mix of high intelligence, individualistic thinking and behavior amid a few good steps that really boosted things forward like mass public education which was a revolution back then - even resisted by many people who did want their kids to learn to read and write.

Public education, and the university, is a direct offspring from monasteries. All public education comes from Christian concepts of charity.

Quote:

Japan had been actually rather civilized before with a good set of rules - it was just feudal and backwards similar to China. They had a bad system. But due to their rather high intelligence they quickly recognized what was beneficial and adopted what they wanted from the West. Whether Christianity had shaped their personal ethics that much is frankly moot - the Japanese adopt what they like and refuse what they don't like. They had very ethical ingroup-clan thinking before. Then later it simply shifted towards an ethical all-Japanese group thinking.

Japan would most likely not exist had it not be conquered by a merciful Christian country like the USA.

Had the USSR conquered the world, we'd have fallen back into the dark ages. The only reason communist countries were able to rebound was because the Christian capitalist parts were there to pick them back up again.

Quote:

Somehow I doubt that Christianity had much to do with it for the few short years where the Americans had been dominant in Japan after WWII.

Their entire government was reformatted, everything they bought and consumed came from America, and have been taking orders from us for over 50 years since. Japan is barely recognizable compared to its old self, other than language and minor racial attributes.

Quote:

Besides - there are spiritual paths and religions on Earth which are far higher in consciousness than Christianity, though we can disagree on that and I have no beef with Christians - I recognize the value of the teachings.

If that were true these religions would have actually produced great things. They have not, so you are wrong.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-09-2018 10:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-09-2018 04:24 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So Japan is a "Christianised" nation that became so by being nuked by "benevolent Christians" but only 3% of the population are actual Christians.

And once America's Christian influence wanes on them, they will go back to their old barbaric ways.

Quote:

Well at least you've proved my point. Christianity and Christian doctrine are not required to secure a civilised future. People just have to "act Christian" which I suspect is code for "acting white" since that's all the Japanese had to start doing to succeed.

Wrong, I demolished your point. Japan was nothing special before it got conquered by a Christian nation.

On top of that, there is no such thing as "acting White." The average White was a savage before Christianity came along.

Quote:

If Christianity was an essential part of the mix then you wouldn't have to go through their nation with a fine tooth comb to find one.

Apparently you enjoy being in denial, Japan was reformatted by a strongly Christian nation.
...

I'm not playing silly games of sentence-by-sentence quotation, but when you do it reveals something profound about your character.

Your delusions are saddening. "They will fall back into barbarism without our influence". Perhaps you think you're some kind of prophet but it just comes off as the ravings of a fanatic religious zealot.

Again, I'm going to draw your attention to the near-80% rate of Christianity among American blacks and let you once again hamster as to how having hundreds of years and total religious cultural Christian assimilation has failed to turn them into high achievers yet Japan has became a dominant world player with immense cultural respect over 40 short years after near-total destruction due to some sort of vague "Chrisitianised influence" despite the fact you can barely find a church there.

It's amusing, really. I don't post this stuff because I think I can change the mind of a zealot. I post it to expose your mental illness for others to see so they rightly take the rest of your posts with a grain of salt.

Advancements in technology and education have allowed such races to succeed as are genetically capable of it and they have also provided fertile grounds for the particularly gifted individuals of other unfortunately less gifted races. Roman civilisation is highly regarded as a massive advancement over it's civilisational predecessors, but by your bizarre measure we went directly from cave-men bashing each other with clubs to Norman Rockwell's America.

Japan is proof of your delusions which is why you try to wash it away with vagaries about it being secretly structured under some kind of magical Christian code, given that it must have been secretly because virtually nobody there decided to become a Christian. What are the odds?

The reality isn't shrouded in some sort of cloud of wishful thinking. It's really rather simple. The Japanese are genetically smart and community oriented enough that when their old order of feudal hierarchy was washed away they simply adopted the systems of other successful nations (education, democracy, equal rights) and adapted it to their own biological nature (hard work, emotional distance and obedience to authority).

No magical invisible tethers to Christ required. Believe it or not, other races are perfectly capable of advancing themselves without your messiah. For that matter, so are whites.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I agree more with Leonard's view, but have no beef with Samseau - he is just a believing Christian and I personally can stand behind his Deus Vult banner. I can live in a 99,9% Christian state - even one that is highly believing. So long as the government and education is more or less secular, then it will be fine.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-05-2018 02:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote:

The other most important policy program of the Roman Empire was the maintenance and growth of the security forces. The Roman legions need no introduction. Their excellence in combat allowed Rome to best all of their Mediterranean rivals and create the Empire. But their role in the Civil Wars were also incredibly important. Gaius Marius, a famous general and the uncle of Julius Caesar, initiated an important reform which both increased the strength of the army and set a dangerous precedent. Originally, Rome did not have a standing army. The civic duty of the citizens were to leave their farms and families to fight. There was a property and tax-paying requirement, and they also had to purchase and bring their own weapons. This citizen-volunteer soldier motif was the central idea behind the prohibition of a standing army in the American Constitution. The Second Amendment was created so that American citizen soldiers would bring their own arms to battle. But just like the American prohibition on standing armies, it wouldn’t last past the conquest of the known world.

Due to the constant fighting against Carthage and its allies, Rome’s conception of the army became impossible. The number of landowners shrunk and the cost of maintaining their own arms meant that there was an extreme shortage of manpower. Marius instituted a series of reforms. The first was the removal of the property and citizenship requirement, as well as the addition of a promise of citizenship to those who served for a long enough period of time. The second was the establishment of a spoils system, which was necessary as these men had no wealth to go back to. They only were paid if they collected enough bounty. This made them independent of the Senate and ensured they would not disband easily. The legions supported the wars of Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus because of this system, and this support did not cease when Augustus completed the transition from Republic to Empire.

While the comparison of America to Rome is interesting and in a general way correct, it's important to observe the differences which are inherent in the bit I've bolded.

This indicates two things:
(1) "Service guarantees citizenship" right out of Starship Troopers. This requirement was completely undermined by the Edict of Caracalla in 212 where Caracalla, trying to widen the Roman tax base, declared all free men in the Roman Empire to be Roman citizens. That, in turn, eroded the character of the legions, since then you would be picking from the worst of the Empire, not the best: if every free man was already a Roman citizen, logically only foreigners or slaves could reach citizenship by service in the Roman legions.

The US at least is not entirely like this because while naturalization is available through military service, it doesn't seem to be taken up very much: indeed the numbers of 'service guarantees citizenship' cases have been dropping over the past five years, according to that page, to less than one thousand per year.

(2) The Romans had a bounty system, i.e. the legionaries only got paid if they looted and pillaged enough. That's what made the legions independent of the Senate -- because they were, in effect, mercenary armies. They made their own pay this way and a legion's commanders were antifragile as Taleb would describe it: if the legion had a good campaign and collected a lot of shit, the commanders could keep the profits over and above the costs of paying and keeping the men armed. If they had a bad campaign and didn't collect enough booty from it, the legion's expenses were less than usual because they didn't have to pay their men. They had all upside and little to no downside, the very expression of an antifragile organism that, like a Hydra, profits from its own harm: cut off one head and two more shall appear.

Instead, it would appear they transferred most of the fragility down to the poor bastards who had to fight for them, because a Roman soldier was fragile to a sudden decrease in bounty, a sudden decrease in war. The legions were not armies, based on this setup they were more like limited-liability corporations. And the Senate couldn't control them because their leaders were antifragile to disapproval of government activity; they didn't depend on money from the state.

The US is fundamentally different on that score because the US armed forces are paid directly by the government, i.e. the Senate. It was the legions' independence from the government system that made them dangerous and influential on Roman politics. By contrast, the US armed forces' utter dependence on pay from the government makes that military fragile to economic downturns, since the government is necessarily fragile to a loss of tax. That is to say: the 7th Fleet blockading the East Coast and landing Marines on the steps of Congress anytime soon. They aren't independent enough to do that. The corporations that supply the US armed forces are also fragile to an outbreak of peace, which is why they constantly set themselves up in positions where war is likely, encouraged, agitated for, or desired - because they are not robust. They are not structured to profit from peacetime, they are not structured to handle the harm that a drop in profits because of peace amounts to.

This is an important distinction to understand, because the whole "Is America Rome?" question is something of a moot point. Whatever solution the Romans might have tried to solve their problems, it isn't going to work in present-day America because you're not Romans. Better would be to wholly understand the systems and incentives at play in the United States today, and then see if those can be addressed.

That said, I don't believe they can be. Fragility in a sense only breeds more fragility, because once an organisation recognises it'll collapse if its source of fragility detonates, that organisation will be much more likely to try and hold onto that same source of fragility than attempt to prepare for an event that causes that fragility. This is why arms corporations agitate for war: because, knowing peace would hit their stock options heavily, they naturally push for the type of activity that keeps that incident away ... and make themselves even more fragile, because the only way to develop robustness or antifragility is to accept your water source will -- not may -- will become poisoned one day, and start digging wells elsewhere in preparation for that day.

I skipped the two pages of discussions since this post, so I apologize ahead of time if I'm repeating stuff:

the correct comparison between Rome and the US is not Roman military vs. US military. The Romans conquered the world using military, but Americans conquered the world using technology. Both hard-power technology (which makes the US the military super power), AND soft-power technology (social media, youtube, Hollywood).

I went home a while back. My jaw dropped when my niece was talking about her favorite American YouTube star. This from someone who has never set foot in the US. Same went for my nephew, who was glued to his smartphone watching YouTube videos.

So let's compare the Roman military to its modern equivalent, American tech companies:

Quote:

The first was the removal of the property and citizenship requirement, as well as the addition of a promise of citizenship to those who served for a long enough period of time. The second was the establishment of a spoils system, which was necessary as these men had no wealth to go back to. They only were paid if they collected enough bounty. This made them independent of the Senate and ensured they would not disband easily.

Tech companies hire vast amount of H1Bs with "a promise of citizenship to those who served for a long enough period of time". They also get equity in company stocks, often "only getting paid if they generate enough revenue to IPO".

Are tech companies independent of American Congress? Yup.

Quote:

(2) The Romans had a bounty system, i.e. the legionaries only got paid if they looted and pillaged enough. That's what made the legions independent of the Senate -- because they were, in effect, mercenary armies. They made their own pay this way and a legion's commanders were antifragile as Taleb would describe it: if the legion had a good campaign and collected a lot of shit, the commanders could keep the profits over and above the costs of paying and keeping the men armed. If they had a bad campaign and didn't collect enough booty from it, the legion's expenses were less than usual because they didn't have to pay their men. They had all upside and little to no downside, the very expression of an antifragile organism that, like a Hydra, profits from its own harm: cut off one head and two more shall appear.

Instead, it would appear they transferred most of the fragility down to the poor bastards who had to fight for them, because a Roman soldier was fragile to a sudden decrease in bounty, a sudden decrease in war. The legions were not armies, based on this setup they were more like limited-liability corporations. And the Senate couldn't control them because their leaders were antifragile to disapproval of government activity; they didn't depend on money from the state.

This is literally how tech startups work: pay your engineers in stock options, that end up worthless if the "campaign" doesn't pan out.

Quote:

"Service guarantees citizenship" right out of Starship Troopers. This requirement was completely undermined by the Edict of Caracalla in 212 where Caracalla, trying to widen the Roman tax base, declared all free men in the Roman Empire to be Roman citizens. That, in turn, eroded the character of the legions, since then you would be picking from the worst of the Empire, not the best: if every free man was already a Roman citizen, logically only foreigners or slaves could reach citizenship by service in the Roman legions.

The US at least is not entirely like this because while naturalization is available through military service, it doesn't seem to be taken up very much: indeed the numbers of 'service guarantees citizenship' cases have been dropping over the past five years, according to that page, to less than one thousand per year.

If you're an American citizen and jobs are abound, why work grueling hours at tech companies? H1B visas are appropriately called indentured servitude - it's literally making slaves out of foreigners for tech companies, promising them freedom and US citizenship if they serve long enough.

If my analogy holds, I wonder if that means the modern equivalent of Julius Caesar will be the leader of a tech giant.

[gework]

I think one of the best examples of this is Guyana. It's a former colony, largely peopled by the descendants of black slaves and cheap Indian labour. The Indians are the largest group by about 5%. There are two main political parties the People's Progressive Party, a Marxist-Leninist party, supported largely by Indians and a People's National Congress supported largely by blacks. Naturally the country has largely been under the sway of the Indian-backed party. There are also a lot of religions.

Another is Fiji. You have about 55% natives and about 38% Indians. Lots of different religions. The country had been racked with political division for years. There's been between 3-5 coups in the last 30 years, revolving around disputes between the main political parties, which were delineated by ethnicity. They're currently under a multi-ethnic regime which was achieved by military dictatorship.

Kenya - a colonial construction comprised of a number of tribal groups. They've largely amassed themselves into two voting blocks aligned by tribe and if their block wins they stand to have redistribution based on being part of the in-group. The last two elections have been marred in violence and calls for secession.

Bosnia - about 75% of the political seats are held by parties that are either Serb, Bosniak or Croat nationalist. The entity in the country known as Republia Srpska is pretty close to de facto seceding.

Montenegro - Around half of the elected political parties are classed as some type of ethno-party.

[Lunostrelki]

I've been thinking about this topic for some time. To me it seems like a society and culture can be very survivable AND allow for a great level of diversity provided you set up an extremely strong national frame. The model I'll use for this is China due to its long history of centralization, huge population, and regional variation in terms of language and culture.

(01-30-2018 05:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?

To refine the problem: how do we make a system that is inclusive, meaning that it doesn't put that much emphasis on differences between an in and out group; and that is charitable, meaning that it tries to be fair and ensure that these standards of fairness more or less apply to everyone.

Below you bring up four categories of race, politics, religion, and nation.

Quote:

At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?

Looking at the significant diversity of the Han Chinese ethnic group suggests you can include people speaking different languages and having different regional cultures in the same polity. But the catch is that for 4,000 years, Chinese polities have been assimilating other Asians and compelling them to write in Chinese characters while ignoring their spoken languages. Is the strength of Chinese writing enough to assimilate racial gulfs as well? We have no significant examples to study.

Politically, Chinese dynastic history and the Confucian meritocracy suggest that an overall exclusive political economy can be highly survivable, but only if the political system is competent and/or lucky.

China has historically been pretty religiously open, but on the very strict condition that religion doesn't mess with administration or get involved in mass movements, in which case they are suppressed with extreme force. There has never been a significant Chinese theocracy, which suggests that theocracy is not a highly survivable system.

I'm not really sure what is meant by national inclusivity, but I don't think that the concept of the nation as a legitimate autonomous entity is a very Chinese one. Historically, Chinese leaders have always considered their own regimes inherently superior to those of "barbarians" or competing leaders who in their estimation did not have the mandate of heaven. Honestly I think that before 1800, Chinese emperors believed that the whole world was rightfully theirs. Even now, that belief is only suppressed because of how obviously unfeasible it is for anyone to demand that the world has been "Chinese territory since ancient times."

So, China has:
Undemonstrated racial inclusivity, but high ethnic inclusivity (far more than among whites)
Low to moderate political inclusivity depending on the dynasty
Moderate to high religious inclusivity, but low tolerance for political religion
Zero national inclusivity, if my understanding of national inclusivity is correct.

The most important category is the last one, because the Chinese concept of the state determines the Chinese social attitude towards all the other categories.

Quote:

What are examples of highly survivable demographics? What can we attribute this to?

It might be argued that China is not a good example of a highly survivable demographic because generally speaking, the collapse of a dynasty also meant the deaths of a huge percentage of the population. There have been many ethnic shifts as well given the takeovers by various barbarian tribes, and the Han ethnicity itself is a cultural concept that began around 2,000 years ago and has demonstrated a high degree of malleability. For instance, the Kinh ethnic group, also known as the Vietnamese, is so named for a Chinese character, 京, which is a classical synonym for Han, but the modern Vietnamese and Han Chinese are clearly not the same people.

But turning this on its head, we could say that Chinese polities dispensed with most in- or out-group markers like ethnicity or religion as secondary concerns, but always denied the political legitimacy of other states, and, if the rulers saw that an ethnicity or religion was undermining their state, then they would attack these things insofar as they were threats to the state. Incidentally, this also explains the pervasive rivalry between China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, assuming they more or less share this totalitarian view of the state.

A powerful, non-inclusive state makes it possible to push a unified literary system and therefore a common historical mythology. It's significant that the First Emperor Qin Shihuang is also the person who decreed that Chinese characters would be standardized across the entire empire. The fact that writing has not changed significantly for 2,000 years predisposes Chinese people to identify with more or less the same history and feel that they should be united and not divided, notwithstanding political upheaval, religious plurality, and ethnic shifts.

A demonstration of how strong the Chinese concept of state legitimacy is can be seen in how vehemently mainland Chinese oppose Taiwanese and Hong Kong independence. Even if they administer themselves autonomously, they can under no circumstances be allowed to opt out officially.

[infowarrior1]

Black Pigeon speaks cites the example of Switzerland:

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-16-2018 09:22 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Black Pigeon speaks cites the example of Switzerland:

This vid and the example of Switzerland had been discussed before.
The Swiss were having many wars within as recently as some 250 years ago. They were mostly separated by valleys or it would have gotten worse.

And keep in mind - the Swiss are all of identical race, identical religion - Christianity, albeit different sects practiced, they have a very similar mindset, identical IQs.

Good luck combining that with Islam or some tribes who are 20+ points lower in IQ. The Swiss would have brutally slaughtered all Muslims if they did even 10% of what they are doing in Germany, France or UK.

[Liberty Sea]

(03-16-2018 02:27 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  

It might be argued that China is not a good example of a highly survivable demographic because generally speaking, the collapse of a dynasty also meant the deaths of a huge percentage of the population. There have been many ethnic shifts as well given the takeovers by various barbarian tribes, and the Han ethnicity itself is a cultural concept that began around 2,000 years ago and has demonstrated a high degree of malleability.

Great post, Lunostrelki, though I would like to make some corrections on this part.
I recommend that you read this study closely:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418768/
To summarize:
-Han Chinese can be divided into two distinct groups: Northern Hans (NH) and Southern Hans (SH).

-On the maternal side, SH are basically 50% NH and 50% southern minorities. On the paternal side, it's mostly NH. This implies that male NH migrated south, conquered and assimilated the Southern minorities.

-However, there is no significant genetic differences between various NH populations that live across Northern China, from the central plain to areas previously occupied by ancient Northern minorities. There are few genetic similarities between NH and Northern minorities, both on the maternal and paternal sides. Though the paternal side is a bit more similar.

-NH's genetic structure was shaped prior to 3000 years ago in the central plain areas. The remnants in the Hengbei sites of the central plain have high genetic similarity to present day NH, both on the paternal and maternal sides. Though the maternal side is a bit closer.

-Historical documents suggest that NH came from Huaxia ethnic group formed during the Shang and Zhou dynasties.

So the scenario suggested by genetic and historical evidences is: Northern Hans were the original Han Chinese, largely genetically consistent with the ancient Huaxia ethnic group. They were formed in the central plain areas, and migrated both northward and southward. Southward, they conquered and assimilated southern minorities; and northward, they chased nomadic northern minorities out of their original living space (the nomads are more dynamic than agrarian southern minorities, hence it's harder to conquer and assimilate them). While the Hans were later conquered by some northern tribes (Mongolian, Manchurian, et.), these northern conquerors contributed little to the Han gene pool. The reason was probably because as an agrarian people, the Han Chinese’s birth rate was vastly superior to their northern nomadic conquerors.

As you can see in these charts, Mongols and Manchus do not contribute that much to the Han gene pools, the other way around is more like it (haplogroup O3 - yellow color - is the classic Han Chinese marker):


The NH expanded from the relatively small Central Plain into the whole of China:


So, the Hans as a race is only malleable to the extent that other tribes conquered and assimilated by them also become Hans. The original Hans themselves were not significantly diluted and altered by their conquerors. Northern Hans retain much of the genetic structure of their ancestors. The physiological features of Qin Shihuang's terracotta warriors are almost identical to modern Northern Hans. They are, as such, a highly survivable demographic.

Quote:

For instance, the Kinh ethnic group, also known as the Vietnamese, is so named for a Chinese character, 京, which is a classical synonym for Han, but the modern Vietnamese and Han Chinese are clearly not the same people.

Genetically the Kinh is a mix-mash of the Southern Minorities (Thai, Hmong-Mian) that used to live in Southern China, and Han Chinese (both Southern and Northern). The concept Kinh though is only a later invention in the 19-20th century. Although 70% of Vietnamese vocabulary are sino-vietnamese and a large percentage of the rest came from Old and Middle Chinese, the Vietnamese gene pool has significant Han contribution, and the culture is largely Sinospheric, almost no Kinh Vietnamese today consider themselves Han. It's true that classical Vietnamese considered themselves some sort of honorary Chinese, but the Chinese themselves rarely recognized as such.

This kind of behavior is not unique to the Vietnamese. When China was conquered by the Manchu, all the other Sinosphere countries (Korea, Japan, and Vietnam) considered themselves the true inheritors of Huaxia civilization while mainland China was taken over by barbarians.

Quote:

• Vietnam
不曾又識初來華夏樣矣。我國使部來京，戴品服，識者亦有竊羨華風，然其不智者，多群然笑異，見襆頭網巾衣帶，便皆指為倡優樣格，胡俗之移人，一至浩歎如此。
[Chinese] no longer recognize the Huaxia (華夏) of olden days. When diplomats of our country visited Yanjing and wore our official attires, some recognized the old Huaxia ways, and even admired our Huaxia custom (華風). However, those who were ignorant would fill their own words with mockery and jokes, calling our hats and belts as theatrical and operatic costumes. The unruly customs had changed people in a way that I have to voice my concern.
-Excerpt from Du Hiên Tùng Bút (輶軒縱筆) by Bùi Văn Dị (裴文禩) during Nguyễn (阮) dynasty.

• Japan
竊為本邦之古，文獻大備，自稱中州，指彼西藩。内外之分，體制尤嚴矣。
Our country is full of literature and arts. We call our land the Central Plain (中州) and the other country Western Barbarian (西藩-referring to Qing China). Clear distinctions between us and them, and the policy must be strict.
-From Matsumiya Kanzan (松宮観山), the author of Matsumiya Kanzan Shū (松宮觀山集), during Edo (江戸) period.

• Korea
我國素以禮義聞天下，稱之以小中華，而列聖相承，事大一心，恪且勤矣。今乃服事胡虜，偷安僅存，縱延晷刻，其於祖宗何，其於天下何，其於後世何？
Our country is now known to the world, of earth and heaven, as Little China (小中華), inheriting the sages of old and carefully express our manners with polite and respect. Now we serve for the northern barbarians, with proclaimed temporary peace. What of our ancestor if they know we commit such act? What of the world? What of our future?
-Excerpt from Joseon In Jo Sik Rok (朝鮮仁祖寔録) by Jo Kyeong (趙絅) during Joseon (朝鮮) dynasty.

[TooFineAPoint]

Great topic.

Pardon my drive-by addition:

All that came to mind upon reading OP is that self-preservation will, at some point, require cooperation/trade/compromise with another group. And for that to continue being worthwhile, some trust will have to be developed.

That other group may share 3 of the 4 categories described (national, racial, political or religious), or it may share as little as 1.

If you allow culture/ideals to be a sub-category of any of those major four, then I guess I'd argue that any cooperation will necessitate at least 1 overlap between groups.

Or maybe there is an argument to be made for a fifth category called "culture" that, while obviously heavily influenced by the previous four, might benefit from being identified on its own... simply because having that commonality would allow for mutual perceived value-exchange between two self-interested parties.

[DarkTriad]

(01-30-2018 07:09 AM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 06:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

What do you think of the Singapore example? Does it adequately fulfill all those conditions?

It does work there. But they have an authoritarian government and a stable ethnic mix with a clear majority (Chinese). Impossible to replicate in a western democracy/republic.

A "Great King" is better than democracy, but "Great Kings" - like the founder of Singapore - are rare. You'll have 5 mediocre kinds and 2 complete shitheads for every great king you have, and that's the true price of authoritorianism. Rome was essentially built on the backs of the "4 Great Emperors"...Rome was lucky enough to have 4 great, long reigning leaders in a row and it gave them an insurmountable advantage for a thousand years. But the odds caught up with them, and they had a bunch of Caligulas and Neros too.

[infowarrior1]

(03-18-2018 12:58 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 07:09 AM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 06:52 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 05:30 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I don’t think the problem in the West is the diversity per se. I think a society can be inclusive and successful, if the following conditions are met:

- laws must be strictly enforced. You can’t have special licence to certain groups or minorities to flout the law
- no political correctness or affirmative action because not only it is socially sub-optimal, it also alienates groups which are not protected
- not perverted incentives subsidizing unemployment or irresponsible families
- economic opportunities for all and limited social inequality

Whether these conditions can be met I don’t know

What do you think of the Singapore example? Does it adequately fulfill all those conditions?

It does work there. But they have an authoritarian government and a stable ethnic mix with a clear majority (Chinese). Impossible to replicate in a western democracy/republic.

A "Great King" is better than democracy, but "Great Kings" - like the founder of Singapore - are rare. You'll have 5 mediocre kinds and 2 complete shitheads for every great king you have, and that's the true price of authoritorianism. Rome was essentially built on the backs of the "4 Great Emperors"...Rome was lucky enough to have 4 great, long reigning leaders in a row and it gave them an insurmountable advantage for a thousand years. But the odds caught up with them, and they had a bunch of Caligulas and Neros too.

Note that all 4 of the best Emperors were adopted Adult Men with distinguished achievements. Japan has a similar system that led to successful family businesses:

Quote:

America and Japan have the highest rates of adoption in the world – with one big difference. While the vast majority of adoptees in the U.S. are children, they account for just 2% of adoptions in Japan. The other 98% are males around 25 to 30. Mehrotra believes this is the key to one of Japan’s unique differences. Across the developed world, family firms under-perform professionally-run businesses. But in Japan, it’s the opposite. Japan’s strongest companies are led by scions, many of them adopted. “If you compare the performance under different kinds of heirs, blood heirs versus adopted heirs, the superior performance of second-generation managed firms is pretty much entirely attributable to the adopted heir firms.”

Mehrotra explains that adopting a scion is similar to a hostile takeover. Blood heirs are under the constant pressure of knowing that if they under-perform, they’ll be replaced.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/09/the-c...ily-firms/

Quote:

When asset managers are looking to invest in listed companies in Japan, corporate governance and issues of succession weigh heavily on a firm’s potential longevity. Yet evidence suggests that finding a mukoyoshi provides a feasible way for companies to bypass problems of weak shareholder rights in order to make decisive progression. Motor powerhouse Suzuki proves an apt example: in 1958, 28-year-old Osamu Matsuda made a decision to marry into the Suzuki clan. Osamu was simultaneously adopted by the family’s patriarch, took on the Suzuki name and joined the company’s board. Before long, Osamu Suzuki was appointed his new father’s successor – the fourth in an unbroken line of adopted heirs to serve as the CEO of Suzuki Motors. He had big ideas for the company: over the course of his tenure, the adopted Suzuki transformed the business into the top carmaker in the globe’s emerging markets. Since then, Suzuki has grown by leaps and bounds. Last year, the firm hit a milestone after reaching JPY1trn in domestic sales for the first time ever, helping rally investors behind major infrastructural investments in Indonesia and India, where it now owns thriving subsidiaries. In line with Suzuki tradition, Osamu even snubbed his own biological son by adopting a son-in-law and anointing him heir to the company’s top job – though the premature death of Suzuki’s new son shortly after he took control of the company forced Osamu to come back out of retirement.

Michio Matsui of Matsui Securities was also a mukoyoshi. Although hesitant to shed his family name in favour of that of his new patriarch, Matsui took the helm at his father-in-law’s brokerage business in 1990 and proved that all it takes to kick start an ailing family firm is a little fresh blood. Joining the family right as Japan’s economic bubble burst, the adopted Matsui quickly found himself up to his eyeballs in stiff international competition. In order to stand out, Matsui made the gutsy decision to focus all the company’s efforts on the then-experimental realm of online trading. By the time the Japanese Government realised the potential of online securities and chose to deregulate the market, Matsui’s business had already become a behemoth. Today, it is one of the world’s leading online brokerage firms. Matsui’s desire for the company to be constantly churning out innovative new products has meant the family firm always appears to be swimming against the tide: since last year, Matsui Securities has nearly doubled its revenues from JPY14.1bn to 27.4bn. Matsui’s bottom line has nearly tripled since 2013.

From Canon and Toyota to Kikkoman Soy Sauce, nearly every internationally recognised Japanese firm has traded hands at one point or another by way of adult adoption, and while some Western critics continue to scoff at the practice, its merits are difficult to ignore. The typical aptitude deficiencies that plague most family firms are virtually non-existent in Japan. If anything, the nation’s archaic tradition has helped build a better mousetrap. By injecting fresh blood into a centuries-old company, Japanese patriarchs are able to bypass the issue of knowledge gaps and can motivate managers with the prospect of fast-track success.

More importantly, the prospect of adoption serves to discourage blood relatives involved in a company’s day-to-day operations becoming complacent. Directors have been proven to invest more in human capital and pursue aggressive expansion routes that lead to higher investment and bigger dividends. That’s not to say the tradition is a fool-proof method for success: after all, the complex dating site algorithms and fantastic first impressions that lead to patriarchs adopting a new son can hardly protect a company from unforeseen external risks. Yet for all its peculiarities, there’s quite clearly a reason the tradition is still alive and well in Japan.

https://www.theneweconomy.com/strategy/a...e-business

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< That's barely a valid term of adoption success for Japan. Many of the so-called adopted married into the family being highly ambitious successful men. They were adopted for ideological reasons.

[infowarrior1]

(03-19-2018 03:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< That's barely a valid term of adoption success for Japan. Many of the so-called adopted married into the family being highly ambitious successful men. They were adopted for ideological reasons.

Explain. What and how do you know?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-19-2018 06:58 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 03:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< That's barely a valid term of adoption success for Japan. Many of the so-called adopted married into the family being highly ambitious successful men. They were adopted for ideological reasons.

Explain. What and how do you know?

Quote:

in 1958, 28-year-old Osamu Matsuda made a decision to marry into the Suzuki clan. Osamu was simultaneously adopted by the family’s patriarch, took on the Suzuki name and joined the company’s board.

A 28yo marrying the Suzuki daughter and being adopted into the Suzuki clan is a different form of inclusion of a worthy husband to your daughter have closer ties to your family. The West never did that.

Often the husband was leading the company under his name and when a more deserving grandson was born, then he was promoted to leadership. The Agnellis in Italy / Fiat/Ferrari were led like that.

[Lunostrelki]

(03-17-2018 11:31 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

So, the Hans as a race is only malleable to the extent that other tribes conquered and assimilated by them also become Hans. The original Hans themselves were not significantly diluted and altered by their conquerors. Northern Hans retain much of the genetic structure of their ancestors. The physiological features of Qin Shihuang's terracotta warriors are almost identical to modern Northern Hans. They are, as such, a highly survivable demographic.

Thanks for the genetic input. This confirms what the mythology suggests which is that the proto-Chinese cultures coalesced around the bend of the Yellow River and Chinese civilization started in the general area of Shanxi and Henan. Given the prominence of this area during the Western Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn/Warring States period, it makes sense that it had a large and well-organized homogeneous population that was able to absorb casualties.

Before that, though, it seems to me that the Huaxia was likely formed not just by a single proto-Chinese culture that originally developed in the Shanxi-Henan area but also outsiders from the northwest and northeast. It's possible their presence in northwest and northeast China (as a specific example I'm thinking of Liaoning's Hongshan culture) predated the existence of Altaic or Turkic groups that became the barbarian minorities of recorded history. The Northern Han could still be rather diverse, just not within the same timeframe as southerners. I make this observation because I do feel like lots of northerners have a slightly "minority" look to them, while others seem more "Chinese."

Quote:

Genetically the Kinh is a mix-mash of the Southern Minorities (Thai, Hmong-Mian) that used to live in Southern China, and Han Chinese (both Southern and Northern). The concept Kinh though is only a later invention in the 19-20th century. Although 70% of Vietnamese vocabulary are sino-vietnamese and a large percentage of the rest came from Old and Middle Chinese, the Vietnamese gene pool has significant Han contribution, and the culture is largely Sinospheric, almost no Kinh Vietnamese today consider themselves Han.

In that case it seems like the Vietnamese are a stalled work-in-progress in terms of racial assimilation with the southern Han. They have the basic cultural foundations laid for Sinicization, and had the French not intervened, may have been something like Guangxi today which technically has a minority plurality but identities as Chinese.

The underlying original question of course, is if China's system (thus far rather durable despite some violent reboots) is capable of including people of other genetic backgrounds and remaining survivable in the long term. Like if China took on 20 or 50 million Slavic Russians who resettled across Inner Mongolia and the northwest/north/northeast (current population over 300 million), would the current institutions and culture hold up? What if 100 million Africans received resettlement across the southern provinces? Could they be sinicized, as the SE Asian tribes were?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-19-2018 01:01 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  

The underlying original question of course, is if China's system (thus far rather durable despite some violent reboots) is capable of including people of other genetic backgrounds and remaining survivable in the long term. Like if China took on 20 or 50 million Slavic Russians who resettled across Inner Mongolia and the northwest/north/northeast (current population over 300 million), would the current institutions and culture hold up? What if 100 million Africans received resettlement across the southern provinces? Could they be sinicized, as the SE Asian tribes were?

With such large groups you have to factor in a few things.

China had plenty of internal wars between various kingdoms, but it took only a few shitlords to unify the place.

But for example the Muslim tribes are still apart from the dominant Chinese culture and sooner or later they are probably going to get even more extreme.

As for 50 mio. Russians or 100 mio. Africans settling. Those would be such large groups of so much difference, that you would have the culture remain apart likely forever. For example - the US took in 10 mio. Irish, Russians, Germans and Italians each in the late 19th century. And while many claim that those groups still are apart, I call bullshit on that. The reason for this is that those people had 6-7 kids each and created populations on the scale of 30-40 mio. in the US. Most of them integrated seamlessly into the broader population despite some enclaves being formed. Those enclaves become part of the dominant Anglo-system due to similarities in race, IQ and religion. Also they intermarried freely, moved across the US and the remaining enclaves are tiny compared to what they should be otherwise.

The Russians in China would only integrate fast if the Chinese ordered everyone to marry a Chinese local. Then they would actually integrate and their genome would dissipate among the Chinese. The 6-point IQ difference is minimal.

100 mio. AFricans - that is a different story. Assuming that you force also intermarriage, then the physical differences and IQ gap of 25-35 points would create an a long-term underclass in China even if you force intensive intermarriage. Also they would remain different looking for generations. They would have to force their children to intermarry with Chinese as well while those Chinese would get significant drawbacks from that step.

In contrast Russian-Chinese children would be taller, more muscular and probably more good-looking with little IQ negatives.

But such thing is only hypothetical. Such large groups would remain apart forever creating subgroups within China. The Russians would do infinitely better than the African contingent. The Chinese are not brainwashed enough to accept any large non-Chinese immigrants that create their enclaves.

[MusterMark]

(01-30-2018 05:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I'm making this thread because the topic is stinking up the Trump thread but it's still a bit beyond the Politics and War lounge.

The me preface the rest of this by saying this thread is not an invitation to shit on anyone's race, religion, country or political affiliations. Please keep the thread clean of emotionally driven bullshit.

I'll keep it simple. When it comes to demographics, be it in relation to race, ethnicity, politics or religion I hold the following premise to be foundational.

Since the arrival of the Boeing 747, any national, racial, political or religious demographic that fails to hold self preservation as it's highest priority is doomed to be subsumed or enslaved by other demographics that do.

This is nature's fundamental law. The will to power.

Can an institution be inclusive, charitable AND survivable or will such an organisation be hollowed out by opportunists who have no true allegiance to that institution?

In my opinion this is the most fundamental question in regards to the survivability of the West and the people contained there. It is the most fundamental question in regards to what lessons must be learned if we get a chance to survive this insanity and rebuild.

At what saturation point does racial inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does political inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does religious inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?
At what saturation point does national inclusivity doom a society (give examples)?

What are examples of highly survivable demographics? What can we attribute this to?

Here is the viewpoint of earlier political and national thinkers on this subject as articulated by Theodore Roosevelt

---

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic...

There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

---

According to the above statments, there must be a zero tolerance level to preserve a nation.

[infowarrior1]

(03-19-2018 07:28 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 06:58 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 03:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< That's barely a valid term of adoption success for Japan. Many of the so-called adopted married into the family being highly ambitious successful men. They were adopted for ideological reasons.

Explain. What and how do you know?

Quote:

in 1958, 28-year-old Osamu Matsuda made a decision to marry into the Suzuki clan. Osamu was simultaneously adopted by the family’s patriarch, took on the Suzuki name and joined the company’s board.

A 28yo marrying the Suzuki daughter and being adopted into the Suzuki clan is a different form of inclusion of a worthy husband to your daughter have closer ties to your family. The West never did that.

Often the husband was leading the company under his name and when a more deserving grandson was born, then he was promoted to leadership. The Agnellis in Italy / Fiat/Ferrari were led like that.

I see. Although what do you think of the Roman style of adoption in the example of the 4 Emperors?

[Paracelsus]

(02-09-2018 10:22 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The reality isn't shrouded in some sort of cloud of wishful thinking. It's really rather simple. The Japanese are genetically smart and community oriented enough that when their old order of feudal hierarchy was washed away they simply adopted the systems of other successful nations (education, democracy, equal rights) and adapted it to their own biological nature (hard work, emotional distance and obedience to authority).

About the only comment I'd make here is that good old Japanese intelligence and know-how weren't the reason Japan succeeded any more than good old Christianity. And it certainly was not adopting the same systems as Western nations. It was primarily because America needed a bulwark against Communist China and therefore threw huge amounts of resources at Japan to make them mercantilists with a M ... and secondly because nobody understood how the Japanese did business until it was almost too late.

Of the two reconstruction efforts that the West engaged in after WW2, it was actually Japan that was more impressive. Germany at least had an Anglo-Saxon-ish heritage and a Western culture that wasn't that much different from the other nations around it. Japan had an entirely alien culture which was pulverised from top to bottom, starting with forcing the Emperor to concede that he wasn't divine and was just a human being. It was also a culture that still held the ideal of samurai and bushido very heavily in mind; they had to break both Japan's martial spirit and its form of democracy (its Diet) which had been dominated by nationalists and militarists ahead of World War 2.

Japan didn't willingly take on Western ideals of democracy or economics. Even going by the guys who won, they basically forced Japan's constitution and major components of its society upon them:

Quote:

In September, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur took charge of the Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP) and began the work of rebuilding Japan. Although Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China had an advisory role as part of an “Allied Council,” MacArthur had the final authority to make all decisions. The occupation of Japan can be divided into three phases: the initial effort to punish and reform Japan, the work to revive the Japanese economy, and the conclusion of a formal peace treaty and alliance.

The first phase, roughly from the end of the war in 1945 through 1947, involved the most fundamental changes for the Japanese Government and society. The Allies punished Japan for its past militarism and expansion by convening war crimes trials in Tokyo. At the same time, SCAP dismantled the Japanese Army and banned former military officers from taking roles of political leadership in the new government. In the economic field, SCAP introduced land reform, designed to benefit the majority tenant farmers and reduce the power of rich landowners, many of whom had advocated for war and supported Japanese expansionism in the 1930s. MacArthur also tried to break up the large Japanese business conglomerates, or zaibatsu, as part of the effort to transform the economy into a free market capitalist system. In 1947, Allied advisors essentially dictated a new constitution to Japan’s leaders. Some of the most profound changes in the document included downgrading the emperor’s status to that of a figurehead without political control and placing more power in the parliamentary system, promoting greater rights and privileges for women, and renouncing the right to wage war, which involved eliminating all non-defensive armed forces.

As I said, what was done in Japan was miraculous because for the most part it seemed to work in the sense that Japan has never rebelled against US influence as such - although I think another convenient racial/cultural attribute, Japanese deference to authority is a major reason the place hasn't been rebelling constantly against these sorts of changes to society. I know Zelcorpion marvels at the cultural shaping that happened to Germany after the war, but to my mind it pales in comparison to what Douglas MacArthur and his advisors did to Japan's culture. From the perspective of the system of bushido or the tradition of samurai, this was essentially cutting Japan's balls clean off and handing them back fried on a plate. (The 1980s novel The Ninja by Eric Lustbader, while it's turgid reading, offers a substantial subplot that goes into the cultural "rebuilding" of Japan and of the struggle to give Japan a Japanese Constitution rather than an American one.)

Notice how the page I've mentioned concedes that MacArthur "tried" to break up the zaibatusu, the great corporate conglomerates that led Japan to war. It says "tried" because he failed - the zaibatsu largely survived in other forms, mainly because the Korean War broke out. As the Victors' Page goes on to say...

Quote:

By late 1947 and early 1948, the emergence of an economic crisis in Japan alongside concerns about the spread of communism sparked a reconsideration of occupation policies. This period is sometimes called the “reverse course.” In this stage of the occupation, which lasted until 1950, the economic rehabilitation of Japan took center stage. SCAP became concerned that a weak Japanese economy would increase the influence of the domestic communist movement, and with a communist victory in China’s civil war increasingly likely, the future of East Asia appeared to be at stake. Occupation policies to address the weakening economy ranged from tax reforms to measures aimed at controlling inflation. However the most serious problem was the shortage of raw materials required to feed Japanese industries and markets for finished goods. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 provided SCAP with just the opportunity it needed to address this problem, prompting some occupation officials to suggest that, “Korea came along and saved us.” After the UN entered the Korean War, Japan became the principal supply depot for UN forces. The conflict also placed Japan firmly within the confines of the U.S. defense perimeter in Asia, assuring the Japanese leadership that whatever the state of its military, no real threat would be made against Japanese soil.

In the third phase of the occupation, beginning in 1950, SCAP deemed the political and economic future of Japan firmly established and set about securing a formal peace treaty to end both the war and the occupation. The U.S. perception of international threats had changed so profoundly in the years between 1945 and 1950 that the idea of a re-armed and militant Japan no longer alarmed U.S. officials; instead, the real threat appeared to be the creep of communism, particularly in Asia. The final agreement allowed the United States to maintain its bases in Okinawa and elsewhere in Japan, and the U.S. Government promised Japan a bilateral security pact. In September of 1951, fifty-two nations met in San Francisco to discuss the treaty, and ultimately, forty-nine of them signed it. Notable holdouts included the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia, all of which objected to the promise to support the Republic of China and not do business with the People’s Republic of China that was forced on Japan by U.S. politicians.

The zaibatsu became useful to the US at this point, and thus were allowed to survive. Those zaibatsu went on to become keiretsu, which Michael Crichton described in his well-researched novel Rising Sun - hundreds of Japanese companies working in concert against American interests, simply for this reason: Japan has never run a free market capitalist economy. The zaibatsu were essentially economic oligarchs based on families, and keiretsu are essentially the same thing with banks and trading companies at the top. Imagine, if you will, Dunlop, Ford, BP and all their attendant supply companies working as one, together, to squeeze out competitors on their own soil. Or try and imagine, say, Google and Intel perfectly aligned in their business goals, strategy, and approach. That is a keiretsu, a monopoly comprised of many parts like an army against what is usually one corporation trying to go into business on Japanese soil.

That metaphor is apt because the Japanese regard business as war. Up until they had their great 1990s stagflation (which has been going on for 20 years or more), the US did not understand how Japan operated and more or less sold out its native car, TV, and electronics industries to the Japanese. Similar strategies were used to those the Chinese are now using against the US: one-way trade deals, dumping, hugely hindering or outright blocking US companies from setting up in China while happily letting Chinese companies and nationals traipse on into the US, mine the country for its educational know-how, and then fuck off home.

Japan is not Western ideals at work and never was - not with the zaibatsu/keiretsu a part of their culture. The Japanese are excellent at refining and distilling the essence of other ideas into their own culture, but without the Korean War the country would just as likely still be a semi-failed state like East Germany right now. And the Japanese are some of the most racist people on the face of the Earth: even back in the 80s their Prime Minister joked publicly that since US sailors in Japanese ports couldn't afford anything Japan had for sale, all they could do was stay on their ships and give each other AIDS. That incident is cited in Rising Sun.