Ideologically... Japan is very traditional, just not functionally.

[MarcosZeitola]

I hadn't thought about that one, but its a really good idea. I think too many countries, including Hungary even, are trying to be too nice about all this. This is definitely one of the gravest consequences of democracy that it really cripples a leader's ability do what must be done even if its unpopular. Democracy allows for people's short term anger to reverse such decisions rather then allowing the entire idea to play out. Then again, I suspect the childless liberals in Hungary aren't voting for Orban anyway.

Ultimately, the reason why everybody had kids in the traditional past was because they didn't have social security and they had to make sure someone was going to take care of them once they were too old to work anymore. Eliminating pensions for people who don't have kids essentially brings that condition back while not eliminating the benefit for people who have been responsible and contributed to society their whole life.

Yeah, it's really the best way. I recently had this thought and it stuck with me since. Many would call it cruel, after all there are still infertile people, but I suppose those would either have to take in some orphan or just, be shit out of luck. The system change will cause casualties, and there will be suffering for some, but there NEEDS to be suffering for it to work. People need to be shared shitless again to be childless; it should be a future death sentence. To not contribute to your nation, race and culture's future should mean a man or woman will also not have a future. It's radical but fair, and balanced.

[Outcast9428]

@fschmidt Philosophically, it also appears that you believe you can make a world, community, or society of people who are all good by being extremely selective about who joins this intentional ethnicity and killing everybody who falls short of the standard.

However, personally, I believe that every society has a fairly equal balance between souls who are bright and good, souls who are kind of grey or neutral, and souls who are bad, or even outright evil. I don't think its an exact fixed percentage in every society but I think, looking at every society, generally most people are grey and somewhere in the middle... They go along with what society tells them is morally okay. They are generally the conformists. They don't behave more moral then what society expects out of them, but they are also generally careful not to seriously transgress the laws of their community or society. The good people generally go above and beyond what is asked of them. Being good is in their nature. They will always try to be good to the best of their ability. This doesn't mean they never do bad things, just that they view goodness through more then just "are these the accepted mores of my community?" Which is how the morally grey people tend to view morals, without even realizing it. Morally grey people for example, would participate in a mob lynching, whereas a good person would not. Morally grey people, however, would not commit a first degree murder. Grey morality people are also very willing to do bad things when they feel it is necessary without much thought or guilt relating to whether its right or wrong whereas good people may refuse to do something bad and go to extreme lengths to find an alternative solution as opposed to doing the bad thing. Bad people are always looking for how to transgress the mores of society. They do it deliberately, out of simple enjoyment. Being bad is enjoyable for them, they don't need to gain much from it, they'll do it whenever they have the opportunity to not get caught. There are degrees of bad, however. Most bad people will get their rocks off doing fairly mild things like bashing your mailbox or leaving their dog's crap in your yard and laughing at the idea of you getting mad about it. The truly evil, however, are capable of murder and torture.

As a society, or government. It is important to recognize that no society has ever managed to simply wipe out all the bad people. It is impossible. There is something spiritual which causes every society on Earth to have a fairly even balance in every society of says, maybe 20% good people, 60% in the middle, and 20% bad. It can sometimes be 30% good, 10% bad, or 30% bad, 10% good. Not always exactly the same. But for the most part, things are pretty evenly balanced when it comes down to what is actually inside people's souls.

What does change, however, is the manipulation of people's inner nature. A lot of it depends on who is in charge of your society. When good people are in charge, the morally grey tend to behave a lot like the good people do because the good people in charge of the country write laws and govern the country with the implicit expectation that everybody should strive to be a good person. Good people's values get propagated by the media and the government so morally grey people are aware of good people's mentality and way of thinking, and seek to emulate it. In societies run by good people, the morally greys tend to be the rough enforcers of goodness. Good people don't usually like taking the role of enforcers but the morally grey people will punish the moral transgressors for them in order to look good to the good people. Good people can also write laws that make the fundamentally bad people too scared of transgressing the mores of society to spread their evil. So a morally ideal society will have good people in charge, where the morally grey seek to emulate the good people, and the bad people are too scared of getting caught to inflict much damage on society so they resort to very mild and petty acts of deviance to get their rocks off.

Japan is a fundamentally good society... It is a lot like what I described.

If bad people are in charge of society, then they do one of two things. Either A. They rig the system so as to blatantly oppress a large underclass of society while taking as much for themselves as they can. Or, they start encouraging deviance everywhere they can and trying to normalize as many deviant behaviors as possible so that the moral greys will actually enforce evil instead of enforcing good. And thus, the bad/evil people can treat society as a playground for whatever deviant behaviors they want to engage in. The moral greys will follow their example as long as they don't consider their own actions to be too extreme. However, when the bad people are in charge, moralism starts to be viewed negatively by the moral greys and those people get a reputation for being "stuffy," "square" "lame" and other things.

As you can see from this description, America has been under the control of evil forces for a long time now. It took a long time for the majority of the population to adapt to subconsciously viewing the bad guys as being in charge as opposed to before where people fundamentally felt like the good guys were in charge. But America has been under the control of evil forces for at least 60 years now.

Keep in mind, people's perception of who is in charge can be different even while living in the same society. Some moral greys for example may believe the good guys are in charge while others believe the bad guys are in charge. The perception happens subconsciously, and is not something the individual is typically aware of. They may even outwardly profess a different belief from what they subconsciously feel. A moral grey, for example, might say "yeah there's a lot of evil people in charge of our country right to" to appeal to a community they subconsciously believe is headed by good people.

When moral greys are in charge of the country, usually not much is really done. They become the typical corrupt politician. Not really interested in serving the common good, but not necessarily working to actively undermine it either.

[Outcast9428]

I hadn't thought about that one, but its a really good idea. I think too many countries, including Hungary even, are trying to be too nice about all this. This is definitely one of the gravest consequences of democracy that it really cripples a leader's ability do what must be done even if its unpopular. Democracy allows for people's short term anger to reverse such decisions rather then allowing the entire idea to play out. Then again, I suspect the childless liberals in Hungary aren't voting for Orban anyway.

Ultimately, the reason why everybody had kids in the traditional past was because they didn't have social security and they had to make sure someone was going to take care of them once they were too old to work anymore. Eliminating pensions for people who don't have kids essentially brings that condition back while not eliminating the benefit for people who have been responsible and contributed to society their whole life.

Yeah, it's really the best way. I recently had this thought and it stuck with me since. Many would call it cruel, after all there are still infertile people, but I suppose those would either have to take in some orphan or just, be shit out of luck. The system change will cause casualties, and there will be suffering for some, but there NEEDS to be suffering for it to work. People need to be shared shitless again to be childless; it should be a future death sentence. To not contribute to your nation, race and culture's future should mean a man or woman will also not have a future. It's radical but fair, and balanced.

Not reproducing is already kind of like killing yourself. In my opinion, it is almost the same as suicide. A lot of people in modern society essentially commit suicide. Not always with the same methods. Some people kill themselves directly, others kill themselves with drugs and alcohol, others kill themselves with unusually reckless behavior. Ultimately though, all of them are deliberately avoiding fulfilling nature/life's goal which is that each individual try its hardest to ensure the success of his or her own reproductive legacy. That is ultimately what the game of life is all about, giving your legacy the best chance of survival and continual perpetuation as you can. People form societies and ultimately create laws and mores around sexual behavior precisely for this purpose. Because chaotic sexual mores hurts a lot of people's chances at reproductive continuation.

Liberalism is fundamentally at odds with this because it believes that each individual can basically make up their own opinion on what the goal of their life is. As far as liberalism is concerned, if snorting a pound of cocaine every day is your life's mission then that's just as valid as creating a family and setting your offspring up for success. So people failing to continue their bloodline is not seen as a tragedy by liberals. As far as they are concerned, why should it matter to you what happens after you are dead?

If people's pensions were cut off, a lot of people would probably still live with relatives or close friends. Either way though, you are right, it will scare people shitless and force them to at least nurture some kind of family bond.

A good system cannot eliminate all suffering. It has to, at the very least, create a widespread perception that suffering is possible while giving people every opportunity and avenue to avoid that suffering that it can. If people do not believe that suffering is possible, then they will behave as though there are no consequences to their actions... And that is what has led us to the society we have now.

[Outcast9428]

You claim to be religiously Christian but racially Jewish, however, it seems like you emphasize the Old Testament a lot more then the New Testament. Morally, you also are much more "Old Testament" then New Testament. Jesus would not have condoned killing people simply for being outside of your community. Christians are supposed to cure sinners rather then resolve their evil by killing them. That's more of an Islamic way of thinking. Obviously Christians can still punish sinners through legal methods but we are not supposed to just go around killing all the bad people out there. Jesus pretty much understood self-defense and 'just war' as being the only cases in which killing somebody can be justified. The Catholic church had further expanded upon what defines a "just war" to mean the following...

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Your Arkian idea is basically just neo-Judaism. Judaism already has, as a fundamental belief, that Jews are the chosen people and because of that they are ultimately superior and that the laws only really apply to themselves and not to people outside of the Jewish community. Your idea of the Arkians is basically the same thing. Create an intentional ethnicity with its own laws and values... Outside of the community, nobody's welfare really matters.

I have never claimed to be Christian. I have always said that I follow the Old Testament.

But I do not condone killing people just because they are from outside my community. I take the Old Testament position here which is to support killing people from evil cultures but not from good cultures. That is why I wouldn't kill traditional Anabaptists. The Old Testament explains the need to respect cultures that keep their traditions in Jeremiah 35.

Of course Judaism doesn't follow the Old Testament, it follows the Talmud.

So... Karaite Judaism then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

[Yohan]

There are a lot of strange comments in this thread which have nothing at all to do with Japan.

----------------------------

About Japan, as I often said, look at a map, it is a small country with 125 million people, same with tiny South Korea, with 52 million people - and look at the map again next to Japan is Russia how large it is and has 145 million people.

Japan and South Korea are overpopulated, and in Japan about 75 % of the land is nothing else but step mountains and small islands, and only a few people, mostly elderly people are living there, sometimes the son who wants to continue the business of the parents. You can rent a house/fields in rural areas almost for free. Very few young women, very few children, many schools closed in those villages.

The Japanese situation is difficult, while living in suburban areas of smaller towns is much cheaper than in the few crowded large cities, it is not easy to find a good job there.

In those cities, like Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Fukuoka rent or to buy your own home is really very expensive, the result are many small rooms for rent, barely enough for one person only. However to find a good work and good income is much easier than in other parts of Japan.

However other large cities worldwide report the same situation, like London, New York, San Francisco, Vancouver, Hongkong, Sydney, Geneve etc.

In Japan there is also some gender imbalace between rural areas and cities, more young men in rural areas, more young women in the cities.

This all contributes to declining population, but many Japanese think, that for this land 100 million people are enough.

-----

About tradition, Christianity has only few followers and Islam is almost not existent. Most Japanese, likely more than 80%, stay with their own mixture of Buddhism and Shintoism, and many Japanese show up giving money for temples and shrines and participate with religious festivals, buying Buddhist graves, marry in Shinto Shrines and bringing in their children for blessings etc.

Life at home also did not change so much - many Japanese keep a Buddhist altar in their home
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butsudan

or a Shinto 'spirit house'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamidana

Many women (but less men now) still have a Kimono and other traditional items in their home, for themselves and their children....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimono

About the media, there are very regular broadcastings about Japanese history and how the country was ruled during medieval times.
There are also plenty of museums, which will displaymany old items, everything you want to know about Japanese history...

There are also historical villages, castles and ruins you can visit everywhere, plenty of sightseeing tours to such places and not only in Kyoto.

Family life is still OK for most Japanese families, women often quit or reduce their working hours into part-time after marriage.

Japan also has very few foreigners, maybe 3 % living here, this means, around 96% are nothing else but pure Japanese, same language, same education, same food, very similar to each other.... Japan is not Europe or USA/Canada full with immigrants.... not so much influence from abroad.

Traditional Japan is a bit declining, but I would not say it is not functional.

[fschmidt]

@fschmidt Philosophically, it also appears that you believe you can make a world, community, or society of people who are all good by being extremely selective about who joins this intentional ethnicity and killing everybody who falls short of the standard.

Not all good, but mostly good. And I will leave the killing to God.

However, personally, I believe that every society has a fairly equal balance between souls who are bright and good, souls who are kind of grey or neutral, and souls who are bad, or even outright evil.

I don't know what souls are, so I will take this to mean genetic disposition. But that varies. Dysgenic modern culture selects for people who are stupid and evil, so that is the direction that modern genetics are heading.

What does change, however, is the manipulation of people's inner nature. A lot of it depends on who is in charge of your society.

The cause of societal change is the subject of endless debates. I consider the government to be one of the least important factors based on what I know of history. I discuss various causes here.

Japan is a fundamentally good society... It is a lot like what I described.

So far the Japanese have done nothing to make me hate them, so I don't.

[fschmidt]

So... Karaite Judaism then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

Sort of. The difference between my belief and Karaite Judaism is like the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Karaites are like Protestants and Quranists in being sola scriptura, so of course they are liberal degenerates. I interpret the Old Testament in the context of history and science.