This is a portion of Ralph Townsend’s article “Our Slump in Foreign Pets” which was originally published in The North American Review in August 1933. We sense in this piece Townsend’s frustration with the self-flagellating universalism of liberals and Christians, which he believed made Americans prone to exploitation by cynical out-groups. His frustration with the way who was or was not the “underdog” du jour impinged upon American foreign policy, is exhibited in his later writings.
When we stop showering unappreciated favors on the Chinese, our market should be saturated.
There are signs that we are soon to be without a foreign pet—without any journalistically chosen foreign country or distant people upon whom our sensation-stirring writers and plaintive orators may loose eulogies to wring extravagant sympathy out of average Americans. China, our last and longest foreign pet, seems about to pass from the roster as more and more intelligent opinion filters back to correct misinformation here. There is no successor in sight.
I’ve voiced a great deal of criticism of so-called “hate speech” legislation in Canada in recent years. Unlike the people of Japan, I happen to live in a country where people are regularly criminalized for expressing opinions which the Canadian State labels “hateful”. One of my missions in life, therefore, has been to attempt to contribute to the debate that is taking place currently in Japan about whether or not such inane laws should be incorporated into Japanese jurisprudence.
It appears a great deal of money is being poured into think tanks and political organizations which are favourable toward such legislation in Japan. The mayor of Japan’s second largest city of Osaka, Tōru Hashimoto, is one political-actor who has been zealously promoting the idea that certain forms of inter-ethnic political criticism should be stamped out via the enactment of “hate speech” laws. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe and many of his colleagues, however, have not been as supportive. This differs from the West where approximately 98% of legislators are happy to see bloggers, historians and political analysts thrown in jail for their ethnographic analyses.
“Hate speech” laws imply that ethnic minorities ought to be exempted from criticism. The main flaw of such legislation is that it fails to allow for a consideration of the power and influence held by the often politically-active ethnic groups being critiqued. Certain criticisms of the activities of the leadership of certain politicized ethnic groups may be in the public interest but “hate speech” legislation essentially abolishes criticism of such potential power brokers. The assumption is that if you’re a member of an ethnic minority then you’re, ipso facto, a vulnerable underdog in need of protection from the State.
Here is a summary of the absurd trial of Arthur Topham by Michael Hoffman:
Quesnel, British Columbia, October 27 — Canadian Arthur Topham, 68, is a British Columbia (B.C.) placer miner who in his spare time operates the “Radical Press,” a website. On May 16, 2012 he was on his way to work at his mining operation when he was arrested by several police officers, handcuffed and charged with a “hate crime.”
Topham was charged with a single count of “willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group,” as well as “improper storage of firearms” found in his house near Quesnel, B.C.
“The branch has approved charges against him,” said Neil MacKenzie of the B.C. Criminal Justice Branch. MacKenzie said British Columbia’s assistant deputy attorney general had signed off on the hate crimes charge.
I have recently been evaluating the conflicting viewpoints on the subject of World War II comfort women and intend to summarize them in future posts on this nascent blog. For now, I thought QJH readers might find this CNN interview with Komori Yoshihisa of Japan’s Sankei Shumbun thought-provoking. He provides some but not all of the main protestations Japanese comfort-women-skeptics make against those who opt to emphasize the relationship between prostitutes and the Japanese military during WWII in their discourse.
I recently acquired a copy of the book The Trial on Trial (1946) by Lawrence Dennis and Maximilian St. George which recounts the Orwellian Great Sedition Trial of 1944. During that trial many American intellectuals were prosecuted for their pro-neutrality arguments. Dennis was one of the accused and St. George was a defence attorney involved in the proceedings.
Chomsky in the above video condones the “totalitarian society” which enabled the persecution of intellectuals who spoke for the 86% of Americans who opposed military intervention in Europe and Asia. Chomsky can be seen opining:
“during the Second World War, the forms of authority
—we had a totalitarian society basically—
and I thought that there was
some justification for that”
WWII propaganda claimed that the world was witnessing an epic tussle between the forces of Democracy and those of Totalitarianism. In reality the Allied regimes were just as totalitarian as the Axis ones. The criminalization of those who reject the FDR administration’s version of the events of WWII continues to this day, with revisionist historians in Western nations often finding themselves being incarcerated for their historical conclusions.
Chomsky has encouraged Westerners to embrace weak, anarchistic political dispensations in their nations throughout his academic career. Such prescriptions would only allow illiberal political actors such as the Zionists to further colonize our nations. However, when push came to shove in the 1930s and 40s it seems that pro-Communist, Zio-friendly totalitarianism had “some justification” for the putative “anarchist”.
This video features John Koster, author of the book Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor. In the video he discusses the treasonous activities of Harry Dexter White who worked from 1934 in the U.S. Treasury with Henry Morgenthau of the infamous Morgenthau Plan. Koster opines:
White was able to start a war between the Japanese and the United States that neither country wanted, that the United States wasn’t ready for and that the Japanese knew that they couldn’t possibly win.
Like Canada, Australia, France and most other Western nations today, the Soviet Union persecuted, as State-policy, critics of Jews and Jewish culture. This, needless to say, favourably disposed many Jews to Communism, some of whom actively connived to subordinate the national interests of their host nations to those of the philo-Semitic Soviet regime.
Harry Dexter White was one such Jewish supporter of Communism who made decisions from his influential position which prioritized Jewish and Soviet interests over those of the majority of people in the U.S., who were at the time overwhelmingly isolationist. As I write in the introduction to my Japan Bites Back “such pro-Soviet Jews created circumstances wherein the prospect of a German-Japanese, East-West attack on the philo-Semitic Soviet regime was thwarted via the dragging of the U.S. into war with Japan.”
This is of course relevant today because many of the methods developed to demonize and isolate Japan and drag the U.S. into war, have been reutilized by largely Jewish neoconservatives to foment strife between the U.S. people and the people of those countries which refuse to submit to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, most notably the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Today, January 26, 2015, I interviewed Professor Cemil Aydin, member of the History department at the University of North Carolina and author of the thought-provoking text The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia. We covered a wide range of topics during the show, including:
The differences and similarities between the Ottoman Empire’s Pan-Islamism and Imperial Japan’s Pan-Asianism
Orientalism, reverse-Orientalism and overcoming essentialized geographies
The contradiction between the West’s promotion of a universal modernity and the ethnic exceptionalism inherent to European imperialism
Japanese modernization as a threat to Western hegemony and Communist expansionism in Asia
Paul Richard and Occidental defences of Japanese civilizational discourses
The orientalization of seemingly inorganic ideologies in Asia
Perceived biases in the historiography of WWII
Shūmei Ōkawa and the evolution of Pan-Asianist ideology
Justice Radhabinod Pal’s dissentient verdict at the Tokyo Trials and its implications for the victors’ history of WWII
The pros and cons of developing counterfactual historical narratives
The benefits of the multipolar world for peripheral nations
N.B. – Prof. Cemil Aydin does not necessarily support or endorse the content and basic arguments of Non-Aligned Media or Questioning Japanese History.
This NHK documentary provides the hidden history of the Tokyo Trials. It shows how the principled decision of Justice Radhabinod Pal to judge the vanquished Japanese leaders by the standards of pre-existing International Law—rather than by the standards of ex post facto law made in the aftermath of the War—caused many headaches for the Allied judges involved in the proceedings. palIn particular, the British Government is shown to have been strongly concerned that Pal’s delegitimization of the assumptions of the Tokyo Charter would undermine the verdicts rendered at Nuremberg in 1946.
The prosecution of the German leadership was also based upon the application of retroactive law. In other words, the leadership of the Axis forces were prosecuted for acts which were not crimes in International Law at the time of their commission. Pal was aware of the farcical nature of such juridical proceedings and expressed his legally-sound conclusions in a lengthy dissentient verdict. As the documentary mentions, this dissentient verdict was not read out in court and many judges worked behind the scenes to have Pal dismissed from the bench when it became clear that he was intending to base his verdict upon the established law. Still to this day most people are unaware that a judge found all those on trial in Tokyo in 1948 innocent.