In Part I of this essay I drew to the reader’s attention to some of the flaws of the materialistic statal model of the West. I suggested that the materialistic state essentially existed as a repudiation of the traditional spiritual state which bases itself upon metaphysical objectivism—the doctrine in philosophy that there are verities which exist above and beyond man, which shape the course of human affairs and which are to be necessarily submitted to due to their inviolability.
Whereas the economistic, materialistic state reduces everything to matter and, under capitalism, champions a form of consumerist populism with leveling implications, the spiritual state draws men to strive for higher ideals and higher callings which encourage, in Nietzschean terms, “self-overcoming”, rather than the reduction of people to what Evola termed the “vegetative life”.
In the materialistic state the individual is told he is a sovereign, rational, economic actor. This myth of the free, autonomous individual lends itself to egocentrism of the kind which is particularly rife in the North American setting where the pursuit of immediate pleasure and self-aggrandizement is the norm and self-abnegation and asceticism the exception. The hostile elite group which has taken over the West has partially been able to do so due to the individualistic mindset which the materialistic state encourages within society.
In the spiritual state, contrastingly, there exists a sacred Order, which rigid though it may seem, often enables enhanced liberty and freedom, individually and collectively, due to a lack of the instability and dissention which the materialistic state creates (and then often responds to with totalitarian mechanisms).  Society has an unbreakable backbone enabling a psychological stability which lends itself to the development of high civilization.
Although much of the efforts that have been undertaken to “other” the Islamic world have been sophistic and have relied upon disingenuous arguments, there are some areas where marked civilizational differences can be identified. One such difference is between certain theories of the state. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, is a state whose ideological underpinning is based upon a spiritual understanding of the world, whereas the states of the West are largely temporal vehicles of materialism and secularism.
It seems then that in order to foster further understanding between the much maligned Islamic world and the West that the disparate conceptions of the spiritual state and the materialistic state need to be compared and contrasted. Here one ought not necessarily be restricted to the Islamic conception of the spiritual state as history furnishes us with myriad examples of such states which share many of the same traits.
The main scholar to turn to when attempting to distinguish the materialistic state from the spiritual state in occidental scholastics is Julius Evola (1898-1974). He rejected the post-Enlightenment world in toto, professing nostalgia for the transcendent state of what he termed “the world of Tradition”, which he defined in his magnum opus, Revolt Against the Modern World, based on universal criteria observable in multiple civilizations. Evola famously authored critiques of German National Socialism and Italian Fascism from the perspective of the authentic Right (which he distinguished from the inauthentic, economically deterministic Right which in fact promotes variants of Classical Liberalism), criticizing both movements for not fully overcoming the rationalistic, egalitarian and populist trappings of modernity.
A website dedicated to commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack has posted a review of Japan Bites Back.
The reviewer states:
It details the views of the Japanese government and the Japanese people at the time of the war, and during the aftermath of the war. Since this time, the majority of people have believed that Japan struck out against the United States because Japan wanted to rule the world. The author of this book argues that this was not the case.
Some of the documents in the book suggest that the Japanese were predicting that communism was about to engulf China. We now know that China did succumb to communism in the late 1940s, and Mr. Blakeney makes us wonder what else were in the documents that Japan lost while they were occupied by American forces.
At a minimum, this book is interesting because of the Japanese historical documents it discusses.
In the comments section beneath the review someone purporting to be John Koster, author of Operation Snow, complimented the book also. The commenter writes: “The Japanese documents that JAPAN BITES BACK offers are well worth the price of the book to any serious historian.”
I am a supporter of Japan improving her military capacity as this is a prerequisite for her regaining her sovereignty from the Internationalists who attempted to set Japan’s demilitarized, emasculated status in stone via the 1951 San Fransisco Peace Treaty and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan which was ratified in 1960.
If liberal observers reject the Israeli proposal that Palestinians consent to demilitarization as part of their attainment of statehood and sovereignty then they should equally refuse to accept the intolerable idea that the fine people of Japan should be without a modern military to defend themselves against adversaries.
However, Japanese militarization would be futile were the country’s military to end up being in control of those very forces she needs to obtain independence from. Genuine nationalists both within Japan and elsewhere should be sure to expose any abuse of Japanese militarization by those who would like to transform Japan into a pawn of the destroyers of nations.
Having watched Canada undergo militarization in the service of the U.S. and Israel I am fully aware of the possibility of comparatively peaceful nations morphing into attack dogs for the corrosive forces of Internationalism.
A Korean academic, Park Yu-ha, has reportedly been indicted for libel by Korean authorities for a scholarly book she wrote which challenged the claim that Korean WWII comfort women were “sex slaves”. This comes only months after the Seoul Eastern District Court ordered the “deletion of parts of the book”, Comfort Women of the Empire: The Battle Over Colonial Rule and Memory, which portrays those Korean ladies who provided sexual services to Japanese soldiers during the War as having been run-of-the-mill prostitutes rather than women subjected to state-sanctioned sexual slavery.
Many Korean citizens have reportedly taken offence to the implicit allegation that Korean men stood idly by and watched Japanese soldiers barge into their homes and drag their womenfolk off to a life of sexual servitude during the 1930s and 40s. Several prominent Korean academics and journalists have thus joined Japanese intellectuals in critiquing the official historical discourse on this subject.
Park’s indictment comes just days after a German octogenarian, Ursula Haverbeck, was sentenced to ten months in prison without parole for claiming that the Auschwitz concentration camp was a labour camp rather than an extermination camp.
The “lawfare” waged against intellectuals who challenge fashionable historical interpretations of WWII is extremely conspicuous and will no doubt encourage free-thinking individuals to look skeptically into the sanctified subjects which they might otherwise not have been compelled to reevaluate.
Some skeptics believe that countries like Russia, Britain and the United States want to cover up their crimes, such as the rape of up to two million German women, during the War and thus have embellished and overemphasized the wrongdoings of the Axis forces.
On October 26, 2015, pioneer of Alternative Right politics and post-war historical revisionism Willis Carto passed away at age 89. In reading some of the eulogies published about him on websites such as Counter-Currents, I was amazed to discover that Carto had been shot by a Japanese sniper on Cebu Island in May 1945, for which he was awarded the Purple Heart. This factoid reaffirmed my belief that Carto was a man who strove for objectivity in his political and historical research.
I knew of Carto’s support for those whom the FDR administration persecuted in the early 1940s for their refutations of that regime’s pro-war arguments. Ralph Townsend was one such victim of the Stalinist show trials which are described vividly in The Trial on Trial: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944 by Lawrence Dennis and Maximilian St. George. Carto would allow pro-Japanese interpretations of WWII in Asia to be published in the publications under his auspices, in spite of the fact that he had succumbed to a Japanese bullet during that war. That was the kind of man he was.
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.