Is it true to say that the religion of the Japanese is nationalism?

k you've gotten it out of your system already? now stop spamming and get your own shit together

Koreans have finally discovered the true religion. As expected from the highest IQ nation

Shinto is no rule.
But our religion is based on nature.
Survive and make better japan and give it to next generation.
This is Sunto meaning of eternal.

Read the context before posting something you retarded brainlet

Literally greek/norse tier.

>this moronic spammer is telling me to read the context
you can't make this shit up kek

Attached: 1546135806070.jpg (645x729, 48K)

Shinto is no rule.
But our religion is based on nature.
Survive and make better japan and give it to next generation.
This is Sunto meaning of eternal.

And protect own culture and matsuri what we should and if there is needed to adjudt for the new future, then adjust it.
Then make better japan and give it to next generation forever.

This is Japanese religion.

As someone who is keenly interested in the phenomenon of ethnic conflict, what has always struck me about the West is not that it lacks ethnic conflicts, but that it is unusual for harbouring a large population of anti-nationalists. That is, in North America, Australia, Papua New Zealand, and Western Europe there is a large proportion of the population, usually on the left, who rejects their country’s national myths, who regularly criticises their country’s internal and external behaviour, who find as much to be ashamed of in their past as to be proud of, and who basically finds patriotism a dirty feeling.

I remember vividly at the onset of the Second Chechen War, the spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, in livid frustration at the sceptical, probing questions fielded by western journalists, lashed out at the journalist from Libération, the flagship of left-wing French journalism, and uttered something like “You French committed all kinds of crimes during the Algerian war, why are you on such a high horse now?” And the next day, Libération had an editorial leader in reply, which said, in essence: “Mr ___, you are absolutely right, France behaved criminally and shamefully during the Algerian War, and Libération is proud to have been an open and vocal collaborator with the Algerians in ejecting France from Algeria”.

Everywhere in the former Soviet Union I have noticed that — unlike Western Europeans, North Americans, and Australasians — Russians show no remorse for, or even display evidence that they were aware of, the multitude of sins their ancestors had committed in their history of imperial expansion.

Russians are proud of their bloody conquest of the Caucasus; they do not rue the quasi-genocidal forced sedentarisation of Central Asians, instead they boast that they civilised and enlightened the buggers; and if they are even aware that their imperial expansion into Siberia resulted in as many horrors for the aboriginals of Siberia as the colonisation of the Americas and Australia had resulted for those aboriginals, then the Russians might respond, at least we gave those indigenous people writing.

Even if there are people in the West who think like the above, few in the UK or France or Germany or Australia would ever actually say anything like that. A large proportion of the population would more likely be citing the litany of crimes their countries had committed in the past. Most Australians and New Zealanders are tiresomely repentant about how nasty their ancestors had been to the aboriginals. At least as many Britons are likely to believe that Britain exploited and deindustrialised India into wrenching poverty as did any good for it. Germans have been immobilised into a kind of pathological navel-gazing docility over their war guilt, as though never again will they allow themselves normal feelings of love of country (except during football matches).

In essence, the West is post-nationalist.

There are three countries stuck somewhere between nationalism and post-nationalism: Israel, Japan and India.

Despite the vastitude of nationalist myths that surround its founding, and the ethnic conflict with the Arabs which is deafeningly full of the same prejudices, myths, and delusions as those found in all other ethnic conflicts, Israel is still distinguished by the presence of an anti-nationalist left, including a large group of historians who reject the Zionist foundation narrative and adopt the Arab narrative about the founding of Israel. (Needless to say, the equivalent — adoption of the Zionist narrative — in the Arab countries is totally inconceivable at this stage.)

Official Japan is thoroughly nationalist. Its educational system has literally whitewashed its WW2 history. There are references to “misfortunes” and “incidents” in school textbooks, but few Japanese have an inkling about the extent of its criminal recent history. Not the biological experiments in Manchuria, not the conscription of millions of “comfort women”, not the Rape of Nanking, etc. But Japan too has a left-wing academia who despises the official nationalist myths and has tried hard, despite the threats from the right-wing extremists, to open up education & public discussion about the war.

India too has a small post-nationalist class. The anglophone “secular progressives” are the politically correct, mostly anglophone and upper-caste, Indians who are despised by the Hindu nationalists. Secular progressives are regarded as hating everything Hindu, loving everything Muslim, loving everything Marxist, hating everything Indian, adopting neocolonialist perspectives, etc. But these constitute a small class, and probably dwindling.

No other country qualifies as post-nationalist or verging on post-nationalism, in my opinion. Not Turkey, not Greece, not Russia, not Poland, not China or Taiwan, not South Korea, not any country in Eastern Europe or Latin America. In fact, China finds itself in a rabidly nationalist phase, and I think India is going backward and entering its own hyper-nationalist phase.

You have left-wingers in a country like Turkey, of course, but Turks, left and right, line up in depressing unanimity on the key negative issues which define Turkish nationalism: the rivalry with Greece, the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the sentimental concern for the remnants of empire (Muslims in the Balkans). You won’t find a Turk, in Turkey or elsewhere, conceding that just maybe, just maybe, the Ottoman Empire did commit genocide against the Armenians; nor is there any Armenian, either in thoroughly nationalist Armenia or in the hyper-nationalist diaspora, who would concede that just maybe the Armenians in the Ottoman empire hadn’t been as innocent as the Jews were in the Second World War. Pretty much the same story in Greece. Greece must be the only “western” country whose mainstream left cheered on the Bosnian Serbs entering Srebrenica, which was covered like a football match in Greece.

Nationalist countries have populations who are almost unanimously attuned to group self-defensiveness, demonisation of group enemies, propagating myths of national victimisation, and creating myths which boost collective self-esteem.

Post-nationalist countries do have such elements, but only in competition with the anti-nationalists.

thats alarming

Attached: 1498228650953.jpg (396x385, 31K)

I think what Abe need to do is put japanese in concentration camps and toughen them up :)

>matsuri
what's that?

yukata episode

local traditional Japanese festivals

If Latin America doesn't have postnationalism why is Argentina taking Julio Roca off money and buildings and stuff?

Yes Jewish , India and japan.
Those are three only country who is not pull out dick from the Abraham meme religion

Jew japan and India fusion and beat Abraham meme religion is next episode

you are English teacher aren't you

Argentina is meme poor sjw feminist shithole

What?
Are you a stupid?

>the Japanese are not religious in the Western sense of the word
Your average Japanese is more religious than most Westerners, who follow Christian traditions, and embrace Christianised morality and social norms, and maybe even some metaphysical beliefs, without engaging in worship or ritual, but less religious than most self-identified Christians who attend church services regularly (rather than just at holidays).

>for their emperor which is really a symbol for the Japanese nation
That's an American-imposed post-war anti-monarchical secular view of the Emperor's role. During and before the war in the Pacific, the role of the Emperor was very different, and going further back, it was almost purely religious (in large part because Japanese nationalism didn't even exist yet).

> just like Crusaders were willing to die for Jesus the Japanese were willing to die for their emperor
Crusaders weren't nationalists and anyone who genuinely gave his life for the Emperor (as a living-god religious ruler) has a lot more in common with a true-hearted Christian crusader than he does with secular nationalists like Bonapartists, Fascists or National Socialists (who, if earnest, were fighting for an abstraction of "the people", and not for anything divine or transcendent - this was Evola's frustration). This comparison is apt but for the wrong reasons.

Frankly, if you want to make these sorts of claims, you need to learn a lot more about:
- Japan
- religion
- nationalism
- the interaction of each with the other
You clearly don't understand the three largest components of your idea, or how they fit together.

>Papua New Zealand
>Australasians

slow down ladm8

his english is barely understandable, there is no way he's an english teacher

an aussie post that's not garbage? what the hell

An English teacher probably wouldn't say Jews don't like Abraham either. That level of stupidity takes a real nip

You conveniently left out the largest western nation in the world that is very nationalistic

>Your average Japanese is more religious than most Westerners
what you consider "religious" isn't religion
the things done at shrines are just part of being japanese

They are just like you Schlomo, godless people who refuse to accept the one and only God.

his English grammatical mistakes are a tad too unnatural
>Jewish , India and japan.
>three only country
>is pull out
>Jew japan and India fusion and beat Abraham meme religion
and yet normal Japanese don't know the term "Abrahamic religion", also "pull out dick" doesn't come to Japanese mind, so does "meme"

>Your average Japanese is more religious than most Westerners, who follow Christian traditions, and embrace Christianised morality and social norms, and maybe even some metaphysical beliefs, without engaging in worship or ritual, but less religious than most self-identified Christians who attend church services regularly (rather than just at holidays).
no

Attached: WIN-Gallup-Religiosity-Map.jpg (1027x760, 169K)

not really, average Japanese don't know the term cuz it's a Western thing. i bet he brought it up and tried to compensate the artificiality that he knows it by deliberately saying Judaism isn't Abrahamic

Attached: R1cABvWojuGRqALaKZlWRpgFKF5JQwUVbTVtaL6eYEg.jpg (880x1091, 234K)

Attached: Religion_in_the_world.png (1368x612, 55K)

Attached: DRXj1S8XcAEG02s.jpg (960x540, 92K)

Attached: 616GudV.png (1425x625, 63K)

>don't know Abraham religion is stupid
hahaha

wtf india, wasn't expecting that

People can engage in religious practice without themselves being or feeling religious about it. In the West we have (highly secularised) traditions surrounding Christmas and Easter, the local variations of which are entrenched parts of national cultures; there are others things, too, of course. Japanese cultural practices that you identify as "not religious" are exactly as religious as these sorts of traditions in the West. My argument is that this phenomenon is stronger in Japan than in Western countries; that these "secular" religious practices are more common, more everyday, and more universally maintained. For this reason, Japanese who consider themselves "not religious" are more religious than the (perhaps proportionally smaller) set of Westerners who consider themselves "not religious".

See:
The West is more polarised, more clearly split between "religious" and "not religious" in terms of individual identification and in terms of specific traditions. More Japanese are "not religious", but the "not religious" Japanese do more religious things and may have more religious beliefs compared to "not religious" Westerners.

Japanese and Chinese are very religious despite the memes. They don't have big religious organisations, but they are very spiritual and individually believe in spirits and afterlife, and maintain many religious traditions like shrines for ancestors and stuff like that.

Also there are many Catholic Japs in the south of the country.

Also, fuck you Jew.

>My argument is that this phenomenon is stronger in Japan than in Western countries; that these "secular" religious practices are more common, more everyday, and more universally maintained. For this reason, Japanese who consider themselves "not religious" are more religious than the (perhaps proportionally smaller) set of Westerners who consider themselves "not religious".
Yes I know what you mean, but how would you measure the degree of "religiousness" accross people with different religious and cultural backgrounds? and more specifically what makes you think Japanese or East Asians are really more "devout" in their personalities or way of life? you are not giving answers.

I know that the rapid secularization of some Western countries (and its inevitable Christian attrition) was indeed just a route to politics or some weird practices for people who lost their spirituality because they wanted to find meaning in life, but again, what makes you think this is more prevalent in Japan?

>Also there are many Catholic Japs in the south of the country.
literally less than 1% of the population, maybe even less than 0.5%

Taiwanese pan-green camp sort of counts too. You could say it's not a distinct Taiwanese nationalism but they like Tibetans and Uyghurs, understand themselves as left-wing, it's sort of like Catalan or Scottish separatism which this author would probably count as aspects of postnationalist culture

There are a few empirical studies and rather more qualitative articles from the late '80s onwards looking at tension between religious belief, practice and affiliation in Japan. I can try digging through my stuff to find a couple for you but they might be behind paywalls for journal subscription. The key point that I got from all this was:
- Japanese say they're not religious
- BUT they affiliate with temples, shrines
- BUT they don't actually really engage or "believe"
- BUT they still follow practices and traditions and also hold religious superstitions

It matches my own experience with people over there. Anecdotally: Surprisingly many people believe in spirits or ghosts as well as ill omens; people are very serious about making offerings to the dead and praying to gods at appropriate times; people are quite observant of various matters of etiquette that are based originally on religious beliefs. They do all these things but they don't consider themselves really "religious" (and neither would I). For instance, there's a clear difference between the grandfathers and grandmothers who will sit and chant mantras, and go on pilgrimages. The next generation down and younger won't do that, but they for passive religious practice/observance, they're not substantially different.

Maybe another way to view it is like this:
In any country, you can divide people in to "seriously religious" and "not really/not religious".
For cultural reasons, the latter group will always have some religion-based beliefs, behaviours, etc.. They will have these in common with people from the former group.
In Japan, the degree of common ground on religion between "seriously religious" people and "not really/not religious" people is greater than in the West.