Shinzo Abe's Assassination
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Please wake me up, I must have fallen asleep in front of a South Park episode...
This Captcha issue occurs with non-cloudflare resolvers as well, although with great inconsistency. It depends on the resolver and the user's location when they query. Results can change hours later.
I also used the command `sudo dscacheutil -flushcache; sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder` on Terminal (double-check this command before using) to flush the DNS cache, so the change would immediately take effect with the archive websites.
Getting Captcha'd happens with non-cloudflare resolvers as well, tho not universally nor consistently.
I forced all of Archive domains to query against Quad9 and started getting unskipable Captchas months ago - when I was local(US).
When I placeshifted to overseas, Quad9 resolved to different IPs and those were usable.
Cloudflare doesn't support a DNS extension that allows this (eDNS maybe?) and so it fails.
Any inference that the Captcha issue is limited to CloudFlare users is incorrect.
Their captcha page is odd, styled to look like Cloudflare's captcha gate but uses reCAPTCHA which Cloudflare publicly spoke about switching from.
Code of the page also seems to include a strange XmlHttpRequest to some blog site with randomized query string (see end of https://pastebin.com/W21Au8RK), along with some fingerprint library (though commented out)
That blog site loads very slow for me if I go there manually - maybe some kind of DoS being directed to it?
Seen this same faux-cloudflare page used on btdig.com too, with the same strange XmlHttpRequest & fingerprint code, pretty weird.
The article makes it seem like people discovered about the cult connections after the fact. I wish I had known more about it to ask more questions. If anyone has more insight about it, I'd be glad to learn more.
Ironically I was reading 1Q84 at the time, which is about a cult in Japan.
politics is a losing game when the public buys into its machinations and scheming against their interests
Everyone loses their minds over the princess leaving the imperial family getting a 1M departure gift, and a funeral for the single most significant PM of our time that cost ten million dollars.
Meanwhile, everything has gotten 10% more expensive over the past year or so, which is actually worth getting upset about, compared to the 0.01 yen that the Abe funeral cost each Japanese citizen.
Tangent, but I looked up the price since ¥0.01 sounded too low. It's ¥12 per person on Japan (which should be a good approximation for number of japanese citizens)
He built a huge base largely on people who prefer to believe him over reality.
Republicans and Democrats alike say whatever they need to win a primary and general election, democrats do that in smaller quantities - but it's still the same bullshit.
And before anyone says I'm "both sidesing" the green new deal (which was little more than a messaging bill with lots of words and little substance) was no more passable than building a southern border wall was, or repealing Obamacare (though this got close) for that matter.
This happens a lot on a smaller scale in other democracies that aren't a two party system - people vote for some nonsense radicals or weirdo upstart party to signal the establishment it needs to change. Sometimes this has quite funny outcomes: Pirate party, the Greens in Germany in 1983, etc. Other times it's scary nutjobs. Rarely the parties stick around for longer, slowly becoming the establishment.
That's every democracy. The issue we have is that we're in a period where trust in elites is at rock bottom. (Both sides' elites--Mitch McConnell isn't much more popular among Trump voters than Biden.) The normal function of elites keeping the unwashed masses grounded in reality isn't working.
For the average American man who is Trump's age (77) the chance of dying in that same year is about 5%, according to the Social Security Administration's Actuarial Life Table.
This is a stat which only goes in one direction - up - over time. It's at 6.5% at 80, 18% at 90, and a sobering 38% at 100.
Not really--Abe's approval ratings were well above water almost his entire tenure, and his approval was often over 50%. Trump's approval rating never hit 50% and his net approval was underwater almost his entire presidency.
It would be more like Reagan. A large minority of people really hated Regan. But he was relatively popular overall.
I’m presuming you held this conversation in English, which is correlated with a Japanese person who has more worldly experiences and views, and with that diverges from mainstream Japanese society.
Most of Japan is conservative and inward looking. Despite the second strong passport in the world, very low percentage of Japanese people have one. Japan also has the lowest TOEFL score out of all Asian countries.
Most gripes toward Abe was from economic frustration, especially during COVID. It does not make sense at all to make a Trump comparison because the American left/right Ideology does not map. Japanese people are mostly homogenous, and identity politics and immigration which are dividing issues in the west are not at the top here. Japan also has very low voter turnout because it’s continuity of conservatism whichever way.
"Put a tiger in your tank!"
They also have/had ties with the Bush family. Also, they own the News World Communications, UPI, and the Washington Times. Just think s/Moonies/Korean Scientology/. Media ownership not to be confused with The Epoch Times owned by s/Falun Gong/Chinese Scientology/.
You can see Falun Gong attempting the same in the United States. The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's "media outlet" and it sponsors and shapes a lot of content online. It's all bankrolled by Shen Yun performances too. These rabbit holes go to strange places!
I don’t get why that issue is so important to them. Maybe scaring people about trans people is just broadly working.
Gotta fear monger or people might notice that most of our candidates are incompetent. Republicans are unelectable without scaring people about LGBT people and immigrants, while Democrats are unelectable without scaring people about Republicans. That seems to be the dynamic right now.
Of course I never use Facebook and my feed is full of ads for insane crap like these weird fake archaeology sites, so maybe that’s why.
At one point I was getting 40+ minute Youtube “ads” from the likes of PragerU and Ray Dalio because I watched some news and history content.
It is no surprise that their mouthpiece would be rabidly against acceptance of gender dysphoria as anything other than a perverse mental disorder.
That was the dynamic. Now with NYC, Chicago, etc. being overwhelmed with migrant inflows, and Dem mayors like in NYC and Chicago declaring emergencies, do we really need Republican fear mongering to scare people about unregulated migration?
If politicians try to gaslight people that obvious problems aren't real, that can make the opposition electable all on its own.
Big TIL for me this one, and I thought I was smart enough for knowing about the connection between Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (I also know about the direct connection between Gulen's movement and one of the best private schools here in Romania).
Our First Amendment specifically allows for freedom of association and religion. This used to be seen as an attribute, now it apparently has become cause for open prejudice.
> The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's "media outlet" and it sponsors and shapes a lot of content online. It's all bankrolled by Shen Yun performances too.
This is an intentionally misleading representation of the organization and it's structure, which combined with the above, seems designed to besmirch the papers reputation and reporting without actually addressing either in any meaningful way.
If the sword cuts both ways then your assessment is suggestively identical to the CCP position on the organization and on the religious views of it's founders.
But, "intentionally misleading"? Can you please explain the ways I've mislead people? Here are some essays which go into the claims in more detail.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-in...
As for The Epoch Times' reputation, its slant is immediately obvious upon reading the paper or seeing YouTube ads for it.
That's not what it says.
The US can't officially be Catholic. Nor can it officially be Protestant. That's what the first amendment says.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion;"
Any incorporation of religious organisations into the state fabric, would be an "establishment of religion". So of course open religious people can be part of the government. But the government may have no favourite religion it subsidizes, teaches in schools etc. or prefers in any way.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer_in_the_United_...
It's a newspaper given away for free in paper form, frequently.
I don't believe the Epoch Times to be a credible news source, in the same way that RT is not one. That doesn't mean its not a news source worth looking at on occasion.
I'm also skeptical of Falun Gong, first as a generally non-religious person, and then because they dont seem to like LGBTQ people very much - and I'm very much a member of that community.
I feel everyone ought to have a right to practice their religion in peace, however when the practicing of your religion potentially impacts the secular word, I get concerned - I generally believe in a strong separation of church and state, and anyone who starts to encroach on that, puts my hackles up.
But you cannot really separate personal believe from political stance. So religious believe will always influence the secular world. Meaning religious people will vote and lobby for people and organisations sharing their point of view.
Sure. It’s not exactly what’s discussed here, though. We’re talking about Reagan and Bush (and Abe and others) coldly using propaganda machines backed by extremist cults for influence campaigns. It’s far beyond the same pushing the agenda for which they were explicitly elected, which happens to be backwards on a lot of levels but is at least genuine and open.
These organisations also cause concerns of foreign interference, considering their links with political parties and powerful politicians abroad.
There have been similar issues in Europe with extremist parties bankrolled by Russia to destabilise local political systems, which does not have any religious aspect. The problem is not the religion, it’s the structures, their objectives, and how they work and corrupt.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olive...
FWIW, the owner of Newsweek at the time wasn’t the Moonies, but rather David Jang, who is an evangelical Presbyterian. Things have apparently gotten complicated since then, with a change in ownership and then Newsweek itself reporting a year ago that they were suing Jang: https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-sues-david-jang-leader-sec...
This is perhaps the flimsiest syllogism I have ever encountered.
But if you don't want to follow a link, here's a quote: Over the years, Moon’s hidden money has helped many Republicans through hard times. In the 1980s, the American Freedom Council defended North against Iran-Contra charges and distributed 30 million pieces of political literature to help elect George Bush in 1988. It was later revealed that the AFC was backed by $5 million to $6 million from business interests associated with Moon.
Moon’s organization also kept the right’s direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie afloat in the 1980s. At one stage, Viguerie profited from a big contract with the Washington Times for subscription solicitations, then, while facing a financial crisis that threatened his company’s future, Viguerie sold a building to a top Moon aide, Bo Hi Pak, for $10 million.
Yet, even as Moon has gained influence in GOP circles, the sources of his money have always been suspect. In the late 1970s, a congressional investigation tied Moon’s Unification Church to the “Koreagate” influence-buying scheme directed by South Korea’s intelligence service, the KCIA, against U.S. institutions. In 1983, the moderate Republican Ripon Society raised warning flags, too. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), then Ripon chairman, charged that Moon’s church had “infiltrated the new right and the party it [the new right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well.”
But President Ronald Reagan embraced the Washington Times as his “favorite” newspaper and Moon’s newspaper returned the favor by defending the Reagan-Bush administrations at nearly every turn. In 1991, President Bush invited the paper’s new editor-in-chief, Wesley Pruden, to lunch “just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day.”
[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-16-op-54375...
> Over the years, Moon’s hidden money has helped many Republicans through hard times.
Okay. You offer three examples. One is obvious nonsense--Bush won by 8% in '88, winning 4/5 states. Supporting him was hardly "helping Republicans through hard times" and said support presumably went unnoticed, as support in a presidential campaign has the lowest value-per-dollar of any form of political support.
Given that, your entire argument is
> Moon --has money in--> "business interests associated with moon" --give money to--> AFC --does business with--> Richard Viguerie --supports--> GOP
Ergo, Moon has influence over the GOP? Lol. Then there's:
> Moon --has money in--> "business interests associated with moon" --give money to--> AFC --toes party line during Iran-Contra in support of--> GOP
Ergo, Moon has influence over the GOP. One cannot possibly be convinced of this without first desperately wanting to be convinced. Maybe it hits better if you've got the whole thing pinned up on your wall with thumbtacks, with the relationships mapped out in red yarn and a tin foil hat to keep the 5G at bay.
Look--giving money to a cause while separated by multiple parties is the flimsiest form of association imaginable. Pretending that this relationship (if you can even call it that) is necessarily reversible (A gives to B, who gives to C, who helps D, ergo D is under the influence of A) is just laughable. It's worth noting separately that this whole rhetorical house of cards rests on the assumption that "business interests associated with moon" means "Moon's money", which is likely just another batch of motivated reasoning.
> In the late 1970s, a congressional investigation tied Moon’s Unification Church to the “Koreagate” influence-buying scheme directed by South Korea’s intelligence service, the KCIA, against U.S. institutions.
Are you going to tie this in? Or are you hoping for a leap of faith?
> In 1983, the moderate Republican Ripon Society raised warning flags, too. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), then Ripon chairman, charged that Moon’s church had “infiltrated the new right and the party it [the new right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well.”
Imagine quoting a politician as evidence.
> But President Ronald Reagan embraced the Washington Times as his “favorite” newspaper and Moon’s newspaper returned the favor by defending the Reagan-Bush administrations at nearly every turn.
One can appreciate a paper for providing good press coverage without drinking the kool-aid of the owner's cult. Don't you agree?
> In 1991, President Bush invited the paper’s new editor-in-chief, Wesley Pruden, to lunch “just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day.”
This could be the sole piece of evidence of an super-secret back channel between Bush and the Moon cult<-->Korean intelligence axis! Or it could be a conservative politician showing appreciation to a conservative news outlet for their positive coverage of the administration--doubtless one of many such lunches. Occam's Razor applies.
I wish there is some explanation for flagged submissions.
> anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Given that the article is quite descriptive and well-researched, the comment section is civil, and lead to many interesting discussions about politics and history, I would say that there is no need to flag this post.
I know from personal experience that many Koreans who own sushi restaurants are part of this cult, they knew each other at church all donated a lot and the only reason I know is that my friend dated a girl whose parents were part of it.
Edit: I forgot about a sandwich shop (the yellow deli) I've heard that is always open that is a cult. I never been but it sounds a lot closer to this cult except they seen to recruit more and focus on cute receptionists girls working at the counters.
Another more contemporary example would be the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (prime minister of Israel) in 95, which had a lot of local public support.
*In some countries.
In others, the primary purpose is rehabilitation so people can eventually re-join society as "better people".
Kept the war going until the present day, too.
I actually think the assasin of Rabin was the most successful, in terms or changing history in his desired direction
When you are an artist in Japan, there are certain things you will pull a massive amount of criticism down upon yourself for directly critiquing or commenting on via your art. You can't make a video game about "Hey maybe it's weird and a little not okay that it's an open secret that formal power in Japan is very closely tied to the informal power structure of what is basically a specific religious cult." Making that game will pull all kinds of formal and informal pressure down on a person's head.
... But making a game where young people look at the existing power structure and band together to defeat it, fighting all the way up to divinity itself? Not only is there a reason Persona 5 is what it is, there's a reason we keep seeing that theme in JRPGs.
Huh
Huh
Why authors are still messing this up almost 5 years later is bewildering
[1]https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/asia/japan-name-abe-shinzo-in...
I don't have an opinion on it but Westerners unfamiliar with Asian naming conventions can get conflicting signals.
Some famous Japanese names that are well-known to Western audiences are written "FirstName FamilyName" instead of "FamilyName FirstName":
baseball star: Shohei Ohtani not Ohtani Shohei
actor: Ken Watanabe not Watanabe Ken
Maybe those 2 constantly try to correct every journalist but I'm assuming they don't.
* Masahiro Ito
* Hideki Kamiya
* Keita Takahashi
Japan doesn't get to change English naming conventions in English speaking cultures and civilizations.
Americans are exposed to Chinese names in both orderings of "Familyname Firstname" and "Firstname Familyname":
- "Familyname Firstname" ordering : actor Chow Yun-fat, and basketball player Yao Ming
- "Firstname Familyname" ordering: actor Simu Liu, pianist Yuja Wang, and Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma.
In a vacuum, I might have guess "Chow Yun-fat" as starting with the family name because I know that the hyphenated, two-part names are usually given. But a name like "Yao Ming" I might not have had any idea, since I don't have the cultural exposure to know which single syllable words look more like family names versus given names.
Imagine expecting a Chinese person to figure out "Larry David" with no other context.
Same with Jackie Chan.
However, China and Korea didn't modernize as fast as Japan. They didn't have radical changes in the 19th century. (The result is that foreign concession in China, unequal treaties, colonization of Korea, etc.) So they didn't have to change their naming convention.
The reason why Japan is trying to change the English naming convention when they write in Japanese is similar to the reason mentioned above. The 21st century is Asia's century. Japan feels that they don't have to conform to Western standards anymore. They are trying to be more Asian. That's why they are attempting to change the convention to synchronize as if they were writing in Japanese.
I hope this helps.
For famous names, outside of official dpcuments people will use whatever names feels right to them and I personally think that should be fine as long as the name is recognized.
Maybe not in Japan, but this is how some banks address me in the Asian country I live in.
Real cultural sensitivity is accepting the social conventions of the society you are operating in.
I've never seen any articles referring "Jinping Xi", "Jong-Un Kim", "Jae-in Moon", "Zedong Mao", Yat-sen Sun".
Non-heads of state get similar treatment: Lee Sedol, Bong Joon-Ho, Yao Ming vs. Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Kurosawa.
This seems to have originated in the Meiji era (in the 19th century), when the Japanese assimilated many aspects of Western culture and traditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_name#In_English_and_o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japa...
Should we just print it in katakana too, so that we're not "culturally unaware"?
That joke out of the way, as a dual-citizen and polyglot my observation is that it is usually Americans giving other Americans shit about pronunciation. It’s perhaps (like you say) a form of jostling around how virtuous you are. Perhaps layered on top of some insecurity around how much of the world you got to see.
It also feels very silly to change the spelling of a word or name when two languages share an alphabet, even if it makes it a little less phonetic.
Suppose an American guy named John comes to Finland. Should he still continue spelling his name as "John"? Or should he take the pronunciation as given and start spelling his name as "Dzon"? Or should he adopt an equivalent local name, such as Juha, Janne, or Jani? Or should he go with a traditional version, such as Johannes or Juhana? And what happens if he changes the spelling but his American passport still uses "John"?
The opposite extreme would be cases like Korean, with its own writing system not used anywhere else. Therefore, once an American name is written in Korean letters, there's no ambiguity in how to read it. So Los Angeles is 로스앤젤레스 ro-seu-aen-jel-le-seu, and everyone who can read Korean knows exactly how to read it.
Except... how do you determine which spelling to use? The sound systems are so different that there are usually no clearly correct matches. Also, how do you really know how these names originally sounds? Should Nevada be read with a long "a" or short "a" in the middle? You see a name Charles in an article, is he an Englishman or Frenchman (with different ch sounds)? Should we consider Einstein a German physicist, or an American one?
Two book publishers make two different choices, and you end up with the same people's name written in two different ways.
So, basically, there's no easy solution. You either pay the cost when you're reading (as in English) or when you're doing the transliteration (as in Korean).
Given the amount of work and confusion entailed this is a completely unreasonable expectation.