I have always thought one of the great strengths of Americans is we were never fully “civilized” as a people. We’re not quite barbarians but whenever someone accuses us of being crazy, we just smile. This is what I think is the biggest reason for the hostility of the modern “liberal” Western establishment towards the non progressive parts of the country. We are not good global citizens. We say what we are thinking without giving a crap who it offends. Our founding involved authority issues and guns. Neither of which has gone away. We have the audacity to think we are awesome. It’s hard to break down, shape, and mold a people like that into a new idea.
I grew up in that America too. But now people think I am some sort of iconoclast, free speaking freak. Of course, I live in Washington state. No one around me wants to speak plainly, but I feel that for the most part they appreciate my free speaking. It's the scythe cutting though all the tall grass.
I tend to bristle when I hear or read Boomers think and believe this or that, being of that generation. But I have a small circle of Boomer friends who, by and large, are free thinking while others outside my circle fall into the stereotype, certainly in my blue state. Still, while a stereotype can be useful to guide initial interactions, I find it best to use more information to judge an individual. It's the use of just the stereotype as an excuse to continue hating that's off-putting. But I think that's isn't from the Boomer, but the Christian in me, yet another stereotype that doesn't fit everyone.
Honestly I think that's just the human in you. It is the most natural thing in the world to judge people on the basis of available information. If information is scarce you go with a fuzzy, generic set of assumptions. If not, you build a more detailed model. But it isn't possible to stop and have a long conversation with every single person you pass on the street.
True, one can't have a long conversation, though LOL tee-shirts often give a hint. I might believe it's the human, but I see far too many who I find difficult to categorize as human. But then, to your point, I also sense most people make of religion what is in their hearts.
Most of the people I am around are younger than I, and I guess they would be in another generation. Whereas I was taught to say "I think", they were taught to say "I feel." This seemingly slight difference speaks volumes to me. Think forwards the opinion, notion, idea whereas 'feel' forwards emotion and hesitancy. One is declarative and forward and possibly aggressive whereas the other is couched, hesitant and reluctant. To me this seems the signal difference in the America I was born into vs. the America I now inhabit.
I've noticed oddly enough that my female relatives of the Boomer and Gen X generation tend to say "I feel" whereas the men tend to say "I think" so that things are different I suppose in Canada and US.
Weirdly when I was in Quebec I noticed people still use 'je pense' (I think). Though women have begun shifting to the 'j'ai le sentiment' 'I have the feeling' or 'I feel' which is incorrect in French linguistics yet they're doing this. So that they're thinking in a negative type of way that dispels the legitimacy of their own statements.
It is very disturbing what's happened as of late the world over AM.
It is the exact same here in Sweden, even grammatically/linguistically.
My generation and older ones generally separate "jag tror att" from "jag känner att" and "jag tycker att" and "jag tänker att" (and the more archaic "jag anser att").
Younger ones, especially women, use "jag känner att" or use the other phrases with the meaning "jag känner att".
Since "känna/känner" in this sense is always subjective, ones is therefore never objectively wrong about something, whereas "jag tycker/anser/tror" is making a more factual claim.
Lathund/key, using each phrase in a sentence, in the order they appear above:
Jag tror att = I think that
Jag känner att = I feel that
Jag tycker att = It is my opinion that
Jag tänker att = It is my thinking that
Jag anser att = It is my considered opinion that
Even our law used to take this into consideration not too many years ago. Stating "In my opinion, you mister policeman is an idiot" was legal, since you were stating your subjective opinion, whereas "You mister policeman is an idiot" was criminal since you were making a factual statement intended to besmirch a public official executing his duty (insulting police was a crime in its own special category, very handy for police since a little nudging from their side always gave them something to act upon...).
Fascinating. Now I am going to have to have a good think of why this has become a worldwide trend/change. Obviously in some sense it must be an outcome of 'politically correct' language--something which I have been against since it began in earnest in the late 1980s with all of the concomitant culture Implications from literature on down (or across arts, as is often the case).
Still, that answer, in and of itself, seems too easy. Why the need to self efface? It is also odd that in an era where everyone feels that they must have an opinion of all subjects despite lack of any real knowledge, that said opinions would be essentially effacing. Curious.
Is it incorrect because it is not followed by a noun or a verb? If I recall my French, there really isn't a verb for 'feel' and one would use something in conjunction with avoir or faire--j'ai une mauvaise sentiment--though I probably just made six errors in asking the question...
j'ai une mauvaise sentiment —- is actually correct.
The trouble is that it is exactement as you say; there really isn’t anything quite like ‘feel’ exactly. Grammatically you can’t verbalize that sort of sentence in that manner.
‘J’ai une mauvaise sentiment’ is near to it but not quite it exactly.
But they keep trying to erm fit English thinking and conceptualization of things into Francais, ne sais pas pourquoi (not sure why).
Western nations tend to idolise the Mental and disparage the Sentimental. Your example of language use for "feel" is a conflation. "Feel" is used here as a defence.
Latin America tends to emphasise "feel", taking "think" as a toolbox, IOW once the debate is resolved it is not reworked. "Feel" in latin america is OPERATIONAL and covers all relationships, domestic to professional, in the first place, even to some extent between justice and the criminal.
The reason for this is connected to the vast communal enterprise that saw the Siberian Luoravetlan decide, organise, execute and disperse their great diaspora ca 17000-15000YBP, an event we at the top of the mechanistic society find almost impossible to imagine, but do it they did, one consequence being much of the food on the dinner table of the "First World",
When I was in the seventh grade, schools began to bus blacks to formerly white schools. Teachers lectured us on stereo types and racism. Back then, making any generalization wasn’t the definition. The definition has simply expanded. A lot.
Before seventh grade, blacks lived in one part of town. You didn’t encounter them much. Once that changed, it was hard to ignore the many differences. By the time I was in high school, most white people heard about some poor white person who made a wrong turn and found themselves in a black neighborhood. The person always face mortal danger. The lesson was clear. Be careful.
In college, I had a black guy I hung out with for a while. He explained to me aspects of blacks in general I was unfamiliar with. Basically, according to him, blacks were far more quick to violence. FBI statistics bear this out. So do conversations with police officers who patrol black neighborhoods.
An interesting take. I really like the "barbarian" Americans I've met. But sadly, these days it seems that the awful pseudo-euro American is coming more to the fore. I meet a lot of them on my travels. I wouldn't mind that they are trying to be wordly sophisticates, it's just that thery do it so badly, and so loudly.
Had a similar experience in Queens. Walked into a 'coffeeshop' in my neighborhood and immediately realized it was a mob restaurant selling liquor with a card game in the back. My boyfriend at the time didn't notice and continued to ask for a coffee to go. The bartender was wearing a boustiere and there were ten men who looked ready to pounce. I smiled and retreated but he insisted on his coffee!
I'll go to Japan sooner or later, for awhile I've made a mental move of diving into weebness, and the more I learn about them, the more of a profound difference I notice. I'm sure in person it's unmistakable.
Also amusing is that the racism cuts both ways in Japan. My accidental bad behaviors were not only dismissed but wryly smiled upon--she's an American and doesn't know any better. Likewise, though I was a guest in their country, they treated me as a guest--not for them to point out my gaucheries.
One day in Kyoto I was having lunch at a nice French-style bistro. A Scotsman and his elegantly attired wife came in. They appeared to be an affluent couple--but he, much to the shock of the Japanese customers, was dressed in a kilt. Three Japanese women were lunching together at the table next to mine. I happened to look up and catch the shock on their faces as he sat down. They were tittering with amusement trying to process this foreigner. The fact that I glimpsed this made me approachable for questioning by them--perhaps I, another odd foreigner, could explain this anomaly to them. They were quite curious and it was less embarrassing to ask me and clearly they never would have inquired to the Scots directly. I found the whole thing quite charming. I always admire curiosity
I've read that they're less amused now, as their government has been bringing in lower quality gaijin to work in the konbini and such, and of course, they're bringing problems as they always do.
"overcivilized" being incapable of sustainable reproduction.
Too much debt, Japan in 30 years ahead of us. We have the same problem. The reason they won't let capitalism do its magic, is if you clear the debt (as should be done) those in power will no longer be in power.
I have always agreed with Charles Murray that American culture could be greatly improved by our acquiring some of the social virtues esteemed in Japan. Boisterous self-promotion so common in North America could be curbed by “Enryo” (non-presumption in social circumstances. The cleanliness of Japanese cities due to individual Japanese taking responsibility not only to avoid creating litter but also taking care to remove litter left by others. Their studious politeness and respect for others, too. E contrasted with the gross familiarity of a young cashier addressing a senior citizen as “dude!” While others seemed shocked by Japan’s seeming collective amnesia regarding any wartime atrocities I am fed up with our constant collective white guilt masochism which has made us vulnerable to every outrageous claim for reparations by professional victimocrats!
Laptop class people have the most asinine ideas of race due to the extreme filtering of the corporate workplace. It selects for the most amenable types that can survive living within an HR manual as well as being on the higher end of the bell curve for intelligence. Sure, Grant from finance is a smart, astute middle eastern guy with only a slight accent. They don't see the other middle eastern guys he once hanged around with who live on the dole and commit petty theft.
I wonder about this. I mean, it's argued that the education pipeline filters for similar levels of ability severely enough that everyone in the class should be roughly equal in competence, but shouldn't DEI have been wrecking this for decades?
Not similar levels of ability. It filters for similar levels/shades of adaptive-manipulative personalitiy traits.
It's simply put a sieve to clump together the most socially malleable and manipulative individuals of any ethnicity, within a global corporate framework:
Nivellation of anything human beyond adapting to and learning to manipulate the system for personal gain. Or in other words, the elite education pipeline is (unintentionally) a machine for refining sociopathic-narcissistic tendencies
It probably does, and I think it safe to assume that it is very difficult to check for: if one is intelligent, and uses manipulation (not implying it has to be in a negative or predatory fashion) consciously, it is reasonable to assume that such a person would recongise a test for that, for what it is, and adjust (i.e. manipulate) accordingly.
And if the test-giver/-maker is also a manipulative kind, doesn't it then stand to reason that we get a feedback-loop increasing ratios of manipulative persons when personality testing is used in hiring?
If you think being a sociopathic narcissist is the most effective long-term strategy for social manipulation, and totally divorced from job performance or reciprocal favours, sure. That's not obvious to me though.
I could go on, but look at how these companies have acted. Have they tried to make things customers want, or have they decided in advance that the customers are obliged as if by fiat to buy, like and praise what they put out?
The former is "job performance": meritocratic and objective, not manipulative or dependent on sociability.
The latter is only dependent on manipulativeness and sociability, and is indicative of how individual narcissists function and act towards the people they try to dominate.
If not populated to a great degree by the latter group in numbers and positions that can swing a for-profit corporation from trying make money into spending billions on what can only be called didactic propagandism (Disney esp.), then why would any corporation bother with politics beyond the usual (less regulations on their product, protectionist tariffs against foreign competitors, outsourcing, et c)?
The sociopathic narcissist only understands others inasmuch as it enables it to (try and) manipulate them; there's no real empathetic or sympathetic understanding (using emp- and sympathetic in their psychological sense here).
And most crucial, it does not comprehend that others understand it in a way it cannot understand itself.
Look again at the corporations. Look at how they have - for ten years or more - responded to polite, factual and constructive criticism. Not in any way indicating they understand the critics, nor that they understand their own actions being the cause of criticism.
I.e the hallmarks of the sociopathic narcissist (including impulsiveness but not direct interpersonal violence, the latter may indicate that I/we are using the clinical terms a bit too generously, since they are virtually always impulsively violent without any thought for the consequences of being so).
I think that anytime one recruits based on something else than hard metrics of performance (not including taking a chance on an unknown person's potential; if that's never done there's no way to ever employ new people) one starts self-selecting for social adaptability, which will eventually come to be exploited by the manipulative, which in turn eventually will become so many their presence in the collective turns whatever organisation this happens to into a vessel for them projecting themselves onto the world at large.
And I think the process is automatic, not conscious or pre-planned.
Anyway, great talking to you! I'm off to the gym for physio and such.
Not so much that but smart managers gamed the system by doing their own selection process to find qualified people and then infiltrated them into the formal HR system. If you depended on HR, the results were very similar to DEI. Not sure whether that still works.
"The interesting thing about going to Japan is the people are really nice and helpful and they're also kind of racist which was pretty cool actually... they are keeping Japan, Japan; but are still the sweetest and nicest people when you need help." (instagram clip): https://files.catbox.moe/ag8izx.mp4
The manipulative linguistic conflation of moral and immoral forms of "racism" into a single term to trick people into abandoning group loyally, by Dave Greene - https://files.catbox.moe/bb8k4z.jpg
Absolutely, they'll conflate healthy in-group preference with genocidal bloodlust, denying the massive difference in degree. Also related is their distortion of the Christian precept to "turn the other cheek" to the point of cowardice and cuckoldry, ignoring that Jesus also whipped the money-changers out of the temple. It's all part of their strategy of societal AIDS.
He's not wrong about the concepts being inflated, but I would argue it's very hard to acknowledge Point 3 (or really even *phenotypic* differences) without some kind of segue into elements of Point 1. You kinda have to substitute group-level trait averages whenever you lack sufficient information about individuals (police profiling, migration policy, etc.), which is hard to functionally separate from 'bigotry'.
Original 12th century meaning is "sanctimonius and/or hypocritical religious person, esp. female", the extended meaning used today appears in use in the 16th century.
Essentially, someone not living as they teach and preach, would be a bigot. I.e. an outright racist isn't a bigot, but a NIMBY liberal is.
“…which they would do by starting with a default mental picture and then testing to see if and how I conformed or departed from that picture so that they could update their model accordingly” This process got demonized as ‘microaggression’ here in the US
Lkke many of their disciplines, the Japanese have elevated racism to an artform and you can't help but be a little impressed and humbled. How crude and base our racism seems in comparison!
My time living in Japan was like being part of a real-life Hallmark movie, even as a Gaijin.
"Yes, in a homogenous society people expect a level of civility that is not common in all areas of the US. Bringing shame to the family by being a common street urchin pick-pocket is frowned upon."
> This is a very common occurrence: almost anyone who spends a significant amount of time living in a very different country will start to draw conclusions about the differences between human groups.
I have struggled to explain this to friends and family who have not had the transformative experience of living among another people, conversing with them freely in their native language and partaking in their customs and traditions, for an extended period of time. When you become bilingual, eventually if you get good enough, you also become bicultural. You gain the ability to perceive the world through the eyes and ears of the other. You begin to interpret experiences, and even perhaps your own history, through a different lens, realizing along the way that perhaps what you have been led to believe about the world from your own upbringing is somehow profoundly misguided or deficient. The very notion that there is or can be such a thing as a hierarchy of civilizations is utterly incomprehensible to the comtemporary Western liberal mind.
Eventually, I gave up trying to explain, and regularly resort to some variant of "you haven't had the experiences I've had, therefore the conclusions you draw from the information that is available to you is different from the conclusions I've drawn from the information that is available to me, so let's just agree to disagree."
I have liven in South Korea for 20 years. It isn't on the level of Japan, but it is noticeable how little violence or theft there is, it's very safe.
Two Canada stories:
I grew up in Northen BC, went to university in Hamilton. Had a friend from Northern Ontario. We both commented on how Southern Ontario-ans (?) didn't know Natives at all. That they thought they're some magical people, but we'd seen them drunk and homeless and criminal.
Another friend in Hamilton was a Jew from Alberta. He made an interesting question: "Do you find you're more or less racist regarding blacks after being exposed to them?" We'd both not been around blacks prior to university in Hamilton, and we both agreed, the more we experienced them, the more racist we were.
So both stories, the lack of racism was lack of exposure to the group.
In Korea, Koreans know blacks based on the anti-Korea LA riots following the Rodney King excuse to riot.
Sometimes, I'll hear some comment about racism in Korea or Japan and just reply, yes they're very safe countries.
When I was young there was a taxpayer funded, public right-think campaign that explained that racism was learned. At the time the emphasis was that it was passed on from "racist" parents to their innocent children. Decades later, I've come to the same conclusion - racism is learned, but now most kids have to learn it the hard way.
Where matters of racism are concerned I can vouch for the fact that it is more a matter of 'pattern recognition'. John you can vouch for the fact that I resisted if gently these things during our show, but then had to think on your words and on the positive experience and lessons that the Japanese imparted to me.
To visit and know the Japanese is to know not only love, but also know that everything we were taught about legacy, heritage, racism are false. Race does matter. Liberalism is one big lie and racism and bigotry are two different words that need not be associated with one another.
The Japanese are friendly, gentle, intelligent and kind. They are 'honorary Celts' to us Francs, or 'honorary Aryans' to others for a reason.
That said, what is unforgiveable is the lie that's been fed to us all our lives.
I must admit that after reading this article about your experiences John and upon reflection of the brilliant Alexandru's and my own humble ones I can only repeat something we've discussed elsewhere; every young lad of European descent should go work or study in Japan for 3-9 months before they are 25 years old. It'll do a great deal to dispel them of liberalistic stupidity and teach them about the importance of language, race and tribalism.
Racism is not coached in ignorance, but the recognition of patterns and previous behaviour. Tolerance is arguably rooted in ignorance or so life and experience and even time on Substack have taught me. We need to remove the tolerance, the softness that Liberalism has bred in us and return to a Medieval mindset, a pre-Revolutionary one to get nearer to our truest nature I think.
Good luck with your project and at the gym John. You do much good here raising awareness about the beauty of Japan and about the world and the lies of liberalism.
That would be a lovely tradition, but the Japanese themselves would never stand for it. As you know, they maintain high standards for admission to their country. They won't let in just anyone.
Nor should they let just anyone in, hmm good point might disturb the homogeneous element and the patient Japanese themselves. Better idea might be to have them train sociology or civics teachers and send them if they want into the West…. hmm I’m going to have to think about this one.
Sorry for the stupid ideas, just love them too much I guess. They’re just charming and impossible not to love, currently got sitting on my desk a book on Japanese medieval literature I've plans to read (includes the 7 Samurai story).
I lived in Japan for 2 years in the early 1970's. It was my observation that the Japanese were racist, but in the most polite and kindest way. It seems they thought of us (Americans) as very clever monkeys. But monkeys with a willingness to use nuclear weapons. I always got treated kindly. Back then, I was a 21-23year old sailor. I learned a little bit of the language. I was a Gaijin (of the Kaigun variety). That is a foreigner of non-Japanese ethnicity. They have other categories. Grunjin...a Marine. Gaikokojin...a Black. Bakatari...an A-Hole. I think that bakatari was the only one that was in any way judgmental. In the instances I heard that term used, it was spot on and deserved. Further, discrimination isn't always a bad thing....sorting out a good oyster from a bad one, a tranny from female in some rental agreement in a foreign port, a good beer like Kirin from a bad one like Asahi.
Your post pretty much nailed it, Mr. Carter. You are doing good work here.
Interesting. I never heard gaikokujin being used to refer to blacks. That was kokujin, 黒人, lit "black person". Gaikokujin, 外国人, uses a different kanji, literal translation is "outside country person". It differs from gaijin only in the introjection of "country".
It always amused me that gaijin was derogatory, but gaikokujin polite. Presumably just due to the extra two syllables.
It was 50+ years ago, John. I was homeported in Yokosuka but spent most of my time in the Gulf of Tonkin. It may have been kokujin that I heard. And I am happy to hear it was not a derogatory term, as I once thought it was. I learned Japanese in the gutter. I was a sailor, remember. Could read some katakana in order to navigate the ginza. Knew "hidari", "migee", "matsugi" and "STOP!" for taxi rides. Uses phrases like "Statsu Kirin jodai", "Doku obinjo", "Wakari ni", and most important the common courtesies to make up for the occasional gaijinic faux pas. Much later and more senior, I worked as a trainer for the Japanese Navy. My fumbled attempts at speaking Japanese were always appreciated but I think it put them ill at ease in stifling guffaws at my butchering of their language. They are unfailingly polite people.
Sure, yeah. It's a bit of a quibbling point, but also IIRC the research on stereotype accuracy is that they're *usually* accurate, rather than invariably so.
The belief among most whites that it is evil to notice differences between races (unless white man bad) cannot be understood without acknowledging the programming by the Jewish media in all its forms. The boomers were the first victims of the onslaught of this propaganda which told whites that noticing bad traits (or just incompatible ones) made the noticer a Nazi or at least member of the KKK.
Unlearning that has gone hand in hand with the Gaza genocide which has hurt the supposed moral superiority of our religious police.
I have always thought one of the great strengths of Americans is we were never fully “civilized” as a people. We’re not quite barbarians but whenever someone accuses us of being crazy, we just smile. This is what I think is the biggest reason for the hostility of the modern “liberal” Western establishment towards the non progressive parts of the country. We are not good global citizens. We say what we are thinking without giving a crap who it offends. Our founding involved authority issues and guns. Neither of which has gone away. We have the audacity to think we are awesome. It’s hard to break down, shape, and mold a people like that into a new idea.
Yes, this is why Americans are the new Greeks.
I grew up in that America too. But now people think I am some sort of iconoclast, free speaking freak. Of course, I live in Washington state. No one around me wants to speak plainly, but I feel that for the most part they appreciate my free speaking. It's the scythe cutting though all the tall grass.
I tend to bristle when I hear or read Boomers think and believe this or that, being of that generation. But I have a small circle of Boomer friends who, by and large, are free thinking while others outside my circle fall into the stereotype, certainly in my blue state. Still, while a stereotype can be useful to guide initial interactions, I find it best to use more information to judge an individual. It's the use of just the stereotype as an excuse to continue hating that's off-putting. But I think that's isn't from the Boomer, but the Christian in me, yet another stereotype that doesn't fit everyone.
Honestly I think that's just the human in you. It is the most natural thing in the world to judge people on the basis of available information. If information is scarce you go with a fuzzy, generic set of assumptions. If not, you build a more detailed model. But it isn't possible to stop and have a long conversation with every single person you pass on the street.
True, one can't have a long conversation, though LOL tee-shirts often give a hint. I might believe it's the human, but I see far too many who I find difficult to categorize as human. But then, to your point, I also sense most people make of religion what is in their hearts.
Most of the people I am around are younger than I, and I guess they would be in another generation. Whereas I was taught to say "I think", they were taught to say "I feel." This seemingly slight difference speaks volumes to me. Think forwards the opinion, notion, idea whereas 'feel' forwards emotion and hesitancy. One is declarative and forward and possibly aggressive whereas the other is couched, hesitant and reluctant. To me this seems the signal difference in the America I was born into vs. the America I now inhabit.
Yes. With emphasis.
"I think, therefore I am"
was re-package and re-branded and commodified as
"I feel, therefore you must affirm me"
Forget civilisation dying because of that; the species may degenerate into animalism from being that way for too long.
LOL that train is accelerating ...
Well said!
I've noticed oddly enough that my female relatives of the Boomer and Gen X generation tend to say "I feel" whereas the men tend to say "I think" so that things are different I suppose in Canada and US.
Weirdly when I was in Quebec I noticed people still use 'je pense' (I think). Though women have begun shifting to the 'j'ai le sentiment' 'I have the feeling' or 'I feel' which is incorrect in French linguistics yet they're doing this. So that they're thinking in a negative type of way that dispels the legitimacy of their own statements.
It is very disturbing what's happened as of late the world over AM.
It is the exact same here in Sweden, even grammatically/linguistically.
My generation and older ones generally separate "jag tror att" from "jag känner att" and "jag tycker att" and "jag tänker att" (and the more archaic "jag anser att").
Younger ones, especially women, use "jag känner att" or use the other phrases with the meaning "jag känner att".
Since "känna/känner" in this sense is always subjective, ones is therefore never objectively wrong about something, whereas "jag tycker/anser/tror" is making a more factual claim.
Lathund/key, using each phrase in a sentence, in the order they appear above:
Jag tror att = I think that
Jag känner att = I feel that
Jag tycker att = It is my opinion that
Jag tänker att = It is my thinking that
Jag anser att = It is my considered opinion that
Even our law used to take this into consideration not too many years ago. Stating "In my opinion, you mister policeman is an idiot" was legal, since you were stating your subjective opinion, whereas "You mister policeman is an idiot" was criminal since you were making a factual statement intended to besmirch a public official executing his duty (insulting police was a crime in its own special category, very handy for police since a little nudging from their side always gave them something to act upon...).
Fascinating. Now I am going to have to have a good think of why this has become a worldwide trend/change. Obviously in some sense it must be an outcome of 'politically correct' language--something which I have been against since it began in earnest in the late 1980s with all of the concomitant culture Implications from literature on down (or across arts, as is often the case).
Still, that answer, in and of itself, seems too easy. Why the need to self efface? It is also odd that in an era where everyone feels that they must have an opinion of all subjects despite lack of any real knowledge, that said opinions would be essentially effacing. Curious.
Fascinant, Swedish is very interesting.
Is it incorrect because it is not followed by a noun or a verb? If I recall my French, there really isn't a verb for 'feel' and one would use something in conjunction with avoir or faire--j'ai une mauvaise sentiment--though I probably just made six errors in asking the question...
j'ai une mauvaise sentiment —- is actually correct.
The trouble is that it is exactement as you say; there really isn’t anything quite like ‘feel’ exactly. Grammatically you can’t verbalize that sort of sentence in that manner.
‘J’ai une mauvaise sentiment’ is near to it but not quite it exactly.
But they keep trying to erm fit English thinking and conceptualization of things into Francais, ne sais pas pourquoi (not sure why).
Umm this is interesting.
Western nations tend to idolise the Mental and disparage the Sentimental. Your example of language use for "feel" is a conflation. "Feel" is used here as a defence.
Latin America tends to emphasise "feel", taking "think" as a toolbox, IOW once the debate is resolved it is not reworked. "Feel" in latin america is OPERATIONAL and covers all relationships, domestic to professional, in the first place, even to some extent between justice and the criminal.
The reason for this is connected to the vast communal enterprise that saw the Siberian Luoravetlan decide, organise, execute and disperse their great diaspora ca 17000-15000YBP, an event we at the top of the mechanistic society find almost impossible to imagine, but do it they did, one consequence being much of the food on the dinner table of the "First World",
You are welcome to this information!!
When I was in the seventh grade, schools began to bus blacks to formerly white schools. Teachers lectured us on stereo types and racism. Back then, making any generalization wasn’t the definition. The definition has simply expanded. A lot.
Before seventh grade, blacks lived in one part of town. You didn’t encounter them much. Once that changed, it was hard to ignore the many differences. By the time I was in high school, most white people heard about some poor white person who made a wrong turn and found themselves in a black neighborhood. The person always face mortal danger. The lesson was clear. Be careful.
In college, I had a black guy I hung out with for a while. He explained to me aspects of blacks in general I was unfamiliar with. Basically, according to him, blacks were far more quick to violence. FBI statistics bear this out. So do conversations with police officers who patrol black neighborhoods.
this is the Scotch Irish in us
Mostly the Scotch; at least for me. Johnnie Walker, to be specific.
An interesting take. I really like the "barbarian" Americans I've met. But sadly, these days it seems that the awful pseudo-euro American is coming more to the fore. I meet a lot of them on my travels. I wouldn't mind that they are trying to be wordly sophisticates, it's just that thery do it so badly, and so loudly.
That's Australians in spades. They are shockingly frank.
Yes, we saw that push back in covid. Great stuff.
I studied in Japan for a semester and had a similar experience. It informs much of my thoughts on the matter to this day.
There were even some restauraunts/bars, etc that didn't allow me in and... honestly I kind of respected that!
Those are the ones run by the Yakuza.
Had a similar experience in Queens. Walked into a 'coffeeshop' in my neighborhood and immediately realized it was a mob restaurant selling liquor with a card game in the back. My boyfriend at the time didn't notice and continued to ask for a coffee to go. The bartender was wearing a boustiere and there were ten men who looked ready to pounce. I smiled and retreated but he insisted on his coffee!
Oh, really? That explains a lot.
I had heard that as well :)
I'll go to Japan sooner or later, for awhile I've made a mental move of diving into weebness, and the more I learn about them, the more of a profound difference I notice. I'm sure in person it's unmistakable.
Also, that nu avatar is based.
hah, thanks - I'm always pleased when someone recognizes it :)
Did you record the instagram clip linked here?
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/word-of-power-levels-of-the-rising/comment/117373495
haha, no - but that was my experience exactly!
Also amusing is that the racism cuts both ways in Japan. My accidental bad behaviors were not only dismissed but wryly smiled upon--she's an American and doesn't know any better. Likewise, though I was a guest in their country, they treated me as a guest--not for them to point out my gaucheries.
One day in Kyoto I was having lunch at a nice French-style bistro. A Scotsman and his elegantly attired wife came in. They appeared to be an affluent couple--but he, much to the shock of the Japanese customers, was dressed in a kilt. Three Japanese women were lunching together at the table next to mine. I happened to look up and catch the shock on their faces as he sat down. They were tittering with amusement trying to process this foreigner. The fact that I glimpsed this made me approachable for questioning by them--perhaps I, another odd foreigner, could explain this anomaly to them. They were quite curious and it was less embarrassing to ask me and clearly they never would have inquired to the Scots directly. I found the whole thing quite charming. I always admire curiosity
That's very funny, and very familiar.
I've read that they're less amused now, as their government has been bringing in lower quality gaijin to work in the konbini and such, and of course, they're bringing problems as they always do.
I hope the Japanese people's opposition brings an end to that....
Might be the inevitable consequence of the "overcivilized" being incapable of sustainable reproduction.
"overcivilized" being incapable of sustainable reproduction.
Too much debt, Japan in 30 years ahead of us. We have the same problem. The reason they won't let capitalism do its magic, is if you clear the debt (as should be done) those in power will no longer be in power.
I have always agreed with Charles Murray that American culture could be greatly improved by our acquiring some of the social virtues esteemed in Japan. Boisterous self-promotion so common in North America could be curbed by “Enryo” (non-presumption in social circumstances. The cleanliness of Japanese cities due to individual Japanese taking responsibility not only to avoid creating litter but also taking care to remove litter left by others. Their studious politeness and respect for others, too. E contrasted with the gross familiarity of a young cashier addressing a senior citizen as “dude!” While others seemed shocked by Japan’s seeming collective amnesia regarding any wartime atrocities I am fed up with our constant collective white guilt masochism which has made us vulnerable to every outrageous claim for reparations by professional victimocrats!
the whole "victim" charade needs to be called out and ostracized like it was historically.
Laptop class people have the most asinine ideas of race due to the extreme filtering of the corporate workplace. It selects for the most amenable types that can survive living within an HR manual as well as being on the higher end of the bell curve for intelligence. Sure, Grant from finance is a smart, astute middle eastern guy with only a slight accent. They don't see the other middle eastern guys he once hanged around with who live on the dole and commit petty theft.
Indeed. But DEI has been destroying this comfortable illusion.
I wonder about this. I mean, it's argued that the education pipeline filters for similar levels of ability severely enough that everyone in the class should be roughly equal in competence, but shouldn't DEI have been wrecking this for decades?
Not similar levels of ability. It filters for similar levels/shades of adaptive-manipulative personalitiy traits.
It's simply put a sieve to clump together the most socially malleable and manipulative individuals of any ethnicity, within a global corporate framework:
Nivellation of anything human beyond adapting to and learning to manipulate the system for personal gain. Or in other words, the elite education pipeline is (unintentionally) a machine for refining sociopathic-narcissistic tendencies
Even if that's true, I guarantee social manipulation correlates with g-factor as well as any other facets of mental ability.
It probably does, and I think it safe to assume that it is very difficult to check for: if one is intelligent, and uses manipulation (not implying it has to be in a negative or predatory fashion) consciously, it is reasonable to assume that such a person would recongise a test for that, for what it is, and adjust (i.e. manipulate) accordingly.
And if the test-giver/-maker is also a manipulative kind, doesn't it then stand to reason that we get a feedback-loop increasing ratios of manipulative persons when personality testing is used in hiring?
If you think being a sociopathic narcissist is the most effective long-term strategy for social manipulation, and totally divorced from job performance or reciprocal favours, sure. That's not obvious to me though.
Ubisoft.
Disney.
Pfizer.
CDC.
FDA.
Northvolt.
DC&Marvel.
Sweet Baby Inc.
BBC.
I could go on, but look at how these companies have acted. Have they tried to make things customers want, or have they decided in advance that the customers are obliged as if by fiat to buy, like and praise what they put out?
The former is "job performance": meritocratic and objective, not manipulative or dependent on sociability.
The latter is only dependent on manipulativeness and sociability, and is indicative of how individual narcissists function and act towards the people they try to dominate.
If not populated to a great degree by the latter group in numbers and positions that can swing a for-profit corporation from trying make money into spending billions on what can only be called didactic propagandism (Disney esp.), then why would any corporation bother with politics beyond the usual (less regulations on their product, protectionist tariffs against foreign competitors, outsourcing, et c)?
The sociopathic narcissist only understands others inasmuch as it enables it to (try and) manipulate them; there's no real empathetic or sympathetic understanding (using emp- and sympathetic in their psychological sense here).
And most crucial, it does not comprehend that others understand it in a way it cannot understand itself.
Look again at the corporations. Look at how they have - for ten years or more - responded to polite, factual and constructive criticism. Not in any way indicating they understand the critics, nor that they understand their own actions being the cause of criticism.
I.e the hallmarks of the sociopathic narcissist (including impulsiveness but not direct interpersonal violence, the latter may indicate that I/we are using the clinical terms a bit too generously, since they are virtually always impulsively violent without any thought for the consequences of being so).
I think that anytime one recruits based on something else than hard metrics of performance (not including taking a chance on an unknown person's potential; if that's never done there's no way to ever employ new people) one starts self-selecting for social adaptability, which will eventually come to be exploited by the manipulative, which in turn eventually will become so many their presence in the collective turns whatever organisation this happens to into a vessel for them projecting themselves onto the world at large.
And I think the process is automatic, not conscious or pre-planned.
Anyway, great talking to you! I'm off to the gym for physio and such.
Has D.I.E. been around for "decades?"
If affirmative action qualifies, then yes.
Affirmative action, AFAIK, never went as far as D.I.E. They still hired qualified individuals.
Not so much that but smart managers gamed the system by doing their own selection process to find qualified people and then infiltrated them into the formal HR system. If you depended on HR, the results were very similar to DEI. Not sure whether that still works.
I'm referring to exposure to peers during the education process, where, e.g, SAT requirements are tailored to racial background.
"The interesting thing about going to Japan is the people are really nice and helpful and they're also kind of racist which was pretty cool actually... they are keeping Japan, Japan; but are still the sweetest and nicest people when you need help." (instagram clip): https://files.catbox.moe/ag8izx.mp4
The manipulative linguistic conflation of moral and immoral forms of "racism" into a single term to trick people into abandoning group loyally, by Dave Greene - https://files.catbox.moe/bb8k4z.jpg
Exactly. There's a deliberate association made between "notices differences" and "genocidal hatred". Motte and bailey.
“The fishes swim and the horses can’t.”
“Not ALL fishes swim or all horses can’t!”
“Prove it.”
“I don’t have to! My Platonic theory is perfect!”
As I'm wont to say whenver Plato is brought up:
Is it any wonder Diogenes was shunned by later centuries, the rich and powerful instead favouring Plato?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI&pp=ygUnYXZlbnVlIHEgZXZlcnlvbmUncyBhIGxpdHRsZSBiaXQgcmFjaXN0
Absolutely, they'll conflate healthy in-group preference with genocidal bloodlust, denying the massive difference in degree. Also related is their distortion of the Christian precept to "turn the other cheek" to the point of cowardice and cuckoldry, ignoring that Jesus also whipped the money-changers out of the temple. It's all part of their strategy of societal AIDS.
He's not wrong about the concepts being inflated, but I would argue it's very hard to acknowledge Point 3 (or really even *phenotypic* differences) without some kind of segue into elements of Point 1. You kinda have to substitute group-level trait averages whenever you lack sufficient information about individuals (police profiling, migration policy, etc.), which is hard to functionally separate from 'bigotry'.
In my personal system, 'bigotry' is when you stubbornly refuse to update your model of an individual when presented with new information.
Original 12th century meaning is "sanctimonius and/or hypocritical religious person, esp. female", the extended meaning used today appears in use in the 16th century.
Essentially, someone not living as they teach and preach, would be a bigot. I.e. an outright racist isn't a bigot, but a NIMBY liberal is.
well said.
“…which they would do by starting with a default mental picture and then testing to see if and how I conformed or departed from that picture so that they could update their model accordingly” This process got demonized as ‘microaggression’ here in the US
You're not allowed to have opinions in America.
not true, you can hate straight white men as much as you want.
Lkke many of their disciplines, the Japanese have elevated racism to an artform and you can't help but be a little impressed and humbled. How crude and base our racism seems in comparison!
It is advanced racism, sophisticated beyond simple description.
do you cover this idea in the podcast?
My time living in Japan was like being part of a real-life Hallmark movie, even as a Gaijin.
"Yes, in a homogenous society people expect a level of civility that is not common in all areas of the US. Bringing shame to the family by being a common street urchin pick-pocket is frowned upon."
https://www.arthurincali.com/p/rahm-emanuel-reflections-on-japan
> This is a very common occurrence: almost anyone who spends a significant amount of time living in a very different country will start to draw conclusions about the differences between human groups.
I have struggled to explain this to friends and family who have not had the transformative experience of living among another people, conversing with them freely in their native language and partaking in their customs and traditions, for an extended period of time. When you become bilingual, eventually if you get good enough, you also become bicultural. You gain the ability to perceive the world through the eyes and ears of the other. You begin to interpret experiences, and even perhaps your own history, through a different lens, realizing along the way that perhaps what you have been led to believe about the world from your own upbringing is somehow profoundly misguided or deficient. The very notion that there is or can be such a thing as a hierarchy of civilizations is utterly incomprehensible to the comtemporary Western liberal mind.
Eventually, I gave up trying to explain, and regularly resort to some variant of "you haven't had the experiences I've had, therefore the conclusions you draw from the information that is available to you is different from the conclusions I've drawn from the information that is available to me, so let's just agree to disagree."
"When you become bilingual, eventually if you get good enough, you also become bicultural."
Just had to quote and not just push 'like', because this is exactly it, and it is so hard to explain and condense and you did it beautifully.
I have liven in South Korea for 20 years. It isn't on the level of Japan, but it is noticeable how little violence or theft there is, it's very safe.
Two Canada stories:
I grew up in Northen BC, went to university in Hamilton. Had a friend from Northern Ontario. We both commented on how Southern Ontario-ans (?) didn't know Natives at all. That they thought they're some magical people, but we'd seen them drunk and homeless and criminal.
Another friend in Hamilton was a Jew from Alberta. He made an interesting question: "Do you find you're more or less racist regarding blacks after being exposed to them?" We'd both not been around blacks prior to university in Hamilton, and we both agreed, the more we experienced them, the more racist we were.
So both stories, the lack of racism was lack of exposure to the group.
In Korea, Koreans know blacks based on the anti-Korea LA riots following the Rodney King excuse to riot.
Sometimes, I'll hear some comment about racism in Korea or Japan and just reply, yes they're very safe countries.
Heh. Yes there is a direct correlation between racism and public safety.
When I was young there was a taxpayer funded, public right-think campaign that explained that racism was learned. At the time the emphasis was that it was passed on from "racist" parents to their innocent children. Decades later, I've come to the same conclusion - racism is learned, but now most kids have to learn it the hard way.
Where matters of racism are concerned I can vouch for the fact that it is more a matter of 'pattern recognition'. John you can vouch for the fact that I resisted if gently these things during our show, but then had to think on your words and on the positive experience and lessons that the Japanese imparted to me.
To visit and know the Japanese is to know not only love, but also know that everything we were taught about legacy, heritage, racism are false. Race does matter. Liberalism is one big lie and racism and bigotry are two different words that need not be associated with one another.
The Japanese are friendly, gentle, intelligent and kind. They are 'honorary Celts' to us Francs, or 'honorary Aryans' to others for a reason.
That said, what is unforgiveable is the lie that's been fed to us all our lives.
I must admit that after reading this article about your experiences John and upon reflection of the brilliant Alexandru's and my own humble ones I can only repeat something we've discussed elsewhere; every young lad of European descent should go work or study in Japan for 3-9 months before they are 25 years old. It'll do a great deal to dispel them of liberalistic stupidity and teach them about the importance of language, race and tribalism.
Racism is not coached in ignorance, but the recognition of patterns and previous behaviour. Tolerance is arguably rooted in ignorance or so life and experience and even time on Substack have taught me. We need to remove the tolerance, the softness that Liberalism has bred in us and return to a Medieval mindset, a pre-Revolutionary one to get nearer to our truest nature I think.
Good luck with your project and at the gym John. You do much good here raising awareness about the beauty of Japan and about the world and the lies of liberalism.
May be that's why liberals (of all ilks) loathe the gym?
You can't use semantics, fancy rhetorics or false equivocation to get a weight to move.
That would be a lovely tradition, but the Japanese themselves would never stand for it. As you know, they maintain high standards for admission to their country. They won't let in just anyone.
Nor should they let just anyone in, hmm good point might disturb the homogeneous element and the patient Japanese themselves. Better idea might be to have them train sociology or civics teachers and send them if they want into the West…. hmm I’m going to have to think about this one.
Sorry for the stupid ideas, just love them too much I guess. They’re just charming and impossible not to love, currently got sitting on my desk a book on Japanese medieval literature I've plans to read (includes the 7 Samurai story).
I lived in Japan for 2 years in the early 1970's. It was my observation that the Japanese were racist, but in the most polite and kindest way. It seems they thought of us (Americans) as very clever monkeys. But monkeys with a willingness to use nuclear weapons. I always got treated kindly. Back then, I was a 21-23year old sailor. I learned a little bit of the language. I was a Gaijin (of the Kaigun variety). That is a foreigner of non-Japanese ethnicity. They have other categories. Grunjin...a Marine. Gaikokojin...a Black. Bakatari...an A-Hole. I think that bakatari was the only one that was in any way judgmental. In the instances I heard that term used, it was spot on and deserved. Further, discrimination isn't always a bad thing....sorting out a good oyster from a bad one, a tranny from female in some rental agreement in a foreign port, a good beer like Kirin from a bad one like Asahi.
Your post pretty much nailed it, Mr. Carter. You are doing good work here.
Interesting. I never heard gaikokujin being used to refer to blacks. That was kokujin, 黒人, lit "black person". Gaikokujin, 外国人, uses a different kanji, literal translation is "outside country person". It differs from gaijin only in the introjection of "country".
It always amused me that gaijin was derogatory, but gaikokujin polite. Presumably just due to the extra two syllables.
It was 50+ years ago, John. I was homeported in Yokosuka but spent most of my time in the Gulf of Tonkin. It may have been kokujin that I heard. And I am happy to hear it was not a derogatory term, as I once thought it was. I learned Japanese in the gutter. I was a sailor, remember. Could read some katakana in order to navigate the ginza. Knew "hidari", "migee", "matsugi" and "STOP!" for taxi rides. Uses phrases like "Statsu Kirin jodai", "Doku obinjo", "Wakari ni", and most important the common courtesies to make up for the occasional gaijinic faux pas. Much later and more senior, I worked as a trainer for the Japanese Navy. My fumbled attempts at speaking Japanese were always appreciated but I think it put them ill at ease in stifling guffaws at my butchering of their language. They are unfailingly polite people.
More syllables=more politer is a constant across many languages.
Yes. 外人 is a lower formality register.
Museum discriminate, junkyard tolerate.
Well written! Stereotypes do exist for a reason but they should be used carefully and not thought of as an absolute especially on an individual level.
Indeed. Stereotypes are about groups. The individual remains sacrosanct.
Sure, yeah. It's a bit of a quibbling point, but also IIRC the research on stereotype accuracy is that they're *usually* accurate, rather than invariably so.
But *highly* usually accurate, which is the point.
The belief among most whites that it is evil to notice differences between races (unless white man bad) cannot be understood without acknowledging the programming by the Jewish media in all its forms. The boomers were the first victims of the onslaught of this propaganda which told whites that noticing bad traits (or just incompatible ones) made the noticer a Nazi or at least member of the KKK.
Unlearning that has gone hand in hand with the Gaza genocide which has hurt the supposed moral superiority of our religious police.
Check this out.
https://counter-currents.com/2025/05/nggr-god-of-the-west/
LMAO that was great
There is a great skirt in this. How to play this?
brilliant