J.S. Bach-Organ Trio Sonata III, 3rd movement

cracva:

HAPPY 日中韓

"Japan-China-Korea HAPPY" was made by Japanese university students wishing for the peace between the three countries. These three countries may have sensitive historical relations, but younger generations are willing to work on to fix and have better relations for the better future. The ‘HAPPY’ music video makes people smile and happy. That’s why we made this video with young people from the three countries. This video was mainly filmed in Japan, but also some clips were filmed in South Korea and China. We hope that this video helps to spread smiles and encourages ever bettering futures for these three countries.

この日中韓HAPPYは、日本の女子大生によって日中韓の平和の為に作られました。
緊迫する三国間関係ですが、見た人をHAPPYに出来るこのミュージックビデオで、「­若者世代から社会に向けて発信して行こう!」という思いで日中韓HAPPYは誕生しま­した。
撮影は日本を中心に韓国と中国で行われました。
どうかご覧になった皆さんに、日中韓の若者の「笑顔」と「三国の平和を願う思い」が届­きますように。

이 한중일 HAPPY는, 한중일의 평화를 위해 일본의 여대생이 제작했습니다.
삼국의 관계는 긴박한 상황이지만, 보는 사람으로 하여금 기분을 HAPPY하게 만들 수 있는 뮤직비디오이며,「젊은세대부터 사회를 향해 메세지를 전파하자!」 라는 마음으로 한중일HAPPY는 탄생했습니다. 
촬영은 일본을 중심으로 한국과 중국의 구상으로 이루어졌습니다. 
부디 감상하시는 모든 분들에게 한중일 젊은이들의 「미소」와 「삼국의 평화를 기원하는 마음」이 전해지길 바랍니다.

这部名为”日中韩HAPPY”的音乐MV是由一位日本女大学生为­了促进日中韩三国间的和平友好关系而创作的。
近来日中韩三国间的国际关系日趋紧张。以”从青年一代开始向社会发表自己的­观点”
为出发点,创作者完成了这部MV的创作。并希望能通过这简短的音乐MV让所有观看的人­能够快乐。
MV中的取景大多在日本,其中也有在韩国和中国取景的画面。
希望借由这部音乐MV能将日中韩三国的年轻一代的笑容以及祈盼三国间和平的意愿带给正­在观看这部MV的您。谢谢!

3 notes

Article 9: Japan’s Commitment to Hypocrisy

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Today there are some who argue that based on the consequences of the preceding paragraph, the entire nation of Japan is worthy of the Nobel Prize for Peace. They say that the deep commitment to pacifism shared by the Japanese nation is unprecedented among powerful international actors in the very history of our planet. They do not mention that the 2nd clause of this article has already been egregiously violated, and furthermore that they have enjoyed the additional protection of the United States, which has used their country as a staging point for offensive military action in clear violation of the spirit of this amendment. But there are even more problems for those who wish to cling desperately to the supposed sanctity of Article 9.

The words at the beginning of this piece are not the sincere expression of a war-shattered nation yearning for eternal peace, as many would have you believe. While debate persists about whether the pacifist article was the product of a Japanese or American imagination, given the circumstances of occupation, its clear that such sentiments were forced from the mouths of an entire people by the ventriloquism of a conquering army. This army was the arm of a government that had spent the previous four years conducting a propaganda campaign to demonstrate to its citizens that the Japanese people were little better than rats or monkeys, and may even, in the minds of some extremists, need to be hunted down and exterminated entirely. At one point, at least 13% of the American public thought so. Not a huge percentage for most things, but a frighteningly large approval rating for genocide. It was these people who insisted that Japan must renounce the right to its own self-defense. The Germans, whose military were responsible for war crimes every bit as abhorrent as the Japanese or worse, were not burdened with any such provision, though that was perhaps due to a similar provision’s drastic failure after World War I. While they were clearly inferior due their defeat by their Anglo-Saxon cousins, they were still one of the white races, and therefore possessed sufficient reason to know when they were beaten. The Japanese, on the other hand, were mere savages dressed up in suits mad for suicidal combat and wanton destruction. They were treacherous, they were devious, they were calculating, they were cruel. No settlement fit for enlightened men could be reached. The fire for battle in their hearts had to be irrevocably extinguished.

The ending of the last paragraph is likely shocking to some, full of sweeping generalizations, racism, and “antiquated” expressions. That’s the point—if one were to speak about another nation’s people in such terms today, they would be the target of outrage and ridicule. Yet it is these sort of assumptions that led to the removal of Japan’s military capability—not that such an arrangement lasted. Indeed, not much time passed at all before the establishment of the Japan Self-Defense Force, nor before that force’s maritime component participated in the Korean War in its minesweeping capacity. The US regretted approving such an article shortly after it had been drafted, when they tasked themselves with guarding against Sino-Soviet domination of the Pacific. A militarized Japan, at least in the sense of industrial alignment, would be very useful to this goal. So, the defense forces grew and continue to grow in size and capability, while the Japanese archipelago was used essentially as a launching pad for US forces participating in both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Today, a 110-strong Japanese naval force, augmented by the George Washington carrier strike group, protects the islands. This is the face of 21st century “pacifism”.

To test any Japanese person’s real level of commitment to pacifism would be quite easy. One would merely need to propose them the following: that the self-defense force completely ceased to exist in accordance with the exact verbiage of Article 9. It’s members would be discharged into civilian life, its hardware melted down, fouled, or rendered otherwise unusable (never sold, lest it be used to further propagate warfare into the world). Accordingly, the United States military would be ordered to depart the Japanese archipelago, never to return. A few moments’ contemplation of what actions North Korea or China would take in the event of such a scenario should be enough to forestall anybody of sound mind from accepting this arrangement, which would be a truly pacifist stance in the spirit of Article 9. In theory, both the DPRK and PRC are ruled by rational people who would not take any risks provided there were fears of consequences. But the complete removal of any deterrent to hostile actions (not limited to military means necessarily) changes the calculations significantly. Unless something drastic changes in the international system, the United States has been the only nation through which real consequences (their application justified or not) have resulted for states that supposedly have violated international norms or law. Therefore, without their support, or a Japanese military, it’s hard to imagine there would be any consequences for aggressive action against Japan.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s nationalist streak is well-known and such views include the amendment of Article 9 to allow for collective self-defense, this meaning, Japan would be allowed to engage in warfare not only for its own defense but for the defense of an ally or strategic alliance. This has become unpopular with the Japanese people for the reason that it could be used in order for Japan to find itself fighting alongside NATO in a “war of choice” in some dusty corner of the world. Given recent history, this position is not without merits. But Abe also wants to re-brand the JSDF as the “National Defense Force”, the term for which in Japanese is actually transliterated as something more like “Motherland Army”. This force would fully embrace its role as a conventional military within international norms. This is resisted mightily by left-leaning sectors of Japanese society, but is really only a reflection of reality and an end to hypocrisy. Criticism of Abe should stem from the fact that he is trying to unilaterally amend the interpretation of the article, thereby bypassing the concept of constitutionality itself. The question of whether or not Article 9 should be repealed or re-written should be more carefully considered in light of the facts on the ground.

1 note

Yeah, haha, I’ve never seen a black guy make weird sexual advances towards a woman. Nope, never in my life. Can’t imagine that. 

(Source: teenagenicks)

303,016 notes

I’m not genocidal, except against people who use the term “post-metal”

ablative-absolute:

Yoooo if this post gets 200 notes by 4 pm today I’ll go to the store in my Roman outfit (and take pictures!)

244 notes