I would like to write about what I know and understand about the Soka Gakkai because the D.C. Times published an article titled "China's Manipulation of Japan, NPOs and Soka Gakkai Act as Pipeline = U.S. Think Tank Report".
You can read more about the definition of a religious cult and mind control in the book "Combating Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults ".
In the 1950s and 1980s, Soka Gakkai members were forcibly recruited to join the Soka Gakkai, and nowadays, it is estimated that about 10% of the Japanese people are members of the Gakkai (Soka Gakkai members).
In particular, the Soka Gakkai has infiltrated civil servants, specifically the police force, the fire department, and the Self-Defense Forces, and it has been revealed that 20 to 30% of the Metropolitan Police Department's employees are members of the Soka Gakkai.
There is always a certain percentage of Soka Gakkai members in elementary, middle, and high school classes, and in corporate workplaces, and therefore it is taboo to criticize the Soka Gakkai in those communities.
This is because the Gakkai members in each community monitor the words and actions of their community members in the same way as the mainland communists who have infiltrated Hong Kong, and if someone speaks out against the Soka Gakkai, they will target that person and initiate a campaign of sabotage.
The sabotage is similar to the CPC's repressive actions against human rights activists in Hong Kong, including obstructing, harassing, and following them around, an act that has been described as mass stalking.
For example, in Japan, if you make a placating statement in a school class or at work that the Soka Gakkai is a cult religious group because it meets the definition of a cult group, members of the Gakkai in the community get madly angry (depending on the degree of mind control they are receiving) or bite off their anger to deny the statement.
Then they label the person who made such a statement as "anti", and they also share information about the antis with other members of the Soka Gakkai, and begin to perceive them as "beings to be punished by Buddha", to be targets of surveillance and group attacks.
In reality, however, the definition of a religious cult was not defined for the Soka Gakkai but for dangerous religious groups such as Aum Shinrikyo and People's Temple, which were intended to prevent ordinary people from being harmed by them.
When Soka Gakkai members are pointed out to the Soka Gakkai, instead of thinking "Let's fix what's wrong with my religious group," they think of suppressing their critics (anti) and silencing them, which is a pattern of thinking and behavior of a fanatic of a religious cult, and the sarin gas attack (terrorism). I feel that the followers of Aum Shinrikyo at the time when it was founded must have had a similar pattern of thinking and behavior.
Believers in cult groups are unconsciously mind-controlled and brainwashed, so they don't think that they should change their way of thinking and behavior when criticism is pointed out to them. In this respect, their attitude is similar to that of the Chinese Communist Party towards the demands of human rights activists in Hong Kong, i.e., the fanatics of cult groups such as the Soka Gakkai are not normal human beings.
It is well known that some anti-American organizations cooperate with each other in order to undermine this country by signing a pact called "Soko Kyodo Agreement" and facilitating agents of anti-Japanese and anti-American groups.
From another point of view, the Soka Gakkai, to its followers, appears to be a huge organization that carries out fraudulent and criminal activities such as Ponzi schemes and network businesses. It also has elements of a black business, and believers who join the Soka Gakkai are becoming materially and mentally exhausted.
The following blog, run by Mr. Sinifié, exposes the reality of the Soka Gakkai. It contains the testimonies and experiences of many current and former Soka Gakkai members and ex-members who have left the Gakkai.
Although the Soka Gakkai employs a different strategy than Aum Shinrikyo and has infiltrated many organizations such as corporations, police, fire departments, the Self-Defense Forces, and local government officials, the Soka Gakkai members who have infiltrated the Kasumigaseki bureaucracy and the Self-Defense Forces are considered dangerous to the U.S. because they are inherently dangerous.
Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.
しかしながら、現実社会においては決してその通りではなく、命の重みは平等ではありません。あなたは、Nightcrawlerという映画を見ましたか？その映画の中で、Renee RussoがJake Gyllenhalに対して、黒人もしくはラテン系アメリカ人が命を落とすような映像ではなく、裕福な白人が殺害されたといったようなニュースが欲しい、と伝えるシーンがあります。実はこのシーンは、ニュースの大部分の受け手である白人層が共感できるような報道を重視するというような、現実に即したメディアのバイアスを如実に反映しています。現実として、若い黒人男性が殺害されることはニュースにならない一方で、中年白女性の殺害事件はニュースとして世間に扱われます。さらに言えば、統計上有意に多数の若い黒人男性が日々命を落としてしまっているという現状において、そういった死のニュース性が少ないということは単なるバイアスとして存在するわけではなく、ほとんどの場合事実なのです。その結果、一部のグループの人々の死に対しては他のグループの人々の死ほどに、私たちは社会全体として注目しません。人の命は本来全て平等であるにも関わらず、現実として私たちはそれらを平等に扱っていないのです。
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
あなたが父親に自分の分の食事を求めた時のように、"Black Lives Matter"というフレーズにも"too"、すなわち黒人の命”も”大切であるという前提があります。他の人種の人々の命と同様、黒人の命も大切に扱われるべきだ、というメッセージがそこにはあるのです。これに対して"All Lives Matter"と応えることは、その根底にある（黒人の命が他の命と同様に大切に扱われていないという）問題を恣意的に無視していることになるのです。そのような問題の共通認識が前提として明らかに存在しているにも関わらず、さも"黒人の命だけが大切だ"という主張であると曲解することで、"Black Lives Matter"という本来の主張を退けてしまっています。"Black Lives Matter"というメッセージに対して、"All Lives Matter"と応えることは、黒人の日々対峙するそのような問題を無視し、そのままの現状を維持しよう、と主張する事と本質的に変わりはないのです。
12 Dr. Hiroshi Nishiura is one of the few professionals of mathematical models of infectious diseases in Japan, and it is well known that his ability is outstanding. However, many people don't understand mathematical models themselves (I must confess that I can't say that I understand all of the findings because I'm not a professional of mathematical models either), so his findings and comments are easily deified. Because the contents of the mathematical model are a complete black box to many people, it makes it seem like the oracle is coming out like a shrine's oracle. Much of Japan's infection control policy relies on the Nishiura theory. So there is nothing wrong with that, but one of the problems in Japan is that there is no plan B in case plan A goes bust. Dr. Nishiura is an excellent scholar. It is not God. Hence the need to have that Plan B with the possibility of making a mistake. I am greatly concerned that bureaucrats and politicians who are prone to infallibilism will mistake science for an oracle. It is only when falsifiability is assured that science can continue to be scientific.
Mathematical models are the product of deductive methods. The deductive method is complemented by the inductive or abduction method, which is the basis of scholarship and the common sense of clinical medicine. It's a common occurrence in this industry that no matter how deducibly correct it may seem, it's actually not true. Even a huge intellect like Hegel or Marx can make a mistake by deduction alone.
I'm not saying don't use the model at all. I myself write a paper using a model. However, the model is not infallible, there are assumptions that are assumptions, and the assumptions are often wrong. Making use of Gram's stain means having full knowledge of what Gram's stain cannot do and does not understand, and Gram's stain cannot be used by Gram's stain universalists. It's the same thing. Mathematical models are also utilized in the UK, which is why Brits are very sceptical of their conclusions, and there are always counter-arguments and objections. It is a sound and scientific attitude.
15 Japan's "now" is a well-controlled state of infection, which is much better than Wuhan at its worst, or Italy, Spain, France, England, or New York at the present time. The problem is that it doesn't guarantee that it will "always work".
It is Tokyo that is of concern. The increase in reports of infection is not the only problem. The problem is that more and more infected people are unable to form clusters and cannot be traced. And the number of tests is much lower than that number of positive cases; it's too little that they only tested less than 100 people (the date of testing for the positives is unknown, but it's probably around here) to capture 47 infected people.
Again, it's not necessary to figure out all the infected people. However, it is troubling that the flow of infection, movement and clusters are out of sight. Therefore, the threshold for testing must be lowered in Tokyo. The threshold for testing varies with the circumstances. That's what I explained with the Korean example. Sticking to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's "standards" will lead to a misunderstanding of the phenomenon itself. Already in the Kansai region, infected people have been found with taste and smell abnormalities, and clusters have been detected from there. I would like to make more use of the athletic sensibilities of these clinicians. I'm not sure "where" in Tokyo is the barrier to lowering the number of inspections, but that barrier needs to be removed immediately.
17 This conceptual diagram that everyone is looking at - lowering the peak of the infection and shifting it to the side. This is all a product of deduction, and I don't know if it's really true. As mentioned above, the UK estimates already suggest that this is not enough. It is possible that the damage that was shifted to the side could simply be "extra-long damage".
And this is the key point: the idea of lowering the peak should not become the notion that the peak must be lowered, or the belief that the peak must be lowered, or the self-implication that the peak is not happening. In a pattern of Japanese failure to stick to Plan A, Diamond Princess allowed no-guard disembarkation by changing "secondary infection should not occur" to "it can't have happened". We need to keep our eyes on reality so that "peak shouldn't happen" doesn't become "I don't want to see a peak. Even if it is an inconvenient truth that we don't want to see.
19 Repeatedly. It's common knowledge in this industry that deductive methods are complemented by inductive methods. Nevertheless, PCR is often false-negative and has little power to determine the status of infection. That's why "testing everything" is so wrong. However, a serum test measuring immunoglobulin IgM and IgG would provide a more accurate picture of the "status of infection in the population. This, however, is not infallible. It is difficult to use for individual cases because it misses early infection, which is why it misses early HIV infection.Whether antibody testing is useful in individual cases remains to be tested, but it is well suited for epidemiological studies on a population basis. Roughly speaking, we can confirm whether the "infection is rampant" in Tokyo right now, or whether it's just an unfounded fear.
As a precedent, serology tests in London showed that the 2009 pandemic flu was 10 times more likely than previously predicted. Antibody testing is often performed after an outbreak, but now is a good time to examine COVID-19, which is becoming a chronic pandemic.
The UK is even more aggressive. The idea is to test for antibodies at home, and if they are found to be infected, they will use it as a basis for self-isolation at home. That strategy is flawed because with the lockdown in place, a negative test does not mean "no self-sequestration". However, the idea is that we want to control the infection as a whole, and I think it is worth considering.
Inductive legal confirmation of how many infections are occurring in Tokyo is necessary and useful. I'm not a prophet, so I don't know what the outcome will be.However, no matter what the outcome, scientists need to accept it and not hesitate to change their thesis and move on to Plan B in some cases. Scientists have to be coherent in their inconsistencies.They may not be coherent in form, but they must be coherent in principles and professionalism. Good faith in the facts.
1 Most of what I'm about to write is no different from what I've said and done in the past. However, I have been asked the same question repeatedly, so I would like to reiterate it. We have received many inquiries from overseas as well, so we should have prepared the same content in English, but due to time constraints, I'm afraid I'll have to skip it. This article is designed to be read without basic knowledge of infectious diseases and jargon, but it is rather difficult to understand. Please forgive me for that.
2 The fact that the number of COVID-19 reports in Japan is very low compared to other countries is attracting attention from home and abroad. Is it true? It has been pointed out that the number of tests is so small that we may be misreading the actual number of infected people.
3 However, this point is wrong at various layers. In the first place, Japan does not aim to capture all the numbers of COVID-19. Whether it's administrative testing or insured care, the state basically has a testing strategy in mind to diagnose, hospitalize, and isolate critically ill patients who need to be hospitalized. It is natural that they "haven't figured it out" and they don't intend to. That's not a bad thing.In fact, the situation is the same in every country, large or small, and no country, whether in the United States, Europe, or Asia, is aiming to "capture the whole number.
The WHO is not asking for such a thing. But instead, Japan gives PCR to asymptomatic returnees and isolates asymptomatic test-positive people in hospital (wasn't it home for people with minor illnesses?). It has not been coherent in its principles. So, people get anxious because "we're not sure what they want to do". It's a failure in the press.
4 The difference between Korea and Japan is the "result" and not the "purpose". In South Korea, where the number of infected people had surged in one place, we had to focus on inspections in and around the area. If such a phenomenon (let's call it an overshoot) occurs in Japan, the number of inspections will increase. When the situation is different, arguing only on the basis of the number of tests without observing the situation is like trying to say, "That team made 50 sliding tackles while this team made only one," without watching a football game. In games where you don't have to slide (e.g., when you're in possession the whole time), even 0 times isn't a "mistake," and of course 50 times isn't a mistake.
There are many diseases for which the total number of patients is not known. In Japan, we do not have a "total" number of influenza cases, but only a fixed-point observation. Because that's enough information, both epidemiologically and in terms of infection control. There is no accurate data on how many cases of the common cold occur each year in Japan. It's also a mistake to say that you can tell by looking at the receipt data, because many cold patients (like me) don't see a doctor and wait until they are cured naturally. Not only in medicine, but also in economics and political science, data are mostly based on sampling to estimate population numbers, and "whole numbers" is an inefficient way of grasping the situation.
6 We have not seen the devastation in Japan as in Italy, Spain or New York City. There is no medical collapse in a critically ill patient, no use of the operating room as an ICU, no piling up of bodies on a skating rink with no place to put them. Even if the "numbers" are not known, it is a fact that the current situation in Japan (including Tokyo) is much better controlled than in other countries.
7 Even so, you may be interested in "Well, what about the actual situation? There are estimates. For example, Dr. Hiroshi Nishiura and his group estimate that the number of mild illnesses in Japan may be twice the reported number. The catch rate is 0.44, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.37-0.50.
8 Although the study was based on data from China, there is no guarantee that the Chinese COVID-19 demographic is the same as the Japanese one. Also, since the original study did not include asymptomatic patients or those with minor illnesses that did not require hospitalization, the number of infected patients estimated on that basis would inevitably be an underestimate. If you are more paranoid, it's not unreasonable to believe that "the Japanese and Chinese viruses are different because of the mutation" (although I don't think so).
9 This does not diminish the value of the paper itself. The model must always use existing parameters, and it is often impossible to prove the external validity of these parameters. If the underlying parameters are not reasonable, the predictions will not be correct. A model assumes a simplified world insofar as it is a model. A model without simplification, which is an adjectival contradiction.
To complain about these "assumptions" of the mathematical model is like complaining, for example, "You can't explain disease B," when a randomized controlled trial is conducted for disease A. This is a meaningless tirade against the honor of the industry.
A mathematical model that assumes a certain hypothesis should have internal academic validity, but it is the responsibility of the reader, as a resident of the real world, to appraise it in the real world.
Just as the RCT findings for disease A should not be used for disease B, it is natural to understand the limitations of the mathematical model and to be careful when applying it to the real world. For example, it would be wrong to read the paper and conclude that the total number of infected people in Tokyo is about 500 as of March 26.
11 People make mistakes. The models are also wrong. Being wrong is not a big deal. The problem is to notice your mistakes and make corrections. Already, a group at Imperial College London has admitted that its original estimate that the peak of the infection should be moderated was "wrong" and has revised its prediction that the ICU will soon fail if it does not fight the virus fairly aggressively.
You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.
You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.
The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.
Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.
To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.
※3 Climate justice：「先進国が出した二酸化炭素のせいで温暖化してるのに、途上国にしわ寄せが来すぎるのはおかしいだろう。」的な話。先進国(や富裕層)は途上国(や貧困層)に対して温暖化被害の点で責任があるし、対策はそれを踏まえて両者に公平な形で進められるべきであるという考え方よ。多少人権周りの話も絡んでくるので詳細はもっと複雑ね。こっちにも注釈付けた方が良かったんでないのNHKさん。
My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein came at the request of Joi Ito, for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab. Prior to these interactions, I was told by Joi that Epstein had cleared the MIT vetting process, which was the basis for my participation. My last interaction with Epstein was in 2015. Still, by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice. For this, I am deeply regretful.
In an e-mail to the Globe sent after the meeting, Negroponte said he told Ito that “he should” take Epstein’s contribution, and “I would say that again based on what we knew at the time. . . . “Epstein is an extreme case. But then do you take Koch money? Do you take Huawei money? And on and on?” Negroponte said.
I had known of Joi’s contact with Epstein since about the beginning. He had reached out to me to discuss it. We are friends (Joi and I), and he knew I would be upset by his working with a pedophile.
Joi believed that he did not. He believed Epstein was terrified after the prosecution in 2011. He believed he had come to recognize that he would lose everything. He believed that whatever else he was, he was brilliant enough to understand the devastation to him of losing everything. He believed that he was a criminal who had stopped his crime. And nothing in his experience with Epstein contradicted this belief.
エプスタインはもう虐待者ではないと Joi は信じていた。エプスタインは2011年に起訴された後、恐怖に襲われている、と伊藤穣一は信じていた。エプスタインはすべてを失うことになるのを認識するに至ったと伊藤穣一は信じていた。いずれにせよ、エプスタインはすべてを失うという絶望を理解する十分な知性があると、伊藤穣一は信じていた。エプスタインはもう犯罪を犯さない犯罪者だと、伊藤穣一は信じていた。伊藤穣一はエプスタインに会って、その信念に矛盾することを何も感じなかった。
IF you are going to take type 3 money, then you should only take it anonymously. . . . Good for them, for here, too, transparency would be evil.
Sure, it wasn’t blood money, and sure, because anonymous, the gift wasn’t used to burnish Epstein’s reputation.
I know that Farrow’s article is crafted to draw the following sentence into doubt: Everything Joi did in accepting Epstein’s money he did with MIT’s approval. I trust the MIT review will confirm it (yes, I remain exactly that naive). So why is he resigning, rather than others in the administration?
And if Ito must go because Epstein’s wealth was accepted anonymously, who else should go because of blood money accepted openly? Will the planet have an equal advocate who demands justice for the Koch money? Or the victims of opioid abuse for the Sackler money?
So put the parts together: The MediaLab accepted an anonymous contribution from Epstein through the help and direction of Joi. The Lab did not (as “Professor Anonymous” wrote to me, his outrage apparently blinding him to irony) “help reputation-launder a convicted sex offender.” It would have, had it not be anonymous; but that’s the point about it being anonymous.
Peter Cohen, a former director of development and strategy, said in a statement that when he joined the Media Lab in 2014, it already had established procedures for handling Epstein’s contributions. Cohen said he understood that those policies were “authorized by and implemented with the full knowledge of MIT central administration.”
Second, it is now clear that senior members of the administration were aware of gifts the Media Lab received between 2013 and 2017 from Jeffrey Epstein’s foundations. Goodwin Procter has found that in 2013, when members of my senior team learned that the Media Lab had received the first of the Epstein gifts, they reached out to speak with Joi Ito. He asked for permission to retain this initial gift, and members of my senior team allowed it. They knew in general terms about Epstein’s history – that he had been convicted and had served a sentence and that Joi believed that he had stopped his criminal behavior. They accepted Joi’s assessment of the situation. Of course they did not know what we all know about Epstein now.
Joi sought the gifts for general research purposes, such as supporting lab scientists and buying equipment. Because the members of my team involved believed it was important that Epstein not use gifts to MIT for publicity or to enhance his own reputation, they asked Joi to agree to make clear to Epstein that he could not put his name on them publicly. These guidelines were provided to and apparently followed by the Media Lab.
Information shared with us last night also indicates that Epstein gifts were discussed at at least one of MIT’s regular senior team meetings, and I was present.
I am aware that we could and should have asked more questions about Jeffrey Epstein and about his interactions with Joi. We did not see through the limited facts we had, and we did not take time to understand the gravity of Epstein’s offenses or the harm to his young victims. I take responsibility for those errors.
Oneohtrix Point Never - Problem Areas
group_inou / JUDGE
KotM seems to be the outlier.
How can they turn GvK into a success?