Drama Review: Queen In Hyun's Man

Commentary: This drama is considered relevant to monarchism by the author who wishes to use high-quality modern materials to discuss the monarchistic cause. How this drama is relevant explains itself in the text that follows. The author will not delve into details concerning the plot of the drama but focus on the details that are relevant to monarchism. Furthermore, the author will refrain from needless criticism of the plot; he considers criticism too easy whilst it is a real art to try to empathise with the plot, to get into it, and to understand it with the heart. The author never watches dramas or films to criticise them but to empathise with them; he wishes merely to feel what the characters feel and think in every single scene, he wishes to know their names, to understand what the characters are to each other (i.e. how they relate to each other: their relationships), to know their individual personalities and dreams, and so on. The author is a people-focused person, and cares more for people than lofty ideals; people are his ideal, and so he cares only for what people need and what concerns them, not what concerns the universe regardless of people; people are his universe. 

Theme: the encounter between human beings from different worlds.

Time-travelling: understanding different times with the heart

Gim Bung Do is a conscientious scholar who lives in feudal Korea. He suddenly finds himself in the middle of a plot to assassinate the Queen, where he illustriously takes the side of the Queen! He bravely fights off the assassins in their first savage attempt to assassinate the Queen. Gim Bung Do himself is loyal to the Queen unto death and to make this very clear he swears to defend the Queen with his life! When he later engages in a sword-duel with one of the higer-ranking assassins and falls over, Gim Bung Do is about to be stabbed through the heart with a sword. There is no way that Gim Bung Do can escape his fate. However, when he is about to meet his inevitable death, Gim Bung Do miraculously disappears and finds himself in an empty palace! It appears to be a new place - though not beyond recognition to Gim Bung Do who finds the place itself not too odd, because it bears striking resemblance to the palace where he was just a moment ago. 

Yet, he is shocked by his sudden disappearance and he appears to feel that there is something off about the place where he is now; he notices the lights outside , which is a new experience to him because these are lights that he is not used to. Finally, he calms down a bit and appears to think for a moment that he is still in the same place/world. After all, he can recognise his surroundings and apart from his sudden disappearance and the strange lights outside, things do not seem so odd. However, once he starts exploring, he is surprised by what he finds. Though puzzled by his sudden disappearance, what he is about to see will shock and amaze him even more. He stands outside perplexed by the sight of electric lights and a film crew busy shooting a film about the Queen whom he swore to protect. Then Gim Bung Do meets Choe Hui Jin, who offers him a snack, which he reluctantly refuses in a state of perplexion; he is unable to say a word, that is how perplexed he is. The girl tells him that she is the Queen, making him even more confused and surprised at the same time. The girl speaks to him in a weird way, making him deeply aware that everything is different in the new place where he finds himself. 

The unfamiliar noises and sounds make make him dizzy and hence cause a sensation of vertigo in him; he is in a completely different universe, so it appears. Choe Hui Jin who is an actress herself assumes he is one of the actors, because he wears clothing from the Joseon era. Gim Bung Do has no idea what he is witnessing and absorbs everything in a state of paralysing perplexion and intense vertigo. He is totally confused and disoriented. Choe Hui Jin will later confess that she has no idea what he must have been experiencing at that moment; she had noticed at the time that he was pale and evidently thought at the time that his behaviour was uniquely strange. This first encounter is a very special encounter; it is an encounter between two people from entirely different worlds. This is an encounter between people from then and now, between people from the past and present; Choe Hui Jin met an "ancestor" as she will later describe Gim Bung Do once and Gim Bung Do met a descendant, i.e. a person who is about to be born in the future. 

What does the fact that these people are from different worlds/realities which are in different places in time, i.e. one where the past is the present and the other where the future is the present, practically mean? There will be differences of worldview, zeitgeist one might say. The culture will be different in interesting ways. The language will also be strikingly different. This last fact is too often overlooked. It is said that languages come with a complete worldview and culture; languages and cultures are so closely connected that some linguistic experts speak of them as language-culture pairs. Usually we think of these pairs as originally belonging to different geographical places, but they could also belong to different chronological times; a language spoken at one point in time is not the same as the "same" language spoken in a different point in time. 

For instance, the Dutch language spoken in the 19th-century is an entire language in its own right and as culture and language go hand in hand, the Dutch language of the 19th century is accompanied by a culture that is characteristic of the Dutch people living in the 19th century. One cannot, therefore, comprehend the 19th-century Dutch language without studying the 19th-century Dutch way of thinking as well, and that is something that I know by experience. Once one learns the 19th-century Dutch language by reading 19th-century texts, one will quite naturally become more immersed in 19th-century Dutch thought; however, a conscious effort will still have to be made to integrate into the 19th-century Dutch worldview and culture along with adopting the 19th-century Dutch vocabulary and grammar. Not being consciously aware of the fact that this needs to be done is a classical mistake; one has to be profoundly aware of what needs to be done in order to have the maximum amount of concentration.

The drama series offers realistic answers to many questions: how would a person from the past react if he saw a mobile phone, a car, a tie, an electric light, an airplane, and so on? The series evidently paid special attention to answering those questions satisfactorily, demonstrating deep insight into human emotion/psychology. The series also dealt with the question: what would it be like if that same person travelled back in time and shared his knowledge of the future? Particularly interesting is the series' answer to this difficult question: the people in the past as regard this "other world" as some sort of "parallel world" or supernatural world in which fairies live - this is an fascinating perspective to a student of religion. Yet another question that is really interesting to consider: how would an ancient person adjust to the modern world? As the series did have a limited amount of screen time, I imagine, they could not give a very detailed answer to this relevant question, but they did give what I would consider a sufficiently satisfying answer although the adjustment process seemed a bit quick. 

However, the series does provide an explanation for this: Gim Bung Do's only merit is his good memory, as he mentions himself a couple of times. Therefore, he could adjust very quickly. In other words, he is portrayed as a genius. I am very familiar with the adjustment process to different languages and cultures. To Gim Bung Do, the culture of Choe Hui Jin's world, the future, as well as the language is practically foreign. Indeed, it is interesting to witness how Choe Hui Jin reacts to his way of speaking: she considers it awkward and funny, as the series rightly portrays her emotional reaction. Korean dramas portray human emotional reactions really well, I must say. It makes psychological and social sense. However, Western movies do often horribly lack in this regard. They are too focused on other things to be concerned about the intricacies of human relationship, emotion, and communication. That is also why - and I have really watched tons of Hollywood films so I can generalise - Western protagonists are too superficial; they have no real depth and though the special effects in Western movies are good, I am more interested in human relationships.

Queen In Hyun's Man presents a refreshingly realistic example of what kind of linguistic difficulties one travelling between the world of the past and the present would experience; there will be many phrases and words that this person would not understand. Paying attention to these linguistic aspects, even in the writing, was a refreshing thing to observe. As someone who is extremely interested in the science of language and communication, I particularly like that they gave so much care for these linguistic details. What was indeed an interesting linguistic-philosophical point is that Gim Bung Do did not understand many words that Choe Hui Jin said, yet Choe Hui Jin could understand Gim Bung Do better. Choe Hui Jin obviously thought that Gim Bung Do spoke in a funny way, but Gim Bung Do must have thought the same of Choe Hui Jin; the feeling that the other's way of speaking is alien to one's own way of speaking was evidently mutual. 

The idea of travelling between two worlds is very interesting in different ways: different times are absolutely different worlds and it is no easy task to grasp those different worlds. One of those aspects is the linguistic aspect which I have spoken of, another aspect is the archeological, and yet another is the technological. Of course fashion, style of clothing, is also an aspect. What is, however, the general sentiment that we will feel if we were Choe Hui Jin and Gim Bung Do? Our languages are different, our cultures are different, even our food and clothing are different; we do not really have anything in common except emotion. This is somewhat exaggerated, but that is, methinks, basically the message of the series: emotion is timeless, and it is what can help us to overcome any set of barriers. Therefore, the relationship that develops between the two protagonists and hence love "surpasses" time. In other words, it is not subject to the same changes that other things are; many things change, but love stays the same.

Whenever annals or chronicles were mentioned in the series, it aroused in me an intensely compelling desire to read annals or chronicles as well to inform myself more about the our monarchical history; I want to be presented with a wealth of information on the monarchies of yore, and in those historical books I might be able to find information that will be of use to me in learning to understand monarchy better and hence to promote monarchy more effectively. If I met a person from the past, I would do everything I can to learn from that person about what the past was like and to record information about the past that we might not yet know; after all, that person would be the living past, he would be an ancestor, a person who knows the past by experience. 

The closest I can normally get to the past is reading contemporary works, studying the culture/worldview and language of that historical period at the same time - the theme of the language-culture pair - learning bit by bit what the world looked like back then, and finally trying to find things that we have in common and things that are strikingly different; I am always happy when I find out that the ancestors also did certain things like we do and that I can thus relate to them. If I met a person from the past, I would want to know everything about his daily life and his personal history, his experiences and observations, his skills and knowledge, and his relationships with others. I would like to know what the language was like back then, what the world was like back then, and what the people were like back then.

Korea stands relatively closer to the medieval/feudal past than we in the West; that is also why Korean people often look more natural in medieval clothing and settings, they comprehend medieval situations better, and they themselves feel more connection with the ancestors. Hence they can more easily create a masterpiece like Queen In Hyun's Man which shows an extremely good understanding of the barriers that exist between then and now. They portray past people as real humans with human emotions; that is a huge accomplishment for anyone portraying the medieval era today. We are often stuck in our minds with a stereotypical image of barbarians whom we feel entirely detached from and thus we dare not even think they are our ancestors; we are ashamed of our ancestors, and that is why we wish to hide them, thinking that now we live in a culture uniquely superior to that of our ancestors, and hence it is not worth our time to think of the past. We do not look upon our ancestors as our ancestors; it is revolutionary in such times to think of them as such, however. It takes deep reflection or real revelation to reach the conclusion that those people are the ancestors, not barbarians.

Knowledge of the worlds: separated by different parallel realities

I will now look into the philosophical aspects of travelling between two different worlds or parallel realities: there are mysteries between the worlds. The people of the two worlds cannot comprehend each other; the old world has no knowledge of the new world, yet although the new world has knowledge of the old world, it cannot know the old world. Therefore, there is an insurmountable gap between the two worlds; there is an emotional disconnect with the old world. Artifacts from the old world are handed down to the people of the new world and there are other remains; however, these are merely glimpses of the old world, and the mysteries of the old world remain confined to the old world. An invisible force is separating the worlds, keeping them apart, not allowing them to know each other, keeping their secrets carefully hidden from each other: this force is fate. Yet, fate can make encounters between the people from the two worlds possible. 

While the gap may thus seem insurmountable, it can be surmounted by the aid of fate: the encounter between Choe Hui Jin and Gim Bung Do creates a relationship that is a bridge between the two worlds. The relationship is love, and this love, which is fated, can overcome the gap between the two realities, making it possible for Gim Bung Do to grow ever more attached to the world of Choe Hui Jin and finally leading him to decide to abandon his own reality in favour of the one where Choe Hui Jin lives. What is interesting to note that Choe Hui Jin cannot comprehend the other world by experience, yet she becomes ever more interested in it because of Gim Bung Do and she becomes ever more able to relate to that world through Gim Bung Do; he is her bridge to that world which she cannot experience. She gradually develops an emotional connection with the past that is unusual: this is thanks to Gim Bung Do. 

Although the world of Gim Bung Do is entirely alien to her, she can make sense of that world because of Gim Bung Do; she is interested in the chronicles or annals because of Gim Bung Do. A passion for history is cultivated in her, because she has an emotional connection with the past though Gim Bung Do. This interesting philosophical idea is skilfully presented in the drama. We as monarchists are always dealing with the question: how can we restore the emotional ties with the past? How can we make history a living thing again instead of the dead thing you merely learn? How can we learn not merely to understand history with our minds but to feel, no, comprehend it with our hearts as though we were people living in those past times? 

The relationship between Gim Bung Do and Choe Hui Jin is not just ordinary, but it is a miraculous relationship with many interesting philosophical aspects; the encounter between the two has many interesting philosophical ramifications. Of course, the viewer is left to interpret this encounter as fate. The workings of fate can be seen throughout the drama; fate is the one force that binds all events together by being a thread. The relationship is highly symbolic; there is much more to it than meets the eye. While the different worlds are alien to each other, they have many idiosyncratic mysteries to reveal to each other; the only force that can make these revelations possible is fate. 

At first, Gim Bung Do needs the help of a talisman to get fate to allow him to enter the other world. After all, to prepare the talisman, fate had to be involved/invoked; fate is the "magic" that makes the supernatural power of the talisman possible. The talisman would not have any supernatural properties had there been no fate. Fate is the invisible force that explains superficial, visible forces such as "magic." Fate like the soul is the invisible thing that is behind a lot of superficial, visible things in the world; knowledge of fate as knowledge of the soul helps us to make sense of many visible phenomena. Animism explains a lot, and so does fatalism; fate, for instance, explains magic, and the soul explains life after death. Therefore, one ought to believe in fate to uderstand things. The metaphysical aspects of the drama make little sense without an understanding of fate.

It is interesting to note that the perceptions of the two worlds towards one another are different (although later a time-based perspective creeps in for the old world as well though often still no clear distinction is made between parallel world and future world): the old world refers to the new world as the other world, insinuating the conception of a parallel world. To them in the past, that other world is not really the future; it is just another parallel world. In the past. they are detached from that world; they do not regard it as their future, but merely as something happening at the same time. Rather, they must have a mythological conception of the other world, thinking it is a land of fairies, which is a conception that makes most sense to them. It is clear that the new world is not fully grasped by the old world, and vice versa.

Another important aspect that may be easily overlooked is that the different worlds are very different in atmosphere and looks (refer to the poster above). One of the first things that one notices looking at the two worlds is that there is much more nature in the old world whereas there is much more civilisation in the new world. Untamed nature is still plentiful and prevalent in the old world, giving it a much more mysterious, primordial, instinctive character; however, the new world does not have this, and has a much more rational, comprehensible, artificial character because of the lack of nature. 

Monarchistic vs. democratic world: loyalty vs. freedom

A stark difference between the worlds of Choe Hui Jin and Gim Bung Do is that the former is democratic and the latter is monarchistic. Democracy must be incomprehensible to Gim Bung Do, and I cannot imagine that he would get used to that idea. He even criticised the clothing of the new area for not being practical enough, and he expressed his sentiment to Choe Hui Jin that she looks better in traditional clothing. That being the case, I cannot imagine he would like democracy. He would not believe in individual freedom and he would certainly find it strange to vote. His relationshps were all based on loyalty: he is the servant of the King, and his people are his servants. He expects to receive the same loyalty from others as he gives to others. He is portrayed as a character of conscience, he is a man who deeply cares about his integrity. His loyalty to the Queen and the King shows that he is a real loyalist/monarchist. 

He comes from a society of relationships, and he would find a society of ideas strange; he is not loyal to ideas, but to people. He cares about the survival of the people as a whole by means of loyalty to the King. He does not care for lofty ideals; a relationship-based worldview is what makes sense to him. He does not view the individual as liberally disconnected from the whole, nor does he perceive this as a right. Instead, he views everyone as connected, he views everyone as having relationships; people are bound together by honour and loyalty in his world, and that is also how it should be according to his worldview. 

All of his actions to change the past make no sense whatsoever if he did not have this underlying worldview. He was not just a man who wanted to stop evil, but he was a man who was unconditionally loyal to the Joseon dynasty of his time. He kept his promise of loyalty to the King because that was his worldview; he would never break a promise because that would be worse than death, and hence he was willing to die to keep his promise. A man of such integrity was a monarchist. The drama series never explicitly call him a monarchist, but they certainly insinuate such. This serves as evidence that Gim Bung Do is portrayed as a staunch royalist/loyalist: he does the moral thing, has a conscience, keeps to his vows, takes responsibility, and has a good sense of duty.

Gim Bung Do does not only live for himself and understands very well that he cannot live only for himself. This is, however, what people living in democracies too frequently tend not to comprehend at all. Monarchism creates a society where a pyramid of social hierarchy naturally emerges from the way relationships are stuctured through the instinctive concepts of loyalty and honour and hence the people living in such a society will usually dismiss equality as an impossible ideal, because loyalty in conjunction with honour is the norm and loyalty in conjunction with honour creates that pyramid of social hierarchy. Inequality is, in the final analysis, only a natural sign of a healthy civilised society.

At one point, Cheo Hui Jin informs Gim Bung Do that the Joseon dynasty had already fallen. Gim Bung Do reluctantly replies that he is interested only in his time. He responds as if it is another universe entirely, though he ought to be aware that he is talking about the fate of the Joseon dynasty in the future. I can, however, not imagine that someone like Gim Bung Do would be unconcerned about the fall of the Joseon dynasty. Choe Hui Jin notes at one point, after all, that lineage was important in Gim Bung Do's time, and Gim Bung Do also notes himself that he is the only surviving member of his lineage, highlighting that if he dies, his entire lineage will disappear. 

Therefore, he is very concerned about the survival of his lineage, and it would also make sense, therefore, that he would be concerned about the Joseon dynasty in the same way. The reason for having him being disinterested in the present must have been a political move. The drama does apparently not want to enter into the sensitive area of the discussion of the restoration of the Joseon dynasty, but merely wants to focus on some safe distant past rather than concern itself with the present. The move also makes sense from the perspective of the plot: Gim Bung Do can only return to his own time, and he cannot travel to any other specific period in time, making it impossible for him to prevent the fall of the Joseon dynasty if ever he wanted such. 

At the same time, Gim Bung Do acts out of character by being disinterested in the fall of the Joseon dynasty: he is normally so interested in things that happened and he himself is a person of honour and loyalty, the way he builds relationships is based on the monarchistic ideal, the way he thinks is monarchistic, and he even still interacts with the monarchistic world he comes from for quite a while, although he starts noticeably having troubles with reconciling the two worlds, as he begins using words from the other world in his speech, and thus evidently starts to feel more and more attached to the other world; otherwise, he would not be using these words in the first place. 

The fact that he uses these words shows that he has grown very attached to the other world; those are the words in his heart. I believe that the drama-makers considered it would have been politically too sensitive for the drama to venture into the land of suggesting the restoration of the monarchy - something that Gim Bung Do's character would obviously have wanted - but I am still of the opinion that had they done that, Gim Bung Do would have been more in-character and it would have made also perfect sense to the plot. Even though Gim Bung Do's chief attention would still be focused on his own time, he would evidently have been concerned about the fall of the Joseon dynasty; he would have been extremely shocked even, I can imagine, upon hearing the destruction of the dynasty like he would be shocked upon hearing the destruction of his own lineage in some future.

Final words 

We look in a too closed-minded way upon the past. We try to comprehend it with the mind, but our heart does not comprehend it; we do not even allow our heart to understand. We are too emotionally detached from the past, and may even see this as a virtue. However, without openness to understanding the past with the heart or simply a desire for such openness, the past cannot be fully/emotionally comprehended; we cannot have an open-minded way of looking upon the past, we cannot empathise with it. People nowadays do not know what they are missing; they have yet the wrong approach to the past. Hence I would also have liked to see Choe Hui Jin learning more from Gim Bung Do, though her emotional connection with the past only grows throughout the series.

To a monarchist such as me, Korean movies and dramas - though I tend to really select the ones I like and consider sufficiently moral - are a good example of what kind of movies a Western absolute monarchy - if ever this absolute monarchist wish were to be granted - should produce in the future. Though I have a preference for dramas set in the last 10 years because I can relate to that the most and I wish to focus on the current period in history that is still in the making since I wish to understand my own time, I am a fan of historical Korean drama series. There are so many things I could say about Queen In Hyun's Man, but suffice to say that I consider it one of the best Korean dramas I have ever watched. Upon watching the whole series, I really have the desire to watch the whole series again and pay more attention to details. I will certainly watch this series again soon. 

The Trias Politica as a Subversive Republican Tool

The trias politica is the principle which separates three powers. It is a response to the principle that everything is unified under monarchy. The republicans did not like that they could not influence, for instance, the law because only the monarch who represented the people could do so. To infiltrate the state successfully, they had to come up with the myth that the unity of the three powers is evil. Monarchies were inhenrently people-oriented institutions; if anything is the universal ideology of monarchy, then it is the people. In stark contrast to monarchy, however, stand the republican systems; they are idea-fixated institutions.

The republican idea was originally that they could do bettr than monarchy, nay, even that anything is better than monarchy - a republican mind-set still far too common today. To get rid of monarchy, they had to come up with different cultural critiques; the whole concept of the trias politica served that purpose. Republicans today still love to make people afraid that if we do not have the trias politica, then our whole nation will descend into barbaric chaos.  We are not supposed to believe in the unity of the three powers, because according to the republicans that would be morally equivalent to believing that evil is good. Ergo, the feudalists or monarchists of yore were all evil men, women, and children who believed that left is right and right is left.

What better way was there than to make an end to the "evil" of the old feudal days than to separate the three powers as suggested by the principle of the trias politica. The culture of monarchy had to be destroyed at all costs, and limiting its power would be the way to go. In fact, the attack on monarchy was not just an attack on the monarchs, but on the people they represented as well. It was their culture that was being attacked, subverted, and destroyed. Power-hungry republicans who were simply jealous of the monarch's power and thought it belonged in their hands unfortunately got their way. However, we can learn from them to reverse what has happened and to prevent that from ever happening again. Learning from history with a clear purpose in mind is really one of the most important things to do; for it gives the power to bring about a royal revolution.

That revolution should not merely be a revolution happening in one place in the world, but the goal of a world revolution should be kept in mind; that is an important lesson from republicanism. You have to think big if you want to bring about any significant changes in the world. To focus our minds on the trias politica again, republicans essentially considered the power of monarchs unfair (to themselves). They just wanted to rule themselves, and since that desire could not be fulfilled, or at least not for the vast majority of them, they turned to destroying whatever defined the culture of monarchy and derogatively called whatever reminded them of that culture "feudal." I think that it is a good idea to use that against them; let us be feudal and proud of the fact that we are feudal.

I think that it should be utterly clear what the intended purpose of the trias politica was/is to the minds of republicans: the subversion of the power of the monarchy. I have unfortunately not so much time these days to elaborate much on my thoughts, but I hope this will suffice for my readers. I cannot be perfectionistic either due to lack of time, so forgive me for any errors you may find.

Ideology of Inequality

These days it is fashionable to have the opinion that equality is inherently fair. In contrast to this belief, the world is rife with inequality and there is no indication that this reality will change anytime soon. Nevertheless, when one firmly holds the belief that equality is inherently fair, one will have faith that no obstacle is big enough to stop "progress," i.e. the process by which it is thought inequality will be "inevitably" abolished in this world. Even when there are no signs of change in any meaningful or objectively progressive way, people who have been led to think equality is always fair will continue to support and fight for equality. Assuming that equality is absolutely good, these same individuals regard inequality as the root of all evil. As if they know the key to the past, present, and future, they will tell us about how equality has plagued humanity for all of human history, yet we must fight for change in the present while victory is inevitable in the future. Thus, it is truly their firm belief that they understand all of human history - what was, what is, what will be. They will ignore all signs that they are fighting against reality, nature, time, evolution, etc. because their minds have been programmed to do so; only the goal matters to them, and no matter the costs or consequences, they will pursue that goal, even when that means the total destruction of society along with all the traditional customs, beliefs, and values that hold it together as a web of delicate threads running through our daily human lives. Blinded with the ideology of equality, the republicans will fight for the destruction of humanity and civilisation.

I think that it is time for an explicit and sophisticated ideology of inequality. What we have known for all of human history must be made explicit: inequality is the norm in this world, and it is necessarily so. The assumption that equality is inherently fair is not just obviously mistaken, but such a ridiculous concept is dangerously delusional as it leads to unwarranted radicalism - a fact which has become painfully obvious because of the various sectarian strands of republicanism. After all, even a child can tell that equality is not necessarily fair. For instance, a big person may be given a bigger portion of food at the table than his small neighbour who eats very little while he naturally needs less. It would be an artificial situation to force the big person to eat the same portion of food as the small person or vice versa. However, those who believe equality is necessarily good will be advocating and consequently doing practically just that. The idea that equality is good while we live in a world of inequality is sheer madness. Observing the world around us, it should actually dawn upon us that inequality might not be such a bad thing after all. In fact, it might even be a good thing. Nature necessitates variety. Evolution occurs because of that necessity. Inequality exists because of evolution. That being the case, inequality is the road to progress, while equality is the road to regression. If we were all the same, we would obviously not be making a leap forward but a huge leap backwards. Equality is artificial, and absolute equality cannot exist because it does not belong to this world.

Theories can make us crazy about equality, but equality is not all-good. Actually, equality can be quite evil. When I was studying feudalism, it occurred to me that our feudal forefathers were not wrong in their worldview that there was nothing wrong with (the maintenance of) inequality in this world. After all, if all the rich people who lived in feudal times chose to give up their wealth for life as a beggar, then everyone would have been poor and no one could have shared some of their wealth with the poor. Equality is not necessarily a good thing. Those who criticise the feudal system merely for the inequality that existed in this system are biased about the nature of equality; such individuals think equality is only fair and good. However, any mature-thinking person ought to be more reasonable and not entertain such simplistic thoughts. The world is not rose-coloured and we are not living in fairy-tales. Equality is not a good thing in and of itself, and it is certainly not something that is to be pursued at all costs and all times. In fact, I believe that inequality is a much better thing to pursue, because (a) all humans are not equal, and (b) if all humans are not equal, it will better suit their needs to treat them unequally. The idea of our feudal ancestors - and this is an idea pretty much in harmony with nature - was to help people through inequality. They recognised that we can do good in a world where things are as they are; we can improve the world through its natural framework.

We do not need to rebel against the world to make it a better and nicer place; no, the opposite should be done. We should embrace the world as it is, and seek to do the best we can within the world's limitations. This may not sound spectacular, but it is also not meant to be, because what is natural is what is and ought to be normal. There is an imperative to follow the rules of the world in which we live. If we think that we can simply change the rules, we will be painfully disappointed, because our efforts will be totally in vain. The rules cannot be changed, but we can live by those rules and do so honourably. The inequality of individuals, of groups, of cultures, is a good thing in my eyes; it is what makes the world so wonderfully diverse. Monarchy embraces that diversity; it says yes to inequality. There is nothing wrong with the rules of the world, because that would presuppose that we can change those rules. Likewise, there is nothing intrinstically wrong with inequality. It is only that ideological types have been led to believe equality is absolutely fair and good. It is absurd even to focus on something such as inequality, while we can focus on helping people. Attacking inequality is a dangerous thing, because it will lead to destruction. However, helping humanity is a much better goal to pursue, and if one genuinely pursues that goal, one will not focus on fighting inequality. In fact, inequality is not that which hinders helping humanity but is that through which humanity can be helped.

In the end, it may be argued that fighting against inequality is inhumane or anti-human. The maintenance of inequality may actually be very good for people. Feudalism recognised that. It is difficult for us now to understand what kind of ideology our feudal ancestors had, but it is actually vitally important for us today to study and investigate feudalism and to try to understand better what our feudal ancestors thought. We can learn a lot from those who lived in a natural way. Of course, feudal ideology did perhaps not need to be explicitly expressed at the time because it was a natural fact; it grew and came to people naturally. After all, feudalism was probably not created by some verbose theorists who wished to improve the world while ignoring the simple fact that reality cannot be altered unless one understands, accepts, and lives by the rules of this world. I think, moreover, that we need to see feudalism in its medieval context, and that if ever we were to adopt feudalism today, it would have to be naturally adapted to our specific needs and desires that we have as a people in our time and place. Even in the past feudalism used to mean many different things in different times and places. Feudalism was a very dynamic system, which changed according to the people's needs in a certain time and place.

We may, for example, also say that our modern society shows feudal characteristics. This is not per se bad. It is just a fact. I believe that even though hunter-gatherer societies may appear more egalitarian on the surface, as Marx has noted, there is nevertheless inequality between individual hunter-gatherers, at least in the final analysis. Individuals are not equal, and so it would be absurd to think that hunter-gatherers would be equal. Of course, they may share food and other resources more or less equally among themselves, but this does not make the entire society equal. It is, perhaps, in a relative sense true that hunter-gatherer societies are more equal, because, after all, there are more professions in more complex societies, because those societies necessitate more specialisation while there are more things that need to be done for the maintenance of such societies. I do firmly believe that feudal structures will only be seen in more complex societies such as in Europe or East Asia. Where there is a higher need for specialisation, there is a higher demand for inequality. Since hunter-gatherers have less need for inequality, they also tend to develop and reproduce social structures that are not - or in any case much less - feudal. Due to the complexity of the West, feudal structures will always resurface no matter what republicans try to do for the realisation of their ideal of absolute equality on earth. Realising that there is a timeless aspect to feudalism, I am willing to identify as a feudalist, even if it is just to taunt Marxists and others who are biased against feudalism.

To conclude this article, I think that monarchists should embrace inequality, emphasise the need to help people through inequality, and develop an elaborate ideology of inequality that is, although such an ideology must be justified theoretically or philosophically, in harmony with nature and humanity. In the end, an ideology of inequality, which fits monarchism, will be much more altruistic, because humanity can be helped much more effectively through inequality than it can ever be through inherently artificial equality. If helping and improving humanity is moral, i.e. something that we should all pursue and seek after, then a moral argument can also be made for pursuing (the maintenance of) inequality instead of (artificially creating) equality.

My Brief Review and Praise of The Annals of Roger de Hoveden

The fact that the author of this work has an almost Dutch-sounding surname is one of the personal reasons that I am interested in it. At the same time, this is also a recognition of the scholarly value of this work and what merit it may have for the cause of monarchy. After all, the British monarchy which is undoubtedly one of the main themes of de Hoveden's work is one of the eldest (if not the eldest depending on how you count) monarchy in existence on the European continent. I suspect that what helped the British monarchy endure for such a long time is that the United Kingdom is insular and cut off from mainland Europe by the ocean. This geographical reality means that there is great potential for conservatism in Britain, and history shows that the British are indeed a quite conservative people, despite the fact that their language has adopted many more foreignisms than most continental Germanic languages.

So it can be said that the British are quite conservative in customs and beliefs, although their language in general is an exception to this general tendency towards conservatism that one would commonly expect to find among an insular or geographically isolated people such as the British, Icelandic, or Faroese people. Nevertheless, the spelling of English is quite conservative and it has as a language not changed considerably since the time of Shakespeare, although Shakespearean English is obviously different from Modern English in quite some ways. It is really the gap between Old English and its descendant - the latter of which has adopted many words of non-Germanic origin - that makes the Modern English language quite non-conservative. If we were to consider the relationship of Modern English with its previous historical stages after Old English, then we will, however, see a reasonable degree of conservatism. Perhaps another testimony to British conservatism is that it has been demonstrated in recent genetic research that the original tribal divisions - all these tribes originally had their own separate kingdoms and cultures - are still visibly extant in the native population of the United Kingdom.

de Hoveden originally wrote his work in Latin which Henry T. Riley took the trouble to translate into English in the middle of the 19th century. His translation was published in 2 volumes (the second volume is available here). There was only one version or publication of the Latin text available in the 19th century according to Mr. Riley, as he states in his preface, and it was evidently in bad condition because it contained many errors. For this reason the task was transferred upon him to correct these errors in his translation. Mr. Riley thus relied for his translation entirely upon the Scriptores post Bedam of Sir Henry Saville, London, 1598, which was later reprinted at Frankfort in 1601. It was only an accident that I came across de Hoveden's work which deals with European, though chiefly British, royal history from 732 AD to 1201 AD, since I was looking for annals that would give me more insight into history from a more contemporary and more monarchy-friendly perspective. It is unfortunate that the history books written in modern times often adopt a modern liberal or leftist perspective on history, since many of today's scholars are liberals or leftists, and this taints our understanding of historical monarchism and creates its own misunderstandings as we project contemporary liberal or leftists ideas into the past.

I think that de Hoveden's work is exactly the kind of work that will give you in many ways a more nuanced view on monarchism in Europe, particularly in the British Isles. The historical accuracy of his work as a contemporary historian, as with the works of other historians, may be disputed here and there, but what ultimately matters is that he provided a contemporary perspective that is valuable in and of itself. We would be really poor if we could only rely on the leftist-inclined perspective of modern-day scholars. It is certain that many modern-day intellectual writers have a quite antagonistic view of monarchism, despite the fact that they neither seem to really grasp its essence nor its timeless and universal principles. Monarchy has meant so many things in so many different times and places, but there is an essence to it and it does have specific principles that make it monarchy wherever and whenever it exists among any people on Earth.

I think that if we read de Hoveden's work, we get to feel this essence of monarchy; we get to feel its timeless and universal principles as the author narrates his account of European or British history. I think that it is quite difficult to capture monarchy in a few words, because it is a complex system, but once you can feel it through history, in this case de Hoveden's annals, you can come to a better understanding of it and achieve monarchism-realisation, as it were, because you may never be able to fully "comprehend" monarchy if you do not allow yourself to feel its profound culture and spirituality. Again, monarchy is a complex system and it would be absurdly and painfully naive to think that it can be completely summarised in just a few words.

On the Possibility of a New Beginning For Our Civilisation After Its Potentially Inevitable Decline

I originally wrote this as a comment under an excellent article by Mad Monarchist on the decline of Western civilisation in modern times, but unfortunately my comment did not get posted, so I will post it here: 

I see the turbulent future of the West as an opportunity for monarchy. Where there is destruction, there is an opportunity for construction. Destruction can bring about new opportunities for a civilisation, at least if the people bearing the culture do survive through the process of destruction. What is worrying of course is that the culture of the West is being threatened from without, but these worries are by no means unique to our times. Europe has survived various other disasters, both natural and man-made, and although it is possible that Europeans in their home continent will go the way of the American Indians - a terrible disaster - it is yet not at all certain that this will happen, so there is reason for hope. If Europe will experience a tremendous shock and survives this shock, it will have to reconsider certain aspects of its culture afterward. While this cultural evolution is happening, spontaneously emerging monarchies may have a unique opportunity to rise to the task of filling the void that is left by the ruins of the previous stage in European civilisation and to meet the new challenges that are characteristic of the new period in the history of our civilisation. 

If one chapter in our history ends, a new one may begin. It is purely contemporary ideology, a set of terribly wrong ideas, that is destroying the West. These ideas will have to be reconsidered sooner or later, and it appears that these ideas will have to reach their logical conclusion before it will be clear and obvious for all that these ideas are terribly wrong. The West, right now, is at a turning point in its history, and monarchists, at least in my humble opinion, ought to recognise this particular moment as an opportunity for the cause of monarchy. Monarchs and monarchists in the past proved themselves capable of going with the times, and once again this dynamic nature should be showed to the world for the sake of breaking with the republican aberration that has plagued every single Western country since it abandoned monarchical rule. If the aim is to meet the new challenges, particularly open-mindedness to absolute monarchy will be an important step towards making the next chapter in Europe's history one of monarchical restoration and stability. 

Just as monarchies spontaneously emerged in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe can rise from its ashes fully embracing monarchy once more. Of course, Europe will have to deal with various demographic challenges, but absolute monarchies will be more than capable of dealing with these challanges in an appropriate and efficient way. Native European fertility can be boosted by reconnecting with the glorious past and regaining confidence in the future, foreign cultures that do not traditionally belong in Europe can be repatriated, and the new Europe, i.e. the Europe of the future, can officially become a continent belonging to its natives, preventing future demographic disasters (which might bring about European extinction or which might reduce native Europeans to a minority status in their own countries), and the best way, of course, to make this official is to systematically encode it into European law and to teach all the future generations about the mistakes of their forefathers in regard to preserving their own culture. For the time being, the psychology of the West will remain suicidal. 

However, if the suicide attempt fails, the West may wake up to its own contemporary "stupidity" (I hate to say it) and learn from its mistakes. The Zeitgeist of the West will be suicidal for as long as the West has not been shocked out of its own world that is detached from reality. The West is dreaming and depressed, its idealism is overly pessimistic. However, a long period of cultural optimism can follow a brief period of cultural depression. We are, as I have said, experiencing a turning point. The West will eventually have to reevaluate its core principles and values. Either it will do this before disaster strikes or disaster will force the West to adapt to the realities of this world. 

I believe that the West can survive this period in its history, even though the disaster will be unprecented if current trends are not going to be arrested and will be left to reach their logical conclusion. After all, Europeans have proved throughout their history that they are robust survivors in times of extreme hardship. Maybe hardship is just what the West needs in order to wake up from its highly unrealistic dream world, to let go of outdated and wrong ideas, and to finally return to absolute monarchy. Objecting to absolute monarchy because hereditary succession would not be fair is a good example of the current mentality of the West. This kind of mentality has to go because it is unproductive. 

To reiterate the point of my comment, I think there is always reason for optimism and in my view it is important to not lose oneself in pessimism lest one's chances of success or even survival be significantly reduced. 

On the Merit of Perfection

Perfectionism has no good reputation in our modern society and this cultural perception is reflected in the deeply negative connotation that the word perfectionism itself bears. People dismiss perfection saying that there is no such thing as absolute perfection in reality. Absolute perfection may never be attained, but it is the path towards perfection that matters. Perfection as a human mental construct can be a means to an end. It can make you aim for something higher. It is this orientation towards self-improvement that makes the path towards perfection so valuable. Since absolute perfection cannot be attained, those who are on the path towards perfection are on an eternal journey towards progress. The path matters because it leads to progress, never-ending evolution towards something better.

Monarchy can be a interpreted as a framework. Since republicans always wish to convince everyone not excluding themselves that the overthrow of monarchies in every place and time means progress and that for this reason the historical overthrow of monarchies is good by default, they believe that monarchy is a framework within which no progress can be achieved and for this reason the monarchical framework is in their minds an obstacle that has to be removed for the sake of clearing the road to progress. However, these people who advocate the worldwide destruction of monarchy have not opened the floodgates to progress, but rather to revolutions against a system within which progress can also be achieved. I say "also" with a slight sense of irony, because the republicans promised miraculous progress, yet monarchy was already achieving progress and republicans were disturbing this process, plunging the world into violent and genocidal revolutions against otherwise peaceful and orderly monarchies as well as into various other unnecessary, painful episodes in our human history that could have been prevented.

It is false that monarchies are inherently stagnant or that they are obstacles to the process of never-ending improvement, since progress can be achieved within the framework that monarchy provides - the history of monarchy on our entire planet supports this as an undisputable fact. Monarchy as a political system is certainly no more antagonistic towards sincere progress than any republican system. When republicans claim that monarchies cannot achieve any progress, it should not be forgotten that progress is in their minds a term to indicate anything that represents their particular ideological aims. So, if you are a liberal, then the overthrow of a communist government and its replacement with a liberal government will be a sign of "inevitable" progress. However, if you are a communist, then the overthrow of a liberal government and its replacement with a communist government will be a sign of "inevitable" progress and the people's liberation.

Republicans have perverted the word progress to usually mean anything but sincere progress. Whenever they use the word this way, they add a sense of inevitability to it. They sum up their entire ideology in the concept of "progress" and then they say that this "progress" is "inevitable." Therefore, when they say that a revolution against monarchy is progressive, they also mean it is inevitable. This is "clever" in a way because they by-pass morality: If you argue against the idea that such a revolution is progressive (good), then they will say that it is inevitable and for that reason that you should embrace it anyways. Then, if you still do not agree, they go on to depict you as a crazy person who is fighting against the unstoppable currents of "change" and that whatever you say is merely based on a deep, irrational fear of "change." The circular logic can be summed up thus: Progress is inevitable because inevitability is progressive, and vice versa.  In other words: What is progressive is inevitable because what is inevitable is progressive, and vice versa. This whole phenomenon of justifying progress through inevitability and vice versa makes no logical sense, but it does certainly become apparent that republicans are some sort of "fatalists" who try to silence opposition by saying their agenda (euphemistically called "progress") is inevitable and if this does not make the opposition shut up, they will resort to bullying the opposition into surrender.

However, republicans see what is inevitable as anything that represents their ideology. This can therefore not be called any genuine "inevitability" where a truly "outside force" imposes something. While it may be said that republicans perceive their ideology as an outside force which imposes itself upon the world, their sense of inevitability is rather a word game where "inevitability" and "progress" can be freely interchanged with the seeming distinction that "inevitability" is free from any moral judgement while "progress" is not (i.e. inevitability is morally neutral while progress is morally good). Nevertheless, that "distinction" is not a real distinction because "progress" and "inevitability" are freely interchanged as synonyms for whatever may be considered to represent the republican political agenda; it can be said that it is meant to confuse outsiders. Such a cunning attempt at confusion may be of unconscious origin as so many aspects of human psychology, but the origin itself does not diminish any of the menace that it poses to monarchy as a working political system and to the universal/international cause of restoring monarchy where it has been lost.

A dog may bite you out of an uninentional reflex, but it will nevertheless hurt. Thus, the discussion whether republican hostility towards monarchy is conscious of subconscious is irrelevant to the end result that they have destroyed or still make constant attempts at destroying traditional monarchies. There are doubtlessly "evil" individuals out there who consciously work day and night to destroy monarchy, while there are also others who do it more or less unconsciously. Those who consciously seek to destroy monarchy are certainly the most radical, but those who do it unconsciously are by no means any less destructive than their consciously destructive counterparts. A great part of this hostility comes from a republican upbringing and the fact that the republican culture is widespread in our modern society. If you are a member of our modern society, you will certainly not miss the reiteration of republican sentiments by teachers, university professors, journalists, historians, and of course politicians. This is what makes our society "progressive" according to some.

Stepping over the misconceptions about monarchy, it ought to be acknowledged that monarchy is a very dynamic system which adapts to the specific needs of any time, place, and people. In fact, an argument could be made that monarchy is a uniquely adaptive system which provides a framework within which an infinite amount of progress can be achieved in philosophy, science, and technology. Monarchy, as history has repeatedly proved, is anything but an impairment to sincere progress. In this period in time, monarchy will have to meet the challenges posed by the verbally, economically, and militarily aggressive ideology of republicanism. However, significant progress in the cause of monarchy can be achieved if people are willing to give monarchy a chance. Republicanism is like the stunningly sexy woman a man can get seduced by, and when he has committed adultery on his caring wife, he may later regret his choice once he realises that beauty is only of short duration but genuine, loving care does not fade with age. Whatever faults his wife may have had, the man may slowly but gradually start forgive her for these more or less minor faults and long back to her caring nature, acknowledging its higher value. It is also like that with monarchy: The novelty of republicanism will fade and ugliness will be all that is left, but will the people be able to forgive monarchy for whatever faults it may have had and be courageous enough to return to monarchy and repent for the aberration?

Our ancestors relentlessly sought to achieve progress within the framework of monarchy, and they seemed to feel no dissatisfaction until republican ideology started to challenge monarchies worldwide and make totally irresponsible, extravagant promises of Utopian conditions which would be achieved through revolution against monarchy. The experiments ended in various levels of failure, but they were all failures nevertheless. The most successful republican experiments ended up closely mimicking monarchy, yet still remain miles apart from monarchy. They often parasitise on the legacy of monarchy and at the same time pretend monarchy never achieved anything. This level of hypocrisy is what holds these republican experiments together for the time being. However, we must challenge this hypocrisy to make the people more aware of the return to monarchy as a viable option.

On the Origin of Religion, Mythology, and Cultural Misconceptions About Other Cultures

Warning: This article is written purely from an external scientific perspective with no intention to offend individuals or mock their religion but only to discover the essence and origin of beliefs, especially those which fit into a particular culture-religion pair.

It took me some time to realise what the origin of human belief systems is. However, after I had read the Wikipedia page on Inuit religion, one day I suddenly had the idea that the origin of religion and religious story-telling might simply largely be rooted in the sentiment of fear. Religions tend to emphasise, in one or another way, fear of a single deity or many deities, and very often fear of other strange creatures as well, such as demons or ghosts. The sentiment of fear solved a large part of the puzzle for me as to where beliefs, or superstitions if you will, come from. This is, of course, not to ignore the cultural function that these beliefs may have, as religions are not isolated from cultures but religions and cultures traditionally come in pairs. However, the overlap between belief/superstition and fear is an important finding that might help to explore the origin and essence of religion.

F. Hadland Davis expresses a similar understanding coupled with a strong intellectual desire to explore the origin and essence of religion just over a hundred years ago when he wrote in his book about the sacred narratives of Japanese folk religion better known as Shinto:

The subject of Japanese superstition is of special importance, because it serves to indicate the channel by which many myths and legends, but more particularly folk-lore, have evolved. Superstition [i.e. fear] is, as it were, the raw material out of which innumerable strange beliefs are gradually fashioned into stories, and an inquiry into the subject will show us the peasant mind striving to counteract certain supernatural forces, or to turn them to advantage in every-day life. [...] It is scarcely necessary to point out that these superstitions, selected from a vast store of quaint beliefs, are necessarily of a primitive kind and must be regarded, excluding, perhaps, those associated with the classic art of divination, as peculiar to the more ignorant classes in Japan. 

[Japanese superstitions, p. 302 of Myths and Legends of Japan by F. Hadland Davis, freely available at Gutenberg Project] 

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the last sentence of the quote above, the important point to note is that Japanese superstition is probably largely rooted in fear. What the author regards as "primitive" is perhaps the close association with human emotion, particularly that of fear. If the world's religions are rooted in human emotion, particularly that of fear, then it is no wonder that all human indigenous religions would routinely be labelled as "primitive" from a traditional Western perspective, altough Western religion is by no means free from this emotional experience that gave rise to not only religion and mythology but also art, philosophy, and culture. Humans are a unity of the emotional and intellectual, the mind and the heart, the irrational and rational. Some religions emphasise one more than the other, and some religions verbalise beliefs more than other religions. To take Japanese indigenous religion as an example, this religion tends to emphasise experience and feeling more than expression of belief, which makes it appear more primitive in the eyes of the traditional Western observer who is more used to the verbosity of Western religion.

Being totally open to the experience of emotion is somewhat strange to Westerners, because they are particularly prone to hide, deny, and suppress their emotions. Control of emotions, which involves the frontal part of the brain, is what is encouraged in Western culture, and emotionality is generally looked down upon.  The Western spirit is essentially at war with the emotional part of itself, while it seeks to entirely replace it with its rational part. The emotional or irrational, as the opposite of the intellectual or rational, then inevitably has a bad connotation to traditional Western minds. The struggle with the emotional self that is characteristic of the West stems from the Western "either-or" mind-set which seeks to contrast things and deny one thing in favour of another thing.

However, the prevailing mind-set in the East, and to a lesser extent pretty much the rest of the world, is a "both-and" mind-set which seeks to embrace opposites simultaneously if that is deemed to serve practical or cultural purposes, such as ensuring group survival or maintaining harmony within a group. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Eastern religion - while the numerous indigenous religions around the world invariably tend to follow this example in one or another way - experiences and makes use of emotion much more freely than Western religion, although the latter by no means lacks emotion but simply only seeks to hide, deny, or suppress it by means of a highly developed verbosity. In this light, the verbosity of Western relgion may be seen as a shield or facade.

Pre-Christian indigenous European religions, such as the surviving pagan religion of the Mari, nevertheless, tend to be more tuned in to emotions while placing less emphasis on verbosity. As in Japanese folk religion, ritual and practice tend to be more the centre-point of religious life/focus in these pre-Christian religions. This is, perhaps, also why Japanese as well as other ethno-religious groups around the world may feel uncomfortable with the term "religion" which makes them think of Western religion, and feel a preference for alternative terms, such as "way" or "spirituality." What these people may well seek to express through this distinction is the emotion-embracing quality of their indigenous religions as opposed to the emotion-denying quality of Western religion.

The non-Western emotion-embracing indigenous religions may seem primitive to Western observers for the very simple reason that they do not hide, deny, or suppress emotionality as Westerners are accustomed to in their own culture and religion. Strictly speaking, Christianity is not a Western religion in that it originates in the Middle East, but for the sake of simplicity, I speak of Christianity as a Western religion because even though belief in Christianity has been steadily declining in the West over the past decades after the end of WWII, it is currently still the prime example of Western religiosity. The ultimate expression of the inclination towards verbosity in Western religion is the sermon, and it is interesting to note that as there is the sermon in the Church, there is the speech or nowadays presentation in the Western business world. The typical emphasis on the verbal expression of ideas is, of course, also present in the Western business world, and thus the speech or presentation serves a similar practical purpose as the sermon in the Church.

For this reason, anthropologists have also suggested that Western culture is a low-context culture, i.e. a culture where everything has to be explicitly expressed, whereas Eastern culture, and pretty much all other cultures of the world, are high-context cultures, i.e. cultures where things are usually implicit. It has to be kept in mind, though, that we are talking about a relative rather than an absolute distinction when it comes to low-context and high-context cultures, because cultures which are defined as low-context cultures may, quite obviously, occasionally show characteristics of high-context cultures and vice versa. There is clearly some overlap.

Nevertheless, a good example of this implicit expression of ideas is when you are at a Chinese friend's home and you tell them that you are hungry. They will immediately assume that they should cook you dinner, and thus telling them that you are hungry is enough for them to understand that they should cook dinner for you. However, in Western culture one usually has to ask a guest explicitly: Would you like to eat dinner with us?

As non-Westerners are simply unlike Westerners in their manner of expression and hence of thinking, the perhaps unique inclination of the West towards explicit expression may also have contributed to the idea that non-Western peoples are somehow "primitive" by default, which, in that context, may have to be interpreted as an expression of the Western sentiment that other peoples lacked and/or are strange to Western values, norms, and habits. This sentiment may, of course, have translated to a sense of Western cultural pride, and even cultural supremacy, although this "native vs. alien" world-perception is by no means strange among human populations. Tribes can identify themselves and the Other, and this, in a cultural and practical context, may aid them in their survival. Doubtless, this sentiment of "self vs. Other" may have historically aided the West, and may be seen in a neutral context despite modern negative historical connotations, because it can be traced to the same tribal awareness that we see in other peoples around the world today.

This awareness of self and Other can, no doubt, potentially be abused or exploited for bad ends, but its cultural function is not to be ignored. As fascinating as the human awareness of the self and the Other may be, I believe that it is still the duty of the scientist to remove such biases, perhaps by means of using some relativistic perspective such as is common practice in the social sciences. This does, however, not mean that a worldwide crusade against indigenous "ethnocentrism" (to use that somewhat negatively judgmental term) is necessary. I am simply saying that I believe that within the context of science, it may be desirable to be free from such biases, because it may hinder understanding of other cultures. Nevertheless, I also believe that peoples are free to believe what they want to believe, and if any people like most other peoples believes that it is somehow unique or better, then it does not necessarily ring alarm bells in my mind because this is quite normal around the world, and has historically also been quite normal, and may even have helped cultures to survive.

The vital point to be grasped here is that, on the one hand, Japanese folk religion (Shinto) and other indigenous religions may not be primitive by default while, on the other hand, (primarily republican) ideological paranoia about Western cultural misconceptions vis-a-vis foreign cultures as well as the cultural misconceptions of other cultures about foreign cultures may be quite unnecessary. Moreover, neither misplaced paranoia about cultural pride nor ill-based claims of primitivity are an aid to science. When we replace one popular bias (e.g. "others are primitive") with another bias (e.g. "those who think or say others are primitive have murderous intentions"), we are still not doing our scientific duty which is to study the world around us while liberating ourselves from biases.