I am releasing the 'Afterword' for my new book with Yuichi Goza.

Chapter 1: Tadao Umesao's 'An Ecological View of Civilization'
- Is "Europe vs. Eurasia" a matter of fate? Chapter 2:
Ichisada Miyazaki's 'Oriental Modernity' - Is GAFA capitalism "Sinicizing" the world? Chapter 3:

Toshihiko Izutsu's 'Islamic Culture' - Is the source of an "indestructible faith" the same as the Emperor system? Chapter 4:
Masataka Kosaka's 'When Civilizations Decline'
- Realism that foresaw "Trump" from the Cold War era. Chapter 5: Saiichi Maruya's 'What is Chushingura?'

- The origins of Japanese entertainment that nips "revolution" in the bud.

What is worrying is that the outcome of the war in Ukraine is currently reversing from initial predictions. At the start of the war in 2022, scholars, primarily in international politics, argued that "this is a battle between democracy and authoritarianism" and "since Ukraine can win if supported, there should be no ceasefire until the Russian military is pushed back." Many people, including myself, believed that. However, the reality has become the opposite, and a sentiment is beginning to spread that their arguments were "discussions limited to the Western world" and "not useful in regions where they do not apply." Unless someone shows
a new coordinate axis like [Tadao] Umesao did, distrust in academia and nihilism will only spread.

I heard something concerning from an acquaintance who has been teaching at a Japanese university for a long time.
Since the time of the COVID panic and the war in Ukraine, if the word "war" is included in a course description, the number of students enrolling drops noticeably. It seems this is a phenomenon that almost never occurred during the Heisei era. I often hear similar stories from friends who have spent time at American universities.
In today's United States, where the trend of political correctness is deeply ingrained, the concept of "microaggression" is emphasized. In other words, if you make someone feel uncomfortable, even just a "tiny bit," you can be accused of harassment.
Therefore, university professors apparently have to issue disclaimers before every class, such as "We will be watching a documentary about the battlefield (you may find it uncomfortable)," "The film we are using contains scenes of violence against women (you may find it...)," or "We will be reading a work that depicts discrimination against Black people (you may find it...)." It is doubtful whether education that overcomes war and discrimination can be achieved through such means,
but everyone is protective of themselves. There is a book that became a topic of discussion in the post-Cold War era called "

Jihad vs. McWorld" (Benjamin Barber, original published in 1995). Following that, what is being revealed now as the peace after the Cold War crumbles is likely the dialectics of 'Jihad vs. Clean World'. There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine looks like a Russian Jihad (a holy war for Russia) from Putin's perspective. Netanyahu's military operation, which seeks to eradicate Hamas's literal Jihad by force, is also paradoxically becoming a "Zionist Jihad." In contrast, there are people in developed countries who advocate for "creating an environment where these things are not shown," referring to such harmful and dangerous scenes. Especially in universities and academic societies. In the clean world they create, there must not even be anything that reminds one of friction or violence. If the reality of war is brought into such a space, students will hesitate to take the course and will leave.
The result was ironic. Now, in public places in the United States, even just expressing that one should "think of" the Palestinians in Gaza can lead to being ostracized as

antisemitic. This is because Jewish people are overwhelmingly more powerful as a minority in America than Arab people. Not putting a world where the "evil" logic of Jihad is raging on the table for discussion and pretending it doesn't exist through "no-debate" is not much different from blocking dissenting opinions on social media. Even inside the "clean" space created in this way, hierarchies and power politics do not disappear, and it will likely only
lead to the eruption of more twisted violence. History is fundamentally a study of facts. In other words, it is a discipline that takes dirty facts even if they go against a clean story. In the first place, the further back in time one goes, the more a harsh world appears where one could not live cleanly even if one tried, so

history is fundamentally unsuited for a 'Clean World'. Rather, the contribution that history can make now is to explore why all of humanity cannot share a single Jihad. What is it that has made the logic upon which we stand so fragmented by civilization? It is to explore this from the formation history of each civilization. However,

scholars are corruptible creatures, and there are those who will twist historical facts to appeal to their own "cleanliness" and use history as a tool to survive in the media. For example, by bringing up "absolute evil" like Hitler or the Nazis and advertising how they are serving in a "righteous Jihad" to completely deny it.
It is an intellectual laziness that should be laughed at. The distortion of Russian propaganda calling the entire Zelensky administration "neo-Nazi" is clear, but it is a fact that there are forces in Ukraine that advocate for Stepan Bandera, who plotted independence from the Soviet Union by siding with Germany during the German-Soviet War. At least from their perspective,
the Nazis also did 'good things'. If we do not join hands with people who are not clean enough for us who claim that, we cannot oppose the "bad thing" that is Putin's invasion. The world is being driven into a corner to that extent. Yuichi Goza, who has given meaning to the development of Japanese history without averting his eyes from the dirty aspects of medieval war and violence, is one of the few historians I respect. Recently, he suffered persecution from the "Clean World" due to some slips of the tongue, but I am happy that he has reflected on what he should reflect on and that we can work together like this. According to the acquaintance I introduced at the beginning, it is said that many of the students who dare to show up for classes that deal with "war" in today's universities are


students who have a sense of being an alienated minority. People who are foreign nationals, have physical disabilities, or have taken a leave of absence due to mental illness—because they are socially vulnerable, they feel a sense of discomfort with the cleanliness that tries to "pretend not to see" difficulties. I hope that while this book benefits the majority who seek a perspective to overlook the world, it will also serve as a good bridge to such minorities. Following my
previous book with Nobuo Ikeda, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Naoki Nakazawa of Business-sha, who was in charge of planning and editing this time as well.