Published on October 29, 2019. Citing a serialized column by Nobuyuki Kaji in the monthly magazine Will, this article criticizes the South Korean government’s stance toward Japan, the comfort women and wartime labor issues, criticism of “historical revisionism,” and left-leaning scholars who defend South Korea.

October 29, 2019.
Sooner or later, Japanese touts for South Korea will appear, saying that South Korea’s claims are correct and that the Japanese state should accept them.
Some professor of some university or other, whose academic achievements are those of a third-rate tout.
The following is from the serialized column by Nobuyuki Kaji, which adorns the opening pages of the monthly magazine Will, released the other day.
There is an expression, “to pick a quarrel.”
Of course, it is not an elegant expression.
It is a phrase used for such occasions as when a gangster makes a false accusation against someone.
What the South Korean government is now saying about Japan can be summed up, in short, as “picking a quarrel.”
Moreover, a certain bizarre and comical emotion is hidden there.
Of course, this is merely the intuition of this old man alone.
However, I am confident that it hits the mark.
What is it?
Let me say it in one word.
It is the desire for money.
Until now, South Korea has picked quarrels with Japan in various ways and obtained large sums of money from Japan.
Of course, that is because Japan’s past political leaders were no good.
It may be said that, in the end, they responded even to matters to which there was no need to respond.
South Korea’s words and actions are childish.
When a child cries loudly, saying he wants this and wants that, a timid and good-natured parent responds to anything.
It is the same structure.
This time, however, the Abe administration refused South Korea’s selfish conduct.
Splendid.
South Korea’s expectations were disappointed.
Since they had drawn money out of Japan with the fictional story of the so-called comfort women, they thought the next move would be with the so-called wartime laborers, but their expectations were disappointed.
How pitiful.
Normally, once a tactic has failed, one should remain quiet for a while and rethink the tactic.
However, unable to adopt such a calm attitude, they repeat their charges.
Of course, no result could possibly come of it.
What awaits at the end of that desperate charge is, needless to say, the collapse of the Moon administration, the arrest of Moon Jae-in, and, like former President Park, a life in prison.
Such a picture-card drama is plainly visible.
Now, from here, an even more amusing country play begins.
Of course, in Japan.
It concerns the cheering squad supporting the Moon administration.
In other words, the Japanese who praise the Moon administration.
Among them, the so-called learned professors stand at the head.
Their “banner of righteousness” is the “denial of historical revisionism.”
This thing called historical revisionism, I, an old man, do not really understand.
History is supposed to be based on facts that no one can deny, yet it seems to mean bending and revising that history somehow.
Of course, it comes from Western theories, including those concerning the Jewish question.
I know nothing of Western achalaka.
However, from the standpoint of Chinese studies, the view that history must not be revised and that history has been correctly fixed is the same as saying that China has what is called “official history,” and that all historical truth lies there.
Would that mean that everything not written there is to be treated as “unofficial history”?
If so, perhaps what is based on historical revisionism is close to saying that it is not official history but a kind of unofficial history, and therefore not worthy of consideration.
This criticism of historical revisionism appears to be a tool of the left.
For example, they set up the premise, or official history, that Japan was the bad fellow who colonized Korea, and then say that a view revising that premise, such as the fact that Japan realized elementary school education, agricultural promotion, and the socialization of Hangul, is unofficial history and not worthy of consideration.
In short, it seems that political propaganda, which drives out true empirical factual research, is called official history.
That official history in China was also quite fraudulent.
For example, Chen Shou, the compiler of the official history Records of the Three Kingdoms, proposed to the family of a person who was to become material for a biography that if they paid him money, he would write the person as an admirable figure.
Official history, official history, history, history—there is no mistake in it at all.
Just as that line says, sooner or later Japanese touts for South Korea will appear, saying that South Korea’s claims are correct and that the Japanese state should accept them.
Some professor of some university or other, whose academic achievements are those of a third-rate tout.
As the ancients said, to run toward the blazing flame and attach oneself to the heat.