Notes for the Completed Edition of
“The Final Solution, Individual Version: A Record of an Attempt — Testimony of a Victim Whose Extinction Was Desired” (2)
January 3, 2022
An Act of Terrorism as an Organized Crime Aimed at the Extermination of “Human Rights”
Inoue XXX
1. On “Human Rights,” and on Terrorism Aimed at the Extermination of “Human Rights”
Has anyone ever seriously considered the substance of “human rights”—the original content of “human rights” that is absolutely invariant across all contexts? Not the meaning of “human rights,” but the actual substance of “human rights” that exists in reality outside the signifier “human rights,” outside language itself—that which the signifier “human rights” is supposed to designate.
Most people reflexively refer to the Constitution of Japan and take phrases such as “the fundamental human rights that are guaranteed forever as inviolable” and “must be fully respected insofar as they do not conflict with inherent limitations” (Articles 11 and 12), “respect for the individual, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Article 13), or “all people are equal under the law and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of race, creed, sex, social status, and so on” (Article 14), as the original and immutable definition of “human rights.” However, constitutional provisions are merely definitions and semantic contents of the signifier “human rights”; they do not deliver us to the original, purely extra-linguistic substance of “human rights” that the signifier “human rights” purports to designate.
If “human rights” that are absolutely invariant across all contexts were innately inherent in every human being, then there would be no need for the Ministry of Justice to address the sixteen “major human rights issues” listed on its website. Nor could it be the case that no human being, without exception, is able to perceive—together with a sense of awe—“human rights” as something that exists in others like an inviolable part of the body. All “human rights issues” and “human rights violations” taken up under the heading of “major human rights issues” would, in principle, be impossible.
From this it follows that the original content of “human rights” that is absolutely invariant across all contexts—the purely non-linguistic substance designated by the signifier “human rights”—most likely does not exist, just as everyone in fact senses that it does not. What exists instead is “human rights” that are always already aimed at being absolutely invariant across all contexts, yet whose realization is always already deferred; “human rights” that cannot assert themselves without depending on their violation (without being preceded by their violation); that is, “human rights” whose realization always already remains impossible. Accordingly, what exists is only the signifier “human rights,” which can never find, outside language, the substance it seeks to designate. Only the signifier “human rights,” which is unable, no matter how much time passes, to make the “absolute value” it wishes to embody present outside language.
As a signifier, “human rights” does not coincide with any of the “human rights” used in expressions such as “the protection of human rights,” “respect for human rights,” “human rights violations,” “the trampling of human rights,” “human rights problems,” “human rights issues,” or “human-rights advocates.” At the same time, precisely because it lacks an invariant and original meaning-as-value, it coincides incompletely with all of them. The single signifier “human rights” is, in itself, an empty vessel. Passing repeatedly through the potentially innumerable contexts of events and acts of violence that overflow the human world, the same single signifier “human rights” receives a different meaning each time it is repeated, becoming a vessel in which differing meanings proliferate without end. That is why “human rights” neither coincides with any of the “human rights” used in the multiple expressions bearing the signifier “human rights,” nor avoids coinciding with them incompletely. It does not coincide, and yet it coincides incompletely.
However, this very condition is what allows “human rights” to survive while desiring the pure presence of an “absolute value” with which it would fully coincide outside the signifier “human rights.” Even if the pure presence of the “absolute value” of “human rights” is eternally yet to come, it is precisely this eternal deferral alone that prevents humanity from ceasing its pursuit of “human rights” as an “absolute value.” Conversely, when some “human rights” force, “human rights” group, or “human rights” organization claims that it alone embodies the “absolute value” of “human rights,” that only it possesses the original and pure meaning of “human rights,” and when it completely negates the “human rights” of specific others while excluding all dialogue and relationality, the human pursuit of “human rights” is forcibly brought to a halt. “Human rights” ceases to be eternally yet to come and completely loses the possibility of existing anywhere in the future. The signifier “human rights” continues to exist only as a weapon wielded by those who monopolize it to completely negate the “human rights” of others; it loses its character as a signifier that passes through innumerable contexts and ceases to be a vessel that receives innumerable differing meanings.
To monopolize “human rights,” to completely negate the “human rights” of others, is to completely negate “human rights” itself—something that can exist only within the endless process of pursuing the “absolute value” of “human rights.” It is to kill “human rights” (its very possibility of arrival), that is, to exterminate “human rights” from the human world. What Chuo University; the “human rights” forces with which Chuo University has colluded and become integrated; the relatives of Takahiro Wachi; the lawyers beginning with Haruko Shibumura; the judges beginning with Takenori Ota; the prosecutors and public prosecutors beginning with Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei; the top senior prosecutors at the time; and all other accomplices and collaborators carried out through this large-scale organized crime was the complete negation of the “human rights” of M and myself—and therefore the complete negation of “human rights” itself—nothing less than an unprecedented grave evil: the extermination of “human rights.” Even if they themselves are unable to breathe the air of possibility that exists only in the virtual space called the future, and even if they too are tormented by “the unbearable claustrophobia of existence,” I do not hesitate to call this unprecedented grave evil terrorism.
If money were to cease being the mirror of value for all commodities—if it were to cease being the one and only commodity exchangeable for all other commodities—money would be reduced to mere material, and the human world would collapse. All commodities express their value through the mirror called money, yet no matter how repetitively money is expended, the value of a commodity never fully comes into presence (what is always mistaken for presence is the commodity’s surplus value). Precisely because the value of commodities is always non-present, money does not cease to function as the mirror of value for all commodities, and thus the human world, suspended and supported by the third term called money, continues to avert collapse.
The role of the signifier “human rights” is in some respects similar to the role of money. “Human rights” is almost the only mirror of value that reflects human value (above all, the value called “the preciousness of life”), and by reflecting every mode of action in relations with others in the mirror called “human rights,” human beings express their own value as human beings. Yet no matter how repetitively “human rights” reflects human modes of action in relations with others, human value never fully comes into presence (as with commodities, what is mistaken for presence is always human surplus value). In reality, the human world overflows with acts of violence that depreciate human value: bullying, abuse, domestic violence, discrimination against minorities, and countless forms of discrimination that persist across all domains and are difficult even to render conscious. If the value mirror called “human rights” were to be lost, even the minimal distance required for self-reflection and self-dialogue would be abolished, and human beings—coinciding with bare life in a world without any mirror to reflect their own appearance and actions—would blindly charge straight toward the collapse of the world. It is precisely because human value (above all, the value called “the preciousness of life”) appears only as surplus value and is always non-present that “human rights” is able to persist as the mirror of human value.
Accordingly, like money, “human rights” suspends and supports the human world as a “potential state of value that is always yet to arrive in the future,” holding back the danger of the world’s collapse. To monopolize “human rights,” to claim that only one’s own “absolute value” is reflected in the value mirror called “human rights,” and that only one’s own “absolute value” is fully present there, is to shatter that value mirror and to bring to a halt its unparalleled role of suspending and supporting the human world. To monopolize “human rights” and to strip “human rights” of its role in continually protecting the human world from the brink of collapse is to exterminate “human rights” itself, to gouge out completely from the future the very possibility of the presence of human value (above all, the value called “the preciousness of life”), and to render the future itself incapable of arriving.
If this is not to be called terrorism—terrorism hostile to the survival of other human beings, hostile to the state—then what, indeed, should it be called? The price to be paid for what Chuo University and all accomplices and collaborators carried out through this large-scale organized crime is therefore immeasurable.
2. From Beginning to End, Under a Private “State of Martial Law”
For approximately three years now, M and I have, with unwavering resolve, continuously given “testimony” regarding this large-scale organized crime on Twitter and on our blog. Across both platforms, multiple pieces of evidence proving that Chuo University committed several criminal offenses under the Penal Code have been made public. Nevertheless, as if the very fact that it committed criminal offenses had never once existed, Chuo University continues—through its public relations apparatus—to advertise that, starting in April 2023, the Faculty of Law will be fully relocated to the Myogadani Campus.
The most astonishing recent piece of publicity for us was the slogan:
“In the center of Tokyo / Take the legal mind into your hands — From April 2023, first- through fourth-year Faculty of Law students will relocate to the Myogadani Campus (Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo)”
(Tweet from the Chuo University Public Relations Office Twitter account, dated December 23, 2021).
The Faculty of Law of Chuo University is the very faculty to which Motohiro Hashimoto—currently Vice President of Chuo University and a central criminal ringleader who caused this large-scale organized crime—belongs as a professor of public law (primarily constitutional law), and it is the faculty to which a great many faculty and staff who cooperated in and assisted Hashimoto’s grave wrongdoing also belong. That very Faculty of Law is to relocate to “the center of Tokyo,” where, it seems, one can acquire a “legal mind” by studying law.
Between the fact that faculty and staff belonging primarily to the Faculty of Law committed numerous criminal offenses—including coercion and the fabrication and submission of forged evidence (a portion of the forged transcript submitted by Chuo University to the court is publicly available as evidence in the pinned tweet on Inoue’s Twitter account)—and the above advertising slogan, especially the phrase “legal mind,” there exists a terrifying rupture that cannot possibly be regarded as sane. In this rupture, the absence at Chuo University of the value mirror called “human rights,” and Chuo University’s vehement assertion that it alone embodies “human rights,” are inscribed with striking clarity.
Will the instructors responsible for specialized courses in the Faculty of Law truly be able, at the Myogadani Campus, to teach “peacetime” constitutional and statutory law as if absolutely nothing had happened? This possibility is entirely devoid of credibility, because ever since April 10, 2012—the day before Motohiro Hashimoto committed the crime of coercion on April 11 in order to expel and annihilate M and me from the university—when he issued a private “state of martial law” and suspended the validity of “peacetime” constitutional and statutory law, nearly ten years have passed without that state ever being lifted. In other words, Chuo University has never been reabsorbed into the rule-of-law state; it continues to permit itself to exist as an exterior within the interior of the rule-of-law state—that is, as a condition of lawlessness.
Accordingly, even if it were truly to be realized, the full relocation of the Faculty of Law to the Myogadani Campus, as well as the above publicity including the notion of a “legal mind,” can only be something carried out—and being carried out—under a private “state of martial law,” within a condition of lawlessness.
Motohiro Hashimoto and his associates conspired with the relatives of Takahiro Wachi, with whom they shared a desire for the unlawful acquisition of vested interests. In order to expel and annihilate Inoue and M—the greatest obstacles to the realization of that desire—they fabricated a false narrative in which Inoue and M were said to have committed “serious human rights violations” against Takahiro Wachi, and then designated that false narrative as an “emergency.” In order to ensure the expulsion and annihilation of Inoue and M, they created—through their fabricated false narrative—the conditions under which it would supposedly be permissible to temporarily suspend the validity of constitutional and statutory law that guarantees citizens’ rights, and on the basis of that false “emergency,” they issued a private “state of martial law.”
Martial law is a condition in which the application of ordinary civil and criminal law is partially or entirely suspended, and administrative and judicial authority is partially or entirely transferred to the command of the military. Who, then, functioned as the equivalent of the military for Chuo University? Chuo University itself, and the “human rights” forces with which Chuo University had colluded and become integrated.
Had Inoue actually committed suicide immediately after the literal “serious human rights violation” carried out by Yuzo Nakanishi with the aim of inducing suicide, the private “state of martial law” would have been lifted at once, and the suspension of constitutional and statutory law would have remained merely temporary (Hashimoto and Nakanishi had schemed to erase the April 11, 2012 crime of coercion and to leave no trace whatsoever of any causal relationship with Inoue’s suicide). However, Inoue did not commit suicide. Together with M and supporters, he began protest activities against Chuo University. From that moment onward, the private “state of martial law” could never again be lifted, and the suspension of the validity of constitutional and statutory law had to be prolonged indefinitely, with the deadline left underdetermined.
They illegally intervened even with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, to which we sought relief, in order to block that relief. Once again exploiting a fabricated “emergency,” they carried out a “disguised dismissal” without obtaining the chairman’s authorization. They stripped away judicial authority and transformed courtrooms into sites for the execution of organized murder. They illegally intervened in administrative authority (prosecutorial power) as well, preventing the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the crime of coercion, and ultimately compelled top senior prosecutors at the time to exercise extralegal violence by stripping us of the right to file complaints or accusations so that Chuo University’s crimes could never again be reported.
Throughout the process from April 2012 to April 2016, the application of all civil and criminal law continued to be suspended. Terrifyingly, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers were held in a condition in which they could not use a single one of the laws that constituted their professional weapons. Integrated with the “human rights” forces, Chuo University continued to exist as a higher instance above the Constitution and the law, entirely unconstrained by them.
Please refer to “Section 2: Purpose of Proof” in the “Petition for the Submission of Evidence” prepared by Attorney NN and submitted in the second-instance appeal against Chuo University, currently published in Contemporary Thought and Testimony. It states:
“(2) That the suspension from work resulting from the course-closure measure in this case is invalid due to abuse of rights.
(3) That the dismissal in this case is invalid due to abuse of rights.”
In order to prevent the realization of “invalid due to abuse of rights,” Motohiro Hashimoto resorted to the private issuance of a “state of martial law” that suspended the validity of the Constitution and the law by fabricating a false “emergency.” In Judge Koichi Tamura’s assessment, the four “purposes of proof” were self-evident and required no proof, and it was equally obvious that Chuo University would never consent to the witness examination of Takahiro Wachi. I am increasingly convinced that Koichi Tamura intended to reverse the case and rule against Chuo University. At that point, Chuo University—integrated with the “human rights” forces—once again stripped away judicial authority after the first oral argument, radically transformed Tamura’s appearance over the course of about a month and a half to the point of being scarcely recognizable as the same person, and coerced him, as in the first instance, into writing a judgment utterly devoid of legal grounds (on the date of the second-instance judgment, even Chuo University’s own attorneys of record were absent, and thus did not witness the utterly altered appearance that Tamura exposed from the bench as “evidence” of the coercion inflicted upon him).
By fabricating an “emergency,” issuing a private “state of martial law” on that basis, and appointing itself the “martial law commander,” Chuo University—represented by Motohiro Hashimoto—used the violence (not military force, but its equivalent) of the “human rights” forces integrated with it to strip away judicial and administrative authority (prosecutorial power) and coerce them into serving exclusively the acquisition of its own vested interests. They coerced participation and cooperation in organized murder targeting M and me. If this is not to be called terrorism that fatally disrupts state functions—terrorism hostile to state power—then what, indeed, should it be called?
- There are no guidelines regarding what level of achievement or damage determines victory or defeat and the termination of hostilities.
- There is no legal basis for the use of violence, or violence is used in order to evade litigation, accusations, or trials.
- Members who committed crimes are not appropriately punished.
- There is no political vision following victory in the conflict and completion of strategic objectives, or such a vision is deemed impossible to realize.
(If the above conditions are met, the act is called terrorism. Quoted from “Terrorism,” Aviation and Military Terminology Dictionary++.)
Through the private “state of martial law” that continuously destroyed state action through the application of law, the “human rights” of M and myself—their possibility of inherence, the possibility of being lives worthy of living—have been subjected, without end and up to the present moment, to the violence of complete negation. As already discussed, the complete negation of the “human rights” of specific others is the complete negation of “human rights” itself as the mirror of human value. It renders impossible the arrival of the future, the only place in which the possibility of the presence of human value (above all, the value called “the preciousness of life”) can reside.
More bluntly put, it means that “human rights” inhere only in Chuo University and the “human rights” forces integrated with it, and that anyone who obstructs the pure presence of their “absolute value” may be purged with impunity. Other human beings—we ourselves—are not human beings but less than vermin, vermin inhabiting the very bottom rung, and thus may be killed in a lawless zone where the law does not apply. Lawyers, too—whose use of the law as a weapon was prohibited by terror power through this private “state of martial law”—likely spared no effort in cooperating with the sustained presence of their “absolute value” in order not to be killed, and participated in organized murder targeting M and me. One can only say that the prelude to the collapse of the rule-of-law state, the prelude to the collapse of the human world, has already begun.
The “human rights” that inhere in all human beings as a potential state—not the “human rights” of the “human rights” forces—are akin to the otherness of the <Other>, or to the foreignness of the <Other>. Unless Chuo University and the “human rights” forces call back from the depths of memory the foreignness of the <Other> that Levinas calls “ethics,” the prelude to the collapse of the human world will not be stopped.
It is impossible for the interrogation of the <Same> to be carried out in the egocentric spontaneity of the <Same>. The interrogation of the <Same> is carried out by the <Other>. The fact that my spontaneity is thus interrogated by the presence of the Other—we call this ethics. The foreignness of the <Other> is the impossibility of reducing the <Other> to the <Ego>, to my thought, to my possessions; and therefore the foreignness of the <Other> is realized precisely as my interrogation, as ethics.
— Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, pp. 46–47, trans. Masato Goda (Kokubunsha, 1992)
3. Beyond Truth and Falsity, Beyond the Testimony of the Event—“Like God”
Chuo University, the relatives of Takahiro Wachi acting in collusion with Chuo University, and the so-called “human rights” forces integrated with Chuo University all stand outside the “event” that arrives unexpectedly—not only for me and M, but for anyone. They prepare the “event” (for example, the “event” called the crime of coercion) in advance; they wholly possess the meaning of the “event” in advance; they completely deprive all participants in the “event,” except themselves, of ownership over its meaning in advance; and they secure in advance the freedom to remain unaffected by any consequences derived from the “event.” As if they were “God,” the perfect archivist described by Leibniz in the Monadology, who possesses the totality of information about the past and the totality of information about the future, they position themselves outside of time and seem to pride themselves on being beings superior to law, which is itself subject to the effects of time (for otherwise, how could they possibly grant themselves the grandiose, delusional self-evaluation that “Chuo University is the best in the world”?). Of course, such a thing is impossible. They never enter into an “event” whose arrival might escape their control; they participate only in those “events” whose meaning and effects they are confident they can monopolize, or in “events” that they have prepared and manipulated in advance so as to ensure such monopolization. This is because, as the passage from Lyotard cited below makes clear, the event renders it “impossible for the self to own and control what it is.”
Because the “now” is absolute, the present that the “now” makes present is ungraspable. It is “not yet” or “already no longer” present. To grasp presentation itself and present it is always either too early or too late. Such is the singular and paradoxical constitution of the event. That something arrives—that is, what appearance signifies—is that the mind is dispossessed of ownership. The expression “something arrives” is itself the formulation of the self’s non-mastery of itself. The event makes it impossible for the self to own and control what it is. The event bears witness to the fact that the self is essentially a being that receives a returning otherness.
—Jean-François Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections on Time, p. 80 (trans. Sukeaki Shinohara, Hiroshi Uemura, Yukihiro Hirayoshi; Hosei University Press, 2010; emphasis added by Inoue)
Accordingly, the reason that, for a full ten years beginning on April 11, 2012, the free unfolding of the possibilities of life for M and myself was continuously destroyed—and that we were incessantly tethered to an extreme condition in which it would not have been surprising at all for our very possibility of survival to be severed at any moment—is that Chuo University, the relatives of Takahiro Wachi, and the “human rights” forces integrated with Chuo University continued, with all their might, to resist being rendered unable “to own and control what they are” by the massive “event” that is this major organized crime. It is because they resisted, with their entire being, having it “testified” by this massive “event” that “the self is essentially a being that receives a returning otherness.” In order to continue being “God” as the final authority reigning above the Constitution and the law; in order to continue being “God,” whose grasp of the past is necessarily complete precisely because it contains information about the future that remains forever non-present to imperfect monads such as the human mind; in order to continue being “the best in the world.” Our “testimony” is continued for one purpose only: to make this massive “event,” this major organized crime, “arrive” for them; to remind them that they embody “the formulation of the self’s non-mastery of itself,” that their “mind is dispossessed of ownership,” and therefore that they are not “God” but incomplete human beings.
How great a price they must have paid to suppress within themselves the sensitivity to the “returning otherness of the self,” a sensitivity that would obstruct the pure presentation of the “absolute value” of “human rights” that they monopolize. Were such a sensitivity to be inadvertently awakened, they would be forced to remember “equality under the law,” and would be compelled to relinquish the absolute asymmetry whereby their own exercise of violence—violence so severe as to threaten the lives of us (and of other others)—could never count as “human rights violations,” while every act and utterance of ours (and of other others) would exist as a latent state of “human rights violation” against them, with the authority to actualize that latent state belonging exclusively to themselves.
There is little doubt that behind Chuo University’s collusion and integration with the “human rights” forces lay the desire to be “God,” the final authority reigning above the Constitution and the law. That is, the desire to acquire extra-legal power—the terrifying power to ensure that acts violating the Constitution and the law, and even criminal acts under the Penal Code, would never be treated as incidents at all, but would be overlooked and tacitly approved. It is the desire to liberate “truth and falsity” from the constraints of legal clarification through evidence and fact-finding, to deviate into a “beyond of truth and falsity” where truth and falsity can be manipulated at their convenience, or to sever themselves entirely from any legal or social responsibility tied to adherence to truth and falsity. I infer that by cultivating an intimate relationship with the “human rights” forces, they jointly pursued and acquired illicit vested interests that can be obtained only in this “beyond of truth and falsity,” and came to use those interests cooperatively for their mutual and perpetual development.
Why, then, is the group with which Chuo University has colluded and integrated specifically a “human rights” force? In any context, situation, or relationship whatsoever, they unconditionally fix their own position as “the discriminated” and “the victims of human rights violations,” and not only repel all rebuttal, persuasion, objections, or alternative perspectives without presenting any grounds, but condemn even these attempts themselves as “discrimination” or “human rights violations” against them. There is no room whatsoever for dialogue, discussion, exchange of opinions, mutual understanding, or mutual respect. This is because their self-definition is that of the “absolute victim of discrimination,” someone who is always already a victim of human rights violations; to recognize them as anything other than this is itself “discrimination” or a “human rights violation,” and therefore the freedom and right to recognize them otherwise are stripped away and prohibited by them from the outset. It is impossible to open within them any space for self-reference, self-dialogue, or self-doubt. Any relational space with others outside the “human rights” force—others who do not share in the vested interests—becomes a closed space devoid of relation, since the authority to determine meaning belongs exclusively to them. By never stepping even a single step outside the self-definition of “absolute victim of discrimination,” and by presenting themselves only as those who are “always already victims of discrimination,” they categorically define every human being other than themselves—so long as those others do not share in their vested interests—as potential “discriminators” or “perpetrators” against them. No one can know when they might be actualized as such “discriminators” or “perpetrators” and made targets of denunciation. Whether one is a legal professional, a bureaucrat, or a university faculty member, once designated as a “discriminator” against them, one cannot escape extrajudicial retaliation—private punishment imposed outside the law—for having “discriminated.” Thus, through the immovable self-definition of the sole “absolute victim of discrimination,” the “human rights” forces permit themselves to exercise extra-legal violence against anyone, and secure the position of an omnipotent “God” reigning outside and above the rule-of-law state, insofar as anyone whatsoever is compelled to submit out of fear of possible social or biological annihilation. With the singular self-definition of “absolute victim of discrimination” as an invincible weapon and invincible justification, the “human rights” forces have come to possess the power of life and death over all human beings who do not contribute to the acquisition of their vested interests. I am convinced that it is precisely this invincible weapon, this position of the omnipotent “God” that even legal professionals and investigative authorities cannot control out of fear, that constitutes the primary reason Chuo University has colluded and integrated with them.
Consequently, it is impossible to take Chuo University’s educational ideal—“We tolerate no discrimination whatsoever”—at face value. In truth, it is an expression that carefully conceals (that is, deliberately omits) the phrase “against the ‘human rights’ forces”: it really means “We tolerate no discrimination against the ‘human rights’ forces.” (A “Human Rights Lecture” was held annually, and until 2011 issues of discrimination against the “human rights” forces were frequently taken up as themes. That such themes have never once been addressed since 2012 is a silent “confession” that motives deeply connected to the “human rights” forces lay at the foundation of the crime of coercion and the disguised dismissal.) Under the name of an educational ideal, they entrenched as a threat the absolute condition whereby any individual within Chuo University—outside the “human rights” force, pre-designated as a potential “discriminator” or “perpetrator,” and either not contributing to illicit vested interests or obstructing them—could one day suddenly be actualized as a “discriminator” or “perpetrator of human rights violations” and subjected to private punishment utterly detached from the Constitution and the law. A person suddenly and explicitly identified as a “discriminator” or “perpetrator of human rights violations” against the “human rights” forces falls into a state of utter bewilderment, unable to understand what, in their words or actions, constitutes “discrimination” or a “human rights violation.” The right to determine the presence or absence of “discrimination” or “human rights violations” has been stripped from that person in advance; the authority to decide what in that person’s conduct counts as such is monopolized by the internal private-punishment proxy organ of Chuo University, the Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee.
For details, I ask the reader to consult the testimony prepared by M, This Major Organized Crime as an Act of Organized Murder Using the Proper Name “Takahiro Wachi.” The definition of harassment employed by Chuo University’s Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee is as follows (although these definitions appear neither in the Committee’s guidelines nor in its formal regulations). In the 2013 Chuo University Report, “Chapter 6: Student Life Support,” section “3) Harassment Prevention and Awareness Activities,” issued while litigation against Chuo University as an act of organized murder was underway, there is a passage noting the posting throughout campus of harassment-prevention posters titled “NON HARASSMENT MOVEMENT.” The definitions below are presented as answers to the question “What is harassment?” printed on those posters, with two slightly different definitions explicitly stated: one “for undergraduate and graduate students” and another “for faculty and staff.” This extremely important information came to light only as a result of M’s exhaustive investigative labor. That I am able to disclose this information together with M as “evidence” is entirely due to M’s unstinting expenditure of physical and intellectual effort in patiently carrying out these painstaking investigations. I wish here to express my boundless gratitude to M alone.
“Regardless of the speaker’s intent, if the other party feels discomfort or perceives that they have suffered a disadvantage, that speech or behavior constitutes harassment. Harassment is an act of human rights violation, and when it occurs, the victim’s educational or working environment is seriously damaged.” (Undergraduate and Graduate Student Version)
“In determining harassment, the judgment of the recipient is of paramount importance. Even if one believes there was no malicious intent, if the other party feels discomfort, it may constitute harassment. There is no absolute safety standard by which one can say that a given act or utterance will not be harassment.” (Faculty and Staff Version)
(emphasis added by Inoue)
These definitions closely resemble the so-called “Asada Theory,” a theory of human-rights advocacy established by Mr. Zennosuke Asada, who once served as the executive chair of a representative “human rights” organization, to such an extent that it is difficult to imagine that they are not taking that theory as their comprehensive point of reference. According to the Asada Theory: “If someone is made to feel disadvantaged or uncomfortable, everything becomes discrimination. Whether something is discrimination or not can only be known by the person discriminated against. All decision-making power and initiative belong entirely to the person who feels discriminated against.” A definition of harassment that uncritically follows this theory therefore assigns the authority to determine what constitutes harassment exclusively to the sensibility of the “complainant = self-proclaimed victim.” If that person feels disadvantaged or uncomfortable, then regardless of context or circumstances (truth or falsity being irrelevant), any and all statements, actions, or attitudes are unconditionally recognized as harassment and condemned as such.
The definition of harassment for faculty and staff in particular functions as a de facto threat: faculty and staff are always already in a potential state of being perpetrators of harassment, and no safe zone exists within Chuo University in which one can avoid recognition and condemnation as a harasser. In the exceptional space that is Chuo University—where extralegal violence has become normalized, that is, beyond truth and falsity—“the most innocent gesture or the slightest lapse can sometimes produce consequences of the most extreme kind” (Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, p. 80).
The Asada Theory, and the clearly homologous definition of harassment adopted by the Chuo University Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee, blindly presuppose that those who claim to have been discriminated against or to have felt disadvantaged or uncomfortable can never be mistaken, and that the sole, absolute meaning of an event resides exclusively in their experience. Those who are deemed “discriminators” or “perpetrators,” although they too are participants in the “same” event, are preemptively denied any possibility that meaning might reside in their experience (or mode of experiencing). That is, every possibility that the “same” event might bear “different” meanings, that the “same” event might become a “different” event, every possibility that cannot be fully reduced to the meaning “discriminator” or “perpetrator,” is thoroughly excluded in advance.
The impossible desire to absolutely purify only the experience of the “discriminated” or the “victim” can be realized only through a complete severance from any attitude that seeks to discern truth and falsity, from any intervention by others—that is, only through an exceptional space beyond truth and falsity. The production of false accusations is, for the “victim” and for their agents of private punishment, the result of carrying out “justice” without the slightest sense of guilt. Legal procedures, by contrast, never allow anyone to monopolize the meaning of experience; in order to push the purification of experience to the limits possible for human beings, they necessarily proceed through strict processes of examination, including the investigation of evidence and the testimony of multiple parties.
Accordingly, both the lawsuit against Chuo University and the lawsuit against the Chuo University Journalism Society, as well as the “criminal investigation” into coercion, deliberately and completely abandoned their qualification as legal procedures. They existed solely in order to complete the execution of “justice” on April 11, 2012—that is, to complete the production of false accusation. This was done in order to avoid being automatically classified into the categories of “discriminated” or “perpetrator,” to escape the fear-inducing private punishments that inevitably follow such classification, and to eliminate in advance from their own futures the possibility of social or biological annihilation. For that purpose alone, Chuo University, the relatives of Takahiro Wachi, and the “human rights” forces integrated with Chuo University allowed the destruction of law to proceed, allowed acts of terror that exterminate “human rights” to advance—and even, as legal professionals themselves, actively participated in those acts of terror.
It is said that Mr. Zennosuke Asada constantly boasted, “It’s easy to create discriminators.” Chuo University, too, seems to have secretly boasted that by using the Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee as an agent of private punishment, “it’s easy to fabricate perpetrators of harassment and human rights violations.” The execution of “justice” was, of course, merely a façade intended to deceive third parties; it is even entirely conceivable that they secretly boasted that by using only the proper name Takahiro Wachi, “it’s easy to fabricate victims of harassment and human rights violations.”
At Chuo University, “human rights violations” do not function at all as a signifier designating the various acts of violence that any person, organization, community, or public institution might commit against others. For Chuo University, integrated with the “human rights” forces, “human rights violations” can only be a means for illicit rent-seeking, and the term is tacitly shared and used solely as a signifier designating that means. This is in order to continue reigning as a higher instance than the constitution and the law, to continue enjoying the privilege of exempting any legal violation or criminal act from the application of law—in short, to continue being “the best in the world” in the realm beyond truth and falsity.
The absolute exclusion of others by Chuo University and the “human rights” forces with which it is integrated—and thus the absolute absence of self-reference among them—at first glance resembles the mode of existence of those who live within a metaphysical system. In a metaphysical system, the hierarchical structure of values and the ordered ranks of meaning are stably determined by God as the final instance, allowing people to assimilate to them without any arousal of feelings of discrimination, and to have all doubt and self-reference naturally prohibited. However, Chuo University and the “human rights” forces integrated with it desire to reign perpetually as the final instance—“God”—that determines the hierarchy of values and the order of meaning, and they will not hesitate to commit any act of violence or any crime in order to make the real world coincide with the world they desire.
Classical metaphysics originally provides human beings, through God, with a foundation that makes it possible to speak in accordance with what is “true” and to act in accordance with the “good” or with “justice.” Yet Chuo University and the “human rights” forces integrated with it violently coerce nearly all others—including legal professionals, bureaucrats, and investigative authorities—into recognizing that they themselves, and they alone, are that foundation. They compel others to align only with the “truth” they have determined beyond truth and falsity, and to act only in accordance with the “good” and the “justice” they have determined beyond good and evil.
The “truth” they have determined is a narrative in which, across all contexts, they are “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations,” while simultaneously being “God” by virtue of their exclusive possession of terrifying extralegal power that allows no one to infringe upon that sole and absolute meaning. Yes, it is a narrative—and not a fact. They do not render compatible, by their own power, the two mutually incompatible elements of this narrative: on the one hand, “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations,” and on the other hand, “God.” These elements become compatible only through their total dependence on the absolute powerlessness of others—others who are unilaterally designated by them as “discriminators” or “perpetrators of human rights violations,” and whose rebuttals, objections, and even explanations are endlessly denounced as “discrimination” and “human rights violations.”
In other words, they cannot, even when standing entirely alone—outside all relations not only with others but even with their own allies—continue to fill their minds and bodies with the meaning “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations.” For them to saturate their entire existence with that meaning, the existence of others is indispensable: others who are unilaterally condemned by them as “discriminators” or “human rights violators,” and whose every utterance is endlessly sealed off as “all discrimination” and “all human rights violations.” They need encounters with others solely in order to make absolutely certain—by violently engraving it into their own minds and bodies—that they will never encounter others as equals.
They require the appearance of others who are violently denied any possibility of relation, dialogue, or mutual understanding; others reduced to lumps of powerlessness and looked down upon with contempt; others stripped entirely of the aura of alterity and unknownness. Miserable others, excluded from any possibility of exchange with them—others reduced to something like sacrificial remnants—are what simultaneously elevate them to the position of “God” while allowing them to appear as “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations.”
What makes possible the absolute absence of self-reference, self-dialogue, and self-reflection among them is therefore not the God of metaphysics. What makes it possible is, rather, the others whom they have excluded from all relations with themselves through the continuous exercise of extralegal violence—others whom they have stripped of all speech, forced into silence, and left utterly negated at the extreme point of powerlessness, with their alterity, unknowability, and unpredictability (that is, “human rights”) completely denied. Or rather, it is their own terrorizing extralegal violence itself, which debases others who seek to stand in an equal relation with them into subhuman insects without language.
The others whom they have unilaterally designated as “discriminators” or “perpetrators of human rights violations,” and upon whom they have exhausted every possible form of condemnation and denunciation, are precisely those who guarantee to the “absolute victims of discrimination” and the “absolute victims of human rights violations”—who themselves discriminate against others as “discriminators” and “perpetrators” beyond truth and falsity—the position of “absolute ruler,” that is, the position of “God,” the position of the “supreme judge.” The self-definition of “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations” can never be conferred upon them unless, outside the rule of law, they ceaselessly invert the “structure of discrimination” and pass through the others whom they themselves have discriminated against as “discriminators” and “perpetrators of human rights violations.” The repetitive reproduction of the self-definition “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations” depends entirely on those others who are discriminated against by them as “discriminators” and “perpetrators,” and whose alterity (＝“human rights”) is completely negated. It depends entirely on the complete negation of the otherness and foreignness of others (＝“human rights”) itself.
The logic developed above, I believe, completely dismantles and brings to collapse the blind presupposition held by the “human rights” forces—and by Chuo University integrated with those forces—that “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations” can never be mistaken, and that the sole and absolute meaning of an event resides exclusively in their experience (or their mode of experiencing). In order to claim that the logical consequences of the foregoing argument are themselves “discrimination” or “human rights violations,” they would have to prove, through rigorous logic and by their own power alone, that they are “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations,” without depending on a relation that consists in the absence of any relation with others. That is not all. They would also have to demonstrate the proposition that the position of “God” embodied in the self-definition “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations” has never once been used as a means for illicit rent-seeking.
If one were seriously to insist that even such logical demands constitute “discrimination” or “human rights violations,” then whether one belongs to the “human rights” forces, is a university faculty member, or is a legal professional, there would be no choice but to conclude that such actors form an “imaginary community” that absolutely refuses the negation of bare life through the intervention of the third term called “law,” and therefore stubbornly continues to reject entry into the legal order and the symbolic order.
What makes possible the absolute absence of self-reference, self-dialogue, and self-reflection in them is therefore not the God of metaphysics. It is, rather, the Other whom they exclude from any and all relations with themselves through the continuous exercise of extralegal violence, whom they relentlessly strip of all discourse and force into silence, and whose otherness, unknowability, and unpredictability (that is, “human rights”) are left to be completely negated at the extreme point of powerlessness. Or it is nothing other than their own fear itself—fear that takes the form of extralegal violence that degrades Others who seek to stand in an equal relation with them into non-human, wordless vermin.
Those Others whom they have unilaterally labeled and condemned to the utmost extent as “discriminators” and “perpetrators of human rights violations” are precisely the ones who guarantee to those who discriminate against Others beyond the horizon of truth and falsity as “discriminators” and “perpetrators of human rights violations”—that is, to the “absolute victims of discrimination” and the “absolute victims of human rights violations”—the position of the “absolute ruler,” namely the position of “God,” the position of the “supreme judge.” The self-definition as “absolute victims of discrimination” or “absolute victims of human rights violations” can never be bestowed upon them except through the continuous inversion of the “structure of discrimination” outside the condition of the rule of law, and only by way of the Others whom they themselves discriminate against as “discriminators” or “perpetrators of human rights violations.”
The repetitive reproduction of the self-definition “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations” depends entirely upon those Others who are discriminated against by them as “discriminators” or “perpetrators of human rights violations” and whose otherness (= “human rights”) has been completely negated. It depends entirely upon the complete negation itself of the Other’s otherness and foreignness (= “human rights”).
The foregoing logic, I contend, perfectly dismantles and drives to collapse the blind presupposition shared by the so-called “human rights” forces, as well as by Chuo University insofar as it has become integrated with those forces, namely the presupposition that the “absolute victims of discrimination” and the “absolute victims of human rights violations” never err, and that the one and only absolute meaning of events resides exclusively in their experience (or mode of experience). In order to insist that even the logical consequences of the foregoing line of thought themselves constitute “discrimination” or “human rights violations,” it would be necessary to prove, by strict logic and by their own power alone, that they are “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations,” without relying on a relation that consists in the absence of all relations with any Other.
Nor is that all. They would also have to demonstrate the proposition that the position of “God” embodied in the self-definition “absolute victims of discrimination” or “absolute victims of human rights violations” has never once been used as a means for the illegitimate acquisition of vested interests.
If one were seriously to claim that even such logical requirements themselves constitute “discrimination” or “human rights violations,” then one would have no choice but to assert that whether they are “human rights” activists, university faculty, or legal professionals, they are an “imaginary community” that absolutely refuses to accept the negation of bare life through the intervention of a third term called “law,” and that therefore stubbornly continues to reject entry into the legal order and the symbolic order.
++++
The process by which this large-scale organized crime was carried out is nothing other than a continuous repetition of the crime of coercion committed on April 11, 2012, which violently sought to conflate Inoue and M, beyond the horizon of truth and falsity, into “absolute discriminators” and “absolute perpetrators of human rights violations,” and which degraded Inoue into a non-human “parasite.”
Nakanishi Matazō of Chuo University, integrated with the “human rights” forces and sharing with them the common objective of illegitimate “rent-seeking,” behaved like a “God” as the proxy executor of the private sanctions imposed by the “absolute victims of human rights violations.” By completely excluding Inoue from any relation or dialogue with themselves and by suppressing virtually all language, he utterly negated Inoue’s otherness and unknowability (that is, inviolable “human rights”).
On July 26, 2012, the man who sat next to Mr. Umeki Keiji in a closed room at the Ministry of Education, a man resembling a gangster, likewise behaved like a “God” as the proxy executor of the private sanctions of the “absolute victims of human rights violations.” Without any grounds, he prohibited entry into any relation or dialogue with himself, crushed all of M’s discourse beyond the horizon of truth and falsity, and continued to deprive Inoue of all discourse, forcing nothing but silence upon him.
In the first-instance litigation against Chuo University, which began on January 30, 2013 and concluded on February 26, 2014, Chuo University’s attorneys Haruko Shibumura and Shigeru Furuta, together with the presiding judges Hiroshi Ichimura and Takenori Ota, behaved like “Gods” as the proxy executors of the private sanctions of the “absolute victims of human rights violations.” Throughout the proceedings, the court relentlessly prevented Inoue and Attorney NN from participating as equals in any relation or dialogue with themselves. Shibumura Haruko in particular persistently condemned Inoue beyond the horizon of truth and falsity as an “absolute perpetrator of human rights violations,” absolutely refusing to enter into any relation or dialogue with Inoue and his associates. While completely disregarding Inoue’s otherness and unknowability, she continued to ferociously denounce him as the representative of the “absolute victims of human rights violations.” With astonishing malice and hatred, she repeatedly hurled abusive language at Inoue. Both Shibumura Haruko’s preparatory briefs and Ota Takenori’s “death sentence judgment” were written with the purpose of stripping Inoue of all resistance (= “human rights”) that might connect him to future life.
The prosecutors in charge of investigating the crime of coercion, Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei, likewise secretly behaved like “Gods” as proxy executors of the private sanctions of the “absolute victims of human rights violations,” by excluding Inoue entirely from any relation or dialogue with themselves through the expedient of using Attorney NN as the representative of the complainant. After repeatedly deceiving Inoue by claiming that the matter would be “submitted for expert evaluation,” they never submitted it for evaluation and instead disposed of all suspects as not prosecuted beyond the horizon of truth and falsity. They assured the judges in the civil litigation that the case would not be submitted for evaluation and that all suspects would be given non-prosecution, thereby actively participating in the complete negation of Inoue’s “human rights” within the judicial proceedings.
The “Gods” who, as proxy executors of the private sanctions of the “absolute victims of human rights violations,” directed the greatest possible extralegal violence against Inoue and M beyond the horizon of truth and falsity were the top-ranking prosecutors at the time, who on April 1 and April 14, 2016 deprived us of our rights to file criminal complaints and accusations. Those documents amounted in effect to a “death sentence,” announcing the final completion of the complete negation of our “human rights.” If the act of drafting and sending those documents is not absolute consent to the narrative (fiction) that the true rulers of this country are the “human rights” forces as “absolute victims of discrimination,” together with Chuo University integrated with them, and that by virtue of the uniqueness of their experience of suffering they are a priori permitted to reign above the Constitution and the law, then what on earth could it possibly be?
++++
A narrative according to which the real world—or the constitutional state—has been compelled to accept, to a certain degree, the permeation of its rule through the mediation of fear.
A narrative in which the “human rights” forces, together with Chuo University integrated with them, are in all contexts “absolute victims of discrimination” and “absolute victims of human rights violations,” yet at the same time are “Gods” precisely because they monopolistically possess a terrifying extralegal power that allows no one to infringe upon the one and only absolute meaning of those statuses. A narrative that has even left investigative authorities trembling in fear.
Because this narrative was accepted as “true” in the real world exactly as desired by the “human rights” forces and Chuo University integrated with them, the unprecedentedly large-scale organized crime at issue was brought about. However, this narrative was not in fact “true.” Lacking any first principle or “ground,” in the way that Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason could be said to possess one, this narrative inevitably renders the organized crime at issue—which completely negated the “human rights” of Others (= ethics realized as the otherness and foreignness of the Other)—a form of terrorism that stands in opposition to the right to life of all human beings and to the constitutional state that guarantees it.
For if the “human rights” of a single human being can be completely negated, then it follows that “human rights” do not essentially inhere in any human being whatsoever. “Human rights” are a value-mirror that continuously projects into the future the potentiality of human value (above all, the value of the preciousness of life). To exterminate “human rights” is to render impossible the advent of the future as the ceaseless promise of the presence of human value. Even if time called the future arrives, the world will become ever more saturated with non-humans who can calmly carry out the negation of the existence of Others—extreme bullying, violence, and murder.
However, the unprecedented magnitude of this large-scale organized crime will, if each of those who carried it out is still human—if they can perceive, even vaguely, the essential role of “human rights” as a value-mirror, even after having shattered it—inevitably return to their sensibility their own terrifying otherness.
The three years of testimony given by M and myself will cause this monstrous event, this large-scale organized crime, to arrive at them from the future, and they will gradually recall that their own minds have been deprived of ownership over that event. They will finally remember that they are not “God,” that they are not the owners of an absolute memory in which the future is always already given.
The arrival from the future of this past event, which contains madness within it, will render it completely impossible for them to possess, dominate, or control what they themselves are.
That otherness which will inevitably return—an otherness that you cannot help but feel as your own. It is the memory of the otherness of others whom you completely negated: the memory of the otherness of M and myself as others, the memory of the overwhelming foreignness of others that you continued to refuse to know until the very end.
(unfinished)