marking a pivotal moment… IN A GEOGRAPHICAL VIEW https://digitalmapsoftheancientworld.com/ancient-maps/anaximanders-map/ ( Not cultural or political, a geographical division) - the greeks divided the continents in 4 - To it’s west what would become western europe, to the east what would become northern central eurasia, to the north what would become eastern europe ( A SUBREGION OF NORTHERN CENTRAL EURASIA), and to it’s south (south of the 36th parallel) what would become southern eurasia/africa/ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT In simple terms going by the greek’s logic of dividing continents - Lands of the southern half of the world below the 36th parallel cannot border the western and eastern eurasia, but only central eurasia can (See the first greek map - the Anaximanderian world map- if west Eurasia cannot be connected to Africa and the global south, then by logic it should also apply to east Eurasia.) .

there are two undisputed mega continents - afro eurasia, and The americas - which can be divided by isthmuses, dividing them into africa, south america, eurasia, and north america - and if we use the division of the demarcation of the 36 1/2 parallel latitude to divide the global south and global north, eurasia and north america are divided into west/Central/east eurasia, and North/Central america .

the Only continent missing from this statement - we consider the archigapelic conglomeration from the 36th parallel’s honshu down from the first island chain, to the austronesian islands of new zealand and madagascar - a unique continent of archigapelic nature ,The archigapelic pacific continent - which is clearly not part of any of these 2 mega continents.

WHY IS GREECE’S SOUTHERN MOST POINT SERVE AS THE STANDARD OF THE DIVIDING LATITUDINAL PARRALEL BETWEEN AFRICA/ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT AND WESTERN EURASIA/EASTERN EURASIA, WHY ISNT THE STANDARD OF BEING PART OF WEST/EAST EURASIA NOT EUROPE’S SOUTHERN MOST POINT (AKA SOUTH SPAIN?): BECAUSE THE GREEKS INVENTED THE GEOGRAPHIC PROPOSITIONS OF THESE CONTINENTS FIRST, BY DEMARCATING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LANDS LACKING IN MARITIME POWER, COMMUNICATION, AND FREEDOM - the horizontally protruding land of the anatolian peninsula that is, AND THE SOUTHERN LANDS OF CRETE AND AFRICA WHICH ARE BELOW THE 36TH PARALLEL, TO DEMARCATE THE CONTINENTS OF AFRICA, AND THE SOUTHERN LANDS OF CYPRUS AND THE MIDDLE EAST, TO DEMARCATE THE CONTINENT OF SOUTHERN EURASIA.

WHY ARE THE GREEKS PART OF THE CENTRAL EURASIA, IF BY THE GREEK’S DEFINITION ONLY ANATOLIA WAS PART OF “CENTRAL EURASIA” (AKA THE PART OF EURASIA WITH NO MARITIME FREEDOM YET STILL GEOGRAPHICALLY SUPERIOR TO THE SOUTHERN CONTINENTS)?: The answer was that the greeks did not know if they had full geographic knowledge at the time of making these distinctions between eurasia, either if they did had the geographic freedoms to reach the atlantic (which would make them part of western europe), or not We have to keep in mind that these are geographic terms… It is an undeniable fact that eastern europe from the adriatic to the black sea, did not have geographical maritime freedoms as did countries like italy, korea, france, russia, enjoyed, and if anatolia, a geographical landmass protruding horizontally away from central eurasia and has no maritime freedoms is not considered west eurasian, then the identical geographic conditions of eastern europe, eastern fenno scandia, and bohai manchuria should all be geographically considered as the identical category of anatolia, since they are practically geographically similiar in the way that they both protrude away from eurasian landmass, but not long enough geographically to monopolize on maritime power.

Thus, the greek peninsula protruding south after the horizontal protrusion of anatolia, fennoscandia, and eastern europe, does not change it’s status as eastern europe geographically, as it has no maritime freedom like countries like russia, france, etc.

WHY IS AINUIC HOKKAIDO, SAKHALIN, AND KURILS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE archigapelic pacific continent ( THE PARALLEL OF AFRICA?) AND REMAIN EAST EURASIAN?= The same reason why you wouldnt consider sicily, sardina, and the Balearic Islands are considered, even though they are not part of the west eurasian mainland considered part of western eurasia - BECAUSE THEY ARE NORTH OF THE PARALLEL OF THE 36 1/2 LATITUDE, UNLIKE NORTH AFRICA. Thus the ainuic islands are part of the east eurasian mainland, and honshu is considered part of the global southern archigapelic pacific continent

you might be wondering what determines a region geographically “west” or “east”, and what determines it is simply if it is north of the 36th parallel, and if the region directly accesses the north pacific sea, north atlantic sea, or north sea - HORIZONTALLY PARALLEL TO ANGLO AMERICA AND BRITANNIA.

What makes the west “the west”? To me and many scholars, the west a distinct geographic region adopted and started where the ancients collapsed by developed secular greek philosophy, logic, and science since the rediscovery of the ancients in the rennaissance after the crusades, which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain. Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms. And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean to the countries of russia, france, italy, japan, korea. And the conclusion in the most generalized terms? The application of these developments ie: intercontinental colonies, capitalism, abolishment of feudal structures, industrialization.

There are 4 criteria i can therefore deduce currently to be concluded as part of the “west”:

Did it follow and develop the traditions of the reforms of the renaissance, science, enlightment? And after the climax of these developments with the industrial revolution, did it have it’s own industrial revolution and entered itself into the capitalistic world system? And for distinction, did it use these advancements in the same way the west did (ie intercontinental colonialism). And were all these done independently by the nation, so that there is living proof?

there are countries like russia, korea, japan who had nothing to do with the tradition, yet industrialized by abolishing feudalism and entering capitalistic world structure by extracting knowledge from the west during the dates of 1861, 1868, and 1895 , and colonized places like alaska, taiwan, and oceania (although korea failed due to industrializing to late from 1895 to 1905)

and there were countries like poland lithuania may have developed these reforms along with the west, they did not succeed fully. And why is that? Well as i said before, foreign conquest by it’s neighbors due to Lack of geographic access to the seas in which the industrial revolution thrived in.

Both of these types are not fully what we would consider the “west”

And well? what are the countries that are considered eastern europe? essentially anything east of germany, italy, sweden, and west of eurasian anatolia(geographically anatolia is part of europe in the same way the fenno scandian peninsula is) and eurasian russia. all of these countries either developed western civilization but failed to reap the harvest, or had nothing to do with it in the first place

Very clear examples are The ainuic lands of hokkaido & southern Sakhalin and the kurils, France, the russian Kamchatka peninsula, Norway, etc. The lands that are at the edges of the atlanticist realms and unable to access these seas are Sweden, Italy, and Korea - weirdly enough these are all peninsular nations. WHY the north pacific sea, north atlantic sea, or north sea? - because of the geography in which globalization and industrialization spread. It began in Britain and Anglo America in the 1760s. Globalization came in two stages if we analyze causal human history- from 1492 to 1760 with the rise of merchants and mercantilism overthrowing the feudal structure and kickstarting the age of exploration - and then industrialization in 1760 - 1945. Also, The nations that also directly accesses the north pacific sea, north atlantic sea, or north sea - HORIZONTALLY PARALLEL TO ANGLO AMERICA AND BRITANNIA, have the utmost freedom of navigation , you can deduce this by looking at a map of EEZ’S https://ibb.co/XpYgtzt

Direct access The waters of the northern pacific , northern atlantic, and north sea above the 36th parallel are what makes you a superior power in the globalized world, like russia, like germany, like france, and extending to the peripheral but included swedes, koreans, and italians - because these are the waters that gave industrialized connections and a born superior destinies of high positions in the post industrialized world.

On the british side in the pacific in the north sea - industrialization spread to denmark-norway, then to sweden in the early 19th century, as well as the lowlands, and germany.

On the anglo american side in the northern pacific - two industrialized powers emerged in the 1860s - meiji japan and russian empire

On the northern atlantic - rather from anglo america, industrialization spread south from brittania to france, iberia, and then to italy in the 19th century.

REGIONS: https://ibb.co/znqZpbV, https://ibb.co/GJmDZVQ geographical extent of eastern europe and bohai china( or most western portion of northern central eurasia and most eastern portion of northern central eurasia -NOTICE HOW THE REGIONS ARE NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO SOUTHERN TERRITORIES AND ARE PROTRUDING HORIZONTALLY, but are connected to territories that are directly connected to territories that are directly vertical to southern territories)

https://ibb.co/RC3wNd6 - geographical extent of central portion of northern central eurasia

https://ibb.co/wsX2zrW - geographical extent of western eurasia https://ibb.co/V314kKq - geographical extent of scandinavia

Amazingly, since the world is a globe and there is a geographical parallel somewhere, there is another region where the greek’s division of continents can somewhat be in effect. That is the northern han plain in china. https://ibb.co/bskpVGX - geographical extent of eastern eurasia.

However the 36th parallel demarcating the northern and southern halves of the world are blurry. Let’s go over each geographical case.

https://ibb.co/5L51hd7 - Iberian peninsula - although a small sliver of iberia is below the 36th parallel, Considering iberia as part of the global south would shift the horizontal extent of central eurasia all the way to france. The southern half of the world cannot border western eurasia, but only central eurasia - if the southern half of the world did happen to border what today we call the west, the west would cease to exist

https://ibb.co/5G34r1c - Atlas region of North africa - Although there is a portion of north africa that is above the 36th parallel, it borders land south of the 36th parallel. Thus it would be more proper to categorize this region as part of the broader southern eurasia/africa/malay archipelago-oceania region

https://ibb.co/6FFQ9K4 - Korean peninsula - although a small sliver of korea is below the 36th parallel, in the same geographical reasons as iberia - if the horizontal extent of southern eurasia is extended to this peninsula in asia, it would shift the horizontal extent of central eurasia forward to western europe - this would put manchuria and inner siberia as well as korea in central eurasia, but also notably italy, germany, the netherlands geographically considered as part of central eurasia - italy being a exact parallel of korea’s geographical position but in europe. The world is a globe you see.

Japan’s honshu - Although there is a portion of honshu that is above the 36th parallel, A little more than half of honshu is made up of lands south of the 36th parallel - including tokyo. - ALSO honshu is an island. It isnt like spain or italy, where it would have domino like effect affecting the logical propositions and conclusional categorization of geographic regions. thus it would be more proper to categorize this region as part of the broader southern eurasia/africa/malay archipelago-oceania region. If we were to defy logic and add honshu to eastern eurasia, it would break the first geographic law - that western and eastern eurasia cannot border lands south of the 36th parallel (southern eurasia/africa/malay archipelago-oceania), something that geographically central eurasia is geographically able to do.

Knowing that the lines of the 36th 1/2 parallel can only be shifted if the line interferes with the classification of west and east eurasia, like what we saw in spain and korea, but also with islands such as crete, honshu, cyprus,

AND THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE 36th 1/2 parallel,

We can also dice up the global south into 3 equal geographic parts. The first being africa, the second being south eurasia, and the third being the ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT which consists not hainan, cyprus, sri lanks(as these islands are closer to southern eurasia than anywhere else) but of the ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR islands, australia, new zealand, the malay archipelago, oceania, ryukyu kyushu islands, taiwan, the island of jeju and tsushima, 2nd island chain and the micro islands of oceania such as the likes of hawaii, and honshu. -this continent is demarcated by THE 36TH and 1/2 parallel and, instead of the case of africa - which is the conglomeration of the continent, it is being the total opposite of africa, by being the the conglomeration of archipelagos. This region is called the pacific continental archipelago, which is demarcated by the indian ocean, the continent of eurasia, and the americas - a parallel of africa, which is also demarcated by the indian ocean, the continent of eurasia, and the americas

In my view, there are are two undisputed mega continents - afro eurasia, and The americas - which can be divided by isthmuses, dividing them into africa, south america, eurasia, and north america - and if we use the division of the demarcation of the 36 1/2 parallel latitude to divide the global south and global north, eurasia and north america are divided into west/Central/east eurasia, and North/Central america .

the Only continent missing from this statement - The archigapelic pacific continent - which is clearly not part of any of these 2 mega continents.

WHY IS AINUIC HOKKAIDO, SAKHALIN, AND KURILS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE archigapelic pacific continent ( THE PARALLEL OF AFRICA?) AND REMAIN EAST EURASIAN?= The same reason why you wouldnt consider sicily, sardina, and the Balearic Islands are considered, even though they are not part of the west eurasian mainland considered part of western eurasia - BECAUSE THEY ARE NORTH OF THE PARALLEL OF THE 36 1/2 LATITUDE, UNLIKE NORTH AFRICA. Thus the ainuic islands are part of the east eurasian mainland, and honshu is considered part of the global southern archigapelic pacific continent,

Japan’s honshu isnt just a island in the middle of nowhere, it’s an island connected to THE ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT because 1. it’s an island, 2. it’s inside the demarcation - the demarcation being the indian ocean, the continent of eurasia, and the americas and finally THE 36 1/2 PARALLEL 3: it’s clearly connected to the THE ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT- via Kyushu, then Ryukyus, then taiwan, and finally the phillipines.

Like how africa is inhabited by north african arabs and Berbers in the north, and niger congo in the south, the pacific continental archipelago is inhabited by north pacific archipelagic ryukyuans and yamato on the north, and Taiwanese aborgines/austronesians-papuan-australians in the south.

No japan is not part of eastern eurasia. It is part of The continental pacific islands - there are two mega continents - afro eurasia, and The americas - which can be divided by isthmuses, dividing them into africa, south america, eurasia, and north america. the place missing - The archigapelic pacific continent.

Thus we can deduce that Ainuic hokkaido and kurils and sakhalin, Koreans, and asiatic russians are east eurasians - the direct geographical parallel of the western european peninsula(italy, western germany, france, austria, etc.) and scandinavia. The title of “east asia” goes to china and japan - countries where they are connected to territories as south as north africa and the middle east below the 36th parallel ( the kanto region, Atlas mountains in north africa, south china, kyushu shikoku, tibet, afghanistan, etc.) - youll see the geographic difference if you see the 36th parallel - the 36th parallel being chosen because the greek origin of the concepts of continents - the 36th parallel being the most southern point of greece (Anaximanderian world map- if west Eurasia cannot be connected to Africa and the global south, then by logic it should also apply to east Eurasia.)

However this can be seen in another region, AKA THE GEOGRAPHIC BLURRINESS OF DIVIDING BRITAIN, IRELAND, THE FAROE ISLANDS, AND ICELAND( likewise Honshu/kyushu, taiwan, ryukyu islands- CHOOSING BETWEEN THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT AND THE CONTINENT OF WEST EURASIA ( Like wise choosing between the continents of south eurasia or the archigapelic pacific continent ) - However, the difference being that america, unlike the archigapelic pacific continent, is a single absolute land mass like afro eurasia, unlike the archigapelic pacific continent. this is a problem because then territories that we consider part of the northern world above the 36th parallel on the edge of the eurasian continent, like the ainuic islands of sakhalin, hokkaido, and the kurils - would also be considered part of the north american continent. - my answer? - Completely up to you in this case. You are not wrong or right if you consider britain or hokkaido part of north america or west/east eurasia GEOGRAPHICALLY.

Thus my point is that countries which occupy north of the 36th parallel, and occupy similiar geographic positions to western europe, also coincidentally thrive the same way western europe did during 1492-1945 - the era of the first full globalization of the world. you cant deny that nations which are north of the 36th parallel, and have direct access to the north pacific sea, north atlantic sea, or north sea (russia, france, spain, sweden, italy, korea, germany, japan, norway etc.) (although norway and korea were both conquered by their southern neighbors) all occupy positions in modern history (1492-1945) - where they are noted for their INTERCONTINENTAL colonialism during the first stage of globalization via intercontinental colonization during the rise of mercantilism and early exploration (1492-1760), or second stage of globalization of pure industrialization and pure capitalism (1760-1945) - and it is by no coincidence that the perpetrators of globalization/Intercontinental colonialism remain in high prestigous economic positions in the current Atlanticist world order after britain gave it’s torch to anglo america after ww2. Currently russia contests this world order with it’s eurasianism, with the help of china.

This is contrasted with indo Europeanism, which emphasizes that modernity comes from the heart of Europe and is ethnicly based, likely Germany, and spreads to the peripheries of east of Germany and west of germany, then to the south to the Balkans, iberia, italy, georgia-armenia-iran-afghanistan-india-bangladesh-nepal, and north to finland sweden norway Brittania ireland iceland.

In my view, there are are two undisputed mega continents - afro eurasia, and The americas - which can be divided by isthmuses, dividing them into africa, south america, eurasia, and north america - and if we use the division of the demarcation of the 36 1/2 parallel latitude to divide the global south and global north, eurasia and north america are divided into west/Central/east eurasia, and North/Central america .

the Only continent missing from this statement - The archigapelic pacific continent - which is clearly not part of any of these 2 mega continents.

continents are defined by oceans and regions of these continents are defined by the 36th parallel and isthmuses

36 1/2 parallel determines who is part of the northern half of the world and the southern half of the world( although this is completely arbitrary but we at the present day must follow the standards of post colonial globalization centered on europe.)

Two mega continents: afro eurasia and the americas, africa and south america being divided by narrow oceanic isthmuses

west eurasia( AKA western europe), and east eurasia being defined by their proximity to their geographic access of the atlantic and pacific.

dividing the islands like sakhalin and ireland above the 36th parallel between northern eurasia and north america are completely arbitrary

the archigapelic pacific continent being defined as a continent below the 36th parallel, geographically seperated from south america and south eurasia by water, who’s nations are islands, conglomerating because they all have the same thing in common, no continents to be a part of.

Geography is the meta of dividing humans in groups. Geography is not up to humans to decide. It is up to the geography that was formed in place. However, if we cannot even accept as human made rules, that 1. bodies of water seperate continents - the foremost, absolute rule in human geography, and make pesky exceptions like, “No indonesia is part of asia even though it’s seperated!” then the lines ae not absolute. and if the lines are not absolute, they can be manipulated. and if they can be manipulated, then dont even bother making divisions, i’d rather just say we all live on the same planet earth.

I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…

my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.

If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.

As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.

Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.

As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call Honshu part of east asia when more than half of it is as south as north africa and the middle east, connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago/ australia region, and all the more weirder when africa is considered it’s own continent and not a region of afro eurasia, but honshu and kyushu, ryukyu, taiwan, phillipines are quite literally seperated by water yet they get the pass.

Like how western eurasia is a synonym for the region which receives modernity from the angloid race, eastern eurasia ( far east russia, korea, hokkaido) also receives modernity from the angloid race(russia’s abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist colonialism, and capitalist industrialism proving as such- meaning that even without the abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist colonialism, and capitalist industrialism - these territories are equal - as they have proved.

Honshu (part of the pacific archigapelic continent) Since the pacific archigapelic continent is inferior, the abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist colonialism, and capitalist industrialism in Honshu only pertains to honshu only and not the entirety of the continent and it’s archigapelic landmasses because Since honshu’s modernity is derived from itself, and by being to south not the geographical prepositions from anglo america and britannia like the countries of denmark, russia, etc . Preventing honshu spreading connections of modernity derived from the angloid race that is the nature of the modern nodes of modernity that we call western eurasia and eastern eurasia.

(Hokkaido is japan’s modernity, however it can only make connections with other countriesBY USING IT’S INTEGRAL TERRITORY OF HONSHU WHICH IS UNMODERN IN THE GEOGRAPHIC ANGLOID SENSE-> Connections in the belt of modernity must follow geographical rules and both connecting parts of connection must be modern. -> Honshu + (Modern) korea CLOSEST GEOGRAPHICAL MODERN COUNTRY= unmodern (HONSHU IS UNMODERN) , Honshu + (Modern) hokkaido CLOSEST GEOGRAPHICAL MODERN LANDMASS = unmodern (HONSHU IS UNMODERN) -> No connections left, Honshu’s modernity is self contained because of geography If hokkaido was japan’s integral territory, and not honshu - it would be able to make modern mercantalistic colonialist capitalized industrialized connections by using america’s link, and manage to create a link with russia, since hokkaido would check off as being geographically modern. But it is not the case.)

So when you combine these geographic reasonings: That the nations of eastern eurasia ( far east russia, korea, hokkaido) and western eurasia ( Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden) - are a singular geographic node of modernity defined by waters in which the angloid industrial revolution spread - And the regions connected by russia’s land connection to norway and both on the waters in which Anglo america and Britain are centered on.

How japan connects itself in the belt of modernity: Input: derived from connection to the angloid hearth via being north of the thirty sixth parallel and also having access to the north pacific, north sea, north atlantic, west mediterranean Honshu and Hokkaido are included into this geographic belt of modernity in two ways: Hokkaido - being part of the eastern eurasian geographic node of modernity - derives it’s modernity from it’s connection to anglo america, but it’s connections to connect to the rest of the modern east eurasian node is at a deadend by hokkaido not being the main integral island of the nation of japan ( Ie: you wouldn’t call the main integral island of denmark bornholm island, or the main integral island of britain shetland island), in short, hokkaido cannot be part of the belt of modernity as it cannot make connections as the integral island is the only valid input for modernity and that would be the integral island of honshu, but honshu being south of the 36th parallel - and lands south of the 36th parallel unable to recieve angloid modernity, northern territories controlled by the south are unable. Output: connects to closest nation of the nodes of eastern eurasia or northern eurasia With honshu, It’s modernity is derived not by geographic angloid nature BECAUSE IT IS TO SOUTH AND BELONG IN THE ARCHIGAPELIC PACIFIC CONTINENT, but by it’s own abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist colonialism, and capitalist industrialism. Thus, although isolated from the belt of modernity and whilst angloid modernity does not enter honshu, it still persists in it’s homegrown way. Honshu then connects to the nearest foreign country which is part of the belt of angloid modernity - that being korea. This makes korea not only modern in the angloid industrialized sense, but also the japanese sense - as it now has two types of modernity Angloid industrialization and Japanese homegrown replicated industriality which it melds together ( although the industrial hearth is not japan).

So in the broader schema of the angloid industrial hearth spreading to west eurasia and east eurasia - How japan plays into and integrates - is that east eurasian angloid industrial modernity enters hokkaido - but reaches a dead end, Honshu does not recieve angloid modernity, but instead it’s own homegrown continental pacific archigapelic japanese modernity, different of the angloid industrial kind which spread throughout countries like russia and france.

If success in a full process of abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist INERCONTINENTAL colonialism, and capitalist industrialism, but not part of eastern or western eurasia and participating in the belt of modernity via the peripheral nodes of western and eastern eurasia above the 36th parallel with anglo america and britannia at it’s center geographically - nation does not participate in the belt of modernity but still be able to connect it’s foreign modernity to the nearest nation in the belt of modernity - in the case of japan, korea is the closest nation to honshu and is it’s integral neighbor to it’s integral island.

If part of eastern or western eurasia and participating in the belt of modernity via the peripheral nodes of western and eastern eurasia above the 36th parallel to lead to being connected to the industrial hearth anglo america and britannia at it’s center geographically, but not a full process of abolishment of feudalism, mercantilist colonialism, and capitalist industrialism, - in the case of korea which didnt colonize after it’s independent industrialism, and norway which did not have independent industrialism, - both are modern geographically and still participate in the belt of modernity.

Eastern europe is demarcated by the adriatic and baltic seas In the Orthodox Christian southeastern portion of eastern europe, a land with no cultural ties to western culture, yet abolished feudalism and transitioned to an industrialized capitalist society after emerging from centuries of ottoman feudal rule - the Craiova group similar to rise of Northern eurasian/east eurasian russia and pacific archigapelic japan - nations that succeeded in modernity but had no cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment - although Northern eurasian/east eurasian russia and pacific archigapelic japan are geographically tied to the west by geographical parallelism, whilst in contrast countries like Poland has cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment, but a separate geography from western europe. As far as i know, the countries of the orthodox eastern european balkans of greece, serbia, romania, and bulgaria - made abolishments of feudalism by having economic independence under ottoman political suzerainty, and then after gaining their full sovereign independence and free from ottoman interference never DEFINITIVELY ABOLISHED FEUDALISM IN A SINGLE REFORM, (Simply because there was no need to), gradually reforming until the earlier 20th century, where the last vestiges of feudalism disappeared. In eastern europe Greece emerged from centuries of ottoman rule in 1830, began modernizing autonomously In eastern europe Bulgaria, emerging from ottoman rule, was influenced by ottoman modernization processes in the mid 19th century, gained economic independence from the ottomans in 1878 and began transitioning a feudal society to a capitalist one, of course Under the watchful eye of ottoman political vassalage, until it’s independence in 1908 In eastern europe in the case of serbia and romania both emerging from ottoman rule, they gained economic independence in their own jurisdictions in the early 19th century and began transitioning a feudal society to a capitalist one, of course Under the watchful eye of ottoman political vassalage, until it’s independence in 1878 However, these countries did not during the transition from feudalism to proto capitalism to full capitalism participate fully in mercantilism through INTERCONTINENTAL, UNCONTINUOUS GEOGRAPHICALLY, MARITIME colonialism - ( As there is no traditional european mercantilism without the expansion of territory in which to extract resources for the motherland) - this condition needs to be met along with abolishing feudalism and transitioning to capitalism, and with cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment - to be considered the “west”.

judeochristianity is not the reason why the renaissance started. It’s the rediscovery of ancient greco-roman texts of ancient secularism that reappeared after the crusades that reformed and chipped away at the centralized catholic church. As the influx of knowledge came known to the clergy - it instigated reforms and revolutions - the most notable being the reformation.

Why would something that advocated for rationalism, grow out and spread because of a authoritarian empirical tradition?

Geography was important. There are reasons as to why portugal and spain begin to transition to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and why poland was stuck unable to integrate itself to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and extract resources from colonies (to be traditionally memrcantalist and meet the standards, you needed colonies) - Both were catholic, why? BECAUSE OF IT’S GEOGRAPHY, IT HAD NO ACCESS TO MARITIME FREEDOMS! ESPECIALLY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND IT’S SPREAD like i said: which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain. Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms. And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean

Japan is also not part of afro eurasia. like i said, there are 3 continents - afro eurasia, americas, and the pacific archigapelic continent all seperated by water I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…

my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.

If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.

As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.

Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.

As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call japan part of east asia when it’s connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago when Africa apparently is it’s own continent.

Let’s talk geographically. there are 3 mega continents. Afro eurasia, the americas, and a mass of achigapelagos in the middle of these continents - and i think that this mass of archigapelagos should be considered one continent as they have no continents to be a part of, and islands as we know are not mega continents. Why make the exception for japan geographically even though they are divided by water? if divisions of water dont define continents, then there are no continents in the world. Japan is seperated by water and is part of afro eurasia, while africa is connected and yet it’s not?

If a southern country below the 36th parallel conquers a northern territory (for example the north african conquest of iberia, japanese hokkaido, chinese manchuria), the northern territory would become an extension of the south, and no longer be able to receive modernity from the angloid industrial hearth.

Japan’s integration, although being a southern territory. Japan’s hokkaido a east eurasian territory, cannot receive modernity from the angloid industrial hearth because of being a extension of the southern territory of honshu. However, japan has abolished the feudal system, progressed to an industrialized capitalist society, and had mercantilist intercontinental colonies

The colonization of east eurasian korea and hokkaido and karafuto and kurils make pacific archigapelic honshu a capitalist industrialist mercantilist colonizer unconnected from industrialist angloid hearth and it’s belt of modernity, Luckily the closest country (not closest landmass to honshu) to japan’s integral island honshu is korea and luckily korea is a receiver of angloid modernity, making korea which is the closest angloid modernity foreign country to japan, receive links of japanese modernity along with links to angloid modernity that spread from britannia and anglo america to west eurasia and east eurasia.

So rules being set: The industrial hearth is Anglo America and Britannia, (britannia is north america being geographically closer to ireland than continental europe, connected to north america via the island chain that includes green land, iceland, faroes, shetland - all in north america)

From the industrial hearth, modernity spreads horizontally, not vertically. When the industrial revolution began in the 1760’s in the industrial hearth, it did not spread south to france first, then north africa, or from north america to south america. It spread vertically, from britain to denmark, from anglo america to russia.

The receivers of modernity are for the peripheries of the industrial hearth, The land north of the 36th parallel and directly accessing north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterranean, and sea of japan - east eurasia and west eurasia These two regions connect at the russian norwegian border, forming the belt of modernity: this being:Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, east eurasian russia and korea ( russia abolished the feudal system, progressed to an industrialized capitalist society, and had mercantilist intercontinental colonies; alaska - korea which did not do these things being included geographically because like how sweden also had abolished the feudal system, progressed to an industrialized capitalist society, and had mercantilist intercontinental colonies - and norway which did not do these things being included geographically in the belt of modernity) Anything that steps out of these boundaries are not receivers of modernity from the industrial hearth.

If a southern country below the 36th parallel conquers a northern territory (for example the north african conquest of iberia, japanese hokkaido, chinese manchuria), the northern territory would become an extension of the south, and no longer be able to receive modernity from the angloid industrial hearth.

Japan’s integration, although being a southern territory. Japan’s hokkaido a east eurasian territory, cannot receive modernity from the angloid industrial hearth because of being a extension of the southern territory of honshu. However, japan has abolished the feudal system, progressed to an industrialized capitalist society, and had mercantilist intercontinental colonies (The colonization of east eurasian korea and hokkaido and karafuto and kurils make pacific archigapelic honshu a capitalist industrialist mercantilist colonizer unconnected from industrialist angloid hearth and it’s belt of modernity). Thus, although it’s modernity not of the angloid kind, is modernity nevertheless -

Since japan does not receive angloid modernity because honshu is neither east eurasia or west eurasia because of it’s southern latitude, and rather than receiving angloid modernity and being part of the geographical belt of modernity (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, russia and korea, britain and anglo america all form a circle around the globe) it makes it’s own, a modernity that isn’t received and doesn’t connect japan to the industrial hearth, In contrast, nations of west eurasia and east eurasia geographically are born with the destined modernity as they are located in the seas in which modernity thrives - the only way to remove destined modernity FROM THE ANGLOID INDUSTRIAL HEARTH is by being conquered by a southern nation ( muslim conquest of iberia, ming conquest of manchuria, japanese hokkaido) Which turns the destined modernity of the location into a extension of the global southern nation, in other words, the nations of east eurasia and west eurasia all have one thing in common, and that is that they all go back and are connected to the anglo industrial hearth, and the fact that a geopolitical “belt of modernity” forms is only a geopolitical coincidence

In conclusion, in the broader schema of geography compatible with the spread of the angloid industrial complex and the modernity that comes with that compatibility- Japan is not modern, and the region of the sea of japan would be akin to the western mediterranean, France and iberia as the russian far east, italy as korea, and western north africa as honshu. However, in the schema of modernity nevertheless- IN THAT JAPAN’S HISTORY DISREGARDED THE STATUS QUO OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD OF THE ANGLOID INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND ITS RULES, japan is modern, and the region of the sea of japan would be akin to kattegat-skagerrak region, with korea as sweden, russian far east as norway, and japan as denmark.

Let us take the case with korea:

Korea and the russian far east are one geographical node in which we call north eastern eurasia A receiver of angloid modernity, in the same sense that Italy/sweden and Franco-iberia/Norway are all one geographic node in which we call in a rough outline of northwestern eurasia A receiver of angloid modernity. If Korea is excluded from north eastern eurasia and thus excluded from receiving angloid modernity, than so would Italy and sweden would be excluded from north western eurasia and thus excluded from receiving angloid modernity.

and with this Propositional Proof, IN A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS If we were to get to the conclusion that Korea is geographically unable to recieve angloid modernity, Then geographically - sweden and italy geographically are unable to recieve angloid modernity, because korea, sweden, and italy have the same geographical distancing in regards to the angloid industrial hearth proven by the proof.

In a geographical analysis of japan (honshu),we must go by the axiom that honshu and morocco have the same geographical distancing and latitudes in regards to the angloid industrial hearth. if we were to assume that the contradicting proposition honshu is geographically able to receive angloid modernity from the industrial hearth (this proposition is a contradiction because of the proposition that anything south of the 36th parallel is unable to recieve angloid modernity, and the proposition honshu is south of the 36th parallel - thus a contradicition), then Muslim morocco would be able to
receive angloid modernity from the industrial hearth because of the proposed proof that honshu and morocco have the same geographical distancing and latitudes in regards to the angloid industrial hearth (but this proposition is a contradiction because of the proposition that anything south of the 36th parallel is unable to recieve angloid modernity, and the propositional proof that morroco is south of the 36th parallel - thus a contradicition) In short, The conclusion that japan is geographically able to receive angloid modernity from the industrial hearth is false, because when this conclusion is recursively analyzed and simultaneously inputting axiomatic proofs alongside the found propositions of the recursive analysis - the propositions contradict each other, and thus the conclusion is false.

for the the axiomatic conclusional proof of being in the state of modernity is in the most generalized sense, all these propositions must be true: Independently abolished the feudal system, Independently progressed to an industrialized capitalist society, and had mercantilist intercontinental colonies

in the geographical regions of North west eurasia and north east eurasia who have geographical modernity from the angloid industrial hearth, we have the axiomatic proof that Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia all have proof from recursive analysis that all the propositions which conclude that a nation is an axiomatic proof of modernity are all true The excluded nations from North west eurasia and north east eurasia who have geographical modernity from the angloid industrial hearth, but not historical modernity are norway and korea - there is proof from recursive analysis that all the propositions are not all present to conclude that these two nations are of being in the state of modernity

Japan is not in the geographical regions of North west eurasia and north east eurasia who have geographical modernity from the angloid industrial hearth,
yet has undeniable axiomatic proof that it the propositions which conclude that a nation is an axiomatic proof of modernity are all true

The most common acceptance of the west is not only having a CULTURAL rooting of socio political reforms of the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment, (WHICH POLAND HAS BUT COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA DO NOT), but independently abolishing feudalism by transitioning a mercantilist society into a fully capitalist mode of production via industrialization, And during the transition from feudalism to proto capitalism to full capitalism participating in mercantilism through INTERCONTINENTAL, UNCONTINUOUS GEOGRAPHICALLY, MARITIME colonialism - ( As there is no traditional european mercantilism without the expansion of territory in which to extract resources for the motherland) (which poland did not do sadly.) - this condition needs to be met to replicate the west and with cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment - to be considered the “west”.