Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.
As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.
Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya’s “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.
Japanese people are being fed the same kind of propaganda as UK citizens and Americans. People say ridiculous things like “What if the number of foreigners increases to 20% of the total population? Then women will be sexually assaulted.” Instead of immigrant gangs taking over apartment buildings and eating the pets it’s foreigners buying up all the land to build compounds for foreigners to live in and pooping in the streets.
But there is also a feedback loop where nationalists in Japan make the news, and it’s repeated by right wing foreigners who don’t know Japan but admired their idealized, racially pure Japan where everyone is polite and orderly and this would never happen, and then that gets repeated to Japanese people as if it were large numbers of foreigners warning them not to let immigration ruin Japan as it has ruined those other countries. Most of the Japanese people in this loop don’t understand English, and the right wing foreigners don’t understand Japanese. The reality isn’t always faithfully translated in either direction, and the language barrier makes it harder for people to realize the discrepancy.
I keep hearing racist nationalists say stuff like this worldwide, and not matter how hard I squint it remains a non sequitur.
I mean, “we have a population crisis” and “don’t let people come here” seem entirely contradictory unless you are… well, a supremacist.
Which they are, it’s just the leap that gets me. So obvious, so rarely called out and never addressed.
Without getting into discussion about how right or wrong they are those people are primarily worried about the identity of their country. They believe that sustaining the population growth by letting in big numbers of foreigners will destroy their culture. They prefer to suffer the consequences of population crisis than live in a country with different values and traditions. Is it supremacy? Sure it is. But it’s also logical.
Logical if you believe your race/identity are superior to others, which is an illogical starting premise and the root of why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.
Doesn’t have to the superior, but one of personal preference. You like the current cultural values and know other cultures don’t necessarily share them and so fear a cultural shift.
In this case though I think you’re right that there’s a strong superiority aspect.
What’s illogical about it? How can you even apply logic to personal values and opinions?
Recognize that it is an opinion that some people may disagree with, not a fact that everyone has to accept, and act accordingly. In this case, that means not using the force of government to persecute people who disagree with your opinion.
You’re still talking about how they are wrong but not how they are illogical. You can still apply logic to lies. It doesn’t make them true but it also doesn’t make it illogical.
Wut?
It is only logical if you’re… well, a supremacist.
I mean, it requires a mental framework of how culture and identity work that is fundamentally supremacist.
Culture works by aggregation, it’s entirely unrelated to borders and it is in perpetual shift. This assumption requires misunderstanding culture from a very specific perspective.
So no, not logical.
Internally consistent, yes: make women into reproductive vessels and men into the defenders of a fossilized culture enforced through violence. That’s a consistent worldview.
But not a logical one if you apply it to reality. The difference matters.
It matters if we’re arguing who’s right. If you just want to understand their mental jump it doesn’t. Of course those people are ignorant, misinformed or have ulterior motives but their believes are often logical. It’s like not vaccinating your kids because you believe vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Or course it’s wrong but if you really believe it, being anti-vax is logical. Where it stops being logical is in the MAGA movement. They want to drain the swamp by voting for a criminal and want to fight pedophiles by electing one. It’s just a cult, there’s no logic there. The far right movements in Europe/Japan are build on misinformation but still need to invent logical arguments.
Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes. Any sort of paranoid delusion is logical if you accept all of its premises.
Is being antivax logical? Not at all. It requires amazing mental gymnastics to ignore centuries of scientific research. Things that are “logical if you believe them” is a great way to describe things that aren’t logical. Vaccines do not, in fact, by all available measures, cause more dangerous issues than the diseases they prevent. If your “logic” requires a rejection of the entire epistemological framework upon which shared scientific kknowledge is established it’s not “logic”, kind of by definition.
This is the same thing. Its internal consistency isn’t “logic”. It can be shown to not be logical. If you suspend yourself from that conversation, deny the parameters of anybody who disagrees with you and cherry pick your values to specifically support your instinctively desired conclusion, then it doesn’t matter how well you can through your train of thought, it’s still indefensible.
I think that’s why the MAGA thing stumps you a bit. Their train of thought isn’t any better or worse than this. It’s, in fact, identical. Information that supports it gets magnified, information that disrupts it is ignored. They are fun about it in that they add this cool temporal dimension, where that selection is applied regardless of how it was applied before, so they’re all for free speech when people tell them to shut up, all for limiting speech when people criticise them. But that’s not different to the fundamental contradiction of being concerned about a population crisis when you are trying to turn women into walking incubators but concerned about the massive influx of people when you’re trying to be racist.
It’s a lot of things, but it’s not logic.
Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes.
No, it’s just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn’t have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn’t mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements. “All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds”.
That’s… not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you’re eliding big chunks of that chain. “Unicorns are pink” is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you’re arguing about animals in the real world that’s not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.
And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can’t claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it’s a logical statement. It’s a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.
Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you’re assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it’s not. I appreciate that you’re getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they’re not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.
I mean, no they can’t because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so… here we are, I suppose.
Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements.
Logic is based on facts, ie: if you jump into a pool > you will get wet.
Believing that logic is not factually-based is absolutely off-base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content.
If your culture can’t stand up to outside influence was it really that great? Also, the door to the world has been opened. There’s no closing that one it’s been open. So they’d rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?
So they’d rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?
Yes, exactly. That’s a perfect summary.
Is there nowhere in the world now that fascist racists are not on the rise?
It feels like we are barreling towards another world war.
Come on up to Canada, amigo.
I wonder if economics has anything to do with this trend worldwide. When people have to worry about their next meal every day they tend to get frustrated and finding something or someone to blame, rightly or wrongly,is a way to vent that frustration.
With more and more wealth concentrating at the top 1% it stands to reason that the population that feels frustrated is increasing quickly.
Yeah the consistent and ever growing wealth gap as corporations continue to grow more profitable and people have more trouble affording food and housing is at the core of a lot of it. People are angry, but the corporations/1% are spending billions on social media, lobbying, funding certain political campaigns etc to convince people that their anger should be directed towards others around them. It’s the fault of foreigners, immigrants, minorities, women, LGBTQ, trans, the young, the old, etc etc.
And on the other side of that, Russia has been working to stir up division in a ton of nations since the 90s and has gotten much better at it with social media, so these two groups have homogenized.
Then on the third level, the super rich billionaires like musk and Thiel want dark enlightenment, which is the collapse of society so they can create neofuedalism and run their own techno-slavery-kingdoms, so they want it just as bad.
Inequality breeds resentment, it’s hardwired in our brains. And resentful people are easily led to blame minorities, something hateful and/or power hungry can use for political gains. The ones causing the inequality are more than happy to help this process asking as it usually keeps them from being blamed.
And as in the current political and economic system the inequality globally can only increase, blame and hate is what you get.
The global collapsing of communism was always inevitable.
There has always been 1 of 2 choices countries would make when it finally arrived.
-
Abandon the system of capital and embrace socialism
-
Quintuple down on all the worst aspects of capitalism by fully embracing fascism and dooming your society to total collapse
-
Its so depressing, swap just a few nouns around and it reads exactly like an article about the UK
That’s because our elected leaders are barreling us towards a war. It’s good for the economy…
Is there nowhere in the world now that fascist racists are not on the rise?
Yes. This is a Western capitalism thing; Chinese politics has only recently discovered rightwing nationalism and there are plenty of non-Western thriving democracies in, say, South America.
This has to be one of the most absurd claims I’ve seen in a while. You go on to contradict yourself in your second sentence. And still get it wrong. China didn’t just discover bigotry. They’ve been dealing with it since before the founding of the United States or capitalism for that matter.
South America full of thriving democracies? Are we talking about the authoritarian one Trump is paying to torture innocent undocumented. Or is it the fascist one Trump is talking about sending 20 billion to bail out their flailing populist leadership. Or is it the one that got lucky and woke up enough last minute to unseat their burgeoning fascist and take him to trial? But still chock full of the descendants of nazi german expats. Or was it all the tiny ones around them. That have to deal with all of them and the narco cartels. Regularly having elected leaders slaughtered. Hell even Mexico is struggling with that. And I’d say their leadership is far better that what we have here.
It’s got nothing to do with the west or capitalism. Though the West and capitalism has done very little to actually help the situation. Tribalism and xenophobic bigotry are basic human nature unfortunately.
They are really hell bent on self destruction.
In exit polls from the last election foreigner problems (which lumps tourists in with residents) was still only like 3rd. And for the foreigner issues, overtourism and people buying property and pricing out locals are big issues (and sometimes running (often illegal) guesthouses).
They are having a population crisis … an aging boomer generation that just won’t die and their many children who will add to the aging population while the generations after these groups had fewer children. The population is now full of old people with very few young Japanese to take care of them.
It won’t matter how nationalist they want to be … they’re stuck with the problem of having a huge aging population and far too few young people.
Whether they like it or not, if they want to maintain the country’s current level of development, they’re going to need young people from somewhere else to fill the gaps.
“Population crisis” is a myth, created by people who want cheap labor. What’s the crisis? What’s so bad about a declining population number? Spell it out!
It’s also possible they are racist.
But if the choice were between racist and greedy, I’m going to bet on greedy 100% of the time.
What’s so bad about a declining population number?
The biggest issue is probably not being able to play pensions or have people care for the older generation.
Correct. When we hear concerns about a declining population, the concern (typically) isn’t that a population should always be rising, or even that it shouldn’t shrink, it’s more about the long-term economic stability of the age distribution of a population within the demographic pyramid. If your demography skews significantly older, you’re going to have fewer working age people supporting your economy and more post-retirement age people needing to be supported. This can do double damage to government revenue in particular, as they will see a simultaneous decrease in tax income and an increase in pension payouts, and this can lead to a sharp contraction in the available share of the budget for all of the other government priorities.
It’s a bit ironic in this case, as this is pretty common in developed economies, and typically the way you would offset this is via immigration, as that allows you to tailor your requirements to exactly what you need to balance your demography, and so anti-immigration sentiment is only likely to cause a more severe spiral.
The biggest issue is probably not being able to play pensions
…and that means retirees will literally starve and live on the streets? I don’t think it will. It will just be less luxurious.
have people care for the older generation.
So wages in care work are rising?
so wages in care work are rising?Who can pay those higher wages? The impoverished older generation? Or three state that is not able to keep up with the costs of pensions?
Who exactly will work those jobs?
…and that means retirees will literally starve and live on the streets? I don’t think it will. It will just be less luxurious.
you might think that japanese boomers have generational wealth in form of real estate. this is not really the case, especially for rural population. houses aren’t built to last, lose value like motherfucker and are commonly demolished after 20-30 years, in part because people don’t like second hand, in part because there’s no point of building anything sturdier if typhoon or earthquake takes it. there is some newer construction that is intended to last longer, but it’s not a very common thing. so a reverse mortgage type thing won’t exist there, and yeah lots of people will get shafted by these conditions
If you keep taking out more than was put in the fund to fund the larger population in retirement, at some point there’s just nothing left.
…and that means retirees will literally starve and live on the streets? I don’t think it will. It will just be less luxurious.
They won’t starve and live in the streets because something will change before society reaches that stage, but theoretically it’s not impossible. In Japan, for example, a significant chunk (unsure if a majority) of homeless people are elderly men.
There’s an excellent video that explains all the ramifications of populations decline and it’s not only an economical nightmare but also a cultural obliteration as well over time. They use South Korea as an example but mention that even the US is heading this way but has another decade or so before it gets really bad.
The crisis isn’t simply from a declining total population number. It’s from the demographic shape of that population. Here’s Japan’s population pyramid. As you can see, it’s not really a pyramid - it’s heavily weighted at the older end. As people continue to age that big bulge reaches retirement, and then you have more people retired than you have people still of working age. This causes a number of problems.
This causes a number of problems.
Yes, I’m asking you (or other people making the argument that population decline is so bad) to list them.
When an overwhelming proportion of the population is elderly, an overwhelming proportion of the working age populations earnings have to will go to support them. This is measured by an economic ratio known as the dependency ratio which is going to get out of hand for countries like Japan. The strain on public finances paying for pensions and healthcare reduces quality of life for everyone in the country and depresses economic growth as young people working to support the countries elderly population and their own parents have less to invest in the wider economy.
You’re still missing the basic point by talking about the “population decline.” The crisis is not the decline. The crisis is the age distribution.
Here’s a page discussing some of the specific problems of an inverted population pyramid, and it uses Japan as a specific example of a population facing this.
It’s not so much the decline but the ageing. A society mostly consisting of OAPs can’t support itself.
You’d think the Japanese of all people would know better.
The “Japanese First” platform sounds an awful lot like the “Asia for Asians” slogan of pre WWII imperial Japan. It’s not a pretty thought but it’s hard to blame them when the US is looking less and less like an ally and trading partner on the world stage.
It’s not a pretty thought but it’s hard to blame them when the US is looking less and less like an ally and trading partner on the world stage.
This has nothing to do with geopolitics and everything to do with xenophobia and poor governance. Japan’s economy has been in a slump since its bubble burst in the 90s and the center-right LPD (which they for some reason keep electing) has been unable or unwilling to fix it, leading to a recent surge in third parties as people finally decide to look for alternatives, and due to xenophobia et al the far-right was able to market itself as a compelling alternative.
(which they for some reason keep electing)
I’ve been told that this is because the population is largely completely politically apathetic, owing to a belief that they aren’t able to meaningfully affect political change. So they don’t engage, and the existing political structures basically persist on inertia, which feeds back into their belief that things can’t change. It’s finally gotten bad enough for people to start trying, but of course angry people tend to vote for racists, because racism provides an easy answer for problems.
But what is the answer? In my country the left has allowed in so many people through various programs but has failed to increase the infrastructure which causes more problems. So now we have all these other problems which pushes people more to the right. And why did they do it keep THE GDP up even though GDP per person was down. The whole thing is BS you can’t have infinite growth as a country or company the sooner we admit that the better.
Makes sense considering sanseito wants to bring back imperialism. As a foreigner living in Japan, their presence makes me uneasy not only for myself but my half-Japanese son whom they want to take away voting rights for.
