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.
Japan’s population crisis is caused by its young people being too overworked and overcharged to want to have children. Their population by age is becoming very top-heavy which means that the young are paying a lot to keep the old alive.
The solution to this (apart from don’t get into such a situation) is to import young workers to even out your population spread and to raise wages in line with the cost of living and raising a family.
They appear to be shouting “Damn foreigners! Coming over here and making all our elderly live longer than we can economically support them! Overworking our breeding generation so they don’t want kids! Curse those foreigners!”
RIP. I really want to study abroad there and have been making plans, but the current admin + Japan’s rising anti-foreigner stance really dampens my hopes. I get there’s been some awful, entitled, shitty tourists and vloggers over there in the past few years, but I wish they’d realize that we’re not all like that…
More people need to raise hell about this group because they also have members who deny the Nanking Massacre.
The nazi party is funded by Russia btw and there’s so much propaganda in Japan rn its insane. One major piece still making news is that foreign tourists dont pay their hospital bills and losing “Japan so much money”. The amount of unpaid bills was 400k usd that year and foreign tourists revenue was 58 BILLION usd. That’s 0.00069% loss of total revenue.
This constant propaganda around the world is so depressing and not because its there but because truth is right next to it and nobody’s looking.
funded by Russia btw
This constant propaganda around the world is so depressing and not because its there but because truth is right next to it and nobody’s looking.
That much is obvious. Japan only has miniscule amount of foreigners compared to other countries but somehow managed to also have been stoken up with anti-foreign sentiment. It’s all the dark money flowing into social media algorithms brainwashing people. And the truth is that data is the new gold. Personal information is not only commodified but also weaponised. However, as you said, the truth is next to it but nobody is looking.
Here’s a bit of a rant.
Japanese people have notoriously been xenophobic, racist, or ignorant… but they also tend to be quiet and polite since the war, so they’ve really cleaned up their image.
They’ve also had their egos constantly stroked with all the TV networks showing stupid shows where all the foreigners are SO AMAZED by Japanese culture. Same with all these social media content. It’s really annoying. Being proud of your culture and heritage shouldn’t need recognition by foreigners and it certainly shouldn’t need belittling of others.
Not saying that everyone is a racist. Not by a long shot. It’s just that this kind of self-centered, xenophobic ember had been kept alive in a non-negligible number of people. And I feel like now, there is this perfect environment for which the shitty few to really have themselves heard for maximum exposure and influence. It sucks.
In December 2024, there were 3,768,977 foreign residents in Japan, representing 3.04% of the Japanese population.
Fucking foreigners sucking up all the jobs and destabilizing a country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Foreign_residents
When I was growing up too many people I knew wanted to move to Japan because of the technology sectors and the “modernity”. Turns out both are a lie, and after learning about Japanese work culture, it’s even worse than the USA. I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to work in Japan over an EU country outside of family reasons.
When I was growing up too many people I knew wanted to move to Japan because they fetishized underage Japanese girls.
My wife and I loves Japan and we visit quite often prior to having kids. Once we had kids, the people’s attitude changes towards you. Suddenly my crying kid is annoying everyone and throwing shade. Elevators and seats clearly designated for strollers is often filled to the brim and nobody getting off/out.
It’s a culture of hating kids.
Fun fact. Women who have kids must give up their careers. Grandparents is culturally not allowed to help with the grand kids. Like, you pop them out, you take care of them yourself, often without even help from the father.
Everything in your “fun fact” is not fact. I actually said “what the fuck” when I read it. I’ve been in Japan for a decade, both Tokyo and rural.
Where also are these magical stroller-only elevators? Certain people are supposed to have priority (and, yes, some assholes ignore this which is not a problem unique to Japan), and there are also people who don 'look disabled" but need help (I can be one of them sometimes as my left leg and ankle are as much metal as anything else, though you wouldn’t know by looking at me).
Japan has problems and had places.to.improve but your post is just wild wild to me as a long-term resident.
Where, though? I live in Okinawa and visiting Tokyo with my family sucks because people there are so uptight like you said. Also, old people there are so fucking entitled.
Edit: I forgot to write how Okinawa is like the opposite. Kids are more free to be kids here.
I was watching about singledom and loneliness in Japan, it seems like Okinawa is a world apart from the mainland because family ties and community is still strong in Okinawa. Well, fair enough that Okinawa is still culturally distinct in many ways than the mainland because of history, although it’s nice to hear some parts of Japan still have strong community and family values in a good way.
Japanese people are extremely racist. They genuinely put republicans to shame.
I’ve known several people who are half Japanese and whose grandmothers would never forgive them for that fact. They’d love all the cousins and shit on them. It’s really sad.
The open secret of most Asian societies!
Japan will be the test case for declining populations. They will be the first to show us the consequences and the right and wrong ways to deal with the issue.
Short of Malthusian disasters, I don’t think any sort of economy in human history has had to deal with this.
… and just like the USA, it’s all populism, rage baiting and ZERO actual solutions
As it turns out, we are all human and are all vulnerable to the same psychological manipulations. No country is immune without active resistance.
yes but the more ignorant a population is, the easier the target
that headline brilliantly conveys the absurdity of the situation
Exactly my thought. It’s crazy.
At any point they can start giving people a UBI and they will have the option to quit their jobs and raise a family.
The old ways of systemic slavery will not work as human societies progress, especially in our post scarcity world.
I would personally consider it very shaky ground to found a family on if my ability to support them came in the form of a government stipend I have no direct control over.
Can’t we instead restore the economy to functionality rather than slapping a big “UBI” patch on the big crack in the dam?
Restoring earning power to the middle class such that a single income can support a household will give families the stability they need to start families with out handing over all the mechanisms of the economy to a single, potentially untrustworthy entity the way UBI does.
A UBI is a necessity for societies going forward.
Basically, wealth inequality is so bad now that our economies and societies no longer serve the majority of people’s needs.
So wealth redistribution is required to fix the problem, the question after realizing that is how to go about it.
We can do a one time redistribution of wealth, but without fundamentally changing the system with regulations, incomes will inevitably become imbalanced again. This is what we did after the Great Depression with the jobs program that was the national parks and highway/railroad projects.
IMO it’s better to just stop treating money like it’s harmless to allow excess accumulation. It would be better if all wealth were perpetually redistribed via a UBI, this would permanently maintain wealth equality. This is similar to what we did after the Great Depression in regards to corporate tax rates and setting a maximum profit.
I think absolute ceilings and floors on income and wealth will be needed. The wealthy are basically black holes that destroys everything within reach, if given time. Preventing such singularities of excess will have to be through a system designed to give everyone UBI, while making jobs rewarding but with a fixed scope of wealth accumulation.
IMO, a system of classifying entire job classes, and giving them a fixed income rank, would make it harder for wage theft, hoarding, and corruption to happen. By making it so that everyone of a job class has a clear income regardless of location or hours, it will be easier to track who is unnaturally wealthy, thus their hoard can be more easily confiscated before it can do harm to society.
Also, through having fixed incomes, it might prevent inflation. Sellers will have to price according to income brackets, otherwise their goods cannot sell easily to a demographic. In the rankings that I proposed, a basic worker has $30k, while the highest earners get $60k after taxation. This essentially means that CEOs and other high-end careers are only double the value of a waiter’s income. Goods will have to be priced accordingly, making it harder for inflation to take place.
I personally don’t think it’s healthy for a society to force a caste system like that. And I’m not really sure there’s truth to the “if everyone gets paid the same then nobody will want to be a Dr” argument. People would still probably pursue more difficult work even without a profit incentive.
UBI is the new hotness in terms of popular modern means talked about to undo the ever-growing wealth gap, but it is completely untested in the real world. It has challenges even on paper, including the ones I alluded to above involving being exceptionally susceptible income uncertainty and government corruption.
And you are right to point out that anything we do now to correct the wealth disparity problem is wasted if we don’t do enough to prevent another regression back to this same state again. I’m sure UBI could work under the right conditions, as well as many other solutions, but the real success or failure of the program will be measured based on how well and for how long it can resist attempts to dismantle it by bad-faith actors.
I am pretty sure there’s a lot of agreement here on the core of the issue, I just have doubts about UBI because it puts the fate of the most vulnerable citizens with the most easily-ignored political voice even more into the hands of their government, who often do them dirty.
It’s been tested dozens of times, and every time it is tested, it shows people are happier and healthier, and so is their community.
So it does work and is possible, and it would fix a ton of problems.
I mean at the scale at which it would be used. A small pilot program that has millions of eyes on it is not going to get undermined by bad actors because everyone is watching. It is good to create tests and pilot programs to try new economic and governance systems, but it is also important to remember that those are idealized lab conditions.
Also, consider the context of the discussion. Literally any system where money is put in the hands of those in poverty is going to immediately result in improved conditions for those people and increased local taxable economic activity. I could give them a UBI stipend, big tax rebates, increased wages, or even drop cash from planes. The point is that it is not necessarily the method that made the difference but the result. In this case the result is “get buying power to poor people”, and any system that achieves that is going to be an economic and social good.
I’m just not convinced UBI is the safe way to do that. Its an inescapable fact that any government is going to have internal forces trying to undermine its protections to enrich themselves, so it is wise to remember that any government systems we come up with that are not made highly resistant to capture are only going to serve their intended purpose temporarily.
In every study they also witness no significant drop in labor participation, and it always enriches the local community. People become more altruistic, less stressed and agitated, family relationships improve. It’s good in pretty much every single way with no discernible downsides. Please look into more studies.
There isn’t going to ever be a study that is universal until we implement it universally, so there’s literally no way to test it in the way critics want, this argument is just baseless propaganda.
I’m sure that’s true, but again, the positive outcomes you’re describing are the result of the poor peoples’ increased buying power and reduced economic uncertainty. I don’t believe the specifics of HOW they got those things makes very much of a difference, if any. UBI is one way of many to do that.
And you are again correct: there is no way to “dry run” new social programs fully. You can only create small “labs” to partially test them, which is way better than nothing, but still leaves great unknowns. The only truly tested social and economic structures are the ones we’ve seen really used in the real world.
The fact that all past models have eventually failed doesn’t necessarily mean they were bad, though. It means that they were inadequately protected and eventually were corrupted from within (not counting conquest, which I think is safe to say is outside the scope of this conversation).
As the population ages out of the work force, and fewer replacements are coming in, where’s your tax base to support UBI? And if you say tax the rich, they won’t be rich long with no workers to leech off of.
If the disparity in wealth is reduced thanks to UBI and taxing the rich, then they can pivot towards taxing workers who will now have more money to pay said taxes.
It literally does not make sense to avoid taxing the wealthiest citizens when the disparity in wealth is as bad as it is. Unless you’re an idiot.
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’d like to clarify that I had never hardly ever pooped on a street.
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.
Sorry but in the case of Japan, it’s definitely not logical. At best, they have an argument against over-tourism. But the Sanseito party acts like foreigners moving to Japan are creating a spike in crime. They literally have young women weeping through a megaphone on the street, crying that foreigners are rapists. But that’s simply not backed up by statistics. Crime per capita has not increased, and the demographic committing the most serious crimes in Japan is predominantly native Japanese.
So they are lying but their argument is “foreigners cause crime which is worse than demographic issues so we don’t want foreigners” which is logical. Logic != truth.
But it’s also logical.
In what world is “I rather die in squalor and let the entire country suffer than see people that look different than me on the street, eat some food I don’t recognize”, logical?
In a world where someone would prefer that. You can’t apply logic to preferences. When I got to a dentists for a filling I ask them not to give me local anesthesia because I prefer the pain to the numbness. 99% of people I know don’t agree. It doesn’t make my choice illogical, it just means I have different preferences.
that is a flawed analogy making it a strawman
the equivalent would be that, instead of the numbness, you rather die in 10 years from this very preventable death… the outrageous extreme of this decision flagship indicator of irrationality
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.
No, I’m not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.
If you’re looking for a utilitarian reason to behave the way I am suggesting, I would say that when you start taking tangible objective actions against everyone who doesn’t agree with your particular subjective preferences you will give people with a variety of different subjective preferences something in common (i.e. that they are being oppressed by you) and that will eventually make them work together to stop you. On a long enough timeline, tyranny is always a losing strategy.
No, I’m not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.
That’s just something you made up. Logic doesn’t start from objective reality and preferences. It’s just a tool.
If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C.
I don’t have to know what A, B and C are in some objective reality for this rule to be true. I can see you struggle to understand that logic is abstract and separate it from facts you want to apply it to but that’s just what logic is. You’re basically confusing logic with truth. To decide what is true you have to start with some objective reality and apply logic to it but you can apply logic to anything. You can apply it correctly to Harry Potter or to invalid facts. You will not reach truth but you’re reasoning can still be logical.
Wut?
Looks at pile of dead cultures in textbook… No, that’s not logical. That’s Jingoist dumbassery.
Like, if you start with the premise that they are right and you are wrong I guess it would be illogical to disagree with them, but that’s just a completely meaningless argument that doesn’t tell us anything too interesting about abstract reasoning nor does it have any substantive connection to factual reality that I can see
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.
“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are MORE dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s a logical statement.
“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose A”. That’s logical.
In this case, to change the outcome you need to attack the facts. You have to prove that vaccines are in fact LESS dangerous and then, using the same logic, the person will conclude that he should vaccinate his kids.
“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are LESS dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s illogical statement.
“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose B”. That’s illogical.
In this case you’re not going to argue the facts. The person already thinks that vaccines are LESS dangerous but his logic is wrong. You have to fix theirs logic and they will arrive a the correct conclusion.
The original case of anti-foreigner sentiment is the first case. The logic is valid, the facts are wrong. For some reason you’re not getting the difference.
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.
Many cultures adapt for the better / become more humanist with open migration. Think of it as enhancing your identity (which is likely just mid at best in its current form if we’re being real)
I think you missed the part where I’m not saying immigration is bad. I’m just explaining how people who oppose immigration think.
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.
eh different countries same shit everywhere. And I am talking about the people when I say shit.
