I acknowledge and sympathize with the pain this will cause, but in regards to Japan itself: Good for them. Not because it is a rightward shift, but because it is a shift toward pragmatism in the face of the inherent tension between respect for all people and respect for one's own people and culture.
In my humble opinion, an ideal world is a liberal one with cherry-picked, tightly controlled, practical conservative elements that boldly take on the intimidating job of maintaining the balance between love and reason.
It's baffling to me how we come up with economic justifications for forced mass immigration. Mass immigration of mainly non-western low skill / low education people is causing a catastrophic economic burden on western Europe. Unemployment rates of those are much higher than natives, even when you look at 2nd or 3rd generation.
Not to mention that most European capitals have become poverty ghettos where the original inhabitants don't recognize their own country any longer. Non-EU foreign origins are overrepresented in crime and prison stats.
There are not enough low skilled jobs. There is not enough housing. There is not enough infrastructure.
Mass immigration is the most disruptive disaster that was ever forced upon western Europe (forced, because there has been a large democratic majority AGAINST this type of immigration since decades).
Very sad state of affairs. Good on Japan that they see the danger and try to do something about it before it's too late.
This is all... just nonsense? Like what is your source for any of this, some rightwing boomer facebook group?
Nothing has been forced upon Western Europe - we have aging populations and shrinking demographics, so a need for people to plug the holes in the workforce.
There is no illuminati-type conspiracy here. Japan has lost 5 mil people or so since 2010, and the median age is like 50. At some point there will be nobody to work and pay tax, no doctors or nurses to take care of the elderly What's the plan exactly to deal with this, what's the magic solution that doesn't somehow involve immigration?
Having the population shrink and just letting the wheels fall off is vastly superior to ethnically cleansing your own country by importing a bunch of foreigners. At least you can rebuild from the first scenario.
It's not a theory, let alone a conspiracy one. It's a plain and simple fact. It's why we're having this conversation in the first place. Britain went from 88% native British in 2000 to 73% in 2025. They will become a minority in their own country in the next 50 years. Similar has happened in Sweden, Germany, France, many others.
What are you even trying to imply by posting that link?
I'm straight up saying that linking demographic shifts to some grand plan has already been recognised as a racist conspiracy theory.
Britain is a good for example: they (and France) spent the 20th century doing anything and everything to prevent their empires crumbling. One such thing was easing movement of people with their old colonies to maintain influence.
Turns out things can happen without little green men being involved.
Okay, so you acknowledge that orchestrated or not, the native populations of European countries are going extinct and ultimately are going to be replaced. Japan doesn't want that, as it's an existential issue for their nation. I would argue possibly THE most existential issue a nation can face.
I would personally argue that it IS orchestrated, as this massive change happened in 50 years after 1000+ years of no change, but it's not relevant to the actual outcome. Call it a racist conspiracy theory all you want, people are becoming immune to that strategy.
I do not acknowledge that, how do you get to "extinction" from "demographic shifts"? That is quite the impressive leap.
The reason for Japan's (brief) attempt at immigration is they recognised their demographic decline as an actual existential risk. They've chickened out because it proved sufficiently politically unpopular - this is not the same thing. Good luck to them dealing with their demographics in some other as-yet-unknown way.
Yes it's clear you've been drinking the koolaid. And no, people have migrated around for thousands of years, that's simply not grounded in reality. How do you think humans got from Africa to the rest of the planet? Or does that not count as migration because it's somehow too far in the past?
I don't know how else to refer to a conspiracy theory that's primarily driven by fears/hatred of others based not on their merits and values but their ethnicity/race. If you have another preferred term that accurately depicts this I'd be happy to use it instead.
White population of London fell from 97,7% in 1961 to 53,8% in 2021, probably below 50% now. What's happening to Britain is the same thing that British did to indigenous populations during colonial times.
Whether this is orchestrated or not is debatable, but denying simple statistics from governmental agencies in democratic countries is... well... very close to a conspiracy-theory
You're missing the forest for the trees. I don't care if it's some kind of evil orchestration. That's the least of my worries. What I want is for it to be stopped. And that desire has an overwhelming democratic majority in most European countries AFAIK. Or is democratic decision making only important when it's an outcome you agree with?
If "an overwhelming democratic majority" want it stopped and it presumably hasn't, then that implies there's must be a conspiracy acting against said majority. Or how do you square this circle?
In any case, there is no country in Europe in which anti-immigration parties have an absolute majority (> 50%), let alone an "overwhelming" one [0]. So to answer your question: yes, democratic decision making is important to me, especially such that it actually reflects the will of the electorate and not some wish a minority within it has.
> then that implies there's must be a conspiracy acting against said majority.
Or that immigration simply isn't their most important policy, even though they support stricter measures.
Imagine you have a choice between two parties: party A wants to detonate an atomic bomb in the capital but also create well-funded animal shelters. Party B opposes the destruction of the capital city, but they want to turn all puppies in the country into kebabs. What do you vote? You don't want to eat ground puppies, do you?
If these are the only party choices an electorate has, it seems to me they have bigger problems. And so option C, the people don't vote, hence giving neither party a mandate to do what they want?
I really struggle to see how an example this obtuse has any analogy to reality.
happytoexplain · · focus · HN ↗
In my humble opinion, an ideal world is a liberal one with cherry-picked, tightly controlled, practical conservative elements that boldly take on the intimidating job of maintaining the balance between love and reason.
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
jgb1984 · · focus · HN ↗
Very sad state of affairs. Good on Japan that they see the danger and try to do something about it before it's too late.
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
Nothing has been forced upon Western Europe - we have aging populations and shrinking demographics, so a need for people to plug the holes in the workforce.
There is no illuminati-type conspiracy here. Japan has lost 5 mil people or so since 2010, and the median age is like 50. At some point there will be nobody to work and pay tax, no doctors or nurses to take care of the elderly What's the plan exactly to deal with this, what's the magic solution that doesn't somehow involve immigration?
superdisk · · focus · HN ↗
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
Aha, OK.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_t...
superdisk · · focus · HN ↗
What are you even trying to imply by posting that link?
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
Britain is a good for example: they (and France) spent the 20th century doing anything and everything to prevent their empires crumbling. One such thing was easing movement of people with their old colonies to maintain influence.
Turns out things can happen without little green men being involved.
superdisk · · focus · HN ↗
I would personally argue that it IS orchestrated, as this massive change happened in 50 years after 1000+ years of no change, but it's not relevant to the actual outcome. Call it a racist conspiracy theory all you want, people are becoming immune to that strategy.
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
The reason for Japan's (brief) attempt at immigration is they recognised their demographic decline as an actual existential risk. They've chickened out because it proved sufficiently politically unpopular - this is not the same thing. Good luck to them dealing with their demographics in some other as-yet-unknown way.
Yes it's clear you've been drinking the koolaid. And no, people have migrated around for thousands of years, that's simply not grounded in reality. How do you think humans got from Africa to the rest of the planet? Or does that not count as migration because it's somehow too far in the past?
I don't know how else to refer to a conspiracy theory that's primarily driven by fears/hatred of others based not on their merits and values but their ethnicity/race. If you have another preferred term that accurately depicts this I'd be happy to use it instead.
anal_reactor · · focus · HN ↗
White population of London fell from 97,7% in 1961 to 53,8% in 2021, probably below 50% now. What's happening to Britain is the same thing that British did to indigenous populations during colonial times.
Whether this is orchestrated or not is debatable, but denying simple statistics from governmental agencies in democratic countries is... well... very close to a conspiracy-theory
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
For sure, the actual colonisation and enslavement of peoples around the world is totally equivalent to a demographic shift.
> Whether this is orchestrated or not is debatable
It's not, it's very widely recognised as a racist conspiracy theory.
jgb1984 · · focus · HN ↗
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
In any case, there is no country in Europe in which anti-immigration parties have an absolute majority (> 50%), let alone an "overwhelming" one [0]. So to answer your question: yes, democratic decision making is important to me, especially such that it actually reflects the will of the electorate and not some wish a minority within it has.
[0] <a href="https://popu-list.org/" rel="nofollow">https://popu-list.org/
anal_reactor · · focus · HN ↗
Or that immigration simply isn't their most important policy, even though they support stricter measures.
Imagine you have a choice between two parties: party A wants to detonate an atomic bomb in the capital but also create well-funded animal shelters. Party B opposes the destruction of the capital city, but they want to turn all puppies in the country into kebabs. What do you vote? You don't want to eat ground puppies, do you?
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗
If these are the only party choices an electorate has, it seems to me they have bigger problems. And so option C, the people don't vote, hence giving neither party a mandate to do what they want?
I really struggle to see how an example this obtuse has any analogy to reality.
anal_reactor · · focus · HN ↗
greggoB · · focus · HN ↗