Is Japan dying? (Source: PBT Consulting)
Today, East Asia is widely acclaimed for decade upon decade of economic success. Yet this success rests on a very fragile foundation—an aging population with the world’s lowest fertility. This situation is viewed with surprising indifference by East Asians and Westerners alike. As with so many other things, we prefer to see tomorrow through yesterday’s eyes.
Yet tomorrow is already here. Outside the big cities, East Asia looks more and more like an old folks home. This is especially so in Japan, where the median age is now 45. But populations are also graying throughout South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and most of China.
Nature abhors a vacuum. There will be pressures from within and without to open the doors to mass immigration—all the more so because of the mounting influence of globalist thinking. To date, most of East Asia has resisted these pressures, probably because national identity is still relatively strong and the elites understand the consequences.
But the elites are changing. They’re following the same trend towards post-nationalism and globalism that is occurring in the West. As they identify less and less with their respective nation states, they’ll follow more and more their own interests—and those interests won’t be the same as those of the mass of the population.
Just as globalization redistributes wealth from higher-wage countries to lower-wage countries, it also redistributes wealth from the workers to the owners of capital. If your money comes from your own work in your own country, you’ll benefit much less than someone whose income has a more global reach. In fact, you’ll be a net loser.
So, as East Asia’s elites lose national consciousness, they’re going to feel more and more encumbered by their nation states. And they’re going to act on their feelings. This is already happening in South Korea, and Taiwan will probably follow suit. It’s probably no coincidence that both countries have strong political, cultural, and ideological links with the United States.
What about the rest of East Asia? National consciousness seems to be strongest in China and, especially, North Korea. Ironically, both countries once saw themselves as proponents of internationalism. Yet, by submitting everything to State control, they unwittingly created a very conservative culture. Today, national feeling is better preserved in the former Communist bloc than in the West, as are many other traditional life ways.
In China, the decline of Marxist-Leninism has left a vacuum that is being filled in part by Western post-nationalism and in part by a resurgence of national feeling. The second trend seems to have grown stronger in recent years. One reason is that the elites are increasingly wary of the West, especially the United States. The other reason is that China can now produce its own high-quality movies, TV programs, and popular entertainment. This locally based cultural production gives a larger place to nationalistic and historical themes than is the case with cultural products imported from the West.
East Asia is thus being pulled in opposite directions by two irreconcilable ideologies. On the one hand, an elite-driven globalism is increasingly hostile to the nation state and even to the very existence of nations. On the other, an anti-globalist reaction is developing to defend the demographic status quo. There seems to be little room for compromise.
Today, East Asia is widely acclaimed for decade upon decade of economic success. Yet this success rests on a very fragile foundation—an aging population with the world’s lowest fertility. This situation is viewed with surprising indifference by East Asians and Westerners alike. As with so many other things, we prefer to see tomorrow through yesterday’s eyes.
Yet tomorrow is already here. Outside the big cities, East Asia looks more and more like an old folks home. This is especially so in Japan, where the median age is now 45. But populations are also graying throughout South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and most of China.
Nature abhors a vacuum. There will be pressures from within and without to open the doors to mass immigration—all the more so because of the mounting influence of globalist thinking. To date, most of East Asia has resisted these pressures, probably because national identity is still relatively strong and the elites understand the consequences.
But the elites are changing. They’re following the same trend towards post-nationalism and globalism that is occurring in the West. As they identify less and less with their respective nation states, they’ll follow more and more their own interests—and those interests won’t be the same as those of the mass of the population.
Just as globalization redistributes wealth from higher-wage countries to lower-wage countries, it also redistributes wealth from the workers to the owners of capital. If your money comes from your own work in your own country, you’ll benefit much less than someone whose income has a more global reach. In fact, you’ll be a net loser.
So, as East Asia’s elites lose national consciousness, they’re going to feel more and more encumbered by their nation states. And they’re going to act on their feelings. This is already happening in South Korea, and Taiwan will probably follow suit. It’s probably no coincidence that both countries have strong political, cultural, and ideological links with the United States.
What about the rest of East Asia? National consciousness seems to be strongest in China and, especially, North Korea. Ironically, both countries once saw themselves as proponents of internationalism. Yet, by submitting everything to State control, they unwittingly created a very conservative culture. Today, national feeling is better preserved in the former Communist bloc than in the West, as are many other traditional life ways.
In China, the decline of Marxist-Leninism has left a vacuum that is being filled in part by Western post-nationalism and in part by a resurgence of national feeling. The second trend seems to have grown stronger in recent years. One reason is that the elites are increasingly wary of the West, especially the United States. The other reason is that China can now produce its own high-quality movies, TV programs, and popular entertainment. This locally based cultural production gives a larger place to nationalistic and historical themes than is the case with cultural products imported from the West.
East Asia is thus being pulled in opposite directions by two irreconcilable ideologies. On the one hand, an elite-driven globalism is increasingly hostile to the nation state and even to the very existence of nations. On the other, an anti-globalist reaction is developing to defend the demographic status quo. There seems to be little room for compromise.
37 comments:
It is possible to raise fertility rates. Russia's went from 1.16 in 1999 to 1.61 last year, and so far this year births are up another 10%.
The future belongs to the ideology/worldview that can simultaneously produce rich economies and high birthrates. All of the once high fertility cultures are falling one by one with rising global incomes.
Islam won't work here as the dramatic decline of fertility in the Arab world (especially the rich gulf states) attests. Same with Catholicism as evidenced by Latin America. Even Africa's robust growth over the past decade has corresponded with dropping birth rates.
For my money the future looks very Mormon to me.
>It is possible to raise fertility rates. Russia's went from 1.16 in 1999 to 1.61 last year, and so far this year births are up another 10%.
How many of those are due to Muslim immigrants from Central Asian countries that were formerly part of the USSR? A lot, maybe even most of them, I wager.
With the emergent prominence of de facto polygyny (called “serial monogamy” by Holocaustian theologians aka “social scientists”) there is enormous pressure toward de jure polygyny.
Islam is currently the only major sect filling this role in the West. The Mormons could have filled that role if, instead of capitulating to the anti-white demands of Holocaustianity’s theocracy, it had taken advantage of the anti-monogamy demands of Holocaustianity’s theocracy. Although, I can’t fault them for doing as they did since they most certainly would have been targeted for utter destruction by the Holocaustian theocracy.
So control of the West comes down to a battle between the Holocaustian theocrats and the Muslim theocrats.
Mormon fertility is overstated. Utah's tfr in 2006 was 2.6. That's not that high, though granted, it includes a lot of non-Mormons. Regardless, the more they modernize and assimilate, the more their demographic makeup and fertility rates will converge with the rest of America's.
I think a Romney victory will finally make Mormons "American" and that will be the end of the Mormon exception, in the long run.
"How many of those are due to Muslim immigrants from Central Asian countries that were formerly part of the USSR? A lot, maybe even most of them, I wager"
I think if that were the case, the fertility recovery would be concentrated in regions where the immigrants wind up. But it's been very evenly distributed throughout Russia, in both urban and rural regions.
Presumably some people have stronger reproductive instincts than others. So presumably the the current materialist low fertility culture is creating a strong selective pressure for people with these instincts who just want to have babies. So eventually the population should develop resistance to the low fertility of modernization. No trend lasts forever.
Japan "surprisingly" recorded another population increase last year even though they expected the population to start to fall. I don't believe Japanese birthrate statistics. I think they have been above replacement for while they were claiming to be at 1.1
Stephen,
Wouldn't the constant influx of new genes from foreign populations disrupt any selection pressures? Not that that would be a problem for a low-to-nil immigration country like Japan.
Heh, just watching a Chinese program from Taiwan showing four African kids who were adopted by Taiwanese couples ...
Anon,
Yes, Russia is an example of what can be done. Israel is another. It's possible for an advanced society to have replacement fertility.
DR
Fertility rates have fallen dramatically in much of the Muslim world (except for the Islamist outlier of Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-Afghanistan, and West Africa for other reasons). This is because marriage (and family formation) are contingent on paternal investment. If a man can't buy an apartment, he can't marry. And a woman can't start a family on her own. In Egypt, men typically have to wait until they're 30 before they have enough money to buy an apartment and marry.
In sub-Saharan Africa, overall parental investment is lower and paternal investment, in particular, is very low. A woman can have children at a young age with kin support from her side of the family. This is a major reason why fertility rates remain stubbornly high in that part of the world.
See my post:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2011/04/african-outlier.html
Anon,
Polygyny is cost-effective only if:
- the mother's family provides most of the parental investment (as in sub-Saharan Africa
- the government provides generous assistance (as in most Western countries). Most polygynous Mormons sponge off the government.
- the father is rich.
Stephen,
Agreed. No trend lasts forever. Europe lost one third of its population during the Black Death. But it eventually recovered. Will East Asia eventually recover from its population implosion? It will, I suppose. But how?
Anon,
Japan has good birth and death registration. If significant numbers of Japanese babies are not being registered, where are they? Where are those 20 million hidden babies? Under the kitchen sink?
This is mostly about affordable family formation. These nations are over crowded, high high population density, you ever been on the Chuo and Yamanote Line at Rush hour? I have. :-O
Also Asians tend to really care about their children's education, including paying for it, and school expenses are increasing (this includes cram schools, English lessons, etc). This is quite expensive.
Then due to extreme competition, based largely on crendentalism and overcrowding you have people marrying later to get more education, to earn more money, so they can afford housing.
Japan is better than most of Asia, but in Korea, all the majority Chinese nations, etc it is like Italy, men (and women) tend to live at home until 30 years old saving money so they can one day afford to buy a place (usually when they decide to get married, if they do marry). In more traditional nations (not so much Japan) but definitely Korea, Taiwan, China, and even Singapore, usually the oldest son is responsible for taking care of the parents in old age, because most of these nations don't have great social welfare systems (compared to Europe).
So all the costs and time involved, it is not shocking folks aren't having kids or do not want to have many children.
I did not even get into the issue of more women in the work force in Japan and Korean (in Chinese societies women were almost always in the work force to some degree, even if running a small shop out of the front of their home)...many women don't marry because although it is now encourage they work, the men tend to not do any house work (and the men tend to work 10-12 hours a day as well in many of these nations), many companies won't hire women who are newly married or they think might have children soon, because traditionally these women usually want to work part-time or quit. So women who want a career often forgo marriage, because their is no social support for a working-mother (not even in her home with her husband, because out of wedlock child production is very rare in all these societies).
i can go on and on, but it is not as simple as some folks on these boards who project their own feminism/western women issues onto Asia think.
A shrinking population in many of these nations might be just what the doctor ordered.
Land prices will decrease, more people will move out of their parents home earlier or buy a larger place, and have more kids. There will be less competition in education, so people can get jobs easier without having to stay in school through a good part of their most productive years as well.
It is important to treat cases like Korea and Taiwan differently from that of Japan and China.
Korea's recent globalism has a lot to do with its overwhelming newly acquired Christian population. The influence of Christianity more or less shapes their way of thinking and pulls them much closer in line with western leftist ideologies. I remember a few years ago a group of Korean missionaries were captured in Afghanistan trying to spread the gospel. Plus they have never really had their own self-identity through the history and they are very eager to stand out from East Asia. This would lead to a much more progressive attitude towards globalism as they would see it as a window of opportunity for the rise of Korea, though it's never gonna happen.
Taiwan is in line with Korea in such environment, to a lesser extent. Lack of identity, erosion of Christianity, and prone to western liberal indoctrination. But the political future for Taiwan is more confined than that of Korea. Their globalism could be easily diverted into a surge of Mainland dominance.
Japan, on the other hand, has never thought its self-identity, and well kept its intact culture from western influence. Its low population growth is nothing new. So does its incredibly low immigration rate. They represent the traditional East Asian mentality: they rather shrink back to a much smaller homeostasis than letting even the smarter immigrants (Koreans and Chinese being their biggest immigrants) eroding their country.
China has a different but similar path. The low fertility rate is a result of mechanical policy restriction. Though no one knows how Chinese young adults would react when this policy is annulled. One thing for sure is that the growth rate would bounce, to what extent that's subject to be witnessed later. Chinese are smart in closing down the western media influence. As you mentioned the local show business is growing rapidly under the nurture of political will. The restriction would wane one day, but only after its confidence on local influence is strong.
BTW, Low fertility rate comes from a lot of reasons. I would beg to differ that the main reason that triggers low birth rate in the West isn't necessarily the one in East Asia. The most prominent reason would be the high social pressure in East Asian societies, especially for young adults. Check some status, East Asian nations dominate the top ranks for the most stressful workplace in the world. Along with the most perplexed social networking culture, it'd be ample reasons not to raise more kids for the young adults, not to mentioning the skyrocketing price of child rearing.
A chinese blogger writes:
"Those who think the vile race-traitor Bolsheviks governing China are any better than the West’s are sadly mistaken. The Han suffer from the same indignities foisted upon them by their own kleptocratic elite as those in the West. The only difference is a matter of degree rather than kind. The communists have spent the past six decades attempting to strip away the racial identity of the Han people, the Chinese race, of any meaning. Regurgitating in its wake a mealy mouthed “multi-ethnic” nation that makes no distinction between the Han and the Others as if they were all identical. The Communist Party debases the history of the Han people and in their place praises that of the so-called minorities. Elevating foreign tyrants and savages as “national heroes”. Genghis Khan a “Chinese” hero? Only in the deluded minds of Bolshevist apparatchiks who forget that he and his kind are the parasites of civilization, the detritus of history that had wrought so much devastation against us and impeded the progress of our culture."
https://dukeofqin.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/enemies-here-enemies-there-enemies-everywhere/
All of these ethnic identity problems are, in fine, related to racial characteristics and the assymetric nature our respective genetic backgrounds, that is, recessive or dominant.
Africans are protected against loss of identity by their strong genes while at the other end, the white phenotype is the most fragile.
However, I would expect the asian phenotype to be a bit more resistant to change than the white. There is no need to panic for asians then, a few africans won't change them drastically, while I can't say that for my own 'endangered' race.
Beside that, the decreasing demography and its impact on the workforce might be bad for a while, but it's only temporary, a pro-birth policy can change that quickly. ACtually, if it's bad for business, it is good for salaries. Who can complain about raised salaries beside the employers, and even if the workforce is so scarce, wasn't robotisation supposed to fix this problem?
The truth is, all these problems are presented from the point of view of the ruling class, never from the point of view of the common worker, be it americans, europeans, or asians. For example, it is now so common to hear the lament of employers in Europe or the US that "local kids don't want to do the dirty job that hispanics(for the US) do".
No, no, no, nope, not at all. The correct formulation is "local kids don't want to do the dirty jobs FOR THE SAME LAME AMOUNT OF MONEY we pay the hispanics".
This can be resumed in a few words:
Mass Immigration is the first tool for the ruling class to stay in power, war is the second.
Uncle Tom,
Yes, it could be a blessing in disguise. When the Black Death killed off a third of all Europeans, the conditions of life for serfs and other working people improved considerably. They were now in a seller's market. Many historians argue that this sudden population loss paved the way for the end of feudalism, the rise of the middle class, and the advent of a modern market economy.
A similar situation prevailed in the U.S. from the 1940s to the 1960s. There was a chronic shortage of labor because immigration was severely restricted and because so few people were born during the 1920s and 1930s. As a result, working people saw their incomes double. The labor shortages also led to the development of new labor-saving devices, and a general improvement in the quality of life.
But ... but ... all of this assumes that East Asia will not open the gates to mass immigration. In my opinion, East Asia's elites are increasingly predisposed to this option, especially in South Korea and Taiwan.
Theslittyeye,
Yes, Japan and China have stronger national identities (or rather their elites are more nationalistic). On the other hand, China is highly dependent on Third World countries, especially in Africa, for imports of raw materials. It will be politically difficult to stop immigration from those countries. Guangzhou already has 200,000 African immigrants, and that number is growing every year.
Many Chinese people aren't even having one child. The fertility rate in Shanghai is only 0.6 children per woman. Even if the government abandons the one child policy, there won't be much rebound. China, like other developed countries, will need to take more pro-active measures.
Kiwiguy,
I agree that it's an illusion to think that the Chinese government is nationalistic. There are both globalist and nationalist elements within the current Chinese leadership, although the latter seem to be gradually gaining in influence.
Ben,
A pro-natalist policy is possible, but it takes time to implement. It's like the Titanic and the iceberg. Even when you've changed course, it takes time for the change to take effect.
The Japanese population is already starting to contract, and China and South Korea will not be far behind. In the best scenario, there will be a leveling out at around 75% of the current population.
I don't understand your comments about African genes being more dominant.
I agree with your final point. If an employer is willing to pay the market price of labor, there will always be people ready and willing to work. The concept of 'labor shortage' is a slippery one. Wherever there is a labor shortage, there are employers who don't want to pay the market price of labor.
Employers (like the average consumer) want to get more than their money's worth. That's understandable. Unfortunately, they also have more political power than the average consumer. And they can use that power to rig the labor market in their favor.
I should apologize to all the East Asians who are going to be offended by this, but... speaking as an American, is the embrace of globalism by East Asian elites bad for us? An immigration restrictionist Japan doesnt do us any favors. The media will not permit the public to see it as a model. But there are billions in the third world and many billions to come. China, certainly, could soak up alot of African migrants that might otherwise head here. Korea and Japan could mop up alot of southeast Asians. We've had to contend with a tremendous influx of MesoAmericans. We wont be able to handle much more.
This is the 'bully in the schoolyard' argument. "Please don't beat me up. Beat up that other kid."
You're assuming that the 'bully' can't beat up both of you. Of course he can. Your only chance is to ally yourself with that other kid.
China could take in a million Africans a year, and it wouldn't make a difference. You don't seem to understand the demographic pressures that are building up on that continent.
My use of the word "alliance" may be a bit misleading. We are all more or less part of the same globalist world-system. The ideological pressures of that system, however, are weakest at its periphery. It is in areas like East Asia that people will be able to see the oncoming demographic crisis, and react.
Think of what happened to the Eastern bloc a quarter-century ago. Did change begin in the Soviet Union or China? No, it began in peripheral countries, like Poland and Hungary.
Peter:'I don't understand your comments about African genes being more dominant.'
Come on, you don't need to be that much politically correct.
It's simple,
African+Caucasian=African
Look at Heidi Klum, Tiger Wood's ex wife or any rich AA who got kids from their blond trophy 'woman'.
Anyway, it means that a minority of Africans can transform an entire population of Caucasians into Africans while the opposite is not possible. It is actually the core of the problem. Without it, racial problems would not exist.
I guess nobody ever discuss it because it is a fact of life that nobody can change.
I just compare the picture of my class in elementary school then and now: there has been a genetic cleansing. And this ethnic cleansing has not been done by flooding our initial population with important minorities above 20%, no, the few initial % had been enough to give the entire class, 40 years later, different figures, skin tone, hair and eyes colors.
Anyway, it means that a minority of Africans can transform an entire population of Caucasians into Africans
By traditional standards of hypodescent, white Latin Americans, Southern Europeans, and Ashkenazi Jews are black.
"Think of what happened to the Eastern bloc a quarter-century ago. Did change begin in the Soviet Union or China? No, it began in peripheral countries, like Poland and Hungary."
So you *are* arguing, then, that the triumph of nationalism over globalism in Asia will boost nationalists here in the west? I don't see it. But, having said that, I don't like what invite-the-world globalism is doing to western nations, so it's unfair of me to wish it on the East.
I don't understand all this debate about high fertility. People with high fertility rates don't necessarily achiever greater reproductive success if parental investment in them is lower.
As Robin Baker points out in his book "Sperm Wars," it's not really an advantage to have lots of children if no one can provide for them. These children, on average, will grow up poor, diseased, unsuccessful, and have high mortality, impacting their reproductive success.
On average, both the high- and low-fertility groups coexist in an evolutionary balance, because both have advantages and disadvantages.
The affect of paternal investment in th relative survival of offspring is almost negligible in a world filled welfare states, charities and international aid agencies. All doing their best to make sure that the children of neglectful parents survive.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of confidence of some posters here into their asian leaders.
I can't imagine why the warrior caste of the Samurai, who probably still makes a great part of the modern japanese rulling class, would play against the Japanese people. They have no particular interests that could justify that. Same thing in China, the mass of the population is Han and the leaders are Han, what sort of conflict of interest could arise on the long term?
Ben,
When you look at Obama, do you see someone who is half-African or completely African?
I understand your point, but you shouldn't be using words like 'dominant' and 'recessive' (which don't apply in this context).
Anon,
You don't see it, because it hasn't happened yet. A similar process will occur in Europe. Change will begin in the smaller countries that are less integrated into the globalist world-system.
Anon,
Your argument would be valid if parents invested only in their own children. In a sense, we have become the "parents" of children who are not our own.
Peter,
You might be interested in checking out the "Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe" paper, being covered on Dienekes blog http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/.
Seems like if the Neolithic hunter-gatherer sample they have is representative of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (and isn't some admixed population somehow derived from Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic HGs), there's quite substantial Mesolithic continuity in North East Europe.
And close to 50:50 Neolithic/Mesolithic in Northwestern Europe (the British Isles and the Benelux).
If that's correct, I'd love to see what Greg Cochran thinks about how that interacts with the mtdna evidence...
So you *are* arguing, then, that the triumph of nationalism over globalism in Asia will boost nationalists here in the west? I don't see it.
I think it's unlikely as well.
If anything, it may bind the implicitly nationalist/anti-globalist types more tightly to the globalist elites in the West.
Nationalism in Asia that significantly challenged globalism would be vilified. Like Nazi Germany was.
Regular folk who are implicitly nationalist/anti-globalist would not perceive it as people revolting against a common enemy, but as an out-group acting hostilely and dangerously, especially as this is how it would likely be presented by the elites, who do know which buttons to push when they have to.
Many jihadists today are just guys who want the US military and liberalism/globalism out of their countries. The implicitly nationalist/anti-globalist types who are mainly the people who join the US military to fight and kill these jihadists don't see them that way, as people with a similar outlook to themselves in many ways, and they're lead by the elites to not see them this way.
Yes, well, the Nazis didn't exactly help their case by starting a war that killed 50 million. Jackasses.
Peter, when are you going to get around to doing a post on Russia's place/trajectory in the globalist system?
Yes, well, the Nazis came into power a year after millions of Ukrainians were genocided during the Holodomor. And after various attempted communist revolutions and agitation within Germany. They were defending themselves.
Anon,
Yes, this is an interesting development. I'll write more about it later.
Anon,
I see much less chance of an anti-globalist movement developing in the Muslim world than in Europe and East Asia
First, Islamism itself is a globalist project with delusions of grandeur. Many of its proponents, particularly in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, support the current U.S.-led world-system in the belief that they will eventually inherit it.
There is no concern about population replacement in the Muslim World. Such a concern will probably develop as the population explosion in sub-Saharan Africa spills over into North Africa. But it won't develop among the Islamists. It will develop among the more secularized, francophile population.
Other obstacles to anti-globalism in the Muslim world:
- desire to create a uniform Islam that eliminates regional and local peculiarities
- hostility to cultural legacies that predate Islam (e.g., destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan; many Islamists talk about destroying the pyramids if they come to power)
- hostility to indigenous cultural minorities (Christians in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt)
- hostility to evolutionary theory and, hence, gene-culture co-evolution
- blank-slatism, belief in the malleability of human nature, etc.
I agree that the Western media have become corrupted by special interests, especially globalist business interests. On the other hand, these special interests are short-sighted and often compete against each other. It's possible to talk back to the media.
There is no Inner Party. This isn't 1984, and you're not Winston Smith.
In any case, I don't think your historical examples are valid. The Nazis were vilified because they chose to act like villains. The same goes for the Islamists. It's easy to portray them as cold-blooded terrorists because so many of them are willing to play that role.
Let's suppose that a nationalist government comes to power in Japan and that the Japanese take aggressive measures to raise their fertility rate to replacement level. Let's suppose they also talk about the need to save their genetic heritage.
How will the West react? Yes, there will be a lot of moaning and groaning, but it will be difficult to demonize the Japanese. There isn't enough incentive to do so, and the Japanese have been good global citizens for more than half a century.
The same goes for China. The U.S. corporate elites are heavily in debt to China. The only East Asians who can be easily demonized are the North Koreans, and they have China as a protector.
Anon,
I'll write a post eventually on Russia, but I have a lot of other material to cover first.
Anon,
Please, this isn't a post about Nazi Germany.
Despite all the supposed fanaticism of SS men their families remained the same size as other Germans' (Tooze, Wages of Destruction). If we look at the Classical world there seems to be parallels to inexorably falling birthrate overtaking urbanized society, and that was without todays contraceptive technology. I don't think there is any reason to think it will be possible to reverse the demographic trends. In my opinion it is inevitable that the advanced countries will accede to the pressure for mass immigration. Kyle Bass on Japan. All the advanced counties have been living beyond their means and will have technocratic governments foisted on them. This is what happened in Italy when the democratically elected Silvio Berlusconi refused to play ball; a bankers man was appointed (not elected) 'senator for life' and made leader of Italy. In the advanced countries the power elite will resist any attempt to chart a natalist-nativist/nationalist course and the coming debt crisis will let them claim an economic rationale for not halting immigration. For a view that Japan has deliberately reduced its population HERE start at at 6 minutes. Interesting discussion of per capita verses gross National product which contradicts Bass, however Bass may have made billions since the above interview through his bet on a Greek default)
Kyle Bass doesn't really have anything insightful or unique to say. What he says has been said by other financial types, and by non-financial, regular joes on the internet. Some commenters in the HBD sphere have been touting him for some reason. He's a completely conventional, run of the mill neo-liberal.
I wasn't really talking about "Islamism", jihadist leaders, or US allied leaders of Islamic states. I was referring to ordinary guys who fight because they want the US military and liberalism/globalism out of their countries, or because a relative was killed in a drone attack. "Islamism" doesn't necessarily have to be invoked here. Healthy people don't want aliens and foreign militaries in their territory, nor do they want their sisters and daughters turned into whores. It's like the slander that every conservative or traditionalist male who is anti-immigration or something is really a Nazi who wants to take over the world.
Regarding the Nazis, they were by no means uniquely malevolent or ambitious for power at the time.
Japan probably wouldn't be demonized that much even if it made a turn to more nationalism as long as it remained under US political/military control and was open to external cultural influence via NGOs, business, etc. But it would otherwise. Though it's true that how much so depends on other factors and on the incentive. The Amish don't get demonized as being "racist" while a middle-class suburban community might be simply for being all white because the Amish are considered so minor and irrelevant to wider society. But if Japan didn't get demonized and was just ignored for the same reason, then its rejection of globalism wouldn't trigger some wider revolt.
China and Russia are alreadly regularly vilified by the West for being illiberal and independent from US dominated globalism. And articles hinting at dark undercurrents of nationalism lurking in those countries appear not infrequently in Western media. Much of the public has already been primed to view them as being somewhat "fascist".
Sean,
It's possible to have an advanced modern society and replacement-level fertility. Israel has a fertility rate of 2.7 children per woman. Even if you exclude Muslims and religious Jews, the fertility rate is still at the replacement level.
Anon,
Ordinary guys don't create ideology. At present, in the Muslim world the only mobilizing ideologies are (1) Islamism and (2) Western neoliberalism. Regardless of what ordinary guys think, the future of the Muslim world will be defined in terms of (1) or (2).
Think back to early 1989. Hungary announced it would become a multi-party state and Poland legalized Solidarnosc as a political party. At the time, Western observers thought little of those changes. Both countries had long been "bad boys" in the Eastern bloc, and they were just peripheral members of that bloc.
Yet those events were the trigger that set off the collapse of one Communist regime after another. By the late 1980s, there was widespread disillusionment with the existing system, even among the elites. Everyone was looking at everyone else, hoping that someone would make the first move. The Poles and Hungarians made that first move.
Personally, I don't think change will begin at the center of our current system. It will begin at the periphery and then migrate inward.
Mearsheimer on the emerging Japanese strategic dilemma. They will need the US to back them. That is an important reason for Japan, as well as S.Korea and Taiwan, not doing anything to annoy the US.
The example of Israel as a (the only) advanced society with good fertility is not encouraging. Their motivating ideology is Zionism., which is an ethnicaly orientated movement this kind of thing will not be allowed in Western counties. Mearsheimer explains the facts of life using Israel as a case in point. Yes, Israel has high fertility but this is Greater Israel we are talking about; it is a result of conquest (acting like villains)yet they they are backed to the hilt by the US.
The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute strategizes on demographic and fertility issues “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI's work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”
The chairman of the Board of Directors of JPPPI from 2002 - 2009 was US diplomat Dennis Ross responsible for directing much of US policy on the Middle East in the Bush I and Clinton administrations [...] and the Obama administration’s envoy to the ME, including Iran.
The US-Israel relationship is totally different to the US's relationship with Japan or Europe. The US is so far from influence and authority over Israel that it's actually being used as Israel's attack dog. - "“Wolfowitz was so insistent on conquering Iraq that five days later Cheney had to tell him to “stop agitating for targeting Saddam.” According to one Republican lawmaker, he “was like a parrot bringing [Iraq] up all the time. It was getting on the President’s nerves.” (Elliot and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq.) Woodward describes Wolfowitz as “like a drum that would not stop.” (Plan of Attack, p. 22)"
The proof will come when the US smashes Iran as it is surely will. Anyway, no one else but Israel can do, or rather be allowed to do, that kind of thing. What I am trying to say is that Israel is a totally misleading example of what might be possible.
In the long run all Asian people will follow the Chinese lead and return to nationalism and recover demographically. Only the countries where western elitist media and academia had a significant influence the current western decadence (everything is done for the benefit of elites) is present.
But asian people are not under the threat of genocide like people of european descent are. Our current system that supports mass immigration of non-europeans into all white countries with forced integration leads to blending out all people of european descent.
"human rights" and "anti-racism" really mean that the third world has the right to pour into all western countries. Our working class has already been thrown under the bus and the middle class is next. We are governed by people who look like us but have no loyalty to us. The same elites promote Israel should only be for jews and Africa only for Africans. White countries for everyone.
Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white
Post a Comment