> The party calls the Pacific War the "Greater East Asia War" and claims that it was "not a war of aggression." It also claims that its purpose was to liberate Asian countries from the West. Regarding the Battle of Okinawa, it believes that the Japanese military "fought to protect Okinawa". It also denies the existence of comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre.
No. It impinges on the right of Western collective of ideamakers to tell them what to do and how to run their country.
The article is from French media sources for example. France, as a part of that collective, is exerting their collectively given self right to tell the world how wrong Japan is for practicing democracy and getting the "wrong" results.
In one of Sanseito’s proposed policies, she said, the party would explicitly prohibit foreigners from having voting or civic rights, and it would not allow naturalised citizens to be able to hold public office until they had been naturalised for three generations.
Are you asking why it’s wrong to strip non-ethnically Japanese to be stripped of civic rights ?
To your questions: No, because there are lot of wonderful people who are non ethnically Japanese who live in Japan, contribute like everyone else who are accused of being parasites for no reason but political gain only. It’s Trumpism.
Yeah it is interesting though from a sociological perspective that there seems to be a worldwide pullback from globalism. Did Brexit or Trump kick this off?
For alot of people globalism = elitism.
It provides a sort of camouflage behind which elites can organise things in a way which best suits them whilst at the same time proclaiming how virtuous they are.
It's my sense that globalism kicked off this trend of anti-globalism.
If it benefitted more people, or more accurately if it benefitted people in a more equitable way instead of concentrating the gains in the hand of the wealthy and powerful, globally, then maybe there would be less of a pullback.
I'm not arguing for or against globalism, it has many benefits and drawbacks, but the undercurrent of opposition has existed long before Trump of Brexit, as seen for example in the various GX (G8, G20, etc) protests that took place around the world in the 2000's and 2010's, preceding the Trumpers and Brexit.
I agree the sentiment has picked up in recent years, accelerated since Covid, and that politicians are doing what politicians do, trying to get elected.
Globalism destroys national identity, a convenient source of self esteem. If anything, globalism favors the corporate mentality of dehumanizing people as it seeks to maximize profit by exporting services to the least expensive provider. This precept of Ricardo that has been extolled by billionaires like Buffett has been twisted into 'let the people who can provide the most output for the least input' prevail. Using this mentality, we will soon return to child labor and slavery. The significant intangible of nationalism is that it puts a floor under this race to the bottom and provides a foundation deeply rooted in our evolution for humans to coexist within a homogeneous pool - a shared culture - a set of behaviors that have a low cognitive burden, are easily maintained and transmitted.
Under globalization, we have confusing alternatives that require constant cognitive function to evaluate and maintain. As we seek conformity and agreement, we tend to a homogeneous gruel and the rich diversity of the world becomes an average gray standard.
Yeah right, no one has ever been exploited under isolationism. It was all so much better when it was a bunch of little countries having little economies and hardly any trade between them.
There is probably a middle ground between globalism and isolationism that might work best. We can talk about this without people trying to shut down the conversation with inflammatory labels like "cesspool".
Yes , I know my comment was extreme and appreciate your moderation. Certainly, smaller nation states tend to stagnate in isolation. And that isolation allows rapid degeneration. Abuses of humanity seem to be more extreme in these isolated pools. But I did not imply isolation as a necessary and defining character of nation states. I should amend my statement by adding another dimension to this 'thought vector'. Nation states that have an implicit requirement to trade and interact will foster a competition that mimics evolution. One large nation state-the end result of hyper globalization- (imagine Amazon establishes its own currency and takes over all retail) will have the same pitfalls as any monopoly.
There is but that level of sanity isn’t what’s on offer in the comments so far or in the article itself…people were literally asking , what’s wrong with etho-nationalism in Japan , as if we’ve not had that issue before ?
Huh...we've had "ethno-nationalism" before and had no problems, and had it before with problems. I'm entirely comfortable with Japan managing their immigration however they see fit. The idea that they should design their society around the ideology of some stupid fools in Western academia is absurd to me. It's ok for them to value their own extraordinary culture, I'm not threatened by that.
If you can't understand why revoking the basic human rights of 3 million+ people are and the devastating effects such a move that would have on the Japanese people themselves, then you're really not worth the time.
I personally think the Japanese are beyond this level of stupidity, America, I'm not so sure.
Furthermore, markets have no responsibility to national identity. If national identity is sub-optimal, the market will route around it like damage.
In the end, markets rule all, and if folks have to trade gruel, self-esteem, child labor protections, we'll be told that we live like kings and queens compared to 15th century peasants.
> This precept of Ricardo that has been extolled by billionaires like Buffett has been twisted into 'let the people who can provide the most output for the least input' prevail.
What you're describing are literally the productivity gains that have brought people out of abject poverty.
I disagree-there are so many other factors that reduced 'poverty'. Technological and scientific advances had more to do with it than division of labor.
