Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "The Japan Reporter" channel.

  1. 881
  2. 87
  3. 76
  4. 74
  5. It is important to note that Japan is not an outlier among developed countries with its birth rate, Europe has very similar one's. The thing that makes it distinct is that it does not engage in mass immigration and then pretend the problem doesn't exist. Let's be clear immigration is not a long term solution to demographic issues but much like bringing people into a ponzi scheme despite the fact that it's what western experts generally recommend to Japan, as birth rates are falling worldwide becoming a demographic black hole will only work so long and could be considered immoral for siphoning off skilled people from countries that desperately need them for any hope of internal improvements as well as having been the ones funding the education that western countries will take advantage of. On top of this a lot of the cover in a paper thin veneer, here in Britain living standards are declining rapidly but immigration (notably including illegal) are encouraged in order to pump the GDP figures and give the illusion that we aren't in a major recession, we also have the problem of cheap labour being used in place of technological advancement. This in not going into the many many other negatives. In short solutions at the ground level are vital and only real solutions will be able to fix such difficult issues. Personally I would recommend getting rid of government pensions as all they do is hide the fact that people need children to pay for them in old age. Likewise the modern dating system is not fit for purpose and indeed in the Japanese context seems to conflict badly with the culture and attitude of the population. Ideology which promotes and justifies family will also likely be necessary, in Japan this was traditionally fulfilled by Confucianism and the the West Christianity, people after all tend to act off what they believe in.
    70
  6. 69
  7. 59
  8. 57
  9. 42
  10. 39
  11. 36
  12. 35
  13. Let's be honest, the focus on love is a big part of the issue, it is heavily pushed by advertisers, probably because it sells tat without delivering but really a large part of it is the social conditions and norms which allow two people to make a relationship work as well as the kids. Relationships are something that must be built or maintained, but like everything our society seems to tell use we can buy, neglect or abandon them at will with no real consequences or responsibility, really it is to the point of saying we should and holding moral evil as a moral good. People need to have less options frankly, if you say some bullshit about falling out of love when you have children then frankly you need to grow up and stop being self-centred, you are not the centre of the relationship, your children are. There are unhealthy relationships but to often they are such by lack of effort and a sense of entitlement rather than anything more irreconcilable. As for getting into a relationship working out what you want is fine, if they don't want that then right there you have saved years of potentially dancing around it. To be fair relationships aren't about self-actualisation, that just comes about once you get into a rhythm, they are about children, all the rest is a later product largely out of very Christian concepts about consent and the enjoining of humans into one flesh (and yes that is most certainly a reference to the literal as well as the spiritual), unless you are counting political alliance, which is ancient by probably not terribly relevant. The main issue today is that the culture and legal framework is not accommodating of marriage, there is a rampant individualism, almost to the point of farce, and an overreliance on taking from the state without acknowledging that costs are a universal and people will be needed in the next generation to support you no matter what. It is best that the obligation is relational as frankly in current conditions it is a race between the finance departments and the younger generation to scrap pensions. People are happy to look after their own, but an old market principle the Soviets proved is being unearthed, farmers will let the cities starve if they don't get paid, and young people will prefer not to work than to have all of their money taken towards people too irresponsible to have children of their own.
    35
  14. 25
  15. 24
  16. 23
  17. 23
  18. 22
  19. 21
  20. 20
  21. 17
  22. 15
  23. 14
  24. 14
  25. 14
  26. 14
  27. 13
  28. 12
  29. 12
  30. 12
  31. 11
  32. 11
  33. 11
  34. 11
  35. 11
  36. The Japanese military desperately needs to expand, but it should have as much industry as possible within Japan. Total self-sufficiency is not possible due to a very weak resource base, but as much of the supply chain as possible must be local, as if there is a war America will not only have to produce for the world, but will be able to dictate prices. The British empire was bankrupted by business with the Americans, for whom the intention was very much to destroy the British economy and steal all their wealth. America is not a friend even of its own people, it benefits a small influential class, some of rich, but mostly the management class, who run the actual systems. The whole insulting Japanese self-preference is merely pressure to conform, Japan has become a model for western politically opposition, they say 'a slow economic decline due to low birthrates is better than destroying the nation, people and society with immigration ', this worries those who are benefited by low wages or are motivated by animus towards civilisation. The Japanese should not have US military bases, American influence is undoubtedly bad, while they remain Japan is stuck within a westernized political framework at a time of western decline and it's cultural, social and political degradation. Japan should think about another period of isolation, and possibly reinvigorating Confucianism as a way to strengthen social bonds and reform the system of social life which has proved infertile and depressing.
    11
  37. 10
  38. 10
  39. 10
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 9
  45. 9
  46. 8
  47. 8
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8
  51. 8
  52. 8
  53. 8
  54. 8
  55. 8
  56. 8
  57. 8
  58. 7
  59. 7
  60. 7
  61. 7
  62. Fantastic video as usual, here what I think of some of what was said. The economics of Japan is so much better than many western countries, sure it isn't modernised and the work environment is tough but young people can afford a house, that isn't a thing here. A lot of the men need to get their priorities straight, it is fine to suffer hardship if you can have children, were is the purpose in dying without having ever contributed and to be buried as the last in your line, your ancestors gave you your opportunities you shame them by putting your life to waste, they brought up large families with a much worse economic situation and suffered though tragedy, don't complain about such petty things. With what the women said a mother contributes many times what a working woman does, a working woman does the labour of one, a mother provides many workers for the future, she if you are high flying you could give the nation and world as many high flying people as you have children just by passing on your capability at home. There is a reason only recent societies have been foolish enough to put women into the workforce, they deflate wages now so that there no people to get paid tomorrow. Technology won't help, selecting sperm in IVF and the like leads to birth defects as does waiting to long to have children, it is only in contravention of nature that women don't have children young, it is what their body is designed around and thus complications are much more likely to occur the later things are left. These areas with better birth rates largely work by attracting people who want to have children, they are a statistical illusion. People have duty, it is not a right to steal from the future in order to ruin now, that is what debt is. People do need to have kids and if the government has to kick women out of work, ban porn or suppress the entertainment industry then so be it, the costs would be much less than doing nothing. I agree that Japan needs more positivity, it sounds like you do too, Japan is very insular many of the things you thing are bad are much worse in every other country, the fact that it is not ignored is a very good sign but perspective also needs to be understood, things not being prefect is an expectation treating it like a justification to not do things is only relinquishing the future to those who care less. As God commanded be fruitful and multiply. That should go before anything else as without it that anything else won't matter at all in just a little time.
    6
  63. 6
  64. 6
  65.  @AlwaysHope_  Of course I’m biased, I’m a westerner myself (British), and of the current generation (zoomer, though I’m on the older end of that and it shows). I don’t think its too far to say that modern western societies aren’t Christian (especially in western Europe, but that fact that values systems today are being spread through education and mass media today more than parents means that its a concern everywhere), but rather believe in a socially constructed reality and the same marxist hogwash which has been inspiring human tragedy for the last century.  I am a Christian myself and fundamentally believe that values and the philosophies based on Christianity form the best system for life, but I also live in a context where I am the only Christian my age I know and the church is counter to its mission (the church of England that is). There is a lot of internal literature by academics which is extremely forthright about where they come from and what they aim and at current there is little possibility they will fail to put in place what they wish for, my country has a conservative government, we also had 1 million immigrants last year, the economy is being driven off a cliff and talking about publicly accessible facts about what happened at Rotherham and is still happening elsewhere on a public account could get me a criminal record. Thus I feel it is imperative that east asian countries absolutely do not take of board what the west is giving at the moment, plus we have the same problems but worse in regard to the thing supposed solutions are being given for.
    6
  66. 6
  67. 6
  68. 6
  69. 6
  70. 5
  71. 5
  72. 5
  73. 5
  74. 5
  75. 5
  76. 5
  77. 5
  78. 5
  79. 5
  80. I would say that the bombing is a lot less complicated than what happened afterwards. Japan was planning to fight to the death under the military, this is not hyperbole, the military plan was to make Japan so costly to take that no one would bother, from the allied perspective they would likely lose millions of men to a conventional assault and from the Japanese every civilian would be expected to die for the national good, on top of this was the wider situation, Japan is not a rich country and by this period in the war supply lines had largely been cut, even as things were people were starting to starve. If anyone knows anything of the early months of occupation they will know that many did die of starvation even with the full efforts of the red cross and the newly arrived occupying troops. If Japan had not surrendered when it did starvation would have killed more than the fighting itself, a large portion of the population likely would have died. As such the quick ending of the war actually saved lives. The controversial point is what happened post war, the war trials were frankly rigged, innocent men were made scapegoat and guilty let off for political expectancy, especially those of the imperial house but also men who have inflicted grotesque human experiments in return for their research notes. The country was made a puppet and the constitution written to American interests, the old educational establishment was destroyed by banning the old teachers from working and in effect the subversive elements of Japanese society were given reign, this lead to decade's of educational strife as the communist aligned teaching union fought with the department of education and the parents organisations. The conduct of the occupation troops was in large part disgraceful (I'm talking about the mass r*pes) and very few were properly punished. American extended a hand in rebuilding Japan, but it was largely as a logistical hub and bulwark against enemies in the region, once Japan started doing well they changed tact and started treating Japan as an economic threat, as Japan is resource poor they had little recourse and the economic downturn this caused is ongoing. The cultural influence of America while it has been useful in implanting a more stable political system and finally ending some of the more barbaric native practices (such as the selling of children) has caused immense harm culturally, imports like the American dating system and various ideologies are immensely destructive to a nation built on extreme particularities largely alien to the systems with which they are forced to interact, these things are a disaster in their home country, they are cataclysmic in foreign ones. More current American influence is just plain bad, the influence of failed western ideological projects is being heavily lobbied for by western NGO's and diplomacy, but to be blunt western ideology is based in western assumptions and entirely destructive to native culture as it supplants it, in terms of policy, mass immigration is the single best means to put an end to the distinct existence of Japan and the Japanese not to mention the utter civil strife it has caused in the nation's already victimised be it. To listen to American at this point is to listen to the devil for the results at least are much the same.
    5
  81. 5
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 4
  90. 4
  91. 4
  92. 4
  93. 4
  94. 4
  95. 4
  96. 4
  97. 4
  98. 4
  99. 4
  100. 4
  101. 4
  102. 4
  103. 4
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. As someone from the UK avoiding mass immigration and gay propaganda aimed at little children sounds like a paradise to me, their issue is not having enough children and it's one every deployed nation (and near every non-developed nation outside of Africa, in fact I believe the exception is Afghanistan and that's literally it) has the same problem but covers it up with massive immigration and a wilful refusal to admit that it's not a long term solution, especially when your social welfare programs are literally constructed like pyramid schemes. We have absolutely massive social issues, a declining economy and a situation where my generation will never get a house or a pension, the property prices alone are a source of hope for Japan, people just have to break out of the current paradigm, stop being miserable, move to the country, farm and raise large multi-generational families, I wish my country had options for improvement short of revolution. Personally I find the whole line go up mentality asinine, it is the type of logic that would lead to one selling their own mother, and in many western countries it has lead to the political elite selling out the country itself from underneath the feet of the population, it is not an answer to anything tangible however, only the creator of tangible problems. If Japan wants to solve its problems the way is more children, not more degenerate westerners or soulless hordes of urban economic nomads, the foreigners already within Japan are enough trouble. A short term economic boast is the same logic that lead to them encouraging women to enter the workforce and just like it it will backfire massively (wages go down in proportion to women in the workforce and make two incomes an economic necessity, thus lowering the freedom to have kids and making the whole situation a whole lot worse).
    3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174.  @DarwinSmyth  The flaw of Confucianism is certainly its conservatism with many opportunities throughout history being lost due to it, but population decline and a massive rise of stress without outside factors like mongols was never a concern. Christianity is not nearly that simple, if it makes sense it is both very individualistic and very communal at the same time, the social and political life is the life of the group but one has personal responsibility within that group due to the very particular view of morality it has, the extreme individualism is not Christian in a religious sense but comes out of people who made the assumption that the society that Christianity built is free of the moral foundations that built it, it might be a bit confusing but europeans fight with ideas like wars which means that a great deal can change over a short time. Basically the ideas of liberalism though they are very much based in a Christian view of the world are secular and outside of American conservatives the ideals of Rousseau are also very influential but are also downright anti-Christian, there is a belief that freedom and goodness are the natural state of man and that any impediment to personal freedom is oppressive (Rousseau also thought the natural human passions, vices as christians call them, are good because they are natural, I’m frankly surprised he wasn’t burnt). If you get into old Christian literature you will quickly discover that it is deeply at odds with modern western society, even if many church's attempt to placate or fit in to the new ideology and some were always a bit on the strange side (Quakers and Jehovahs Witnesses).  The are no ideologies that don’t have up and down sides, they are ultimately a mediation of different peoples interests for the sake of a vision, but I don’t really think they become toxic aside from the effect power has on drawing in the power hungry, many of the flaws are inherent to the structure itself and the view them as toxic is often a matter of what values you prioritise in your perspective, but they ultimately will have a real world effect and values will have to face reality. If people don’t have families society will collapse and if people don’t have meaning they won’t be contented. We have to find a solution to our problems and taking about the flaws of the solution is irrelevant if they outweigh the cost of not implementing them.
    2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206.  @MakeSureYouCleanUp  Nor do you really, all this liberalism crap is how we got into this situation in the first place. If people don't acknowledge reality then they will merely be replaced. The main issue is the transition back to a traditional society, a widespread social collapse in nuclear armed countries would not be pretty. If you let people decide they will go with whatever they are being pressured to do. The origin of the problem was women being propagandised that should become wageslaves and contribute to GDP and short term corporate profits, I'm sure under the exact same circumstances they'll not do exactly the same thing they always have and play prestige games within the current paradigm as it burns to the ground. History is pretty long and one of its lessons is that women are the most conservative sex by far, they enforce social boundaries and like people in general are exceptionally unoriginal. If you have bad incentives then more freedom will just funnel people into them harder. The male equivalent of this are pick up artists, they see a failing system and try to play into it rather than against it. While there is a new feminist movement against all this (they're behind the case against the sexual revolution and many other recent works on related topics from a female perspective) they most certainly to not present moral freedom and lower standards (so more of the same) as a solution and on top of this many of them are autistic and thus think very distinctly from average men or women. While men will probably get on board, a new structure will already have to be in place for most women to.
    1
  207.  @MakeSureYouCleanUp  Not at all, I was literally pointing out that most just follow social norms pathologically (same goes for men but to a lesser degree as they are both less conformist (evolution sets out men to be more expendable so that it experiment with less of a detrimental impact to the wider group, in the wider course of human history it's fine for men to be reckless as the stupid ones will just die, of course in non-hunter gatherer times it leads to a large underclass of angry young men, and due to the sexual revolution they can't pair up, if I was a women that's the demographic I'd worry about as polygamous societies have a long history of extreme violence and unrest spearheaded by them ) and less tuned into the dissemination vectors like TV. The thing that will get the current paradigm in the long run is that it doesn't work and we will just be outnumbered and replaced by societies with social norms and expectations better suited to successful family formation, procreation and the like. You already see this within western societies, Amish are growing in population at an exponential rate in America and orthodox Jews are an increasing proportion of Israel's population. Basically Traditionalism and patriarchy are in for a major return and due to the decline in Christianity (the primary factor in the historical relaxing of social conditions for women) the expression of it might be fairly grim. There are fairly big male movements opposed to such an eventuality, but as it isn't feminist it can't get women onboard in big enough numbers. Ultimately they'll just have to build a boat and hope that women start jumping on board once they realise that the ship they are on is pretty much sunk. The better option is making the movement comfortable to women, but that would basically be setting up meaningful communities with clear social boundaries and norms in which women find place and pursue social prestige. But that would mean much less freedom and individual determination, the thing you were after.
    1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. Men are not the bottleneck on this, many many more want to have kids in our generation, if women find men who don't want kids then they've done a pretty good job of searching to find them. Men should of course take responsibility, but in large part with this sort of thing women are going for the men who are fairly explicitly not going to take it, or they are divorcing men who do. There is a reason that gender relations are so toxic. Women respond to problems by asking that men take responsibility and then complain when we do, but it is on us to do so at the same time as ignoring all the commentary and hysteria, it's pretty clear than men and women communicate differently and can't be expected to hash things out rationally. Most of the problems women complain about are ones men already want to fix but get flack for trying, your deadbeat boyfriend isn't going to shape up if you tell men in general to, men are going to stop that relationship happening in the first place and probably make his life pretty hard depending on exactly how bad he is to our group interests (which are aligned with the interests of our daughter's as much as our Son's). Men taking responsibility is actual patriarchy, that means listening to your Dad and not your bad sense. Matriarchs are mothers, if you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect you need to turn girlish entitlement into a stage of life and not a personality. I short to be respectable you have to become it. And before I'm accused of double standards men are perfectly happy enforcing our own boundaries with violence, women are getting the kid glove treatment. Because women are socially suggestable, men who can't be trusted shouldn't be.
    1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. Many social issues are related to US pressure and influence, and they are a declining power that can easily drag one into conflict. The problem is that Japan must build it's own system if it is to be independent and it has hostile neighbours to contend with. Not to mention that America does not relinquish its toys, America at this point will destroy the Japanese economy if given the opportunity, as that is their MO in occupied territories, but Japan likely couldn't deal with sanctions, this is not to mention the problems internal to Japan. If Japan wants autonomy a realignment towards China and Russia and closer relations with the third world will be necessary, but this should not include concessions on immigration or defence like the US are insistent on. Japan must increase it's birth rate and accept it has a failed economic structure and rollback the obsession with corporate jobs, Japan needs farmers and the like as much if not more, not jobs that don't exist. They will need to rollback state spending and return the social system to something more Confucian, ending the American inspired social norms and moving back to a model of arranged marriage, multi-generation households and many children. The will also need to expand the military into a first rate one, especially focusing on naval and air defence. People are saying that North Korea and China are hostile cultural, while this is true and will be a pain it is not an overwhelming factor, it persists because they are international rivals, if there is a realignment the governments of those countries will probably pull the Orwellian 'we've always been friends of Japan', if Japan becomes a neutral power they will likely just start to lose interest in such matters, though they will not like military expansion. Such a policy change will need about 50-100 years to properly see results, as Japan needs to cultivate the economy, reform the social system and birth continually larger generational cohorts, however if they remain a vassal over that same period into the future Japan will not just become a husk, it will no longer be Japan, at the moment American policy is so destructive that I'm generally surprised that China and Russia make any effort to oppose it, why intervene when your opponents is heaping up their funeral pier.
    1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. They were not near surrender, the closest possible was a conditional surrender, with the allies had agreed among themselves weren't to be accepted. Japan was to be turned into a fortress as were the mountains in the North of Korea. The Japanese had ascertained the landing locations for a naval invasion and had started building the air hangers and factories within mountains that were necessary to avoid bombing raids. The military had prepared, they were ready, the two points of failure were the nuke and the political volatility of Japan, command was thrown into serious disarray by the bomb, less because of a lost city than that political manoeuvring started because of it and everyone was trying to play a role or work out what the hell was going on. There was a failed coup, the Soviets attacked Manchuria and the planned retreat was not enacted as had been prepared, senior officers argued that there was only one nuke and even if not they could endure it. At this point in the war Japan's victory was clearly understood to be impossible and thus they were willing to surrender under the condition of the emperor retaining his position, this was however against the agreement among the allies and the public sentiment, thus only unconditional surrender would be accepted, later policies don't matter, the commitment was towards unconditional surrender and it was to be kept to. The means to force the issue were three, to invade at vast cost to both sides, to blockade indefinitely and allow much of the population to starve until presumably opposite day came and the sunk cost fallacy caused the leadership to given up rather than dig in, or to us the experimental weapon meant for the purpose. The Americans had already killed 100'000's of innocent civilians in the fire bombing campaign naturally they would pick the cheapest option. The fact is I am very sceptical of the intentions of the US (which tend towards maliciousness in my estimation) but intentional or not within the restrictions of the circumstances the choice made was the least destructive one. As said post war decisions are much more.objectionable.
    1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1