Japan’s demographic issues, China’s “leftover women,” and the “frame game” path to military natalism


The civilized world does not make a lot of babies any more, because H. G. Wells fought a war of ideas against Christian norms of baby-making.

Wells’ side has a lot of luck and a lot of help and the massed power of the Frankfurt School. Wells side won the war of ideas. Civilized people make few babies.

Here’s the problem, as reported at the link below:

Japanese are having fewer children than before. In 1990, the country experienced what has been termed the “1.57 shock,” when the fertility rate dropped to its lowest level yet. Since then the fertility rate has fallen further, to around 1.4, well below the replacement rate of about 2.1 births per woman. There are few signs that this will improve.

Population is power. After the devastating defeat in World War II, Japan benefited from a “demographic bonus” that paved the way for the nation’s economic growth and reemergence on the world stage. Conversely, since the 1990s a “demographic onus” has intensified its financial plight. Japan’s population decline is both an indication and perpetrator of Japan’s lost decades of chronic deflation and stagnant growth. Despite Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s assertions that “Japan is back,” the lost decades are far from over.

The various pronatalist schemes have been largely unsuccessful, meeting with fierce opposition. First, the legacy of World War II is a key obstacle. Many Japanese still remember how pronatalist government policies were introduced during World War II to encourage women to give birth for the “nation’s sake.” It is therefore no surprise that a strong antipathy to what is perceived as government interference into the private lives of individuals still exists. Next, in a nation that imagines itself to be ethnically and culturally homogenous, immigration as a solution is still a politically sensitive topic. Likewise, when it comes to dealing with issues that are unpopular with the elderly electorate, such as reducing pensions, procrastination is a lower-risk option for those in power.

As a core feature of Abenomics 2.0 set forward in September 2015, the government pledged to raise the birthrate to the “publicly desired level” of 1.8 children per woman, and further advance structural reforms to ease the burden of child and elderly care for working generations.


Golly, that’s scary stuff. But in fact, we modern overcivilized humans are much like rats born in the final stages of a behavioral sink. We never developed natural human behaviors. It’s not our fault that we don’t breed.

Having lots of babies is great for the state. Those babies are new citizens. They can be slapped into the factories, marched onto the battlefields, and generally treated as expendable resources.

Having lots of babies is very painful and time-consuming for individuals and families. Having just one baby might be an exercise in narcissism – the proud parent can turn child-rearing into an exercise in ego-projection. But having more than one baby really cuts into one’s spare time, and it’s hard to be a narcissist when you can’t make enough time for your favorite person – yourself.

The solution is obvious. If the government of Japan wants Japan to survive, natalism is going to have to make a comeback, one way or another.

Right now, it seems impossible to imagine a modern, civilized country that pushes natalism. Japan, Europe, the Anglosphere countries, Hong Kong, Singapore – all of these nations are highly advanced, and all of them consume a lot of contraceptives. Natalism would be an unspeakable heresy in such countries.

One can imagine China leading the world back to natalism. China is confident enough to denounce feminists and Muslims who act in non-Chinese ways; China is subtle enough to claim that the Chinese Communist Party gets to define what feminism and religion mean, inside Chinese borders. The Chinese Communists understand how to play the “frame game”; that is, the party that frames the narrative gets to control the metaphors that everyone lives by.

Currently, the modern, civilized nations – from Hong Kong to Canada – are living by the metaphors preached by H. G. Wells and Cecil Rhodes and their ilk. China has already put out conflicting metaphors. The H. G. Wells theory is that women are equal to men, women are rational philosophers, women are free spirits, women are free to deviate from social norms. The Chinese Communist theory is that women must marry or become mistresses. The Chinese Communists say that a woman who is unmarried after 27 is a “leftover woman.”

For the moment, the USA looks more powerful than China. But the years keep sliding by. 2016 and 2017 might see enough poverty in the USA to make the Spurdoburgers question the H. G. Wells-ian orthodoxy.

If the world begins to warm up to the Chinese Communist metaphors and theories, then we will see a Chinese war of ideas just as dramatic as the war of ideas that H. G. Wells’ waged against Christian morals.

Patriarchy is not very fun, even for the patriarchs. But it is remarkably simple – it can even be enforced by illiterates. But the Chinese are not illiterates. They are embracing modern methods of propaganda. Here’s a sample of the future of the war for ideas:

This entry was posted in political economy. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Japan’s demographic issues, China’s “leftover women,” and the “frame game” path to military natalism

  1. Its not just the loss of patriarchy or modernity or Cultural Marxism . Its also urbanization and education.

    Fact is most people live in cities and having more than one or two children, sometimes any children is a dramatic hit in the standard of living. You can move from fairly comfortable or at least getting by to abject poverty in a heartbeat.

    People need a certain level of consistent income to raise the next generation of people fit for modern life and simply they aren’t getting it. Businesses see them as fungible commodities or widgets and as such, people are being rational and not cooperating.

    Its made worse by technology of course, the relentless drive for efficiency means that every time you automate, you basically make people have less babies.

    Few of these “pro-natal” societies even try in a significant way to build social systems that adequately compensate for the costs anyway and as such, people behaving reasonably ends up harmful to the broader society

    Now as to education, the paradox is simple, If your people are fit for modern life and useful to a modern society, they are smart enough to know when they can’t makes ends meet and will adjust accordingly. And note, not having “the pill” won’t help. Japan dropped way below replacement fertility with only condoms.

    The only option you have is religion and it works acceptably in the US , Mormon fertility is on par with that of Chechen fertility and Evangelicals are doing well too. However its not compatible with Cultural Marxism much.

    You can of course bring in plenty of low IQ/ High Time preference types to prop things up if you like. The US did that and its reaping the consequences, basically its starting to fall apart. Japan won’t make that mistake.

    China is as you noted trying the dystopia method but given how lunatic social signalling in China got under Mao this doesn’t surprise me. Spandrell at the Bloody Shovel discussed it at length


    It won’t help them as much as they think since the State there really isn’t any smarter than anyone else’s State and even making a game of some facets won’t actually resolve issues with water and air and food and fertility. It can maintain order at the cost of inhibiting change. Maybe that’s a good trade off for China. Who knows?

    All that aside, I’m having trouble seeing why population decline is a real long term concern. Yeah sure, short term economic costs, loss of power for the elite, some minor national security issues but for the day to day people, there isn’t a single scenario other than keeping other powers off of your cultures lands where a population decline doesn’t make life better.

    Loss of 90% of the human race over time would leave us with a global population around that of 1700, one of the more productive times in human history. I suppose if too many of these people were Sub-Saharan Africans or other Low IQ/High Time preference types it could be an issue but otherwise who cares.

    Less people, a better life for everyone else.

Comments are closed.