This essay criticizes Germany’s so-called “structural reform” doctrine and its endorsement by Asahi Shimbun and Kang Sang-jung ahead of the G7 Ise-Shima Summit.
It argues that pseudo-moralism functions as a form of political and economic evil.

2016-08-24
This proves that pseudo-moralists are, in essence, evil.
On the night before the G7 began in Ise-Shima, NHK’s Buratamori featured Ise-Shima as its setting.
Those who watched it probably felt like visiting Ise-Shima.
I remember seeing the house of Kokichi Mikimoto, but I could not recall when that was.

Now, the G7.
While American Nobel Prize laureates, Japan and the United States, and France, Italy, and the United Kingdom all said that fiscal stimulus was necessary to overcome the unstable global economy,

Germany—the very country that Kang Sang-jung and the Asahi Shimbun kept insisting Japan should learn from—

I only learned, after subscribing to monthly magazines since August the year before last, that several Tokyo correspondents of major German newspapers, who probably read Asahi Shimbun for free, were extreme anti-Japan ideologues.

Evil always exerts greater power than true good.
Pseudo-goodness, or pseudo-moralism, exerts the same level of power.
This proves that pseudo-moralists are, in essence, evil.

When I learned that these few individuals shape German public opinion, and that opinion polls show roughly half of the German population holds anti-Japan views, I was truly astonished.
Since then, as already stated, I have not held a favorable impression of Germans.

Germany’s finance minister said that fiscal stimulus was unnecessary and that structural reform was required.
I have mentioned several times the concept of “the lie of common sense,” and structural reform is one of its most representative examples.
Simply put, structural reform is not an important economic issue at all; it is no exaggeration to call it a fiction.

The reason the German economy is strong is that it benefits most from EU integration.
This includes the use of cheap labor from Eastern and Central Europe.

When the EU began to wobble, what did Germany do?

Angela Merkel, having grown up in East Germany, probably feels no discomfort with one-party communist dictatorship, I surmise.
She visited Japan only twice, despite the many fools here who shout “Mercedes, Mercedes” at every opportunity.
One of those visits was merely last year, when she came as the G7 chair.
By contrast, she has visited China eight times.

Moreover, those visits were export-driven diplomacy for automobiles and machinery, accompanied by more than one hundred leading figures from the business world—far exceeding even what was once derided as Ikeda Hayato’s “transistor diplomacy.”

Germany opposes nuclear power, yet casually imports nuclear-generated electricity from neighboring France.

What the German finance minister calls structural reform means this:
Even if the partner is China, the world’s largest and worst suppressor of human rights and free speech, a state that oppresses other ethnic groups,
in short, even if the partner is an evil nation,
as long as it allows Germany to sell its core industry—automobiles—to a market of 1.3 billion people,
Germany will do whatever that country says.
That is their structural reform.

The evil of Kang Sang-jung and the Asahi Shimbun, who have continued to tell Japan to learn from such a country, has reached its extreme.
As if proving that they are in collusion with Germany, they all chant “structural reform” in unison.

We should recognize that this is nothing less than slander against and an attack on the Abe administration.
That is, the claim that Abenomics failed and that structural reform is what is needed—this collusion of true villains.

Indeed, the specter of an axis of evil has long been formed by Kang Sang-jung—spokesman for South Korea and thus for China—and the Asahi Shimbun.

That specter now appears in Germany’s behavior.
Germany is unmistakably an anti-Japan state, and from now on, the Japanese people should exercise caution toward this country.
It is not a country that creates peace.
Rather, it is likely a country that constantly creates something that threatens peace.