In an unexpected turn during the emergency Diet session on the 21st, lawmakers voted to suspend the originally scheduled deliberations on next year’s fiscal budget and instead approved a new funding framework dedicated to “strengthening the population’s psychological self‑protection mechanisms.” The decision, introduced with minimal prior notice, was justified by the administration as a necessary response to what it described as “a nationwide decline in cognitive resilience.”
According to senior government officials, recent years have seen a marked rise in behaviors that fall under the category of unconscious ego‑defense. These include the increasingly common practice of placing one’s own statements neatly “on a mental shelf,” allowing individuals to disregard previous claims when they become inconvenient. Officials also cited a growing tendency to forget causal relationships at critical moments, particularly when such relationships might imply personal accountability. Another trend involves the rapid transfer of responsibility to others, often executed with a level of speed and confidence that suggests a well‑honed reflex rather than a considered judgment. Finally, the government noted a surge in defensive aggression, citizens attacking those around them in order to preserve an internal image of being “the rational one,” even when confronted with contradictory evidence.
“These patterns have reached a point where individual effort alone can no longer compensate,” one official said. “We have concluded that this is no longer a matter of personal discipline but a structural issue requiring national‑level intervention.”
To address the situation, the government will establish a new agency, the Self‑Defense Mechanism Agency, tasked with supporting citizens’ unconscious psychological defenses. The agency’s mandate includes the development of AI systems capable of automatically revising personal memories into more convenient versions, thereby reducing the cognitive load associated with maintaining internal consistency. It will also oversee the creation of high‑speed protocols designed to accelerate responsibility‑shifting, ensuring that blame can be reassigned with minimal friction during moments of interpersonal stress. Additionally, the agency plans to build a national reserve of what internal documents describe as “the stable sensation of not being at fault,” intended to be distributed during emergencies in which citizens’ self‑image is at risk of destabilization.
To provide context for the initiative, the government invited commentary from experts, including Professor Haruto Minase, a social psychologist at the Institute of People Behavioral Studies. Professor Minase explained that the behaviors cited by the government align with well‑documented ego‑defense mechanisms, though he noted that their recent proliferation is unusual in scale.
“Ego‑defense mechanisms are universal and normally serve a stabilizing function,” Minase said. “However, when they become widespread and synchronized across a population, they can create what we call a ‘collective defensive climate.’ In such an environment, individuals reinforce one another’s avoidance behaviors, leading to a feedback loop in which accountability becomes diffuse and factual coherence erodes. The government’s decision to treat this as an infrastructural issue is, from a sociological perspective, both unprecedented and oddly logical.”
Minase added that the proposed AI‑driven memory‑revision systems raise ethical questions but acknowledged that they reflect an existing social trend. “People already curate their memories informally,” he said. “Automating the process simply formalizes what many are doing unconsciously. The real concern is whether institutionalizing these mechanisms will make it even harder for society to engage with reality when necessary.”
Opposition parties criticized the initiative, arguing that “the government should review its own defensive reflexes before enhancing those of the public.” Several lawmakers pointed out that the administration itself has frequently demonstrated the very behaviors it now seeks to address, including selective memory, rapid responsibility‑shifting, and aggressive self‑justification. The government countered by suggesting that such accusations were “a projection on the part of the opposition,” a remark that immediately escalated tensions and led to a prolonged and unproductive exchange.
Despite the controversy, the bill passed with majority support. In a post‑vote survey conducted by parliamentary staff, several lawmakers were unable to recall whether they had voted for or against the measure, with some insisting that the question itself was “misleading.” The Self‑Defense Mechanism Agency is expected to begin operations early next fiscal year, though officials acknowledged that the timeline may shift depending on “the nation’s psychological readiness.”
As the session adjourned, Professor Minase offered a final reflection. “If a society reaches the point where psychological defense requires public funding,” he said, “it may indicate not only a collective vulnerability but also a collective desire to avoid confronting it. In that sense, the new budget is both a symptom and a solution, though which of the two it is more of remains to be seen.”
