Back to Catalog

I am starting to hate the word ‘community’ as much as the word ‘consensus’ for two reasons. First it disregards whether something is actually right or wrong when appeals are being made to what the community ‘thinks’ about a certain subject usually determined by asking self-appointed and screened community ‘leaders’ and secondly because it simultaneously creates a false sense of bond and division between people tribalising them into groups (i.e. the Muslim community, the Black community) replacing the bonds between individuals with those between groups as if groups were individuals. The funny thing is that it is often employed in an attempt to show that we are not divided in the face of one attack on another by citing the solidarity between groups but if there was so much solidarity as the media claims there is why are there distinct groups in the first place?

Paradoxically the more diverse the groups living(well, inhabiting) together the harder it becomes to remain an individual within a group rather than a mere member in a group (as in a mere foot or a hand whose desires will readily be ignore for the greater good of the group). The reason for this is that in such a diverse environment one’s differences become magnified and one has to act like a representative of one’s group (that is to say a representative for hundreds of thousands or millions of people one has not even met). Everyone becomes a foreigner to each other.

There are two kinds of tribalism we can choose but not neither. Those in favour of multi-culturism often present it as the opposite of tribalism but in effect it is tribalism WITHIN the nation state rather than between nation states.

The Japanese are often presented as a hive-mind, The Borg, individuals who are unable to speak and stand for themselves (i.e. the invertebrate Japanese salary man who is too eager to bow and prostrate himself to suck-up to his elder superiors in an environment where longevity is rewarded over merit as opposed to the American rugged individual, the thrawed but unyielding young entrepreneur in an unending cycle of creative destruction who will sacrifice all comfort and security that he could gain by just obeying others and who only has to answer to himself, of course most normal Americans and Japanese do not fall exactly into either of these boxes though many may fall in their proximity) and who instead feel the need to speak for ‘we’ the Japanese whenever confronted by a foreigner(1).

Well, what I want to say is that in an indirect manner such a society offers more individuality than a diverse one like England(Not Britain) and America because Japanese people have so much in common that any anomalie that arises within itself cannot be disowned (This reminds me of Haruki Murakami’s book ‘Underground’ on the Tokyo Subway Sarin Gas Terrorist Attack by the Aum Shinkiyo cult where Murakami claims that there was a considerable effort by the media and society to disown Aum as a not being a Japanese phenomenon though foreigners correctly did saw it as Japanese) even the world-renowned and hated at home otaku deviant porn culture cannot be effectively disowned by the Japanese. On the hand in a compartmentalized society into groups like Britain there is effectively no such thing as society as people live parallel lives not just in the modern sense that they do not interact with their neighbours but by natural segregation primarily interacting of their own ethnic-national-religious background only interacting with other groups to conduct business. And when some members of one group(usually but not always Muslims) decide to violently attack other groups, it becomes obvious that the groups have different interests which is why, to repeat myself, they are different groups in the first place.

The solution is not to force people to interact with others with ‘intergration’ that will only unbalance the situation but to let it happen naturally over time and bringing in more migrants will only make the process not just harder but more unlikely to happen at all. I understand that limiting immigration will have a negative effect on the economy due to our shrinking workforce and aging population however we have ignored the cultural effects of migrations for too long. The current prosperity is the glue that holds these diverging cultural groups in Britain together but the fortune of nations comes and goes, of course I believe that we should try to keep it but not at the expense of both the individual and society.


(1)This may in effect only be a reaction to being being confronted by a foreigner, feeling the need to act as some sort of representative, while when they talk to each other while having differing opinions it would be quite idiotic to claim to speak for everyone when apparently they are not speaking for those who are disagreeing with, politicians all over do this all of the time of course.