This article explains the connections between One world dystopia, identity and sovereignity with the help of migrations and COVID-19.

What is behind migrations?

I have already explained why migrations provoke such a harsh rejection worldwide.

As soon as we understand that we are not only genetic but also memetic creatures and that each of us, by definition of being alive, tends to protect our own identity, it becomes clear that we are much more inclined to defend our memetic than our genetic heritage. We intuitively know that genetic mixture results do not threaten our identity as long as our memetic status is secured. Even if we don’t know anything about memes and the vast implications memes have on our lives, we intuitively know that a child born to an ethnically diverse couple becomes “theirs” not (only) with the color of the skin but with acceptance of “our” culture, meaning with acceptance of meme-complex that defines our identity.

The question commonly avoided is defining what we have in mind, with the largest possible entity holding such an identity.

Largest entities of identity

It is pretty easy to define the smallest entity: a single human being. A human being is, in fact, the smallest but, at the same time, strictly speaking, the only agent operating on a human scale dimension. Although we know that the smaller agents behind a human are genes and memes, as explained by Richard Dawkins in 1976, a man/woman is the only morally entitled agent on earth.

Although branding theory says that all brands are alive, we can still not hold memes or brands accountable for their eventual wrongdoings. In the corporate world, although companies (as brands) are living creatures, specific individuals are always liable in the name of such companies/brands. The same goes for larger entities like municipalities, states, and supranational bodies like the United Nations or WHO.

However, while it is clear that sovereignty lies only on an individual level, larger social structures like corporations, states, and supranational bodies exist and act. But do they have any sovereignty, or should they? How is sovereignty (if any) connected to individuality defined by identity?

Dear reader, you should know by now that I always try to defy methodological convention. So, I will state now what the article will later prove: Sovereignty pertains only to an individual level!

Larger social structures tend to mask their decisions as if they came from larger bodies and not from individuals within such bodies, from individuals with particular interests. They also tend to mask the particular interests of individuals as if they were common interests. Even if they do not conceal their interests by intention, they can not help but act like that because one identity can not represent more interests than one. 

Thus, larger social structures have an identity but must mask the fact that a plurality of individual interests underlie them. When such a larger social identity “speaks,” it conflates identity with agency. 

Representations unmasked

Here we come to the crucial point of this article: the larger such an organization is, the thicker and more perverse such a mask. If I express the interest of my family, I am more plausible than the one that expresses the interests of a country and much more than one that “represents the interests” of any supranational body. 

This truth comes not from speculation but from the simple physical fact of the size. People are not sheep, but even a dog managing a sheep herd has a limit on how many sheep it can still lead.

So, it should be pretty clear that the future of a globalized Earth is not one big unified world but a highly interconnected (globalized) world of as many small social units as possible.

The United Nations, WHO, IMF, and similar bodies’ ambitions to develop a highly homogenized One World are thus wrong in principle. Not only that but if they prolong their ambitions, this One World will soon implode and then explode, which is happening right now.

How?

It should not surprise us that the supranational bodies mentioned and proponents of such ideas on national levels are the most influential forces behind the support of various types of migration worldwide. If a concept of One World is possible in principle, then we would all be migrants as much as citizens. The difference would be blurred. Legal and illegal migrations are thus the underlying operational method of One World Utopia.

However, since the idea of a One-World is impossible for the reasons explained beforehand, one should be much more precise in defining and safeguarding identities on manageable scales.

COVID-19 case

Another case against multinational organizations’ purely globalist views and supremacy comes from the recent COVID-19 issue. Globalistic views tend to undermine threats coming from COVID-19, for it is true that after more than 80% of the population gets infected, we are safe. From a global perspective, we (as human species) will survive beyond any doubt. Individuals are in the mouths of WHO, but in its heart is humanity as a whole. They are humanists, not homonists.

Particularists, on the other hand, do not care about humanity as a whole. What does help me if humanity survives but I die from COVID-19? And with “I,” I take into account my family and, most probably, my closest friends. So policies that take strict lock-down measures are more particularistic, and those that leave more freedom to individuals and, with that, more freedom for a virus to evolve, are more globalistic. 

(Please note that the COVID-19 issue cannot be understood through that perspective only. If conspiracy theories which link vaccination profiteers and virus originators with depopulation ideology, then my thesis would be even more supported.)

 Homonism as a positive utopia

How do we reconcile the purely particularistic view that seemingly does not care about collective visions and the global one that does not care much about an individual?

With an analogy, we can say that it would be stupid to force an eye (Bhutanese) to become a foot (German). Still, within subtle cooperation of different body parts (various states, nations) the beauty of the body (the world) comes to power.

Such a network type of small bodies cooperation on a larger scale is not only possible but well known. Brains operate as such, and the World Wide Web as well. A food market is another example where multinational food producers and retailers start recognizing the pitfalls of globalized (homogenized) offers and diversifying their products to align with smaller and smaller local identities.

From a market perspective, the real future of this world is one customer, one market. It will come sooner or later.

It is somewhat more complicated when non-commercial political entities like States or multinational bodies come into play. While the size positively affects such body power, it negatively affects its level of homonism. Large can be powerful and even beautiful, but not wise.

Such a position is not a step back, as it would be without sufficient global interconnectivity on an individual level, but a step forward toward homonism. For practical reasons, bodies larger than individuals will still exist. But sovereignty will be shifted back to where it belongs: to the individual.