What is behind migrations?
I have already explained why migrations provoke such a harsh rejection all around the world.
As soon as we understand that we are not only genetic but also memetic creatures, that each of us by definition of being alive tends to protect its own identity, it becomes clear we are much more inclined to defend our memetic than our genetic heritage. We intuitively know that genetic mixture results do not bring a threat to our identity as long as our memetic status is secured. Even if we don’t know anything about memes and vast implications memes have on our lives, we intuitively know, that a child born to an ethnically diverse couple, becomes “ours” not with the colour of the skin, but with acceptance of “our” culture, meaning with acceptance of meme-complex that defines our identity.
Now, the commonly avoided question lies in the definition of what we have in mind with the largest entity holding such identity.
Largest entities of identity
It is quite 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 real agents behind are genes and memes, so precisely explained by Richard Dawkins already 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 put memes or brands on the court for their eventual wrong-deeds. And as we see from the corporate world, although companies (as brands) are living creatures, there are always specific individuals that are liable in the name of such companies/brands. And the same goes for larger entities like municipalities, states and also supranational bodies like the United Nations or WHO.
But while it is clear that sovereignty lies only on an individual level, larger social structures like corporations, states and supranational bodies indeed exist and act. But do they or should they have any sovereignty?
No! Sovereignty should be attributed to an individual level only!
Larger social structures namely tend to mask their decisions as if those decisions would come from those larger bodies and not from individuals within such organizations, individuals with their particular interests. Larger social structures tend to mask their particular interests is if they would be common interests. Even if they do not conceal their interests by intention, they can not but act like that because one person can not represent more interests than one.
Now here we come to the crucial point: larger such organization, thicker and more perverse is such a mask. If I say something “in the name of my family”, I am by definition more plausible than the one that speaks in the name of a country and much than one that speaks in the name of any supranational body. This truth comes not from speculation, but the simple physical fact of the size. People are not sheep, but even a dog managing a sheep herd has a limit in how many sheep it can still lead.
So it should be quite clear that the future of globalized earth is not one big unified world, but a highly interconnected (globalized) world of as small as possible social units (states, or whatever).
Ambitions of the United Nations, WHO, IMF and similar bodies to develop a highly homogenized One World is thus wrong in principle. It is not only wrong but if they prolong with their ambitions, this One World will very soon first implode and then explode. Which is, as a matter of fact, happening in this very moment. How?
It should not come by surprise that mentioned supranational bodies and proponents of such ideas on national levels are the most influential force behind the support of various types of migrations taking place around the world. Should a concept of One World be possible in principle, then the help of migrations would make sense at least in principle. But since the idea of One World is impossible for the reasons explained beforehand, one should be much more precise in defining and safeguarding identities on scales that are still manageable.
Another case against the purely globalist view and supremacy of multinational organizations comes from recent COVID-19 issue. Globalistic view tends 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 on mouths of WHO, but in its heart is humanity as a whole.
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 closets 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.
Homonism as positive utopia
How to reconcile the purely particularistic view that seemingly does not care about collective visions and 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 as the matter of fact. Brains operate as such, and world wide web as well. A food market is another example where multinational food producers and retailers start to recognize the pitfalls of globalized (homogenized) offer and begin to diversify their products aligned with smaller and smaller local identities.
The real future of this world taken from a market perspective is one customer, one market. It will come sooner or later. As will one person one state come as the solution. Such a position is not a step back, as it would be without sufficient global interconnectivity on an individual level, but a step forward into a homonism. There will still exist bodies larger than an individual for practical reasons, of course. But the sovereignty will be shifted back to where it belongs: to individual.