Reformists and revolutionaries often try to get people to unite against oppression. While as a short time solution it is a fine idea to unite to dethrone tyrants, in the long term it is more likely to help tyrants gain more power. The various problems in our world aren’t really due to disunity, but unity of people. For thousands of years kings and anyone with a flashy enough banner or an attractive ideology has been able to unite bunches of people to wage war on others. Weak people want the feeling of unity to excuse themselves of responsibility. Were people unwilling to unite we never could have had wars, since only a handful of people would showed up in the battlefield.
Nowadays people aren’t so much united to wage war, but they unite for pointless recreational activities in support of anything that does not matter. People unite to support their favourite sports team, their favourite politician, their favourite Harry Potter book and meaningless crap. They don’t unite to actually do anything. They just support something, and allow others to make decisions for them.
It would seem that when people unite to do something good, it is a temporary union. Let’s take The Lord of the Rings as an example. The various Free Peoples didn’t really like each other. The elves and dwarves didn’t like each other, the human kingdoms weren’t that friendly with each other. They merely tolerated one another. But they realized they needed to unite to beat Sauron. In the course of the war they even began to like each other a bit, since they noticed they hated Sauron and the orcs even more than the other races. When they no longer have that external threat to worry about, the societies will start to drift apart again due to differences. And maybe that’s the way it should be.
Maybe any notion of a unified world is a utopian dream at best, or a tyrannical nightmare at worst, such as the New World Order. The idea might seem appealing on the surface, but when you get down to the details it doesn’t sound so good. The same goes for any institution or ideology. When they are first formed the people behind it may be genuine and able to do something good. However, after some time when the spark which first created that beautiful thing is lost, the institution should be dissolved or it will become corrupt. Either the founders will leave or die, and they will be replaced by the new generation which won’t possess the same abilities and morals of the previous one. They may be earnest, or they may already follow in the footsteps of the founders out of pride or greed. My mother has pointed out several times how the social democratic party did countless positive reforms for the working man in the 60s, to justify her misplaced hope that the same party of today would do something good as well, which they won’t of course, since the social democratic party of today is similar to the old one in name only.
During the Occupy protests of 2011 there was even one Occupy tent in the town I live in here in Finland. I visited the place a few times and was generally happy to see it. Especially back then I felt I had no-one I could talk to in person about all the stuff I write on my blog, so I thought the tent represented change and awakening in people’s attitudes. However, it was difficult to strike up a meaningful conversation with people there. One reason was of course, that we are Finns, and not very talkative by nature. It’s not easy to have meaningful discussion with a stranger. Interestingly, the most interesting and meaningful conversation I had there was with an American guy. It’s difficult, possibly even counterproductive, to try to unite with a bunch of people who I don’t know and have little in common with. It would end up in disaster.
The real danger in every act of unification of masses of people is, there is always an authority directing it. In the local Occupy protest I once heard one of the regular members of the group talking that the head of the organization in Spain wants to promote certain books for all Occupiers to read. The guy saying seemed a bit skeptical of the command, but still was probably intending on following it. And that’s the problem. For huge groups of people to unite, they need an authority; a leader, a government, a church, an ideology to dictate how to behave. Even if the authority were to be a benevolent one, or the ideology a good one, it would eventually be corrupted or infiltrated in some way. In my experience unity works well only in small groups were the people all know each other and understand each other’s viewpoints.
In conclusion, I’m not so sure unification for a Cause will solve any problems. We need only to unite for long enough to disunite those who do harm, once that is done, we should go our separate ways. There can be no global police state or Luciferian empire without unity, and consent, of vast amounts of people. Disunite everybody.