But only the illusion of progressivist sure that the concept of such order applies only to the mentality of modern times. In fact the idea of global governance and more than concrete, "king of the world" — is completely normal occult thought inherent in so many symbolic systems. Naturally global government is in the metaphysics of Buddhism and Catholicism in theology. Pax Romana — the Roman Empire — and was based on
representation of the unification of all the peoples under the control of one of the imperial center. To Rome more colorful attempted creation of a world government took Alexander the Great — 300 years before Jesus Christ. Even more successful in this regard was Genghis Khan, whose empire lasted a little longer … In other words, the concept of a world ruled by one king, is in the development of religious consciousness and historical practice. By the way, the colonial empire, divided the world among themselves, and in a certain way create a world government, especially when you consider that some of their relatives were headed.
For the project of a world government has always had the monarchical idea that natural, when you take into account his occult symbolic character. From the perspective of media traditionalist consciousness, the population of the earth, and so controlled from the shelter from the profane center, which one way or another holds the key visible to all managers and favorites nations. In general, this is a conspiracy theories …
But certainly, as the rulers of this idea the other day of the First World War to use the shock and the shock of the conflict of European nations in order to get rid of the parliamentary democracy that existed with the monarchical establishment virtually the entire Western world. The essence of the idea was very ordinariness: guilty of starting the war political parties and bankers. Monarchs — the fathers of their own people — would take in the event of a successful implementation of the management plan for yourself, dissolving parliament and giving a military court chairmen of parties and MPs as enemies of mankind. Indeed, is not that they all voted for the defense budgets, are not they all voted for the war?
At the beginning of XX century monarchs this plan did not work. The tide was out of their control and in fact the prevailing party were natsionalliberaly. In several countries, the failure of "monarchist conspiracy" generally turned the end of an old regime.
Thought world government with the power of the latest "shone" with the creation of the League of Nations, and especially after the second world howl us to the establishment of the United Nations. But at this point, the theme was associated with access to the political scene of the new class — international bureaucracy, which before was almost unknown reality.
The emergence of global bureaucracy marked the end of liberalism in its traditional forms, the arrival of the fabric of political and economic management of the neo-liberals and the sunset of electoral democracy, which seemed unshakable achievement of modern times.
The very concept of democracy structurally changed in the past two hundred years. In the evolution of this idea can distinguish three main steps. In the XIX century, which shook the Napoleonic Wars and the revolutionary movement, the monarchs were obliged to change their placement in the mass consciousness. Liberalism and distribution in the lower French Enlightenment thought the church was forced to distance himself from making a direct responsibility for policy decisions monarchical establishment. The monarch remained anointed of God, but to a greater and greater extent acted not so much as a metaphysical figure, as much as the public's favorite. Crowned head was transformed into a symbol of the cathedral of the soul of civilization. Civilization, in turn, acquired the traits of a magical community, becoming like other "civil" church. In other words, in the XIX century in the history of political paradox vorachivaetsya paganism, corresponding to the pre-Christian, first Greco-Roman world. The political idolatry associated with a mystified state community (in which the distinction between the concepts of "nation" and "people" is eroded and their practical identification), asks democracy as a ritual expression of mystical land. Vox dei — vox populi — the collective unconscious becomes a political value and is entitled to his voice.
In this situation, the monarchy reinterpreted as legitimation on top of what is the real source of law from below. It's just something that begins to be called "bourgeois monarchy". In her social space is rapid marginalization of ordinary hereditary feudal landowning class warriors (service nobility). Comes to the fore court nobility, which has no connection with the newly formed constituency and is a cosmopolitan contrast to the ubiquitous "national thinker" Third Estate. Monarch is a mediator in the triangle "church — know — the people."
"Civic Church", which arises from the political paganism baseman, is rapidly transformed into the so-referred to as the public, which is already in the last quarter of the XIX century is the severe burden on an old establishment. Generates public view, it makes the preconditions for the development of aggressive and liberal mindset, and at some point political initiative out of the palace, moving to the parliaments, juries, editorial big newspapers, etc. Specifically, it is the early stages of modern democracy.
The second step in the development of the democratic idea begins after the logical climax comes prior. In the wake of strengthening national identity is born very right national-liberalism, which leads to the emergence of charismatic figures — the favorites of other monarchs. Traditional figure of this kind was Mussolini which throughout his political career posing as a state
Victor Emanuel candidacy. Mussolini did not have the strength to get rid of the king and the church, and so he had to take a concordat — a political agreement between the Vatican, the monarchy and the Nazi party bureaucracy. Other politicians were more successful in the position itself. Hitler came to power by winning elections. Of course, he kept the former Kaiser in Dutch exile, excluding for the Reich even hint at the possibility of a return to the monarchical system of government. In the new government states that emerged after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, was a charismatic favorites even easier, because the bourgeois civilization newly listed entities actually was not clear monarchical tradition.
Fyurersky principle triumphed in both the radical right wing in Europe, and on its left flank constructively, there is a natural result of the first step пафоснонационалистического European democracy. Because the contents of the second period, which began immediately after 1945, the main concern is determined by the establishment —
to prevent the occurrence of future Hitlers, Antonescu, Mussolini, Horti … and Stalin, too! Practically speaking, the paradox of Khrushchev's "thaw" fit in with the trend of the ruling classes of Western reaction to the danger of the latest personalization collective national soul in the person of any one more historical hero. In this period of "democracy" is called flickering similar to each other as the twin parties, all of which are headed as a grayish pathetic characters, not able to any destabilizing adventure. Leapfrog premiers in France to de Gaulle — the traditional and more striking example of what is happening on the political scene of the world. Both Churchill and de Gaulle considered as a very charismatic figure, unsafe for democracy, and are replaced in an offside position. In the United States abolish possibility of a third term for the president, denounced Stalin in the Soviet Union, and later Khrushchev voluntarism and approved by the style of "collective leadership." During this period, the development of democracy civilization has a right to express themselves only through usmotritelnyh mediocrities who chew politically correct liberal cliches. "People's soul" undergoes deconstruction, the idea of "nation" is rationalized and reduced to the totality of persons having a common nationality.
The real triumph of democracy begins with the arrival of the neo-liberals and the emancipation of the international bureaucracy of the imperial diktat majestic powers have established the United Nations. These criteria is strict delineation of legitimacy and capability. On the one hand, the national government — of it not so easy to get rid of, inside it there is quite a powerful company of its bureaucracy, and an active "public". On the other hand — the legitimacy and the possibility of international treaties, agreements and conventions.
The vast majority of states joined the various conventions that are first prescribed Fri their supremacy over state law. Any agreements — whether they relate to human rights or restrictions on the formation of harmful emissions into the atmosphere — own legal hegemony and triumph over state laws. Russian prosecutor inaugural oath, in which swears to observe first international obligations that have the force of law in the area of the Russian Federation.
This means that the international bureaucracy that is related specifically to the practice of the implementation of these agreements, more legitimate than her colleagues from government bureaucrats.
Now what this step 3 is democracy, the one that the UN, the EU and NATO are on the wings of their own bombers to the entire population of the earth? Modern democracy means a complete transparency of each particular country for a world government. This is referred to as publicity, transparency, human rights, etc., but the essence of one thing: a territory that has some commonality should not be an obstacle to the political will of the international corporate structures.
In order to ensure that it fully, it is necessary that this community itself ceased to exist as a community, as a reincarnated in the Brownian motion of atomized individuals. It is necessary to abolish all the mystique regarding "collective soul", "blood and soil" and the similar "fashizoidnoy mythology."
Good tools for the deconstruction of ethnic solidarity is feminism, the gay movement, opposition of the majority of minorities, etc. So makarom by first of its historical manifestations of democracy was synonymous with the will of the majority, now democracy is something just the opposite: it is the removal of the majority and replacing it with arbitrary marginals and outsiders.
Obviously, this is also the transition. At some stage, when most of the stops being such as broken his solidarity mechanisms, and there is no need to minorities. Already at this point we litsezreem first manifestation of brutal dictatorship, which carries with it the final approval of a world government. Powerlessness of parents towards their children, powerlessness of people in relation to law enforcement officers … "Human Rights" grow into proliferating without annoying kinds of lawlessness that do not meet more resistance from organized civilization (she brought to its knees) are not hampered by ideological protest (it is in fact not). The case for small: to smash the last enclaves of large state bureaucracies, with access to modern defense technologies. Then the world government can be considered a fait accompli.