Now replace god with global government and we have similar conclusions.
Just as monotheism emerged as a belief opposed to polytheism and pantheism global government rises in opposition to differing national governments proceeding with the message of all being unified under one global authority. Just think of national governments as form of pluralism where global government is the upcoming social monism.
Global government is the view that there is only one path to human social utopia and salvation. It always amazes me the similarities between god and government in terms of authority or social hierarchy.
The only reason a global government monism had never existed is for practical reasons, of being impossible to form. The fact that a single monism of government power is unstable does not stop aspirations to try, but practicality dictates that alliances between several large powers can accomplish much the same thing with less instabilities.
Religion is a kind of governance, yes. And the same aspirations and instability threats apply to religion, too.
The world is still far too diverse, divided and polarized to allow the formation of a single governance or religion, let alone the maintenance of one if by some chance it happened to form. But as I said, this isn’t going to stop aspirations toward that goal.
For me government and religion is the same. Government is the god of the secularists. When science destroyed the god of divine being in the sky the secularists supplanted that god for a god of the collective social mass.
They will try to create a global government just as ancient Alexander tried to bring Hellenism all over the world ruled under by Greece, but in the end much like Alexander’s vision I think it will be a terrific failure just like all other global aspirations of various historical empires.
Yes, the thought wants to gravitate in one of two directions, either to view the situation of monism global governance-religion as inevitable or to view it as impossible. That is assuming one thinks on it at all, most people don’t really care to.
I know you want the collapse and the following post-apocalypse survivalism, and I’m sure you have your reasons. Maybe you are really good at martial arts, weapons training and own an underground bunker, power generator and food supplies. Maybe your life is just so boring that “the end of the world” is the only ethical idea that gives you a sense of focused purpose. But whatever the reason, recognize your position as a moral one, if only because you express a psychological preference over a philosophical vantage.
You seem to think that global governance is inevitable, and you seem to think that the collapse of that governance is inevitable (maybe I’m wrong about that). I might happen to agree with you, but will not engage you on a moral level, instead striving for a philosophical development. And in the end psyche trumps philosophos, as death trumps life, so you really do get the last laugh. I hope it’s as good as you’ve come to expect it to be.
