Good-willed Misconceptions

Many well-willing people have come to almost the same conclusions as e.g. a Socrates, namely that everyone is a citizen of Earth first. Logically, many a writer proposed the only solution for man's self destructive tendencies is the formation of a proper world-government. A child can conclude that. But, most of these, were not aware, as we are aware now (1985) that total extinction was so near (probably before 2000 AD). Streit was such a one, and he was a real 'internationalist'. This, however, is not good enough. Downright anti-nationalism, anti-group-consciousness, is something entirely different from mere 'Union' as he called his book, mere 'internationalism'. In the latter, nations remain, only these are united (agreements, resolutions, diplomacy, papers, balderdash, and war and war). Have we a better practical test in our reality for the silliness of 'union' than the United Nations, The League of Nations, the United States even? Are today no people being shot and bombed then? From Pericles' Athens onwards we know of plenty 'unions', all however came to a rapid end. Even the Iliad starts with the disruption of a union, and is not the EEC still absolutely unworkable after 35 years? A Europe ... ? Rubbish! Streit landed in a morass by wanting to have the cake 'and' eat it. He wanted to federate or unite or associate or whatever, but keep the nations as nations by letting their cultural characteristics remain. How different is this from what we know to be exactly the only preservative for mankind namely 'integration' instead of union. This last means a merging of peoples, of cultures, of (former) nationalities etc. not merely paper agreements to co-operate on such and such an occasion. He realized correctly that:

... no world organization based on national sovereignty could suffice ...

but he wanted first of all, majority rule, which is criminally unjust, and he wanted some fiddle faddle of federation. Cannot we see that e.g. every American is proud of his being American, yet, when Southerner, he has contempt for a Northerner, nay, as citizen of such or so a 'state' (remember the 'united' in the United States) he looks down upon fellow Americans from a different state. In their reality too, criminal laws e.g. are different in different states so that a criminal can do well to escape over the state-border. But, logically, a criminal act remains so on every place of the globe and exactly so. How easy could America do away with all 'states', with all provinces, counties, etc. yet, the cities remain because they are physically so. Then, as Gald's shows with regard to Orbajosa:

The subject of all discussions was always the supremacy of Orbajosa and of its inhabitants, over all other villages and peoples of the earth (El resumen de todos los debates era siempre la supremac'a de Orbajosa, y de los habitantes sobre los dem's pueblos y gentes de la tierra).

Federation, association, union, agreements and the like are not good enough. They make for group-consciousness, contempt, war, economical greed, national competition and ... extinction. They must be replaced by integration. Integration that should be favoured by the world-governmental rules. It should pay (man's egoism being fundamental for his being), that a person sheds his nationality by integrating qua place on the globe, qua culture, and/or by marriage, etc. but foremost in MIND.