World Party without a world?

1. Is the idea of organizing a World Party in the near future
wrong, premature,  ....... ,  etc.?

Yes, the idea of a world party is premature but only in as much as it 
misses 
the point.  The equivalent of a world party on a national level would be 
the 
American Party in the US for instance or the German Party in Germany...but 
there is no such thing...You have to think about that.  Why IS there no 
American Party?  Why IS there no German party?  

Parties, generally, are groupings of ideologies, some left, some center 
some 
right.  Within a country, you will find the entire range of such groupings 
and presumably, if the country is stable and strong, every one of those 
groupings will support the state, albeit for different reasons and from a 
different perspective.  That is...once the state has formed.  However, 
before 
the state exists, different conditions prevail.  A world party won't work 
because a party implies ideology and because it implies ideology that will 
detract from the main goal.  

The focus of this discussion is a perfect example of what I mean.  Hasn't 
everyone put forward their conceptions of what a world party should do?  
Haven't we heard talk of Marx and Lenin and points and counterpoints?  
Presumably, though, everyone's goal is to have a world state, right?  But 
why 
has the discussion not centered on that?

It is simple.  Once you begin talking about a broad party dedicated to a 
cause you have an internal conflict in that the different ideologies try to 
gain assendency over the others.  That struggle is very difficult to 
control 
and will, generally dissipate the energy needed to achieve the goal.  This 
leaves you with two choices, both of which have examples in history.  

One choice is the compact, tight, exclusive party organization favored by 
communism.  It stays close to its roots, allows no internal dissent or 
debate 
and then focuses on a goal.  As we have seen, it can be successful.  The 
problem with this approach is not so much how it gains power but rather how 
it retains it.  Success usually validates the party in its own collective 
mind and dissent is seen as a threat to the state, not merely as a threat 
to 
the party's approach to statecraft.  "The State Is I" says the party and 
any 
threat to the party is a threat to the state.  It really is a royalist 
approach to wielding power, with an equally limiting future, as we have 
seen.

The other choice is a broad coalition with a single goal in mind.  The goal 
of building and creating a state.  This approach is also generally referred 
to as nationalism.  Oh, sure it has its detractors but as a machine to 
create 
a state, it has no equal.  Even the communists have used this device on 
many 
occasions to build a country, knowing that in the turmoil of creation, they 
could hijack the levers of power at just the right moment to seize control. 
 
Which is a stark lesson of history.  The state, once created is most 
vulnerable in its infancy.  It could go either way.  Even George Washington 
was asked by some to be a king!  

To be sure, once the state is created, factions will inevitably form and 
compete for supremacy.  There must be a democratic outlet for all of them 
and 
the power of this proto state must be carefully circumscribed.  It must 
prove 
its worth over time.  It must show that it can be trusted.  In due time.

Consequently, what is needed is not so much a world party but a world.  We 
don't need party operatives, what we need are patriots.

Therein lies the next problem.  It is a battle for minds and hearts...but 
mostly the hearts.  How many people do you know would give their life for 
the 
Social Democratic Party???  As I recall, even the Nazi's sang "Deutschland, 
Deutschland uber alles" not "National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter 
Partei 
uber alles."  In the darkest days of World War II, her sons died for Mother 
Russia, not for the communist party.  Even in the U.S. the boys marched 
over 
there, for America, forspacious skies, amber waves of grain.  I don't 
believe 
they felt too patriotic about the Republican party.  

And so it must be with the world.  When you have a united world, you will 
have a world party, many world parties, in fact.  But first you must 
engender 
some feelings for having a United World in the first place.

I believe this must start with something as basic as a name.  "World" just 
sounds too generic.  Too plain wrap to get emotional over.

So I propose the following, tell me if you like it:

I propose to call the world "PANGEA"

Before you pronounce it silly, let me give you some background.  
Unbeknownst 
to some, the world was actually united once before.  Approximately, 220 
million years ago, all the continents of the world came together to form a 
single supercontinent named Pangea.  As such, it is the perfect symbol of a 
united world in the future.

The world state would be called Pangea, and its citizens are called 
Pangeans. 
 
Long Live Pangea sounds a little better than Long Live the World Party.  

At this point, Pangea becomes a vessel for all your hopes and 
dreams...whatever they may be.  We have all seen people unreasonably 
attached 
to their personal concept of nation and what it embodies for them.  You put 
down someones nationality and they may fight you to the death.  And don't 
think it matters what kind of government their nation currently possesses.  
True patriotism can be found in dictatorships as well as democracies.
It is what you wish it to be:
Pangea is a peaceful world
Pangea is a just society
Pangea is an ordered society
Pangea is a democratic world
Pangea is a happy place
Pangea is an egalitarian society
Pangea has no poverty because goods can move freely
Pangea has less crime because criminals can't escape prosecution
Pangea does not fear nuclear war because it does not war against itself
Pangea is a cleaner world because pollution is abated globally.
etc. etc. etc.

The point is not whether these statements ARE true but that they COULD be 
true.  And many could be true ONLY if the world was united.

Long Live Pangea!
Alex G. Tyrell