By: Rebecca Terrell
The first attempt at world government didn’t go so well. The tyrant Nimrod tried to build a tower “to heaven” and set himself up as a god. We learn in Chapter XI of the biblical book of Genesis that the true God pulled the plug on those plans in one fell swoop. He introduced new languages, making people unintelligible to one another. Then, in a resounding endorsement of decentralization, He “scattered them” from Babel “abroad upon the face of all countries.”
The outcome of other attempts to centralize authority has never been quite so dramatic. Most kingdoms collapsed due to either internal revolt or external invasion. Take for example Alexander the Great, who established his empire by conquering relatively weak, decentralized dominions; a host of would-be successors quickly fragmented his accomplishments after his death.
But life under Alexander was by no means hellish. His rule fostered advancements in art, architecture, philosophy, technology, and science. The same can be said of the later Roman and Mongol empires. Centralized control provided the military might necessary to stave off aggressors and provide security; hence people could rise above a survival-based existence.
Christendom held sway for the longest period of time — 1,500 years — with its twin structure of central control wielded by a spiritual head and the establishment of more-decentralized nation-states under civil authority. Inside this framework scientific ingenuity thrived, artistic talents reached their peak of perfection, and the economy flourished.
Why, then, are groups such as The John Birch Society so bitterly opposed to world government? What could be more lofty aims than the peace, collective security, and international cooperation touted by organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF)? Shouldn’t we expect a continuation of historical successes rather than an avenging hand of the Almighty?
New World Disorder
It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, since past empires never came close to ruling the entire globe, nor did they possess the advanced technology necessary to do so. Moreover, the architects of the “New World Order” aim for something other than prosperity, though their propaganda envisions a world of the brotherhood of man in which all continents form one giant country. Men somehow set aside their religious, political, and ideological differences. Peace, love, and happiness reign, and everyone gets a Coke.
Any rational person can easily debunk such pie-in-the-sky madness. A distant and disconnected global government would have little regard for the rights or welfare of the governed. National sovereignty would be kicked to the curb. In his treatise on government, Politics, ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle issued these warnings, arguing for the polis, a self-governing city-state, as the ideal scale for political life. He pointed out that a community must be small enough for citizens to know each other’s character. Without that trust, there can be no effective governance. The bureaucratic labyrinth we know as the European Union provides proof.
It also shows that cultural differences would not magically disappear in the dawn’s early light of the New World Order. Ask yourself how to mesh the individualism and materialism of the United States with Japan’s collectivism, Saudi Arabia’s Sharia law, or India’s caste system.
Even should these opposing cultures merge, there are yet more compelling reasons to oppose world government. It’s a time-tested reality that tyrants want their subjects to be poor, not prosperous. “It is also advantageous for a tyranny that all those who are under it should be oppressed with poverty, that they may not be able to compose a guard,” warned Aristotle, “and that, being employed in procuring their daily bread, they may have no leisure to conspire against their tyrants.” He also pointed out that this all-consuming menial existence leaves no room for eudaimonia (personal improvement and flourishing).
Moreover, history proves that no system can survive interminably with power concentrated in a single entity. The ancient Greek historian Polybius recorded the demise of the Roman Republic, attributing its downfall to a consolidation of power, which led first to corruption and greed, then to autocracy, and finally to death. English historian Lord Acton framed it thus: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” underscoring the timeless truth that unchecked authority inevitably sows the seeds of its own destruction.
The Belly of the Beast
Beyond these theoretical objections, the overriding reasons to oppose global governance under the UN are: (1) the goal of modern imperialists is depopulation; and (2) they now possess the advanced technology necessary to achieve it.
One of the WEF’s top advisors, Israeli homosexual Yuval Noah Harari, has famously bragged about building “digital dictatorships” so elites can “gain the power to reengineer the future of life itself.” In 2020, he mockingly boasted that “humans are now hackable animals,” and in 2022, he ripped the mask off entirely in a TED Talk by flippantly stating that in “the early 21st century, we just don’t need the vast majority of the population…. Most people don’t contribute anything to [technological progress], except perhaps for their data.”