Rome also conquered pretty much the whole world that it was aware of (until it hit Germania). Life was pretty good if you happened to live in the capital city within walking distance of the Colloseum and the Circus Maximus, but everywhere else life was made harsh by Roman rule, else there would have been no need for legions located across the empire to stamp out rebellions by the tax-weary populace. All conquerors like to boast that they are a benefit to the conquered, but common sense and history shows this to be a self-serving lie. Whether you are Caesar or Hitler, if you use military might to force your way of life on another, then the people being forced clearly do not agree that the way of life of the conquerors is a blessing.
One-world rule is great for the rulers, but terrible for the ruled. My opposition to a One-World Government is based on two arguments, one obvious, and one subtle.
The obvious argument against a One-World Government is that while the New World Order groupies imagine a One-World Government with a benevolent Santa Claus in charge, the reality is that power will attract the very sort of people who should not have it, who will do anything to get it, and therefore once they have it, will do anything with it.
Human history proves that as soon as we are all slaves to a One-World Government, it is inevitable that this government will fall into the hands of another Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Torquemada. No purported safeguards can prevent that from happening. Hitler was elected by the German people, and our own recent history proves that elections can be rigged by powerful individuals or agencies.
Past genocidal monsters were stopped because the nations they ruled, however powerful, were only one out of many. Those other nations were then able to band together to stop the single monster, as was the case in World War II.
What happens if a One-World Government falls into the hands of another Hitler? The people of the world would be no more able to stop a new Hitler than the people of Germany were able to stop the first one. Imagine the world today if Hitler had won WW II. That is the world which MUST sooner or later come to exist, cannot help but come to exist, under a One-World Government. That danger alone, of the creation of a one-world dictatorship waiting to be plucked as a prize by the most ruthless cutthroat the species can breed, is alone reason to abandon the suggestion of a One-World Government.
The second reason to avoid a One-World Government is a bit more subtle. The creation of such a One-World Government pre-supposes that the very structure of such a government is the best of all possible systems under which people could be ruled. But every system ever created assumes that they are the best possible system. The Egyptians believed that. So did the Romans. So did the Confederacy. And the rulers of such systems, being the beneficiaries, worked hard to preserve those systems and to crush out examples of alternative systems that might actually be better ones.
The process by which one social system replaces others is a process of evolution. Under a One-World Government, such social evolution would stop. There would be no tolerance for alternative systems, no experimentation with new social orders, no possibility of recovery from socio-political trends detrimental to the people. The political structure of the New World Order would be no more tolerant of alternatives than are the two established parties of the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats (which are in reality two faces of the same oligarchy).
It is impossible to claim that the perfect socio-political system has been found, yet the establishment of a One-World Government is founded on the very assumption that it is the perfect socio-political system, and that therefore no corner of the world should be allowed to rule themselves with a different system."
There are many, even within the Church, who are working to undermine the Mystical Body of Christ so that she too will be subjected to a New World Order, a Socialist One-World Government which will be built on a new foundation: one which demands that Christianity be emptied of its supernatural dimension and thereby rendered impotent. As Father Livio Fanzaga notes, "Marxism prophesied a future in which man will satisfy all his human needs and enjoy paradise on earth. Such will result in the demise of faith in God. Paradise will be achieved by peace, progress and labor for all."
One individual who has called for a new global order is Father Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese. In an article aptly titled "Wanted: a new global order," Fr. Hehir, while noting that "The Christian Church has the capacity to make a special contribution to the globalisation debate," insists that "the Church has something to teach and much to learn" and that as the world "sets about building the necessary structures" [for this new global order], globalisation calls for "a leap forward in ideas and institutions."
As I said in a previous post, "..the Earth Charter is 'a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century.' The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed.' The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, 'Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity.'...many of those who are pushing the Earth Charter Initiative believe that the Ten Commandments are "out of date" and must be replaced by a new paradigm. There is institutionalized apostasy. Many in the Christian community (including many Catholic priests and religious) are agitating for this emerging new religion.
