The Final Tower

Global Synthesis: The Road to Hell

It is often repeated that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so it is that rarely has any forceful movement become great under a banner of injustice and oppression. Rather, it is under the semblance of justice, benevolence, security, and the assertion of rights that the foundation is laid and motivation inspired for revolution, war, and the establishment of a “new” order.

Desire and fear are change agents which drive mankind to seek a controlled environment. It is a determination to control both the environment and destiny that is linked to a quest for power and aspirations for a controlling authority over all. I say desire and fear drive mankind, for the collective society is forged by both those who would rule, and the insecure masses who crave to be ruled. Notwithstanding, there exists another contrary group of individuals whose innate desire is to be free, and this group is in a perpetual conflict with the former two.

The First Tower

In an attempt to control destiny and shape the future, the aspiration of some men has been to control others by conquering them, consolidating power, and forming a collective society to be ruled and managed. This is apparent as far back as the historical record takes us, and it is as true of Cesar as it is of Hitler.

The kingdom of Babel is cited in the ancient historical records of a number of people as the first one world government. Although modern day historians may debate if it really existed or where the concept of a one world order originates, the fact remains that the concept of a world government and the repercussions of it were pondered by the ancients, as apparent in their writings. Moreover, not altogether unlike today, there were both proponents and detractors for and against an authoritarian system of universal rule.

Today, being that we have the advantage of recorded history and can now look back at the world in retrospect calculating the sum of many events to reach a conclusion, it is not essential to rely on a single instance or authenticate the identity and existence of the first world government. For if the story of Babel is disputable as an actual event and a part of the historical record, history itself teaches us the lessons contained in the story are valid. It is apparent that throughout history all great civilizations which were built upon a the principle of a collective society under authoritarian rule have tended to oppression, then to absolute tyranny and afterward to total ruin.

Moreover, it is also of note that the governmental concepts of Babel as recorded by the ancients are not inconsistent with those of kingdoms and empires to follow, of which we have an extensive record. Neither are the aspirations attributed to this fist world order inconsistent with those of international power-brokers today who seek to establish a micro-managed global society. And likewise, among the citizenry unto the present, the same insecurities and emotions continue to prevail in society which motivates people to seek a controlling authority to rule over them. Work on the first tower may have indeed ceased; but the quest has never ended and will not, until the destruction of the final tower.

As for the Kingdom of Babel, an early account of this original world order appears in the first book of the Bible although few details are given other than that the world was one people, and they proposed to build a tower to make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered.” And the name of the place was called Babel. Ancient historical records hold that this kingdom was ruled by a mighty man named Nimrod. However, the end of this conquest resulted in the fears of the people coming to pass rather than inhibiting them, for their vision of the tower was never realized, and the people were indeed scattered abroad.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in book 1 chapter 4 of Antiquities of the Jews, also wrote an account of this collectivist kingdom which provides us with some insights:

“Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his [government] power…….Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God……”

Note, the concept of this world government was based upon governmental dependency of the people and the power of the group as a collective under an authoritarian rule to provide the needs and desires of the society. Josephus also stated that the people felt insecure and feared being independent and so sought the safety and assuredness a collective body promised (For they determined to build a tower and make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered upon the face of the whole earth).” Josephus also notes however, that this collective society being one of dependence upon an authoritarian government, “…gradually changed…. into tyranny” and turned from reliance and faith in God.

History validates this concept; that as societies tend to the collective, they dismiss God as the author of life and happiness and become dependent upon the power of society as a collective to provide, while trusting in a controlling authoritarian to manage their affairs. The controlling authority gradually garners and consolidates power under the pretext of the “common good” until subjects are bound. The end result is a corrupt oppressive totalitarian society where the government sits as God and determines to eliminate inalienable rights and the individual’s worship of the invisible God. In the end, the kingdom becomes absolutely corrupt and comes to ruin, however, another kingdom arises, but in time humanity forgets, and the process begins over again.

History is replete with conformations; but not history alone, for the present testifies to this reoccurring process also.

Global Babylon

There are currently many different views, both for and against the idea of a world government, although many would dismiss the probability that it will happen in the near future. What those who dismiss the idea of a one world order fail to realize is the extent to which it already exists. For the greater movement towards the establishment of a global society came not suddenly by a governmental decree proclaiming it; nor has it appeared by the physical force of an empire or superpower forcing it; but it has come at the hand of international financial institutions and corporations, who worked methodically, merging global interests and meshing national economies with global politics.

Elitist power-brokers, whose assets are scattered around the globe–who therefore do not identify with nationalism, but internationalism–were able to achieve what politicians alone would not have been allowed.

Facilitated by the advent of modern technologies, communications, and transportation, the reliance of nations upon other nations to share resources and wealth has lead to the interdependency of nations. However, the current global system has evolved to the point it can no longer expand or be maintained without international conformity of governance. Therefore international laws, accords and treaties which supersede national constitutions and sovereignty are inevitable.

Globalization of national economic systems is the harbinger of international law and a one world political system. For as the smaller businesses have been taken over and merged into mega-corporations which have become international, the tendency of national governments will be to follow the money and do likewise. The European Union is an example of this consolidation of power. As well, countries such as Russia and China have moved from closed economies to a global economic system, based on policies which very much echo Mussolini’s fascist philosophies.

Unlike the past, the modern conquest of mankind has not been brought about by a Hitlarian mad man or Cesar possessing the military force great enough to attempt it, but it has been financed by elitist power-brokers. It is the result of a process that began decades ago with the consolidation of wealth and the desire of those who controlled it to embark on the transformation of the world into a global society through social engineering and controlled mass media.

Let no one believe that the advent of global collectivism is an immediate event in which all nations lose their identity and are swallowed up by a centralized one world government. No–rather, it is achieved in increments as nations come together into a great melting pot of multiculturalism and diversity through agreement to submit to international laws and authority–for the world government consists in great part as an oligarchy of nations. Furthermore, it already exists to a considerable extent but goes largely disregarded even as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and World Court, along with many other powerful and influential people work openly to facilitate its transition as the official global authority. The gradual accent of international power has taken place over decades; it now finds little formidable resistance, and it is accepted to a greater extent by each new generation.

Aside from the international political bodies such as the UN, the most influential proponents for international laws are advocacy groups known as NGOs. For whereas governmental agencies would find suspicion, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) find less resistance. For this reason they were and are created, for they act effectively as global political watch-dogs and quasi-governmental agencies without oversight and without answering to the citizenry.

By the use of non-governmental organizations as inroads, and by changing societies gradually, the shift of power has been subtle and the relinquishment of sovereignty has been voluntary. Unheralded, The New World Order has appeared in increments without much regard. It is for the greater part already here and what we perceive to be obstacles are in many cases merely power-struggles between ideologues of the same species who wrestle over hegemony and the degree to which it should reflect Marxist or democratic philosophies of governing. Nevertheless, political uniformity is not out of reach as we approach critical mass, especially in the event of a major war, disaster, or global threat that might act as a catalyst to break down the remaining barriers.

By many, this event is anticipated with hope for a greater and more equal civilization. On the other hand, there are others who understand the nature and history of mass movements, and the destruction left in their wake. Those who understand have sounded the trumpet. They have dared to put forward the notion that global collectivism is quickly a approaching–that it is a threat which will bring about oppression, destruction, and global chaos. Nevertheless, they find themselves ostracize. They are seen as nothing more than Chicken Littles, who, along with those awaiting the mother-ship from beyond our universe, are delegated into the ranks of the tin foiled hat conspiracy theorists.

Notwithstanding, the concept of a one world order where the people are ruled by “philosopher kings” is an ambition which transcends the Tower of Babel, Plato’s work The Republic, and the writings of Karl Marx, Alvin Toffler and others who have worshiped concepts of collectivism.

From ancient times, a one world order has been envisioned and attempted, with every attempt crashing to the ground leaving nothing but ruins for future generations to cogitate over. Why would it be any different this time?

By RA Sprinkle Feb. 10th 2007