It's really a secondary matter whether the centralization of power is the result of a conscious collusion aimed at creating a world government. Conspiracies are real, and conspiratorial behavior is inseparable from politics, since politics is largely the pursuit of power by sneaky people. I don't think Abraham Lincoln intended to destroy the independence of the states when he conducted the Civil War. He merely wanted to save the Union, and he thought in terms of that immediate goal. But it doesn't matter what he meant to do. As a practical matter, his policy set the United States on a course of centralization. The Union victory meant that no state could ever secede again, regardless of how tyrannical the Union might become. That removed an essential restraint on Union -- alias "federal" -- power. I doubt that Franklin Roosevelt meant to destroy all remaining constitutional restraints on the government; he merely knocked them out of his way when necessary. In the same way, today's globalists and interventionists, forever pursuing international treaties and alliances, may think they are promoting peace and prosperity, seeing no tyrannical potential in a "new world order." But the rest of us have to worry about what these arrangements may mean for us and our children down the road. Good intentions are beside the point. What is the actual tendency of these new contracts among superstates?