Eusebius' Praise of Constantine, among his other works, presents a very overt globalist ideology. So much of what he says, and the assumptions behind it all, are around today in slightly different trappings. No coincidence here, the source of the modern version is the older one.

Eusebius blames war and strife on humans being divided into separate nations and polities. And the ultimate reason for this division was the evil pagan gods. Which Jesus defeated in order to establish a single order. Multiple governments and types of government will be abolished.

Eusebius connects the rise of Rome with the rise of the Church. Rome was put there by God to do away with separate governments and nations. One global order, one religion. Again, the justification is to do away with conflict between nations.

Here he says that Jesus facilitated the rise of Rome. He destroyed the power of the pagan gods, which was the cause of there being different groups of people. The Roman empire did cleanup on the physical end, as these nations had no spiritual backing anymore and were conquered.

And he makes it clear, this is in theory meant to be truly global. The conquest and union of the entire habitable world. Eusebius knew it hadn't been literally achieved by Rome yet(he knew Persia and India were out there), but he expected it to be. One race, the human race.

Doing away with polytheism, is again said to be necessary to doing away with strife and mutual hate. I could imagine something similar being said by globalists today. We need a one world religion, all these different creeds only lead to conflict. Avoiding conflict is the theme.

I am going to point out fallacies and deceptions here when I can. Rome's rise to power and its empire building was well before Christianity. The empire was the result of the imperialist Republic breaking down. And it was all done under the aegis of the Roman gods.

It can't really be attributed to Jesus. This is a repeat of the Hellenistic Jewish idea that the gentile nations all have a ruling angel(probably meant to be evil ones) like Israel has Michael. The railing against "the nations" in the Bible is cope for Israel not having power.

The Old Testament presents a somewhat paradoxical view. The nations are cast as enemies of Yahweh, rebels even. But also shown as being under the control of Yahweh. Yahweh was behind the Babylonian and Persian empires, according to it. Notably, not Satan or demons.

It even has the Babylonian and Persian kings acknowledging that Yahweh gave them control over all the nations(which at that time was really just the Middle East). Not quite consistent with the view of later Christians.

It's almost laughable that Eusebius is presenting the Roman empire after Constantine as ushering in world peace. Far from it, Constantine's dynasty killed itself off(literally) in short order, and the empire was wracked by invasions and civil strife until it collapsed.

Plagues and earthquakes happened frequently. Nicaea(where the famous church council took place) was destroyed by a tidal wave. If you told a Roman living centuries before that pax deorum would be broken, and the gods would be forbidden to worship, he'd expect these disasters.

Here's most of the well known verses from Isaiah 11. The lion will eat straw like the ox, the wolf will live with the lamb, that stuff. I quote them to show you the reality of these "prophecies"(these sorts of proclamations were not prophecies in their original sense)

Pay attention to this part. After all the rather sentimental stuff above, we get to the real point. Judah and Israel will unite to destroy the Philistines, plunder the Easterners, conquer Edom, Ammon, and Moab. Suddenly all the fantasies of unnatural peace are gone.

Proclamations like in Isaiah 11 were part of royal enthronement ceremonies. The Egyptians had ones proclaiming that the wicked would fall down on their faces in fear, the whole world would be renewed. This referred to the enthronement of a new Pharaoh. Portrayed as a cosmic event

To a degree it was, the renewal of kingship having great religious significance in many cultures. But this language was not prophecy, nor was it really literal. They didn't expect apocalyptic change to come of it, just the continued renewal of the link to the gods and state power

I ask, why should the lion eat straw like an ox? By nature lions do not do that. Adders attack if something gets near their den. Why should this change? Because some humans wanted it to? What hubris and foolishness, a rejection of the natural and divine order.

Eusebius himself fondly quoted Xenophanes' criticism of idols. I will aim this right back. If mice were asked, they'd probably want a world where all the wicked cats are destroyed and mice could eat and multiply until there was no food or space left. A paradise of comfort.

Beating swords into plowshare, yeah, that would've been a fantasy for some group of priestly despots, applied to everyone else anyway. A paradise of tithes that always come in, and a population that has no will to fight. Today, our financiers would love this.

Avoidance of the natural order has consequences. I cannot help but think of the present day fantasies of living in pods, hooked up to AI that loads you up with drugs, nanomachines that keep you young, and robots to jerk you off forever. Another fantasy similar to those above.

The desire to avoid war and conflict at all costs. As if people wouldn't die anyway. As if that is something that also must be avoided. Where did this obsessive fear of death come from? As if conflict were alien to our nature, and "division" was imposed by something else.

Human division and conflict exists for the same reason that lions hunt. This is how we were made. Imperialism and state building won't change it any more than religious or political programs will. Were the gods wrong in doing this? Are the gods wrong for being what they are?

A coward believes he will ever live
if he keep him safe from strife:
but old age leaves him not long in peace
though spears may spare his life.- Havamal.

The way things are does not conform to human desires of the moment. Nor will it, nor should it. I think one reason that they hate our gods so, is that the gods tell truths that some do not want to hear. Man is NOT the measure of all things. We fit into a much bigger order.