What is wrong with the One World Order?

[Vico]

From a Catholic perspective.

My intuition tells me it is destructive to the world. However admittedly, I am unsure as to why. Any comments, documents, book recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Excerpt from the Encyclical Populorum progressio of Saint Pope Paul VI, 1967, on the topic of The progressive development of peoples:

33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.
…
54. … As sovereign nations, they are entitled to manage their own affairs, to fashion their own policies, and to choose their own form of government. In other words, what is needed is mutual cooperation among nations, freely undertaken, where each enjoys equal dignity and can help to shape a world community truly worthy of man.
…
73. Sincere dialogue between cultures, as between individuals, paves the way for ties of brotherhood. Plans proposed for man’s betterment will unite all nations in the joint effort to be undertaken, if every citizen—be he a government leader, a public official, or a simple workman—is motivated by brotherly love and is truly anxious to build one universal human civilization that spans the globe. Then we shall see the start of a dialogue on man rather than on the products of the soil or of technology.

This dialogue will be fruitful if it shows the participants how to make economic progress and how to achieve spiritual growth as well; if the technicians take the role of teachers and educators; if the training provided is characterized by a concern for spiritual and moral values, so that it ensures human betterment as well as economic growth. Then the bonds of solidarity will endure, even when the aid programs are past and gone. It is not plain to all that closer ties of this sort will contribute immeasurably to the preservation of world peace?

 

[Theo520]

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. Regardless of perspective. Next question is - why would/does the Catholic Church support subsidiarity? I have no skin in this game, just trying to understand which is why I posed the OP. Again, thanks for the post, it is helpful in my quest to better understand.

I’m not a trained Catholic apologist, this is my understanding.

The Catholic church supports subsidiarity because dealing with problems at the lowest level possible is what works. Catholic support of subsidiarity is based on what works over the millenia of the church.

One World Order is very top down control. Decisions are made high up and everyone below follows the edict.

Subsidiarity expects cooperation and support between neighbors and nation states, but it doesn’t demand uniformity. Subsidiarity is more messy, but it allows for variation based on local and regional requirements. Subsidiarity is more flexible and respects the rights and responsibilities of the individual.

 

[Theo520]

I have to correct that explanation. Subsidiarity recognizes a number of levels of support for the human being in society, according to what the societies needs are. That includes right up to International organizations that can address the global common good.

That subsidiarity demands support and cooperation between different levels is very different than One World Order.

Being in an international organization or supporting your neighbor country during a crisis is very different than - we all bow to the same world leader.

Your ‘ladder’ reflects levels of cooperation, not centralized command.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

I have to correct that explanation. Subsidiarity recognizes a number of levels of support for the human being in society, according to what the societies needs are. That includes right up to International organizations that can address the global common good.

That subsidiarity demands support and cooperation between different levels is very different than One World Order.

Being in an international organization or supporting your neighbor country during a crisis is very different than - we all bow to the same world leader.

Your ‘ladder’ reflects levels of cooperation, not centralized command.

As I keep reading these interpretations of the UN, the EU, the WEF etc, I’m more and more convinced that those with far right tendencies don’t conceive of any ‘body’ in co-operation and its authority and power for the common good. There’s only one way to resolve problems and that’s through brute power and battle. That’s how Trump has spent the last 4 years and I’m convinced that he also has no concept of the authority and power of co operation or bi partisanship. In fact I wonder whether the extreme right ideology even believes such a thing as ‘the common good’.

 

[Adamek]

There’s only one way to resolve problems and that’s through brute power and battle.

That’s how the left just stole the election. In your face brute force, street violence, media lies, polling lies, suppression of free speech and political debate. And the final piece de resistance - the magic of vote counting, ie keep counting until we win.
These folks will work hard to usher in the One World Order.

 

[HarryStotle]

runningdude:

Mijoy2:

My intuition tells me it is destructive to the world. However admittedly, I am unsure as to why.

Roughly half the world lives in a repressive regime or abject poverty. One world order would mean either everyone or no one would live under those conditions.

By mere statistical probability, it is no better than our current state. Given how every centrally planned society either collapsed, why would we trust such a model?

Do people not understand that what is being established is not a whole new government dissolving the sovereignty of each individual nation? I keep seeing this claim but nobody who is involved in the movement wants that at all. It defines a co-operative of nations based on good will and appreciation for the global common good. Do people understand that this is a proven force for everyone’s good? The European Union has shown that to be true. Compare the continent to it’s state in 1945. Who would have dreamed that such an dark and broken state could so quickly repair just by official co-operative good will?

Every massive change or revolution that changed states and governing bodies took place with the buy-in of at least a good proportion of the people. Each was depicted as benign or promised to address serious grievances. Unfortunately, after delivery the outcomes weren’t as predicted.

The fact that those on the side of the great reset are prone to depicting the US and its Constitution as seriously flawed is telling. If there is anything concerning about the American Constitution it is that it sets high aspirations for its citizens and clearly delineates accountability. Make no mistake, the people who want to draft a new and global constitution will set the aims much lower with far fewer safeguards to protect citizens from authoritarian control.

The reset will appear to provide benefits for all to draw initial support but like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, the terms of service will drastically change after the fact to benefit and consolidate the control of those with power.

Power ought to be distributed widely not centralized. It is the only way to check the control of those who command assets and wealth. The fact that the reset is being pushed by the elites in politics, and those with wealth and assets, should make ordinary citizens very wary of what is being proposed.

The promised benefits are the bait, the switch will come in due course.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

Motherwit:

I have to correct that explanation. Subsidiarity recognizes a number of levels of support for the human being in society, according to what the societies needs are. That includes right up to International organizations that can address the global common good.

That subsidiarity demands support and cooperation between different levels is very different than One World Order.

Being in an international organization or supporting your neighbor country during a crisis is very different than - we all bow to the same world leader.

Your ‘ladder’ reflects levels of cooperation, not centralized command.

As I keep reading these interpretations of the UN, the EU, the WEF etc, I’m more and more convinced that those with far right tendencies don’t conceive of any ‘body’ in co-operation and its authority and power for the common good. There’s only one way to resolve problems and that’s through brute power and battle. That’s how Trump has spent the last 4 years and I’m convinced that he also has no concept of the authority and power of co operation or bi partisanship. In fact I wonder whether the extreme right ideology even believes such a thing as ‘the common good’.

The common good is what is truly good for common folks with common sense. It isn’t pie in the sky promises from the elites who have designs for humanity to mold cultures and peoples according to their elitist dreams.

Promising free stuff to make life easier for all has been a ploy by socialists from the time socialism was first conceived.

Ask the people of Venezuela how they were first drawn into democratic socialism. Ask them too how it is turning out in terms of delivery of “the common good.” It ain’t so good unless you belong to the party of socialists at the moment.

The fact that AOC advocates making lists of Trump supporters for future repercussions and Jennifer Rubin is calling for “burning down the Republican party” should give every decent human being pause about the intentions of the far left, the people driving this Great Reset idea.

Unhinged Jennifer Rubin Calls to 'Burn Down the Republican Party,' Level 'Survivors,' But Katie Pavlich Drops a Truth Bomb on Her – RedState

 

[runningdude]

The United Nations put Saudi Arabia on the human rights council. If you steal a loaf of bread in Saudi Arabia, a doctor will surgically removed your hand. A country that practices dismemberment (and subsequently assassinated a journalist in a foreign embassy) was put in charge of monitoring human rights.

This is not an isolated example. The list of incompetent and distructive policies of the United Nations is as long as the history of the organization. The global community has proven itself hopelessly incompetent with the tiny bit of authority given to it. It is assinine to trust it with more authority when it is utterly failing currently.

Restating the ideals of the “one world order” movement, while ignoring its current failings, us exactly why it is doomed to fail. Increased cooperation among nation’s is great. Pretending current structures are capable of building and sustaining such cooperation is delusional.s

 

[Motherwit]

Ask the people of Venezuela how they were first drawn into democratic socialism. Ask them too how it is turning out in terms of delivery of “the common good.” It ain’t so good unless you belong to the party of socialists at the moment.

I could equally point you to Chile and the legacy of Pinochet that made a culture of billionaires on the back of deprived masses. All Trump would do was praise current President Pinera and blame ‘foreign interference’ for their problems despite the extrajudicial executions and ‘disappearances’ rapes and tortures at the hands of the army. We know Trump always hated the UN for calling for justice and equality in Chile.

But there are people in the world who do care about those things and desire a form of accountability. Even the worst case scenarios in our society is better than what they have in many, many countries subjected to dictators both left and right.

 

[Motherwit]

The United Nations put Saudi Arabia on the human rights council. If you steal a loaf of bread in Saudi Arabia, a doctor will surgically removed your hand. A country that practices dismemberment (and subsequently assassinated a journalist in a foreign embassy) was put in charge of monitoring human rights.

This is not an isolated example. The list of incompetent and distructive policies of the United Nations is as long as the history of the organization. The global community has proven itself hopelessly incompetent with the tiny bit of authority given to it. It is assinine to trust it with more authority when it is utterly failing currently.

Restating the ideals of the “one world order” movement, while ignoring its current failings, us exactly why it is doomed to fail. Increased cooperation among nation’s is great. Pretending current structures are capable of building and sustaining such cooperation is delusional.s

We have very different takes on the efforts of the UN. Without their peacekeepers around the globe we’d be in pretty dire shape.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Ask the people of Venezuela how they were first drawn into democratic socialism. Ask them too how it is turning out in terms of delivery of “the common good.” It ain’t so good unless you belong to the party of socialists at the moment.

I could equally point you to Chile and the legacy of Pinochet that made a culture of billionaires on the back of deprived masses. All Trump would do was praise current President Pinera and blame ‘foreign interference’ for their problems despite the extrajudicial executions and ‘disappearances’ rapes and tortures at the hands of the army. We know Trump always hated the UN for calling for justice and equality in Chile.

But there are people in the world who do care about those things and desire a form of accountability. Even the worst case scenarios in our society is better than what they have in many, many countries subjected to dictators both left and right.

Let’s start with election accountability, then, shall we? Complete transparency in terms of what went on in the questionable states. That way we can all be certain that whoever is declared president fairly earned that distinction.

It appears the media aren’t interested in a fair and accountable resolution which is why they are censoring all evidence and pushing one result hard. Why would you suppose the media is dictating the result that we MUST accept? I mean it isn’t like the media is at all accountable.

And it is hard to be accountable when the media is conspiring to bury all evidence.

Wasn’t it Chesterton or Lewis who wrote of the democracy of the dead? We should at the very least find out how 10 000 dead people conspired to rise from their graves and cast their votes election night.

We should hold dead people accountable for their actions, no? I mean if we don’t who knows what they will do next? Come back to haunt us?

 

[HarryStotle]

A dictator isn’t necessarily the only way to lead people into entanglements. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that people can be willingly led into their own demise by democratic means. They can be bribed, cajoled, misinformed, propagandized and otherwise mislead into thinking some leader or party has their best interests at heart, when that turns out not to have been the case.

The Great Reset has the hallmarks of that kind of promissory path. We need to be very suspicious of those kinds of utopian promises. Hard or despotic totalitarianism is so passe. The new trend is soft, seductive and enticing totalitarianism that speaks to the deepest desires of the human heart - the other kind of socialism - the tempting kind. The kind that Jesus resisted in the desert, the kind where all the nations of the earth would be bundled together and given over.

All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Matt 4:9-10)

 

[HarryStotle]

We have very different takes on the efforts of the UN. Without their peacekeepers around the globe we’d be in pretty dire shape.

Doing one or some things well does not equate to doing all things well. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A centralized one world authority has the potential and high likelihood of ending catastrophically.

Power ought to be distributed as widely as possible and along with that power should ride accountability.

 

[runningdude]

We have very different takes on the efforts of the UN. Without their peacekeepers around the globe we’d be in pretty dire shape.

I am not criticizing what the UN does well. I am criticizing what they do poorly. Pointing to one successful area, while ignore its dire failures elsewhere, is why the “one world order” is not trustworthy. If the movement consistently advocated for greater accountability, maybe I would be less skeptical.

 

[Anesti33]

No government is entirely trustworthy, not even the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But I fail to see why a One World Government intrinsically violates the principle of subsidiarity by dint of existing. The world has already had vast empires and nations on which the Sun never sets; a One World Government is a logical progression.

 

[runningdude]

But I fail to see why a One World Government intrinsically violates the principle of subsidiarity by dint of existing.

In theory, you are correct. However, current international agencies have proven untrustworthy. I am not engaged in pie-in-the sky idealism. I am pointing out the dangerous realities of trusting current agencies. Any “one world government” would based on these current organization is doomed to fail, because the current agencies are not working.

Entertaining stronger world government now, without demanding accountability for existing agencies, is indistinguishable from advocating totalitarian government.

 

[phil19034]

The ideas associated with the “one world order” are very anti-Catholic and anti-God in nature.

An one world CATHOLIC order would be great, but that’s not what the One World Order refers to.

 

[tootle_toot]

I am not sure what is meant by “One World Order.” If this phrase refers to a world government, then I think that it is absolutely essential and in no way anti-Catholic.
A world government simply means a United Nations with the military forces necessary to prevent any country from attacking another. The UN would have to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons, and its member countries would each have to be content with very limited military forces.

 

[Theo520]

You are projecting a whole lot of things from your own mind, stuff I didn’t say or refer to.

The UN can be a great body to increase cooperation between nations. I’m all for their treaties that are jointly prepared and signed by their respective nations. That is the ideal example of cooperation.

But the UN doesn’t run countries. No similar body should be setting rules and regulations that subsidiarity dictates should be done locally.

 

[Theo520]

We have very different takes on the efforts of the UN. Without their peacekeepers around the globe we’d be in pretty dire shape.

UN peace keepers are pretty incompetent, except for raping women and abusing children

Far better if the peace keepers were a regional force provided by their neighbors.

Here's Why United Nations Peacekeeping Missions Fail

Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of U.N. Peacekeeping | Foreign Affairs

Articles with facts on their failures are overflowing with google search.