What is wrong with the One World Order?

[Socrates92]

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.

Yikes! No! That’s an insane idea!

 

[JoeFreedom]

I’d ask all the other people, had this this been reversed, and all of this cheating was in favor of Trump… could you imagine the burning in the streets, the non-stop incessant whining of the sycophants in the MSM, calling for Congress to enact stricter voter laws and the DOJ to turn over every stone until the investigation was complete?

 

[JoeFreedom]

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.

Or in other terms:
Give me my free stuff!!!
You didn’t build that!
You don’t need that much money…

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.

And who would look after them? And what on God’s green earth would make us think that just like any other government and human, that it wouldn’t be imperfect and sinful and apt to corruption?

 

[Motherwit]

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.

I’ll say it again. The vision is not to ‘run countries’. The vision is similar to the example of the EU which has embraced a level of human identity above strict nationalism. It isn’t looking to destroy any nations sovereignty by recognizing another level of identity. Its scope is to overcome the type of nationalism that results in wars and persecution and a complete lack of care for the suffering of other nations.

The pandemic is going to show a way forward in the global identity by global cooperation in eliminating it. To me it feels like we are being helped by the hand of God to realize this humanitarian vision for the world.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’ll say it again. The vision is not to ‘run countries’.

The progressive “vision” is always a tempered one at first. Slowly things get added one by one like Frankenstein’s monster until the fetid thing looks nothing like what was first idealized.

Abortion started as a medical necessity only to save the life of a woman when medically necessary. Now it is killing the unborn for any reason up to and after birth. Next will be infanticide or forced abortion justified by “the common good” whatever that turns out to be.

Kind of like “the health of a woman” justifies whatever any woman chooses, the “common good” will be whatever the state deems for for the common good regardless of how many voiceless individuals will be sacrificed for the common good.

I think the Aztecs sacrificed victims by cutting out their hearts for the sake of the good of everyone, i.e., the common good.

The Pax Romana was the ancient world’s One World Order but it wasn’t that good for the slaves who were the fodder to keep that good viable for everyone else. Socialism fails because the state eventually runs out of other people’s assets, the Roman Empire failed because the Empire eventually ran out of other people’s slaves and military personnel to keep the “good” in working order. The NWO will eventually run out of all of those and the Great Reset will indeed live up to its name.

Trying to do too much all at once is never a good idea and resetting the entire human adventure is more likely to be a reset right back to a primitive Hobbesian state where lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. AKA Venezuela.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

I’ll say it again. The vision is not to ‘run countries’.

The progressive “vision” is always a tempered one at first. Slowly things get added one by one like Frankenstein’s monster until the fetid thing looks nothing like what was first idealized.

It’s not a ‘progressive’ vision. It’s a genuine humanitarian vision. Pope Francis has continuously given the Church’s support to clawing back the ‘Frankenstein’ of unbridled capitalism, where half the worlds net wealth belongs to 1% of the population. Where 820 million people are starving and 30% of food produced in the US each year goes to waste. No person of conscience can sleep easy at night knowing this, surely? At the very least, when countries are collaborating to try and find effective solutions to those problems, is it in the spirit of a Christian to condemn them and decide on just watching ‘Frankenstein’ roam the world unbridled?

 

[BT3241]

When one group of people force their will on all it turns bad - those who don’t fit will be weeded out and it just keeps going.
Today we are on this path as an example I don’t want to offend take Dems and Rep - Rep get rid of all the dems then where does it go - all the slightly left leaning Rep? Who will be left when does it end? Polarization is dangerous.

I don’t think religion will fare well in a world order and i would be worried

 

[HarryStotle]

It’s not a ‘progressive’ vision. It’s a genuine humanitarian vision. Pope Francis has continuously given the Church’s support to clawing back the ‘Frankenstein’ of unbridled capitalism, where half the worlds net wealth belongs to 1% of the population.

Ah, I see.

So the wealthy elites, the 1% that control 50% of the world’s assets want the help of everyone else to aid them in distributing their wealth to the world’s poor?

Nothing funny about that?

My question would be: Why do the 1% need the rest of us to distribute their wealth to the poor? Why don’t they just go ahead and unilaterally start distributing to their hearts’ content? Why do the rest of us need to get involved in their plan when they are perfectly placed to do the distribution without anyone else being involved?

When you give alms do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your almsgiving may be done in secret.

Why make a big production - the great reset - out of it when they could easily undertake their giving in secret?

Something smells off.

Pope Francis has continuously given the Church’s support…

This wouldn’t be the same Pope Francis who ratified an agreement recently to basically give the Church in China over to the control of the CCP to the chagrin of Chinese Catholics and their bishops, would it?

Leaves me just a little dubious that the Pope can hold his own with the world’s elite wheeler dealers when he appears to have taken such a hands-off approach to the flock in China. Will he sign similar accords with the NWO moguls?

 

[StudentMI]

This wouldn’t be the same Pope Francis who ratified an agreement recently to basically give the Church in China over to the control of the CCP to the chagrin of Chinese Catholics and their bishops, would it?

Leaves me just a little dubious that the Pope can hold his own with the world’s elite wheeler dealers when he appears to have taken such a hands-off approach to the flock in China. Will he sign similar accords with the NWO moguls?

So now we are to be suspicious of the Pope because of fears of globalism? You are aware that Pope after Pope has praised the UN as a step forward in humanity, right, including Benedict XVI?

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Right. A one world power with no accountability beyond itself and with sole access to military and nuclear weapons. Nothing could go wrong there.

We should just have permitted Hitler to attain sole power over the whole world and we would have saved ourselves 75 years of mucking about in national isolation.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

This wouldn’t be the same Pope Francis who ratified an agreement recently to basically give the Church in China over to the control of the CCP to the chagrin of Chinese Catholics and their bishops, would it?

Leaves me just a little dubious that the Pope can hold his own with the world’s elite wheeler dealers when he appears to have taken such a hands-off approach to the flock in China. Will he sign similar accords with the NWO moguls?

So now we are to be suspicious of the Pope because of fears of globalism? You are aware that Pope after Pope has praised the UN as a step forward in humanity, right, including Benedict XVI?

I am not “suspicious” of the Pope. I do not think he is plotting to undermine the Church. I do think he is not as adept at worldly enterprises as the secular elites that are influencing his decisions. He is also misinformed by some close to him. He is susceptible to manipulation. He is gentle as a dove, but not sly as a serpent.

The UN of even five years ago is not the UN of today. There has been a radical shift to the left brought about by a rapid acceleration from global minded socialists. Their slow and steady agenda implementation was under threat by unanticipated populist movements and election wins in Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia and the US, among others. They had to rush implementation and have made errors and stirred resistance, so they are pushing harder. The media pushing a Joe Biden win along with the congratulatory gestures actually reveals their forcing of the agenda.

 

[StudentMI]

The UN of even five years ago is not the UN of today. There has been a radical shift to the left brought about by a rapid acceleration from global minded socialists. Their slow and steady agenda implementation was under threat by unanticipated populist movements and election wins in Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia and the US, among others. They had to rush implementation and have made errors and stirred resistance, so they are pushing harder. The media pushing a Joe Biden win along with the congratulatory gestures actually reveals their forcing of the agenda.

I’m not a fan of the UN either for its rampant hypocrisy (Saudi Arabia on the human rights council, to take one recent example; duh what’s Yemen? :crazy_face: ) and how beholden it is to the elite nations of the world. But the globalist theory is just a bit, well, it’s like the stuff the John Birch Society said.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The UN of even five years ago is not the UN of today. There has been a radical shift to the left brought about by a rapid acceleration from global minded socialists. Their slow and steady agenda implementation was under threat by unanticipated populist movements and election wins in Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia and the US, among others. They had to rush implementation and have made errors and stirred resistance, so they are pushing harder. The media pushing a Joe Biden win along with the congratulatory gestures actually reveals their forcing of the agenda.

I’m not a fan of the UN either for its rampant hypocrisy (Saudi Arabia on the human rights council, to take one recent example; duh what’s Yemen? :crazy_face: ) and how beholden it is to the elite nations of the world. But the globalist theory is just a bit, well, it’s like the stuff the John Birch Society said.

Maybe. However the capacities for information sharing and communication in these times permits far more collusion and orchestration than even the past decades.

You merely need to explore the highly improbable connections between high placed people and organizations in society, and a globalist agenda isn’t so far fetched.

An example: Pelosi’s former chief of staff is an advisor and lobbyist for the Canadian company that makes the Dominion software that responsible for the technical glitches that reversed the counts in Michigan and other places. What are the chances? Okay, this one maybe but hundreds of similar connections?

Just look into the associations between the legal firms involved in defending AND prosecuting the individuals on the Trump campaign, and the Obama adminstration.

Michael Flynn’s first legal team (before Sydney Powell) was comprised of lawyers from Obama’s AG Eric Holder’s law firm. They messed up Flynn’s defense and got him into a real legal mess. Nothing to see here, folks. The question is how did Flynn end up selecting (or being saddled with) them as his lawyers?

People just are not aware of how connected the elites are. Think of an informally tied cabal of bureaucrats working to convenience each other and their aspirations for the world. They aren’t concerned about the masses but for “the organization” that would facilitate the “order” they envision.

 

[Hellothere]

From my understand the satanists are pushing it through, they want rid of christianity

 

[Theo520]

I’ll say it again. The vision is not to ‘run countries’. The vision is similar to the example of the EU

The only way to have ‘one world order’ is to have top down control.

The EU is a poor example for you to suggest, they’ve deviated far from their original focus on trade and legal labor. They’ve become a bloated bureaucratic monster that has failed miserably in the primary role of a federal govt, to protect it’s members and borders.

 

[whitechocolatebear]

Remember the tower of babel? Look, a one world government would not be Christian, certainly not Roman Catholic, so by default it would be un acceptable. The state becomes worshiped and assets can’t be distributed properly. Just look at the soviet union.

 

[phil19034]

I’m not a fan of the UN either for its rampant hypocrisy (Saudi Arabia on the human rights council, to take one recent example; duh what’s Yemen? :crazy_face: ) and how beholden it is to the elite nations of the world. But the globalist theory is just a bit, well, it’s like the stuff the John Birch Society said.

The main problem with the UN is their bureaucracy. The type of person who typically wants to work for the UN usually leans left. Conservative peoples often like to focus on helping their families and local communities. Conservatives typically think the best way to help the world is by helping their local communities & assisting religious/private charities. Progressives are the ones who often think the best way to help the world is on the UN or National level.

So it only makes sense that a majority of the UN’s employees would naturally lean left, which influences their reports/studies/etc…

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

I’ll say it again. The vision is not to ‘run countries’. The vision is similar to the example of the EU

The only way to have ‘one world order’ is to have top down control.

The EU is a poor example for you to suggest, they’ve deviated far from their original focus on trade and legal labor. They’ve become a bloated bureaucratic monster that has failed miserably in the primary role of a federal govt, to protect it’s members and borders.

That’s a blinkered opinion. I believe that states who embrace isolationism are the bloated bureaucratic monsters in the world. “The EU is collectively the biggest donor for international aid in the world, providing over € 50 billion a year to help overcoming poverty and advance global development. It is committed to implementing the international agreements on aid effectiveness and to being accountable to EU citizens, who make solidarity initiatives possible.”

That policy of helping neighbors thrive can’t help but see neighbors at a global level. Hence the EU is almost single handedly assisting Mozambique at the moment with both humanitarian aid and training of it’s army against Islamic insurgents.

People who’ve lived through WW2 can easily see what created desire for the European Union and it’s great advance of peace and prosperity since then. Isolationism is toxic and self absorbed and insular. It doesn’t care about anyone but itself.

 

[tootle_toot]

tootle_toot:

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.

Yikes! No! That’s an insane idea!

What is actually insane is continuing on the present course of relying on “deterrence” and the MAD protocol for our safety. This has been condemned by the Church as a “negative peace” which is not based on Christian values. In my opinion, it is offensive to our Creator and a violation of His teachings to love our neighbor and to return good for evil. I believe that He will create the circumstances that will force us to engage in a global nuclear war just to teach humanity a lesson about the importance of following His laws.

 

[Socrates92]

What is actually insane is continuing on the present course of relying on “deterrence” and the MAD protocol for our safety. This has been condemned by the Church as a “negative peace” which is not based on Christian values. In my opinion, it is offensive to our Creator and a violation of His teachings to love our neighbor and to return good for evil. I believe that He will create the circumstances that will force us to engage in a global nuclear war just to teach humanity a lesson about the importance of following His laws.

Um… no. That is definitely much less insane than concentrating all the nukes in one hand. If there were a way to reliably disarm everyone, obviously that would be ideal. But that is not achievable. Hence, the need to rely on MAD.