What is wrong with the One World Order?

[Socrates92]

What is carved in stone is that the end result of continuing on the present course of MAD will be a global nuclear war.

False. There is no such guarantee. What I don’t understand is why you think the Russians are more likely to bomb us when they know it will result in their annihilation than if they could do it with impunity. Unless I missed it, you haven’t offered any rationale for why such a counterintuitive thing would be the case.

 

[tootle_toot]

First of all we should understand why the Russians have built their fleet of nuclear armed ICBMs. Every year their Othodox priests bless the missiles with the words: “These are necessary to prevent our enslavement by the West.” The Russians are actually more afraid of a nuclear first strike by the USA than the other way around. The hypothesis that Russia is eager to launch a nuclear first strike against the USA is just not true. The only reason that the Russians would want to make a nuclear first strike against the uSA would be to remove what they see as a deadly threat. If the USA stood down its nuclear strike force, then the Russians would not have this deadly threat to be so afraid of.

Maybe you don’t agree, but i understand the predictions of Israel’s ancient prophets to be applicable to modern times. As an example I would mention Isaiah 3:17-24 which is a perfect description of conditions for Jewish women in WW II slave labor camps. Most of these prophets have predicted a terrible world-wide disaster which has not taken place yet. Their descriptions are consistent with what would happen in a global nuclear war. Take Psalm 9:15-16 for a starter;

The nations have fallen into the pit that they dug,
They are caught by the feet in the snare they set themselves.
YHWH has given judgement, has made Himself known.
He has trapped the wicked in the work of their own hands.

Jeremiah 25:32-33 is particularly graphic;

See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the world.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying on the surface like dung.

These dead cannot be disposed of because the latent radiation left by the nuclear bombs makes it impossible to approach them.

 

[Theo520]

MAD is not ideal, but has brought increased peace to the world

Long Peace - Wikipedia

 

[Mijoy2]

False. There is no such guarantee. What I don’t understand is why you think the Russians are more likely to bomb us when they know it will result in their annihilation than if they could do it with impunity. Unless I missed it, you haven’t offered any rationale for why such a counterintuitive thing would be the case.

No guarantee correct.

But it doesn’t take a long and hard look at history to find human beings (of high political stature) capable of doing unimaginable things. The scary part is, it only takes one nutcase to trigger such an event. Which means; it is only a matter of time. When not if.

 

[Theo520]

The scary part is, it only takes one nutcase to trigger such an event. Which means; it is only a matter of time. When not if.

Developed countries have fairly solid fail safes built into their system, so one nutcase can’t really do any harm.

The risk comes from allowing countries like North Korea to have the bomb, countries where one nut case most definitely can do harm.

 

[TRose225]

It would be secular atheist and most likely authoritarian so violating the rights of some(most likely religious) people.

 

[PrayForMe]

The problem is that the “One World Order” you sometimes hear politicians and world leaders allude to, and the one you see conspiracy theorists rambling about on the internet are not necessarily one and the same.

The truth is, we don’t know what someone means when they call for a “one world order” (or a “new order” as they may sometimes label it). Oftentimes, it is probably a more affluent and sophisticated way of calling for world unity and peace, typical of the manner in which politicians frequently speak. Conspiracy theorists associate the term with an Orwellian-like dystopia in which a bunch of Communists and satanists want to enslave the world and abolish Christianity.

Is the latter possibly a motive of some in the world? I would not at all be surprised. Power corrupts, after all, and those who wield power in the world - whether politically or financially (or both) - don’t exactly get there by behaving as a Saint would, nor do positions of worldly power imbue a Christian mentality. The problem is conspiracy theorists tend to assign malign intentions to virtually anyone who makes these sort of vague comments about achieving “world order” or however they choose to phrase it, and while it’s understandable to be distrustful of authoritative figures, I doubt that each and every one of them are plotting to strip us of our freedom and send us for prison or the guillotine. Most, in fact, may really want peace, even if their idea of peace is slightly misguided or incomplete.

George H.W. Bush started all this in 1991 when he gave a speech calling for a “New World Order”. It didn’t exactly help that he came across a bit creepy in his delivery. But was he actually calling for some anti-Christian form of global rule? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely. And even if he was, we’ll likely never know.

To answer the original question, what is wrong with the “one world order” depends on how it is defined. There does not seem to be one single definition, and the various conspiracies circling it are conjecture and remain unproven.

 

[TRose225]

What do you think about the Green New Deal from AOC and the Great Reset from the World Economic Forum? Do you think the calls for global environmental and social change(income redistribution) in the wake of COVID 19 led to these speculations of a One World Order(under globalization) happening? Ethicist Peter Singer has written a book titled “One World” about globalism. He also states that globalism will lead to utilitarianism(he himself being utilitarian). Utilitarians believe in a hierarchy of rights depending on sentience and use to society. He thinks a child less than 6 months has less right(to live) than an adult. And he believes in euthanasia. Globalism has been talked about and promoted for years in all parts of the developed world-not by everyone no-by socialists. It’s not a “conspiracy theory”. You don’t need Satanists to take away Christians conscientious rights. Just a secular govt with enough power that could care less.

 

[HarryStotle]

Actually they haven’t. They are all still separate governments.

…that can be quickly coerced to follow what the “consensus” of other countries want them to. Eg: Lockdowns as response to a pandemic?

No country is an island. Consider how much pressure is being put on Hungary or Poland to concede their national sovereignties? Or how long Brexit is taking even after two national votes and two PMs who promised to complete it?

 

[JimG]

Yes, it strikes me as ironic that Peter Singer is known as an ethicist by profession. In everything I have read about him or by him he seems to be supporting something unethical.

 

[PrayForMe]

What do you think about the Green New Deal from AOC and the Great Reset from the World Economic Forum?

Haven’t looked into all the details from AOC’s plan, but I am no fan of AOC, to put it mildly. I will say that. As for the “Great Reset”, again, I’m not completely up to speed with it, but every time some new ambition like that is announced by world leaders, some people speculate about a “one world order”. Nothing new.

Do you think the calls for global environmental and social change(income redistribution) in the wake of COVID 19 led to these speculations of a One World Order(under globalization) happening?

Sure, they were contributions. Doesn’t mean there are any malign intentions behind it, though. Environmental and social changes due need to occur, though in the case of social change, I disagree with what Democrats - particularly radicals like AOC and Bernie Sanders - often propose.

Globalism has been talked about and promoted for years in all parts of the developed world-not by everyone no-by socialists. It’s not a “conspiracy theory”.

True, but some things are conspiracy theories. The “New World Order” conspiracy exists in many forms, but the most commonly-accepted version is that a bunch of elitists and Freemasons want to control the world and bring about totalitarian government. It has yet to be proven that such a movement exists in America or on a broad global scale. Sure, there are some socialists who believe that kind of stuff, but they aren’t in the majority yet.

You don’t need Satanists to take away Christians conscientious rights. Just a secular govt with enough power that could care less.

I agree. Which is why I don’t vote for Democrats.

 

[tootle_toot]

MAD is not ideal, but has brought increased peace to the world

Increased peace? I don’t see it. The world has experienced a great many wars since 1945. The only thing that MAD seems to have saved us from is a nuclear war between the USA and Russia, but this is a “catch 22.” If the atomic bomb did not exist, then then would be no threat of global nuclear war to need to be saved from.

 

[Theo520]

Increased peace? I don’t see it.

Then follow the links in earlier post. Below is a link.
Comment on the evidence, don’t just avoid it.

What is wrong with the One World Order? Social Justice

MAD is not ideal, but has brought increased peace to the world

 

[tootle_toot]

In my opinion the so-called “long peace” is not correct. Just because the USA and the USSR did not engage in a direct conflict after 1945, does not mean that the world was at peace. When did Russia and the USA ever fight each other prior to 1945?

 

[ChristianZoomer]

Three words: Tower Of Babel.

 

[Theo520]

n my opinion the so-called “long peace” is not correct. Just because the USA and the USSR did not engage in a direct conflict after 1945, does not mean that the world was at peace. When did Russia and the USA ever fight each other prior to 1945?

read up on it further. It doesn’t claim the world was at peace, just that major conflicts (and thus war deaths) were reduced. The analysis doesn’t exclude the proxy wars such as Korea, Vietnam, etc that did occur between the major powers.

 

[po18guy]

One world order is best for the one person or one cabal who will be in charge. The rest will obey or become Soylent Green.

 

[phil19034]

I have said that there is only room in this world for one nuclear armed superpower. Obeying the Law by giving up our nuclear bombs would lead to that situation. A nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia cannot then occur.

And what is wrong with doing as our currency proclaims: “In God We Trust?” (maybe we don’t really trust in Him as much as we say that we do…)

I’m all for a giving all the nukes to the Pope. However, I’m not all in favor for giving all the nukes to an organization that reports to no one.

At the moment, there is ZERO way the UN could safely defend all the nukes and keep them from being controlled by a madman. If all the Nukes are controlled by one person or group, it gives said person or group the ability to unilaterally wipe out any nation they see fit to destroy.

If nuclear war was predicted by ancient Jewish texts, it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be an atheistic, “One World Government” doing it. No one said nuclear war has to be nation vs. nation.

The reason the Church NEVER set up one European Government seated in Rome at the height of the Church’s secular power is because the Church understands that governments are better and more accountable when they are closer to their people.

When you can drive to your Capital and meet with your representatives in person, it makes them far more accountable.

The reason the UN would never be accountable to anyone is because there is only one representative from each country. No American, Englishman, Canadian, Australian, etc. would be able to simply make an appointment with their Ambassador to the UN and discuss issues.

This is why the UN becoming an “one world government” is a horrible idea.

There is only ONE way an One World Government makes any sense:
**** If, and only if, aliens from outer space land on the White House lawn or in St. Peter’s Square to make their presence known to the whole world.***

Only as part of an United Federation of Planets does an One World Govt make any sense, because then if I don’t like the “United Earth’s” govt, I can move to Mars, Alpha Centauri, or move in with Spock on Vulcan.

Subsidiarity - it’s a Catholic doctrine, which the atheistic “One World Government” inherently violates.

 

[tootle_toot]

The idea of world government did not originate from atheists. The spark was provided by the Bahai’ Faith. I do not believe that your suggestion that a sole nuclear superpower (whether the UN or Russia) would pose an unacceptable danger to the world is correct. It takes two nuclear superpowers to cause a global nuclear war. One simply has no incentive to start polluting the earth with random nuclear explosions. It is out of fear that one nation will strike another with nukes. No fear equals no strikes.

 

[Theo520]

It is out of fear that one nation will strike another with nukes. No fear equals no strikes.

No no NO!
Maybe fear might drive a rational actor to use nukes, but that is hardly the only scenario.

Nazi Germany and Japan both attacked their neighbors for self gain, both also would have used nukes to further their expansion if they had held the bomb. It’s safe to say both powers were driven by feelings of racial superiority, not fear.