Axiom

It's called "Changing the Bird Cage Lining"

Just2Good

So who is the bird then?

__________________
.
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

~ Isaiah Berlin ~

Axiom

The elephant in the room .

Axiom

The Twisted Thinking behind World Government



Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
September 24, 2009



As history exhaustively shows, any idea can be theoretically legitimized with the help of equations, calculations and otherwise cleverly devised systems of thought. But, as a famous writer once stated, ‘cleverness is for the dwarfs’. It is wisdom that is lacking from most academics and their writings, not to mention modesty and an open mind. In the beginning of the 20th century for example, eugenicists would work to legitimize their arguments with all kinds of semi-scientific serpentines. As a matter of practise it was not uncommon that a person’s skull would be measured with a ruler at birth to ‘determine’ if he or she would be prone to criminal activities in later life. Although widely rejected as devious quackery, eugenics has since found new ways to sell depopulation to the masses, the most prominent of which, of course, is environmentalism as a pretext to do away with 80 percent of the world population- or so the elite state on a regular basis.

It was only a matter of time, of course, before the full weight of academia was put behind the idea of world government- as it had done so passionately for the manmade global warming contrivance not long before. A mere ideological blueprint would not suffice for its purposes. In addition, the concept of world government would have to be shrouded under a thick cloud of sparking scholarship. And University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt was the man designated to stamp on the fire.

In 2003, Wendt witch-crafted a philosophical monstrosity under the header “ Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy”. Carefully avoiding any moral implications clinging to his manuscript, Wendt argues the case for world government as the necessary and inevitable end result of the current merging of nation-states into ever-larger bodies of influence.


It is not a new concept, the idea that the large emerges from the small, rising in the steadiest of lines upward in time. This idea accommodates our most intimate fancies about time, evolution and progression. The mind, after all, tends to construct scientific parameters around the immeasurable vastness of the universe in order to encapsulate infinity. It also watches nature and then, one on one, projects it to political systems. Real science, on the other hand, does not only propose and hypothesizes, it tears down and rejects. Ideas that are held in high standing at one time are mercilessly thrown in the trashcan the next. And out of knowledge gathered, sometimes a rare Amarillo flower unfolds in the sun. Such is the way of it. But Alexander Wendt cares not for accuracy, as he pancakes hypothesis upon hypothesis to prove his position, that a world state is inevitable. But it is a false understanding, manufactured by a biased predisposition: both time and space have stunningly little regard for our fancies, phasing- as they do- in and out of our grasp as quickly as you can say ‘fallacy’. History, it seems, does not support Wendt’s argument.

After the Roman Empire had collapsed, other, smaller kingdoms emerged out of its ruins. This goes for the Greeks, the Babylonians, and almost every other system with imperial designs. The Egyptian kingdom, once a vast and powerful culture, grew to be just a shadow of its former self at the beginning of our calendar. Charlemagne established the great Frankish empire only to unwittingly lay the groundwork for the establishing of sovereign states, like Germany and France. We have only to study history in order to counter the mythology of a gradual evolution towards a one world system. There is no evidence supporting an historic, chronological pattern of progression from the small to the great. More often than not it is the other way around, for excessive power tends to provoke resistance.

Without boring you with the details of Wendt’s elucidation let it suffice that Wendt invokes many of the major philosophers in order to add credibility and substance to the concept of the inevitability of a world state emerging out of the ruins of national sovereignty. After parading big names to invigorate his “big idea”, the author finally departs from a neo-Darwinian predisposition and the self-organizing principles included in it. In the struggle of nation-states, Wendt concludes, there can be no other outcome than the formation of a world state to settle all scores. He forgets to mention that neo-Darwinism can just as easily be applied to the idea that life organizes itself into more complexity as it evolves. But Wendt pays no heed: he raises his finger in foreboding: the greatest threat on the path to world government, he states, is national sovereignty. Wendt:

“Rather than go down with the ship of national sovereignty, states should try to “get the best deal” they can in the emerging global constitution.”

After identifying the main enemy to world dictatorship, he then proposes to co-opt the natural drive towards auto-determination in order to bring about his desired world state.

“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”

Everyone dedicated to fight the push for world dictatorship should wash their ears well with this statement. For the New World Order will pull out all the stops, including flirting with national sovereignty, courting true libertarianism and align itself with any and every grassroots movement springing up out of the soil. The anti-venom is education, education and some more education. The more people aware of the idea of world government and the devices with which it means to consolidate power, the harder it becomes for the globalists to push ahead with their plan.

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

Obama Will Surrender America To World Government



NoWorldSystem
October 17, 2009

Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a New World Order – can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” -George H.W. Bush



The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned the American people to stop Obama from signing a ‘global climate treaty’ at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December that will ultimately surrender U.S. sovereignty to a World Government under the guise of helping the environment.



With every passing day it becomes more evident that Obama is nothing more than a globalist, it is obvious from health care reform that he doesn’t care about the middle class, he is in the pocket of the internationalist elite like Kissinger and the rest of the global elite that wish to establish a World Government Dictatorship under the auspices of the United Nations.



If this international climate change treaty passes, Americans will have no choice but to pay a global climate tax that will be paid directly to the United Nations, at first the tax will be introduced to the public gradually such as a barely noticeable tax at the gas pump, which will later be increased once it has been officially established.

The Bilderberg Group has discussed this new global tax this year among many other things like creating a fast-but-painful depression to better establish a New World Order. The IMF, a United Nations entity has already declared itself the global central bank that will set regulations and issue a global currency to the nations. People like George Soros, IMF and the World Bank are betting against the dollar and with the help of the Federal Reserve will topple the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the world market to destroy the U.S. economy and force the global dictatorship on the western hemisphere.



We are beginning to see the emergence of a New World Order this year, with talks of a new global currency, a global climate tax, a global police force with access to a worldwide database of DNA, biometric and fingerprint records, an international gun-control treaty, an international criminal court treaty, the internet moving towards world government it’s crystal clear what is about to happen in this country.

also History Unfolding

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

New European Nationalist Bloc Formed

October 28, 2009

A new European nationalist bloc consisting of five parties have announced that they are to form an alliance in opposition to the European Union and globalisation.

Hungary’s Jobbik, France’s National Front, Italy’s Three-Colour Flame, Sweden’s National Democrats and Belgium’s National Front formed the Alliance of European National Movements. The British National Party, Austria’s Freedom Party as well as groups from Spain and Portugal will soon join the bloc, it was announced.

The bloc argues that globalisation “will homogenise independent cultures” and is opposed to “supranational bodies like the European Union which seek to limit the rights of individual countries.”

Marc Abramsson, president of Sweden’s National Democrats, said over the weekend that this was an “important step … for the renaissance of sovereign nations. It is a struggle for our own culture and heritage.

“Globalists would like to have one world, with one language and one culture. Their interest is to get money from selling the same products all over the world,” Mr Abramsson said.

Representatives from the five parties signed an agreement detailing their common goals, such as advocating for a confederation of sovereign states to replace the EU, increasing support for families to reverse Europe’s population loss and opposing “religious, political, economic or financial imperialism.”

* Nothing now stands in the way of the final implementation of the Lisbon Treaty before the end of this year — and the moment of truth for the Tory party when they must finally announce their policy publicly.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus today assured the Czech prime minister Jan Fischer that he will sign the law ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

Making the announcement, Mr Fischer said that Mr Klaus will sign the document if the Czech constitutional court rules that the treaty is compatible with the country’s constitution and if the Czech Republic is given an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The latter is a component of the treaty.

Mr Fischer said that he received an oral assurance from the president on Tuesday evening and that Mr Klaus had given an undertaking that he had no further demands to make.

The Czech constitutional court is set to rule on the treaty’s compatibility with the Czech constitution next Tuesday, 3 November. Mr Fischer said that he expects the court to make a judgment on that day.

Tomáš Langášek, the court’s spokesman, has said that it is “possible that the constitutional court will have to take more time, but I don’t expect so.”

This means that unless something completely remarkable happens, the Lisbon Treaty and the new EU constitution will be fully approved by all EU member nations before the end of November, with implementation on track for the beginning of January next year.

The cowardly Conservative Party leadership has consistently refused to take a final policy position on the matter, claiming meekly that if the Lisbon Treaty was already in place if they came to power, they “would not leave it there.”

The reality is, as first pointed out on this website and then copied over by many media observers, that there can be no “renegotiation” of the constitution once it is ratified.

The only way out of the new EU constitution will be to leave the EU. There is no alternative — and the Tory moment of truth has drawn a bit closer.

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

German Chancellor Merkel Calls For A “New Global Order”



Says Americans must give more authority to global bodies

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Nov 9, 2009

Chancellor Angela Merkel today called for the establishment of a “new global order” in remarks marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Speaking at a scientific conference entitled “Falling Walls”, Merkel brazenly told reporters:

“The most important thing, when attempting to overcome barriers, is: Are the nation states ready and willing to give competencies over to multilateral organizations, no matter what it costs?”

The German leader stated that world unity could only be possible if such “global corrections” were made.

“This world will not be a peaceful one if we do not work for more global order and more multilateral cooperation,” Merkel stated.

In the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Merkel added that Americans would have to deliver over more authority to multilateral organizations such as the UN, just as Europeans have done to the EU.

Merkel pointed to the forthcoming UN climate summit in December, to be held in Copenhagen, as an opportunity to forge such a new order.

German Chancellor Merkel Calls For A New Global Order FOTR 340x1692

The German Chancellor’s speech echoed that of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who called for a “new world order” in a December 1988 speech to the United Nations in New York City. Gorbachev was present at the event in Berlin today.

Other world leaders set to join Chancellor Merkel are French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is set to make a last-ditch appeal to Merkel to rally behind Tony Blair as the first president of Europe.

President Obama will not travel to Germany, a move that has drawn heated criticism and has been seen by some as an attempt to better relations with Russia.

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

Estulin: After G20, Oligarchs Moving on African Union, Population Reduction


James Corbett
The Corbett Report
November 11, 2009


In an exclusive interview with The Corbett Report earlier today, Daniel Estulin revealed the behind-the-scenes details of last week’s G20 Finance Minister’s meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland. Many of these details come from actual G20 documents that his sources were able to sneak out of the meetings in spite of security measures which, Estulin notes, were unprecedented “even by Bilderberg standards.” These documents, which contain valuable information about the conference, are available at BilderbergBook.com and have been mirrored on The Corbett Report homepage. They were smuggled out at great personal risk and need to be disseminated widely.

The key issue discussed at the meeting, according to Estulin, was “the next step in globalization, which is the creation of the African Union.” This is part of an unfolding agenda of the ceding of national sovereignty to unnacountable regional governments which can more easily administer and implement the aims of the financial oligarchs. One of these aims is the elite’s exhaustively documented penchant for population reduction, including tying development aid to population control problems. “The creation of the borderless African continent will be spearheaded by the IMF.”

One of the smuggled documents shows that an attendee had the IMF articles of agreement at the meeting and highlighted the fact that funds were made available “under adequate safeguards” to member nations. This is code speak for imposing draconian measures designed to plunge countries into virtual servitude, with the result that in Africa, countries spend five times more revenue on servicing their IMF debts than they do on health care for their own citizens.

Watch an excerpt of the interview in the video below:

The meeting’s attendees, also identified in the smuggled documents, reads like a who’s who of the financial oligarchical elite, including leading Bilderbergers such as U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, World Bank President Bob Zoellick, Turkish Finance Minister Ali Babacan and British Finance Minister Alistair Darling and many others. The Trilateral Commission was also represented at the conference by Japanese members Yoshihiko Noda and Masaaki Shirakawa.

In the interview, Estulin discusses the G20’s debate on dumping the U.S. dollar which he first revealed would be on the meeting’s agenda in a press release last week. He indicates that the matter, although discussed, was rejected . “The American and the British delegations tried to persuade the Russian and the Chinese delegates to devalue the dollar and create a basket of currencies or another world currency to take the place of the dollar,” he said. “Luckily, both the Russians and the Chinese told the Americans and the British to go pound sand. They were not willing to do this.”



The idea that the Western financial oligarchs are aiming to dump the U.S. dollar is in line with recent reports that Goldman Sachs (whose members are suspiciously well connected to the upper echelons of the U.S. Treasury) actually took up positions to short the housing market right before the crash. Although a pre-meditated attempt to bring about a financial collapse would appear not to be in the financial oligarch’s self-interest, it makes perfect sense when one considers this as a problem-reaction-solution operation of creating a problem in order to get the public to support a pre-determined solution. In this case, the endgame has always been to use a financial collapse to usher in a New World Order. Now, exactly as precicted, everyone from Kissinger to Soros is using the economic collapse to call for a new financial order of greater international (read: unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable) control over world financial markets. Indeed, just as the G20 was wrapping up, talking heads like Damon Vickers were starting to insert talking points about a new global currency and a “New World Order” onto CNBC. Although it is good news that the dumping of the dollar failed to gain traction at this meeting, it by no means insures that this disastrous move will not continue to be pursued by the influential globalist financiers.

On a positive note, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made a show of standing up for the people of the planet by noting that “the recent public policy of privatizing profits and socializing losses is unacceptable to taxpayers,” to which someone responded “Do you think they have noticed?” The response provoked laughter from the assembled oligarchs. Mr. Estulin has a message for the G20 oligarchs: “Gentlemen of the G20, in case you’re wondering: Yes, we the great unwashed have definitely noticed.”

Listen to the full interview by clicking here or listen in the player below:
Estulin: After G20, Oligarchs Moving on African Union, Population Reduction

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government
'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley

There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government - Telegraph
By Janet Daley
Published: 7:24PM GMT 19 Dec 2009


There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)

Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.


The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.

Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.

But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.

Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.

That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.

This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.

The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.

If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.

The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

Go Back To Sleep, There’s No New World Order


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 11, 2010


A major Newsweek hit piece against the Tea Party movement and Alex Jones claims that the move towards a global government and the fact that governments commit acts of false flag terrorism is all an invention of “conspiracist kooks” who wear “tin foil hats”. Like we’ve never heard that one before.

Go Back To Sleep, There’s No New World Order

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

House of Commons - Register of All-Party Groups

Do you remember ?

Ok ,now who still believes there is no global govt agenda ?

C'mon i know you're out there !

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

Axiom

New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship


In 1952, Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, historian, mathematician, and social critic wrote the book, “The Impact of Science on Society,” in which he warned and examined how science, and the technological revolution, was changing and would come to change society. In his book, Russell explained that:

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.[3]

Russell went on to analyze the question of whether a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is more stable than a democracy, on which he postulated:

Apart from the danger of war, I see no reason why such a regime should be unstable. After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history have had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as it can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.[4]

Drawing on the concept popularized by Aldous Huxley – of people loving their servitude – Bertrand Russell explained that under a scientific dictatorship:

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.[5]

Russell explained that, “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy.”[6] Russell later proclaimed in his book that, “a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.”[7] He elaborated:

Unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must be from time to time great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation. That is exactly the present state of the world, and some may hold that there is no reason why it should not continue for centuries. I do not myself believe that this is possible. The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible – that is until science is extinct.[8]

Russell explains that eugenics plays a central feature in the construction of any world government scientific dictatorship, stating that, “Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”[9]

__________________
"Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

MOZ

Thanks for posting that Ax. ^^^^^^

I do love to hear a good rant. Is he right or wrong? Would take a bit of analysis to work that one out. But he does spin a good narative at first listening.

Two years back, my travels convinced me the euro was grossly overpriced relative to our dollar, either that or I was a poor pilgrim. But the markets have spoken and it is time to dust off the league boots and here we go, here we go, here we go.

The really important question is how long we (OZ) avoid the CONTAGION.


Moz

__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Iconoclast

What did I miss?
We are we have been immunised with minerals.

__________________
The individual is hopeless without the group.
The group is hopeless without its individuals.