WORLD GOVERNMENT, SAYS CHURCHILL.

[TheRealSkeptic5000]

Mr. Winston Churchill last night called for the creation of a World super-government, with Russia as one of its pillars.

In a major broadcast speech before an audience of 5,000 he said the prospects for peace and human progress were dark and doubtful, unless some form of effective world super-government could be set up and brought into action quickly. The speech was the climax to Mr. Churchill's three-day visit to Denmark.
He said thc four main pillars of the world temple of peace were America, with all its dependencies, Russia, the British Empire and Commonwealth, and a United Europe.

"Let us make sure that they will all bear the weight which will be imposed and reposed upon them," he declared. A United Europe was one of the indispensable pillars of world peace and government, Mr. Churchill said. "We do not, of course, pretend that a United Europe provides the final and complete solution to all the problems of international-relationships. "The creation of an authoritative all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive." Mr.' Churchill, after listing the United States in his four pillars of future world government, added, "There is the wide hope- and I will not cast aside the hope-that there is the Soviet Union."

Mr. Churchill said that Europe was a rubble heap, a charnel house, a breeding ground of pestilence and hate, in which ancient nationalistic feuds and modern
idealogical factions distract and infuriate the unhappy hungry populations." Mr. Churchill said that the tide of Communism in Europe had been temporarily halted.
There was no doubt that Communism as an idealogy was losing ground in all countries where free speech was allowed and Parliamentary institutions throve
Mr. Churchill said that the first blow of the "hot war" had failed in the Far East, and the battle being fought in Korea was as much Europe's battle as if it "were being fought out here in our towns and countryside." Failure in unity, conviction or will power would not ward off Europe's dangers, he added. "Once again the path of duty is the path alike of safety and sorrow."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2803089

Any doubts? "world temple of peace" reminds me a lot of the concept of the third temple of Solomon, a house for God's presence which would bring about the coming of the messiah and his world government (of jewish dominance, of course). In freemasonry, building the Temple of Solomon is a metaphor for one's body and the creation of a "better world". Each mason is a stone which must be perfected to collectively build this temple; a society in which man will "walk with the gods", and God will inhabit this "temple".

[Deleted User 2149]

The Boers should have executed him when they had him.

[TheRealSkeptic5000]

They definitely should have. In coming posts I will expose him as a collectivist, freemason, druid (seriously) and eugenicist. How this man isn't universally reviled is beyond me.

These people were crying about how Hitler wanted world domination... but they literally advocated world government!

[Tallest_Skil]

What’s supposed to be wrong with eugenics?

[TheRealSkeptic5000]

What’s supposed to be wrong with eugenics?

If you don't see it, you're not far sighted. Do you really not see the problem with the government deciding who breeds and who doesn't?

• The government isn't efficient enough to make irreversible, intergenerational choices.
  
  Genetics is obscured by the denial of "racial realism".
  
  The government is not benevolent enough to put the future of mankind into its hands. Do you think they'll breed physically stronger and more intelligent people? Or will they breed a race of unaggressive slaves? Will they breed a diverse humanity, or will they merge all genes to form one race, devoid of any sense of national belonging?
  
  Eugenics requires coercion; forcing people to stop having children, operating on them against their will.
  
  Population control leads to orphans, abortions, and clandestine births. See China's "one child policy".
  
  It is a slippery slope towards more control of personal lives, discrimination towards normal people who weren't genetically engineered at birth and experiments on fetuses for "science".
  
  "White supremacists", "terrorists" and other "undesirables" may end up being sterilized.
  
  What if the state decides the notions of beauty? What will they pick for everyone? Will not engineering your child to be non-white be considered racist, and people will be pressured to give them a more "resistant" skin?
  
  Will they send you to prison if you don't have your children engineered to "protect" them from certain congenital diseases?

You're giving the government to decide who can have kids and who can't. It's a huge risk. It's asking for slavery. If you want to live under the domination of other men who tell you whether you can have children, that's fine. But don't drag others towards that dystopia.

[Tallest_Skil]

Do you really not see the problem with the government deciding who breeds and who doesn't?

Who said anything about the government being in charge? Eugenics is an objective good. It needs to be taught at the high school, college, and public doctor’s office levels.

[TheRealSkeptic5000]

Who said anything about the government being in charge?

Churchill and H.G. Wells did.

[Tallest_Skil]

Churchill and H.G. Wells did.

Fuck them, then. I’m just talking about eugenics itself.

[TheRealSkeptic5000]

Churchill and H.G. Wells did.

Fuck them, then. I’m just talking about eugenics itself.

How would eugenics be, in your view?

[Tallest_Skil]

How would eugenics be, in your view?

Objectively positive genetic traits can be scientifically quantified and discovered in people. The same goes for negative traits. A person’s genome can be sequenced to give them a strong impression of what traits they’ll pass on to their kids depending on the woman they marry. These people can, similarly, be told, “if you have kids, they’ll have a debilitating illness. You’ll be bringing pain unto them their entire lives.” And then the government wouldn’t give assistance thereto, because it’s no one else’s responsibility to pay for a preventable problem.