The SearchVoat Forum

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."

Tallest_Skil wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:49 pm What’s supposed to be wrong with eugenics?

• 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?

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

Tallest_Skil wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:02 pm Who said anything about the government being in charge?

TheRealSkeptic5000 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:14 pmChurchill and H.G. Wells did.

Tallest_Skil wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:09 am

TheRealSkeptic5000 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:14 pmChurchill and H.G. Wells did.

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

TheRealSkeptic5000 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:32 am How would eugenics be, in your view?