Scientific American Calls For World Government

[John F Kennedy III]

Scientific American Calls For World Government

Infowars.com
Friday, March 23, 2012

Hundreds of elite publications have called for Bankster run world government to take over. But at the same time that very same media treats their readers like they are 3-years-old and claims no one is calling for global government.

RELATED: Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe




original article here:
http://www.infowars.com/scientific-american-calls-for-world-government/

 

[onlyrp]

great example of an Alex Jones spin. They said "global governance and cooperation is necessary IF YOU WANT TO STAGE OFF CLIMATE CATASTROPHE"

Don't do anything if you don't want to though.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

great example of an Alex Jones spin. They said "global governance and cooperation is necessary IF YOU WANT TO STAGE OFF CLIMATE CATASTROPHE"

Don't do anything if you don't want to though.

Does the SPLC pay you a salary, or by the hour?

 

[jkr]

BY THE CHARACTER...

 

[Phil]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

 

[onlyrp]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

If countries unilaterally started, those people will complain that other countries will undo their efforts. If there was a global effort, they complain its too collective or oppressive. Basically they just want every excuse to do nothing.

 

[Phil]

If countries unilaterally started, those people will complain that other countries will undo their efforts. If there was a global effort, they complain its too collective or oppressive. Basically they just want every excuse to do nothing.

If there was no such thing as greed or self-importance, I guarantee you we would already be an interplanetary society. It's too bad.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If there was no such thing as greed or self-importance, I guarantee you we would already be an interplanetary society. It's too bad.

If only we could regulate human moral imperfection out of existence. That would be completely moral and ethical to create our own idea of a morally perfect human and, well, eliminate those who don't meet our standards. It's for the good of society.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

If only we could regulate human moral imperfection out of existence. That would be completely moral and ethical to create our own idea of a morally perfect human and, well, eliminate those who don't meet our standards. It's for the good of society.

You hear they have a brain scan for that? Yup. Scans your brain and whammo! No more greed.. no more individualism... you are a perfect little commie drone.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

What type of global catastrophe? World war? Starvation.. population... plague...? list goes on. Global catastrophes have happened with and without Government domination of the Earth... can you be more specific in what you really mean?

Why does Government have to exist to settle other planets?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

And...

This is why the scientific worldview is tyrannical and cannot be consistent with liberty. There is no separation of church and state.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

Maybe you should be on the Newt Gingrich forums if you believe the garbage you're spewing

This is why the scientific worldview is tyrannical and cannot be consistent with liberty. There is no separation of church and state.

The state is the God to a lot of these science-y folk. They don't realize that science will continuously be used against the people as long as the state is in business. But I think a lot of them don't care about that because they see more power for themselves in a one world government

 

[Athan]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

Segan my man. The problem isn't that the goals you mention shouldn't be persued. It's just you picked the WORST way of doing it. Relying on government. GLOBAL government to boot.

That's like a woman saying "I want to have a baby." I better start going to a maximum security prison to get raped.

Governments don't work together. They politik, fall into corruption, powerstruggle, obviously take away liberties of the populace they govern, and a whole HOST of just committing bad behavior. And forgive me if you think I'm just being a horrible cynical, I just finished reading what the US government has been doing with OUR taxpayer money in Afganistan with funding Dynacorp and the "Dancing Boys" incident.

If you want to meet those aims you mentioned, frankly its easier, cheaper, and MORE effective to just start a foundation and have the foundation's goals commit to those goals.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

And...

This is why the scientific worldview is tyrannical and cannot be consistent with liberty. There is no separation of church and state.

Nope. Just get a bad rap by people like HG Welles and Scientific American... who are all controlled by the Elites to some degree.

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist, not believe in global warming, believe in evolution... and not want world government.

How do I know?

Because that's what I believe.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If there was no such thing as greed or self-importance, I guarantee you we would already be an interplanetary society. It's too bad.

That's effing retarded. You cannot pick and choose which facets of humanity exist and which do not. No doubt, many authoritarians think otherwise. Greed, properly understood and applied is good. Self-esteem (an adjective of self-importance, sort of), properly understood and applied is good. I'll guarantee - fwiw - that without greed and self-importance the Apollo rockets would not have been built (greed) and, if built, nobody would be stupid enough to ride them willingly (self-importance). I'm using these terms as Ayn Rand understood them (in case you want to reference her exact words for context).

To suggest our society would already be interplanetary is to presuppose the optimal approach to living outside Earth. It could be the moon or asteroids are better candidates. Also, unless such a society could live independently of Earth (were we destroyed, for example), I would hesitate to call it interplanetary. If we were so concerned, we could have caves to sustain a large portion of humanity in the event of an ecological disaster. Certainly, we ought to be able to design for the worst-case asteroid strikes (of the last several hundred million years at least).

I find it funny to think a pro-UN Earth-fister would think we could be interplanetary in any meaningful way. The biggest obstacle to these matters is energy and the major player for liftoff is chemical (major CO2). Maybe you live in a hypothetical world where you are the dictator and the moon landing predates the birth of Christ? If even a thousand of us lifted off each day, how much energy used is that? If less than a thousand, how is that a society?

All that BS aside, were we interplanetary, I have little doubt you would be calling for some Federation of Planets to put us all under the thumb of your intergalactic rule.

 

[Phil]

Maybe you should be on the Newt Gingrich forums if you believe the garbage you're spewing

No thanks. I hate Newt.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Does the SPLC pay you a salary, or by the hour?

BY THE CHARACTER...

Hahhahahhahahah

 

[Lishy]

Pffft. Just like communism, world government wont work. The powerful people advocating it are out of touch with reality anyways (I mean, they're born rich and most don't put toothpaste on their own toothbrush? Now don't they seem like the idiots?)

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I'd hate to say it but the Scientific American is for the most part correct. There has to be the some kind of larger form of government to stave off a global catastrophe, and eventually to settle on other worlds. There can still be separate countries with there own laws, but there must be some type of global, or even multi-planetary government.

I agree we need to settle other worlds.

 

[Phil]

What type of global catastrophe? World war? Starvation.. population... plague...? list goes on. Global catastrophes have happened with and without Government domination of the Earth... can you be more specific in what you really mean?

Why does Government have to exist to settle other planets?

I was talking about the earth being destroyed or unable to harbor life. We'll eventually have to settle elsewhere.