Thursday, May 16, 2013

Bertrand Russell: World Government Needed to ‘Prevent Human Extinction’

Threat of Catastrophic War Means World Must Submit to International Authority

Aaron Dykes
Activist Post

Lord Bertrand Russell, author of The Impact of Science on Society (1951), noted philosopher and wealthy aristocrat, analyzes the role of science and technology in transforming society. In doing so, he makes clear what he sees as an imperative towards world government.

Russell, a Fabian socialist, member of the Royal Society and noted peacenik, threatens that without a single global government, human life could be extinguished under the threat of (nuclear) war or breakdown into uncivilized barbarism; yet without the power of an identifiable external enemy, people are psychologically adverse to unifying under such a one world system.

Ergo, advocates and architects of One World are looking for a compelling enemy to achieve global cohesion and submission to a planetary authority…

Humanity as we have known it is essentially captured by the power and scope of new developments and technology. What status do individuals have on the grand chessboard of life with weapons as powerful as atomic bombs and massive centralized empires?

Very little if Russell has his say…

Excerpt from his 1951 Impact of Science on Society, p. 26:
Communications have been hitherto the chief factor limiting the size of empires. In antiquity the Persians and the Romans depended upon roads, but since nothing traveled faster than a horse, empires became unmanageable when the distance from the capital to the frontier was very great. This is on the point of disappearing with the improvement of the long-range bomber. There would now be no technical difficulty about a sing world-wide Empire. Since war is likely to become more destructive of human life than it has been in recent centuries, unification under a single government is probably is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race

There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war. [emphasis added]
Russell crafted his public persona as a peacenik, and a leading advocate for nuclear disarmament and an end to all wars, joining with Albert Einstein and other leading scientists, – many of whom played a role in creating the first atomic bomb – in calling for mandatory nuclear disarmament contained by an international regulator.

As we see in numerous statements from this prolific author and Nobel laureate, his vision of peace is only a means to an end – the empowerment of an international authority with a monopoly on force.

On other occasions, Russell has argued for the power of the state to control reproductive rights via Eugenics, and to brainwash school children into accepting the existing order. Vociferously, he has argued that population growth should be curbed through heavy-handed measures including a global food distribution authority that would dole out rations on the basis of population, using supply as a checkmate to growth, and denying excess members of society additional rations of sustenance.

The threats of civilizations’ destruction as an encouragement towards forming a “common sense” world government is made starkly clearly in the immediate wake of the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, when the world was still in a state of complete shock.

Just days after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Russell wrote an article titled, “The Bomb and Civilisation,” published August 18, 1945. He notes just learning of the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki while writing the column.

He urges in part:
The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense.
Either war or civilization must end, and if it is to be war that ends, there must be an international authority with the sole power to make the new bombs.
If this system were once established, the international authority would be irresistible, and wars would cease. [emphasis added]
Russell is quite clear in expressing his desire that nationalism should be extinguished, but under his vision for an international authority, individual autonomy is also out the window.

And with it free will.

Under Russell’s world government, are we to be anything more than cogs in a horrifying machine?

AARON DYKES is a co-founder of where this article first appeared. As a writer, researcher and video producer who has worked on numerous documentaries and investigative reports, he uses history as a guide to decode current events, uncover obscure agendas and contrast them with the dignity afforded individuals as recognized in documents like the Bill of Rights.


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Nemetron 2000 said...

Ever notice how it is always the filthy rich that advocate the loudest for global government? Could it be that they see a giant one world government under their control as being the only way to secure their fortunes forever? Otherwise, the tides of time will always eventually shift, and one day make paupers out of princes.

Anonymous said...

this english scumbag was a war ,monger for england and nto a peacenick.he wanted one world govt. under england jsut like cecil rhodes wanted!
an englishman as a philosopher is oxymoron.
anglosaxon race directed by england is the main evil of world-attack england with ten topol nukes.

Anonymous said...

Oh, yeeeees! I'm quaking in my shoes. Don't tell me, you offer up yourself, and your demon cohort, over us, eh?

After all, there couldn't be a better type of leadership......Noooooo, only yours.

Russell, you talk about "Civilization"- butr ever since Sumeria, and those creatures, civilization has had NAOTHING going for it....for the Populace.

Civilization divides Humanity, into the Rulers that STUMP on the rest of us, the Masses, that work the Society in the first place. Our entire History, had been kept from us, we've been kept ignorant and under the plow. THAT is why we're in this MESS.


Hide Behind said...

We humans have so little time left to prepare for the battles to survive.
Many are already losing and not long from now t 100 million in US will be disapeared at most or shunted into oblivion

All with a complacent middle class's stupidity.

Adderat said...

Nemetron 2000: Yes, you´re right, and they've been dragging us all that way for quite some time. The UN, which has been ruled by the "filthy rich" the whole time, is the coming world government.

Strange...the more "developed" the world gets, the more uncivilized man seem to get.

Anonymous said...

want to learn who's who ?
read the protocols of the learned of zion...

dont matter anymore where your from, they are everywhere.

maybe hitler was on to something.

Anonymous said...

Bert says the threat of global war makes 1-world govt. the only alternative to barbarism or extinction. Say what?

Others have said the threat of war makes evolution in human thought necessary. Jung said it was critical that a man, a leader, a state, an organization, or a world order always remember that it casts a shadow. Every human and every human endeavor is capable of evil, and most likely to behave that way if they believe themselves and their cause to be infallible.

The human capacity to screw up on a planetary level is what made unthinkable weapons and unthinkable war. That capacity didn't dissolve with the creation of the UN. To the degree that governments failed to prevent war, that failure has not been cured by international groupings like NATO, now far from its mission.

Bert said society (and nations) exist ONLY as a response to war, hatred and fear. He denies any fraternity, any shared humanity or aspiration, even the one that the NWO falsely touted as something they believed in: the "we're all one" mantra. He denies that humans have any benevolent impulse to help each other, to share, to care. Paine described that shared impulse, the goodness in our hearts as BEING society. Government existed only to control the part of us that wasn't so. Bert sees only the shadow.

He sees only the shadow and yet demands a totalitarian government that will rule by fear. That government will be run, apparently, by the central bankers. And that by consigning the entire human project to their capable and merciful hands, we will prevent barbarism or extinction. Really?

Cause, it's looking more and more like global totalitarianism is bringing barbarism to civilization. If we play our cards badly enough, we might even get extinction. In the meantime, more and more suffer. More refugees are created. More conflicts burn. More poor people do without so that the creme d' la creme of global supremacy may party on.

Mark Straka said...

Gort! Klaatu Verada Nictu!

LadyRavenhaire said...

I don't know what's so special about Russell's upper-class views that a whole article is devoted to him. He was a staunch racist. He made remarks that even many racist would be ashamed to make today. He was an elitist as you would expect from a member of the upper-class and certainly not much of a socialist. He disliked humanity in general. How can one be a socialist, when he hates society as a whole? In fact, he clearly stated he was not a Marxist Socialist but rather believed in federated trade unions. How much he believed in it is probably very little since he despised working class people like ourselves anyway. Russell is dead & has been a long time. I could understand if this article was about the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, or about Gates as these capitalist run the world todau, but Russell is a joke.

Anglo Saxon said...

@ Anonymous ~ May 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM.

You point to Anglo Saxons (in England) as the primary culprits.

You do so because you have not adequately studied history and are jumping to conclusions out of prejudice.

Bertrand Russell is (probably) NOT genetically Anglo-Saxon. During the height of its Empire, the British Isles attracted all manner of effete scum from the European Continent, and from much further afield: including from Russia's "Pale of Settlement". Most of the clowns you see cavorting with fancy English titles (like Russell's "Lord") changed their names and dress code upon arrival in that much abused country.

Don't just assume the rest of the country is made up of the same trash. The English were already locked down and subjugated by the Banksters and crypto-Communists long before the halcyon days of Senator McCarthy in America (who, it would appear, has since been proven correct).

Post a Comment