Michio Kaku: "If you are against world government you are a terrorist"

Originally posted by Outofcontrol

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by Outofcontrol

 

as this is really going nowhere I suggest I'll refrain.
whatever you dig, "mate"

Nice of you to "refrain" since the dictionary you so arrogantly suggested I get, doesn't have "terrist" has a word. That must have hurt a bit. So... maybe I'm not the one who needs a dictionary.

Thanks for giving up and further humiliate yourself over something as simple as a word.

EDIT: And please, may I suggest you stop with the "mate" also? Cause it seems like you've just discovered another new word. (mate exists in Merriam-Webster btw, just in case you just found it out)

cheers mate.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Outofcontrol because: (no reason given)

i wonder who the arrogant person is?
the one who tries to keep the debate - an important one - clear

or the one who obviously doesn't understand how language works and that it might take some time (and some political effort) before words become part of the canon.

nice to notice that you go for "authority" (it's not in MW, so it doesn't exist, while obviously it exist as people use it to define parts of reality)

i wonder what your issue is? why do you feel the need to be verbally aggressive?

Originally posted by Juggernog
Hes talking about mankinds transition from a type 0 civilization to a type one civilization. The comment referenced in the title begins at about 3:20, where he states that those that are against this movement are the terrorists...

edit on 2-5-2012 by Juggernog because: Changed the time from 3:30 to 3:20... typo

he says "Terra-rists" as in "Terra" as in .. they are bound to the ideals of the "old Terra" the "old earth" the "old world" not the "new world" ..... that's what he means.. but the innuendo i priceless...

reply to post by prevenge


i guess we're more or less saying the same, it's just that I heard "terrist" :-)
please see a previous post I wrote as someone thought "terrist" isn't a word :-)

The thing is, that such advanced and noble men of the future will act like base and primitive animals when dealing with people who do not agree. Same old Jazz. You agree with us or you die like a terrorist. What ever ...

Men of intelligence can react to opposition to their views without addressing the person arguing against them as criminal or less than valid in any way. That's logic. Emotion fueling your responses makes you address criticism as "enemy" or criminal. The fact is, if it were such a great idea for mankind, then it would be self evident in mankind's eyes. It would happen naturally. We resist because we don't trust those implementing it. They have done nothing to earn that trust, and in fact have tried to harm us at every turn. Why should now be any different? They found god? yeah right.

Of course a one way of governance would be great. Just not under our terrible and almost evil leadership. The harm done to the average people and projected harm, is unacceptable. They can do it by force which is the way these monkeys think. Or they could explain the reasons why and have people talk about it and decide.
1 decide if they want to be a part of it. 2 how to implement it or live along side of it. 3. who should lead it.

Our current leadership is not prepared to change their failing mentalities to govern the world as one. They do terrible jobs with their own countries and CAN NOT BE TRUSTED with all of mankind.
They should leave people who do not want to participate in their program as a country to their own peace. They should not be forced into anything. That force would destroy the world government before it got its first breath.

That's my opinion as well as many others. So I guess this dumb smart person would call me a terrorist out of ignorance and emotion.

"When we look at outer space, we see no evidence of type 1, 2 or 3 anywhere"

So who came up with these definitions in the first place?

Who cares whether we "make it" to "type 1" when it doesn't actually exist anyway?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I think that terrorist is the wrong word to use, but I completely agree with what he is saying.

Kaku knows that we eventually will have to form a "one world government" in order to step out into the stars......but some people will be against it even if it is for the best of mankind.

It depends on who it is formed by and what it's purpose is. But I can agree that eventually it will need to be set up. What we don't need is a one world dictatorship.

reply to post by Juggernog


First, his use of the word "terrorist" is done for shock effect. (You can sense how he knows exactly what he is doing.) That ploy is similar to calling all republicans terrorists. A terrorist actively works to tear something down. So by that understanding, he has the whole concept backwards. That said, I believe that the NWO is coming and must come or else we won't make the upgrade to Human+One.

Evidently, he is like Sagan, blinded by his own greatness, and never saw a UFO report that he couldn't deny.

reply to post by Juggernog


This is all ridiculous we do not have any idea in the slightest if there are higher advanced civilizations out there in the depths of space so his argument is unjustified. If we were sure there are type 1, 2 and 3's out there then yes, I agree one world government is the way to go but at this current state in time, it would just be the perfect way for the elites to control the world and do as they please with the masses. That is not something that excites me.

reply to post by Juggernog


There are too many differences here and it wont work unless we get rid of those people who are just Moronic in nature!!

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
The "terrorists want nothing to do with it"....
And the aliens want nothing to do with shills like him.

Michu- "Yes masters, I'll say whatever you want me to say on camera, thank you for this fake money. I will say whatever you need me to masters, thank you, thank you, snarf snarf."

He is definately a First Class shill all the way. I wouldnt believe anything he says.

If anyone saw him on Faux News explaining the death of the birds a couple of years ago, when he was asked "Why the mass bird die offs"???
His reply was: "They commited suicide"

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s

Ignorance exists, certainly. Many "grown-ups" can't read or write at a 6th grade level, for example.

look at it this way. the more of those, the more you look sophisticated and suave.

reply to post by Juggernog


This is a good example of the delusion science produces by denying the per-existence of consciousness. This type of thinking is taken as fact, despite the lack of supporting information. If you look at this from the aspect of reality, we already have the blueprint and user guide to the planet in written form. What is reflected in the user guide is completely being ignored by science. What do I mean?

The user guide to the planet tells us the progression. We were created. Technology is the fruit of knowledge. It allows us to experiment with good and evil in the very garden where we were planted. We are planted here so that we can grow, although the fruit of knowledge should have been left for a much later time in our development. Because we harnessed it early, our first planet dies. Our development is overseen by a shepherd while we are a young planet.

There are four aspects of reality to overcome. Earth, Air, Water and Fire. After we overcome the final adversary, we are then transitioned to spirit. Before we can transition, a government of tyranny, backed by the image of technology, will rise against the people. The first reality that acted as our womb is then removed and the veil is lifted. We see face to face with our creators and transition to their reality. The key to the transition is finding the law. What is the law?

Love.

The terrorists are the "Experts" of the law that corrupt nature and natural law for personal gain and worldly ambition. Michio Kaku is blind if he thinks that mankind can transcend his own nature apart from recognizing the source of our consciousness. The source has requirements for us to meet. We were told that Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons) was the mark to watch for. We must overcome this mark from the inside out, not the outside in.

Essentially, he is calling those with faith and hope in our creators the terrorists. This is a twisting of reality to focus on man as the god. Pride blinds.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
He is right. A world government is the next step for humanity to move up the ranks. If good people were controlling it at least. Terrorist wasn't the right word to use since it has such a horrible context socially.

Problem is that it will never ever ever happen without a massive all consuming world war! There are too many different customs, religious beliefs, agendas, human greed etc, etc that would voluntarily stop it happening. If your American, would you sit back & happily be ruled from China, Russia, Middle-East etc. Exact same for the Russsians, Chinese. Almost every country on Earth will have a problem with being governed by another nation.

Even if you could align them all under a single banner with representatives of each nation making up the government, you will still run into the exact same problems as before. You wouldn't even be a day in before the petty in-fighting & squabbling started up. Look at the likes of the U.N. Everybody will be looking out for their own interests & nothing will ultimately get done unless someone stands to make out of it.

Barring another world-war using WMD or something like an asteroid/comet impact wiping out billions, it will always be the way it is.

Next step will be to carry it out in space. Mars will be colonized & things will be fine. Eventually the natives will become restless & your looking at a civil-war for the purpose of them becoming independent from Earth.

Sadly, it's the human way & it will always be that way!

He's right of course. In theory, we shouldn't be opposed to more global political unity.

In reality we should be, due to the people in power.

Originally posted by abeverage
I have never had a problem with this...and if you do a little research most people dont!


We have a United States of America, why not a United States of the World?

Have you looked at the US government lately? No thanks.

Originally posted by abeverageChristian's want a One World Government

Only with Christ running it.

Originally posted by Starchild23


What are they planning for us?

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Originally posted by Outofcontrol

Mate... "terrist" isnt even a word...

Whats that all about? "Terrist"?

You people that think you know it all really annoy those of us who do.

Terrist
A terrist is a radical environmentalist or a self-proclaimed green anarchist who sees her or him self as heroically defending the Earth, or "Terra" (Latin), from humans or other forces acting through humans - typically ideologies or technologies, which they see as out of control. They may or may not profess the 'Earth immune system' ideology of Gaians.

There is so far no openly stated ideology called "terrism". That may be deliberate, as terrists usually see it as unnecessary to discuss, explain or agree. Instead they act.

Many terrists oppose capitalism as inherently dirty and destructive of the natural world. Others view technology as the enemy, and some state that they seek human extinction, e.g. through suicide, cannibalism, abortion, euthanasia, and other means. A notable group of this sort is the Church of Euthanasia. Some consider the Anarchist Golfing Association to also be taking a basically terrist position, as they offer a relatively weak rationale for attacking the game of golf, itself a symbol of what they oppose. Both groups might also reasonably be called situationist.

Critics of such groups often consider them insincere or mentally unbalanced, and believe that extreme goals and visible actions are nothing but a publicity stunt. As evidence they point to the fact that the term "terrist" was openly coined in deliberate mockery of the term terrorist, which is sometimes pronounced (especially with certain American accents) as "terrist". A web search will verify that this is the most common use.

Radical environmentalists don't usually openly state that they are terrists, but seek some socially acceptable rationale for their actions. As with the word "terrorist", if someone says they are a terrist, they probably aren't, but are just seeking publicity.

Terrist is also an alternative name for Terrans - as defined by Dr. Hugo De Garis in opposition to what he calls Cosmists - taking opposing and irreconcilable positions on whether humans should attempt to develop artificial intelligence. This debate is so far confined to specialized professional circles and has generally not been addressed in public policy.

Other than taking a strong active position for biosecurity and being willing to break laws to advance their aims, there seems to be no program common to all terrists - and no single authority on their objectives.

Controversial usage of the term to describe Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists, Gaians, or others in the Green Movement, is generally not welcomed by those groups, who differentiate very carefully and deliberately between themselves and groups deliberately destroying property.

They are also sometimes known as "Gaians", which is admittedly more popular.

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


I wasnt verbally agressive - I just said "terrist" didnt exist as a word. You were the one to reply, out of the blue that I needed a dictionary, therefore calling me ignorant. All I did was... well... follow your arrogant "advice", and actually get a dictionary. Not my fault if the word doesnt exist. (not including your superior tone with the "mate" at the end of the replies)

Nevertheless I still think he says terrorists - as in too conservative or greedy to want a unified planet. Makes a bit more sense than terrists. He is a widely known figure, a theoretical physicist that made his name out of all the other ones by being the only guy who could "translate" the complexity of "science lingo" into every man's language so everybody could understand and he does an awesome job turning complex issues into a "simple idea that everyone can absorb" by using every day examples and every day lingo. Now does it make any sense that he would use a word that doesnt exist, when he could have used a more known expression? A definition that, even if people didnt understand, they could look it up fast and get the concept in a blink?

For instance, if you search "terrist" on google for instance (I just did it) in the first page there isnt even one result explaining you what a terrist is. You do get corrected to "terrorist" tho. If you keep searching "terrist" not even dictionaries give you the explanation. The explanation comes from "alternative websites" that most ppl would not take it for "credible". I dont think Kaku would use a word that you can almost only find in "unofficial and alternative websites".

So for a man that tries always to simplify things and make the complex world of physics available for the common bloke, I dont think he'd use a word that takes a full investigation to discover what it is. He explains himself too good for that.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Ok... and was he referring to new age gaians or to gaian greens?

Seriously, read my above post to try and understand what I mean...

Why didnt he use "radical environmentalist" for instance? That would have done the trick... since hes so good at "being understood by everyone" still you want to believe that he said "terrists"

reply to post by Outofcontrol
Really? All of the replies I found were first page google. You did change from terrorist where google wanted to send you to "terrist"; right?

"Terra-ist" makes just doesn't make as much sense imo.

1. terraist

Terraist (L. terra, "Earth" + "ist")

1 A person who loves the Earth and its natural wonders.

2 Environmentalist.
1 The terraists were out watching the sunrise and bird-watching again this morning.

2 Terraists around the world are united in a wish to prevent the destruction of the natural environment.