HG Wells

[ASL Veteran]

I found this rather interesting book / pamphlet while surfing the other day. It was written by HG Wells back in the 1920s and this is his revised version from 1933 I believe. I think you guys should give it a read - a very careful read.

http://www.inlex.org/stories/wells/opencons.html#10

[ASL Veteran]

Incidentally HG Wells wrote another booklet entitled "The New World Order" which can be found here

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_hgwells.htm

New World Order....New World Order .... where have I heard that before?

[Other Means]

I love all his fiction.

[ASL Veteran]

A new and happier world, a world community, is awakening, within the body of the old order, to the possibility of its emergence. Our phrase, “the Open Conspiracy” is merely a name for that awakening. To begin with, the Open Conspiracy is necessarily a group of ideas.

One insightful Hegelianism was that to push ideas efficiently it was necessary first to co-opt both political Left and political Right. Adversarial politics—competition—was a loser’s game.12 By infiltrating all major media, by continual low-intensity propaganda, by massive changes in group orientations (accomplished through principles developed in the psychological-warfare bureaus of the military), and with the ability, using government intelligence agents and press contacts, to induce a succession of crises, they accomplished that astonishing feat.

I’m not going to credit those quotes just yet, but you will see the sources a bit later. All bolding below has been added by me.

We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. What does that mean exactly? “We are the ones” is probably either referring to Obama and his staff or advisors or perhaps himself and the audience, but what about the ones who have been doing the waiting and what are they waiting for? It could be members of the audience, but I would propose that Obama is referring to some ‘backers’ or an ‘organisation’ of some sort of which Obama is a member.

HG Wells was a member of a quasi secret society. He even wrote a book about it titled “The Open Conspiracy”

http://www.orwelltoday.com/wellsconspiracy.shtml

Is there a conspiracy for world domination? According to H G Wells there is, and he was proud to be a part of it. In 1928 he wrote the book THE OPEN CONSPIRACY describing the organization behind all the movements that have brought us to our present sorry state of affairs (ie mega-mergers, economic disaster, genetic engineering, loss of individuality and sovereignty etc etc).

It's uncanny how Wells was able to foresee everything that would happen and how it would all fall into place. But then again, I

guess that's to be expected coming from the author of THE TIME MACHINE (1895), THE INVISIBLE MAN (1897) and THE WAR OF THE WORLDS (1898) - to name a few. No doubt H G Wells had help foreseeing all of this, just as he had help writing his books. He admits he's more or less a spokesperson for a shadowy group of behind-the-scenes elites.

The books Open Conspiracy, Anticipations of a New Republic, and The New World Order are not works of fiction, but rather a detailed description of how HG Wells would like the world to be and an accurate reflection of his political leanings. The organization that HG Wells was a spokesman for is known as The Fabian Society and The Fabian Society is still active in UK and commonwealth politics to this day. Here is a link to their UK website

http://www.fabians.org.uk/

Here is how they describe themselves on their website

Who we are

The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.

The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.

All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.

This all seems pretty vanilla stuff. A few key words jump out though. The first thing that should jump out is “progressive politics”. What exactly is “progressive politics”? Progress implies that they are heading somewhere and have some sort of end state or destination in mind that hasn’t been reached yet. They also state that “all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society”. However, other politicians have described themselves as “progressives” and should probably be considered as Fabian Society members or sympathizers.

Here are some examples:

You may have noticed that the two people identifying themselves as “Progressives” in the links above are not members of the UK Labour party. So we know that Fabian Society members aren’t necessarily members of the Labour Party in the UK. This might explain that second to last sentence, “It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent.” Indeed. Let’s check in with HG Wells on what “Progress” means from his book “Open Conspiracy”.

Men were travelling about so much faster and flashing their communications instantly about the world because a progressive

conquest of force and substance was going on. Improved transport was only one of a number of portentous consequences of that conquest; the first to be conspicuous and set men thinking; but not perhaps the first in importance. It dawned upon them that in the last hundred years there had been a stupendous progress in obtaining and utilizing mechanical power, a vast increase in the efficiency of mechanism, and associated with that an enormous increase in the substances available for man's purposes, from

vulcanized rubber to the modern steels, and from petroleum and margarine to tungsten and aluminium.

(snip)

When we demand why the achievement of power turns to distress and danger in our hands, we get some very unsatisfactory replies.

The favourite platitude of the politician excusing himself for the futilities of his business, is that “moral progress has not kept pace with material advance.” That seems to satisfy him completely, but it can satisfy no other intelligent person. He says “moral.” He leaves that word unexplained. Apparently he wants to shift the responsibility to our religious teachers. At the most he has made but the vaguest gesture towards a reply. And yet, when we consider it, charitably and sympathetically, there does seem

to be a germ of reality in that phrase of his.

What does moral mean? Mores means manners and customs. Morality is the conduct of life. It is what we do with our social lives. It is how we deal with ourselves in relation to our fellow creatures. And there does seem to be a much greater discord now than there was (say) a couple of hundred years ago between the prevailing ideas of how to carry on life and the opportunities a and dangers of the time. We are coming to see more and more plainly that certain established traditions which have made up the frame of human relationships for ages are not merely no longer as convenient as they were, but are positively injurious and dangerous. And yet at present we do not know how to shake off these traditions, these habits of social behaviour which rule us. Still less are we able to state, and still less bring into operation, the new conceptions of conduct and obligation that must replace them.

(snip)

We are all trained to distrust and hate foreigners, salute our flag, stiffen up in a wooden obedient way at our national anthem, and prepare to follow the little fellows in spurs and feathers who pose as the heads of our states into the most horrible common destruction. Our political and economic ideas of living are out of date, and we find great difficulty in adjusting them and reconstructing them to meet the huge and strenuous demands of the new times. That is really what our gramophone politicians have in mind - in the vague way in which they have anything in mind - when they put on that well-worn record about moral progress

not having kept pace with material inventions.

Socially and politically we want a revised system of ideas about conduct, a view of social and political life brought up to date. We are not doing the effective thing with our lives, we are drifting, we are being hoodwinked and bamboozled and misled by those who trade upon the old traditions. It is preposterous that we should still be followed about and pestered by war, taxed for war preparations, and threatened bodily and in our liberties by this unnecessary and exaggerated and distorted survival of the disunited world of the pre-scientific era.

Wow, who wouldn’t be in favor of progress? I guess that all depends upon whether you think progress is needed or not. Of course, he hasn’t describe exactly what the endpoint would look like yet, but he explains why “Progress” is necessary. The origins of this demand for Progress comes from Darwin.

http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9a.htm

Darwin was the weird holy man Fabians adored, the man who gave them their principle, a theory inspirationally equal to god-theory, around which a new organization of society could be justified. Society, after Darwin, was incontrovertibly about good breeding. That was the only true goal it had, or scientifically could have. Before Darwin, the view of historical development which fit best with Anglo/American tradition was a conception of individual rights independent of any theory of reciprocal obligations to the State; the duty of leaders was to Society, not to

Government, a crucial distinction in perfect harmony with the teachings of Reformation Christianity, which extended to all believers a conception of individual duty, individual responsibility, and a free will right to decide for oneself beyond any claims of states.

This attitude constituted a violent contradiction of German strong-state, state-as-first-parent doctrine which held that interests of the individual as individual are without significance. But derogation of individual rights was entirely consistent with Darwinian science. The German authoritarian preference received an invigorating restorative with Darwin’s advent. Natural selection, the operational principle of Darwinism, was held to reach individuals only indirectly—through the action of society. Hence society becomes a natural subject for regulation and intervention by the State.

So what would HG Well’s world look like if “Progress” reached it’s ultimate endpoint? The first thing that would have to happen would be to encourage a sort of ‘grass roots’ open conspiracy in order to enact the appropriate changes. He describes it this way

It seemed to me that all over the world intelligent people were waking up to the indignity and absurdity of being endangered, restrained, and impoverished, by a mere uncritical adhesion to traditional governments, traditional ideas of economic life, and traditional forms of behaviour, and that these awaking intelligent people must constitute first a protest and

then a creative resistance to the inertia that was stifling and threatening us. These people I imagined would say first, “We are drifting; we are doing nothing worth while with our lives. Our lives are dull and stupid and not good enough.”

Then they would say, “What are we to do with our lives?”

And then, “Let us get together with other people of our sort and make over the world into a great world-civilization that

will enable us to realize the promises and avoid the dangers of this new time.”

It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we should be saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated world.

Assuming you were intelligent, first you would wake up and say ‘let’s make the world into a great world civilization’ where the interests of the individual as individual are without significance, and then you would proceed to carry out the realization of that goal in plain sight. It would be a conspiracy that was hidden in plain sight.

[costard]

... and then WW2 happened along and changed everything again. Experiments in social evolution are nothing new; most religions started with exactly this premise.

Assuming you were intelligent, first you would wake up and say ‘let’s make the world into a great world civilization’ where the interests of the individual as individual are without significance, and then you would proceed to carry out the realization of that goal in plain sight. It would be a conspiracy that was hidden in plain sight.

And if you were really intelligent, you might realise that mores - traditions, customs and laws - generally change with time in response to changing conditions, and that the task of forcing people to do what they don't want to do is very rarely a thankful one.

As for the Fabians - either they abide by a doctrine that was set down in the early part of the twentieth centurry, in which case they are not progressive, or they truly and effectively debate the challenges facing any leadership group in the modern world, in which case they're probably better off being robustly critiqued and provided with accurate intelligence.

[ASL Veteran]

Where would this progress need to be made first?

Fundamentally the Open Conspiracy must be an intellectual rebirth.

Human thought is still very much confused by the imperfection of the words and other symbols it employs and the consequences of this confused thinking are much more serious and extensive than is commonly realized. We still see the world through a mist of words; it is only the things immediately about us that are plain fact. Through symbols, and especially through words, man has raised himself above the level of the ape and come to a considerable mastery over his universe.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

You see, once you have ‘evolved’ enough you will then come to see that a New World Order is required in order to save humanity from itself. What subjects must the awakening Fabian learn?

But re-educating oneself, getting one's mind into health and exercising it and training it to think properly, is only the beginning of the task before the awakening Open Conspirator. He has not only to think clearly, but he has to see that his mind is equipped with the proper general ideas to form a true framework for his everyday judgments and decisions.

(snip)

I realized that I did not know enough about the life in my body and its relations to the world of life and matter outside it to come to proper decisions about a number of urgent matters – from race conflicts, birth control, and my private life, to the public control of health and the conservation of natural resources. And also, I found, I was astonishingly ignorant about the everyday business of life, the how and why of the miner who provided the coal to cook my dinner, and the banker who took my money in return for a cheque-book, and the shopkeeper from whom I bought things, and the policeman who kept the streets in order for me.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

Those topics look surprisingly modern. It appears that we are still grappling with those issues even today.

He further expands on the importance of “education” in “The New World Order”

The reorganisation of the world has at first to be mainly the work of a "movement" or a Party or a religion or cult, whatever we choose to call it. We may call it New Liberalism or the New Radicalism or what not. It will not be a close-knit organisation, toeing the Party line and so forth. It may be a very loose-knit and many faceted, but if a sufficient number of minds throughout the world, irrespective of race, origin or economic and social habituations, can be brought to the free and candid recognition of the essentials of the human problem, then their effective collaboration in a conscious, explicit and open effort to reconstruct human society will ensue.

And to begin with they will do all they can to spread and perfect this conception of a new world order, which they will regard as the only working frame for their activities, while at the same time they will set themselves to discover and associate with themselves, everyone, everywhere, who is intellectually able to grasp the same broad ideas and morally disposed to realise them.

The distribution of this essential conception one may call propaganda, but in reality it is education. The opening phase of this new type of Revolution must involve therefore a campaign for re-invigorated and modernised education throughout the world, an education that will have the same ratio to the education of a couple of hundred years ago, as the electric lighting of a contemporary city has to the chandeliers and oil lamps of the same period. On its present mental levels humanity can do no better than what it is doing now.

Vitalising education is only possible when it is under the influence of people who are themselves learning. It is inseparable from the modern idea of education that it should be knit up to incessant research. We say research rather than science. It is the better word because it is free from any suggestion of that finality which means dogmatism and death.

All education tends to become stylistic and sterile unless it is kept in close touch with experimental verification and practical work, and consequently this new movement of revolutionary initiative, must at the same time be sustaining realistic political and social activities and working steadily for the collectivisation of governments and economic life. The intellectual movement will be only the initiatory and correlating part of the new revolutionary drive. These practical activities must be various. Everyone engaged in them.

HG Wells, The New World Order

If you are smart enough you will see the necessity of implementing the New World Order. If you aren’t smart enough, well then the Fabians have … ahem …. other plans for you.

Younger people don’t have a lifetime’s worth of experience to draw upon to form their opinions thus making them malleable and easy to influence. Here is an example of some students who have probably been influenced by Fabian teachings.

Since HG Wells mentions symbols let’s have a look at some Fabian symbology from here

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@@.1de0be86/9

The Fabian symbols of the turtle and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass window that used to be in the Fabian headquarters. The window has been removed, we are told, for safety, but there are many photographs showing the symbols in great detail. The most significant part appears at the top. It is that famous line from Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

would we not shatter it to bits

and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it unlocks the door that hides the secret of the war on terrorism:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

would we not shatter it to bits

and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?

Elsewhere in the window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are striking it with hammers – to shatter it to bits! That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. “War is the best way to remold society. War! It will shatter society to bits, break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

I’ll get back to George Bernard Shaw in a bit, and I don’t necessarily subscribe to the link between the Fabians and the war on terror. At least not in the way the author implies. For now, just remember that the symbols are a turtle, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and that George Bernard Shaw and Sydney Webb are striking the earth with hammers. You will see an image of the window later. Continuing on

http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9a.htm

I’ve neglected to tell you so far about the role stress plays in Fabian evolutionary theory. Just as Hegel taught that history moves faster toward its conclusion by way of warfare, so evolutionary socialists were taught by Hegel to see struggle as the precipitant of evolutionary improvement for the species, a necessary purifier eliminating the weak from the breeding sweepstakes. Society evolves slowly toward "social efficiency" all by itself; society under stress, however, evolves much faster! Thus the deliberate creation of crisis is an important tool of evolutionary socialists. Does that help you understand the government school drama a little better, or the well-publicized doomsday scenarios of environmentalists?

The London School of Economics is a Fabian creation. Mick Jagger spent time there; so did John F. Kennedy. Once elitist, the Economist, now a worldwide pop-intellectual publication, is Fabian, as is The New Statesman and Ruskin Labor College of Oxford. The legendary Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, premier mind- bending institutions of the world, are Fabian. Theodor Adorno, an important if barely visible avatar of the therapeutic state, and a one-time eminence at Tavistock, traveled the Fabian road as well.

You needn’t carry a card or even have heard the name Fabian to follow the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing flag. Fabianism is mainly a value-system with progressive objectives. Its social club aspect isn’t for coalminers, farmers, or steam-fitters. We’ve all been exposed to many details of the Fabian program without realizing it. In the United States, some organizations heavily influenced by Fabianism are the Ford Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Stanford Research Institute, the Carnegie Endowments, the Aspen Institute, the Wharton School, and RAND. And this short list is illustrative, not complete. Tavistock underwrites or has intimate relations with thirty research institutions in the United States, all which at one time or another have taken a player’s hand in the shaping of American schooling.

The Wolf in Sheep’s clothing is probably a reference to being hidden in plain sight. John Maynard Keynes taught economics at the London School of Economics and that should explain why he is the patron saint of all things economic to those in government who are big spenders.

[ASL Veteran]

Even if the new Fabian learns about the subjects listed above, there is still the matter of religion to deal with.

Let us try and bring this problem of the Open Conspiracy to meet and make the new world, into relation with the traditions of religion. The clear-minded Open Conspirator who has got his modern ideology, his lucidly arranged account of the universe in order, is obliged to believe that only by giving his life to the great processes of social reconstruction, and shaping his conduct with reference to that, can he do well with his life. But that merely launches him into the most subtle and unending of struggles, the struggle against the incessant gravitation of our interests to ourselves. He has to live the broad life and escape from the close narrow life. We all try to attain the dignity and happiness of magnanimity and escape from the tormenting urgencies of personal desire. In the past that struggle has generally assumed the form of a religious struggle. Religion is the antagonist of self.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

Got that? Religion is the antagonist of self and encourages individualism through individual salvation “gravitation of our interests to ourselves” as opposed to “the collective”. That means in the New World Order the religions of the Old World Order have no place since you cannot give your life to the processes of social reconstruction of ‘the collective’ and still have religious beliefs that are rooted in individualism. Time to revisit a partial quote that I put up earlier

http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/9a.htm

Society, after Darwin, was incontrovertibly about good breeding. That was the only true goal it had, or scientifically could have. Before Darwin, the view of historical development which fit best with Anglo/American tradition was a conception of individual rights independent of any theory of reciprocal obligations to the State; the duty of leaders was to Society, not to Government, a crucial distinction in perfect harmony with the teachings of Reformation Christianity, which extended to all believers a conception of individual duty, individual responsibility, and a free will right to decide for oneself beyond any claims of states. John Calvin proclaimed in his Institutes that through natural law, the judgment of conscience alone was able to distinguish between justice and injustice. It’s hard for secular minds to face, but the powerful freedoms of the West, unmatched by any other society at any other time, are rooted deeply in a religion so radical, so demanding it revolts the modern temper.

For Protestant Christians, salvation was uniquely a matter between God and the individual. The mind of northern Europe had for centuries been fixed on the task of winning liberties for the individual against the State. Notable individual freedoms were taken from the State beginning symbolically at Runnemede in 1215. By 1859, six and a half centuries later, in the Age of Darwin, individual rights were everywhere in the Anglo-Saxon world understood to transcend theories of obligation to the State. Herbert Spencer embodies this attitude, albeit ambiguously. For Spencer, Darwinian evolution promised rights only to the strong. It is well to keep in mind that his brief for liberty masks a rigorously exclusionary philosophy, particularly when he sounds most like Thomas Paine. The first and second amendments of our own constitution illustrate just how far this freedom process could carry. Say what you please before God and Man; protect yourself with a gun if need be from government interference.

Spencer was the reigning British philosopher from 1870 to 1900. In the Westminster Review of January 1860, he wrote: "The welfare of citizens cannot rightly be sacrificed to some supposed benefit of the State, the State is to be maintained solely for the benefit of citizens. The corporate life in society must be subservient to the lives of its parts, instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life." Spencer had an even greater vogue in America, influencing every intellectual from Walt Whitman to John Dewey and becoming the darling of corporate business. Early in 1882 a grand dinner was held in his honor by the great and powerful who gathered to hear scientific proof of Anglo-Saxon fitness for rule—and a brief for moral relativism. This dinner and its implications set the standard for twentieth-century management, including the management of schooling. A clear appraisal of the fateful meal and its resonance is given in E. Digby Baltzell’s The Protestant Establishment, a well-bred look at the resurgence of the Anglican outlook in America.

This attitude constituted a violent contradiction of German strong-state, state-as-first-parent doctrine which held that interests of the individual as individual are without significance. But derogation of individual rights was entirely consistent with Darwinian science. The German authoritarian preference received an invigorating restorative with Darwin’s advent. Natural selection, the operational principle of Darwinism, was held to reach individuals only indirectly—through the action of society. Hence society becomes a natural subject for regulation and intervention by the State.

So individual salvation that is taught by traditional religions must be eliminated and replaced with collective salvation in order to make people a willing part of the collective

Naturally then, if you didn’t believe in individual salvation and your ‘God’ was the New World Order then you would have trouble reading the declaration of independence which states that our rights come from “Our Creator”.

The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments....The character of the Open Conspiracy will then be plainly displayed. It will be a world religion. This large, loose assimilatory mass of groups and societies will definitely and obviously attempt to swallow up the entire population of the world and become a new human community....The immediate task before all people, a planned World State, is appearing at a thousand points of light [but]...generations of propaganda and education may have to precede it.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

A thousand points of light. Where have I heard that before? I do remember but unfortunately I can’t find a video of it so I’ll leave it to the reader to search for it (hint, US presidential debate). HG Well’s says that the new world religion will be the New World Order itself. HG Well’s call for a world religion though has been advanced recently. Let’s have a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2I_HGOls4s

Wow, religion as a force for “Progress”. Very interesting. The reason HG Well’s offers up the idea for the New World Order as a world religion in and of itself is because

It seems unavoidable that if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous prolongation of personal ends. The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.

The time has come to strip religion right down to that, to strip it for greater tasks than it has ever faced before. The histories and symbols that served our fathers encumber and divide us. Sacraments and rituals harbour disputes and waste our scanty emotions. The explanation of why things are is an unnecessary effort in religion. The essential fact in religion is the desire for religion and not how it came about. If you do not want religion, no persuasions, no convictions about your place in the universe can give it to you. The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.

He says the New World Order must be the new World Religion because religion is the desire for service and for subordination. In other words “I give myself” to the collective. A believer in the New World Order will also not be persuaded to change their minds about the New World Order because “The explanation of why things are is an unnecessary effort in religion”. In other words, once you are a believer in the New World Order then it will be impossible to change your mind with facts of any kind. The desire for service … hmmmm

The realization of this possible better order brings us at once to certain definite lines of conduct. We have to make an end to war, and to make an end to war we must be cosmopolitan in our politics. It is impossible for any clear-headed person to suppose that the ever more destructive stupidities of war can be eliminated from human affairs until some common political control dominates the earth, and unless certain pressures due to the growth of population, due to the enlarging scope of economic operations or due to conflicting standards and traditions of life, are disposed of.

To avoid the positive evils of war and to attain the new levels of prosperity and power that now come into view, an effective world control, not merely of armed force, but of the production and main movements of staple commodities and the drift and expansion of population is required. It is absurd to dream of peace and world-wide progress without that much control. These things assured the abilities and energies of a greatly increased proportion of human beings could be diverted to the happy activities of scientific research and creative work, with an ever-increasing release and enlargement of human possibility. On the political side it is plain that our lives must be given to the advancement of that union.

Such a forward stride in human life, the first stride in a mighty continuing advance, an advance to which no limit appears, is now not simply materially possible. It is urgent. The opportunity is plain before mankind. It is the alternative to social decay. But there is no certainty, no material necessity, that it should ever be taken. It will not be taken by mankind inadvertently. It can only be taken through such an organization of will and energy to take it as this world has never seen before.

These are the new imperatives that unfold themselves before the more alert minds of our generation. They will presently become the general mental background, as the modern interpretations of the history of life and of the material and mental possibilities about us establish themselves. Evil political, social, and economic usages and arrangements may seem obdurate and huge, but they are neither permanent nor uncontrollable. They can be controlled, however, only by an effort more powerful and determined than the instincts and inertias that sustain them. Religion, modern and disillusioned, has for its outward task to set itself to the control and direction of political, social, and economic life. If it does not do that, then it is no more than a drug for easing discomfort, “the opium of the peoples.”

Can religion, or can it not, synthesize the needed effort to lift mankind out of our present disorders, dangers, baseness, frustrations, and futilities to a phase of relative security, accumulating knowledge, systematic and continuing growth in power and the widespread, deep happiness of hopeful and increasing life?

Our answer here is that the religious spirit, in the light of modern knowledge, can do this thing, and our subject now is to enquire what are the necessary opening stages in the synthesis of that effort. We write, from this point onward, for those who believe that it can, and who do already grasp the implications of world history and contemporary scientific achievement.

So there it is. Progress is to be achieved by the ‘Open Conspirators’ having a religious devotion to their cause of creating a New World Order.

So the obvious next question is what this New World Order will look like? My next post might be a bit controversial, and I thank you for putting up with my postings so far. My objective is not to debate but rather point out some things and let you guys decide for yourselves what to make of it.

[costard]

...

So the obvious next question is what this New World Order will look like? My next post might be a bit controversial, and I thank you for putting up with my postings so far. My objective is not to debate but rather point out some things and let you guys decide for yourselves what to make of it.

No worries - but I'm still a little hazy as to the point of the analysis. A new world order, big deal. Will it be in the mode of Pol Pot, or will we be happily led? Will the world go ahead and change anyway, with the supposed conspirators claiming the credit (and assigning the blame for the predictable messes) along the way? Sounds like SNAFU, with emphasis on the SN.

The intellectual shortcomings so freely admitted to - in that our understanding of the world is neccesarily limited by our imperfections, our languages and models, are in the next para ignored as it is claimed that "intelligent, well-educated leaders" will not only know what to do, but will be able to bring about these doings by forming some sort of political/religious group of like minded souls. My point is that these groups already exist and always have done. It's a crock, and any attempt to lay the misery of the world at this putative group's feet is equally misguided (if done at all innocently, something I have the gravest reservations about.)

Progress will occur where the commonwealth is husbanded - something that didn't happen over the last decade. If the intellectual fashion of our leadership is to remain ignorant of our history and the processes that led to the events therein, we will see the opposite of progress, a repeating of the same mistakes and a new "Dark Age". That this might be considered a good thing by anyone only displays their fundamental worth as a human being: fertilizer grade.

[ASL Veteran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXSvV57oB3k

Now the most comprehensive conception of this new world is of one politically, socially, and economically unified. Within that frame fall all the other ideas of our progressive ambition. To this end we set our faces and seek to direct our lives. Many there are at present who apprehend it as a possibility but do not dare, it seems, to desire it, because of the enormous difficulties that intervene, and because they see as yet no intimations of a way through or round these difficulties. They do not see a way of escape from the patchwork of governments that grips them and divides mankind. The great majority of human beings have still to see the human adventure as one whole; they are obsessed by the air of permanence and finality in established things; they accept current reality as ultimate reality. As the saying goes, they take the world as they find it.

But here we are writing for the modern-minded, and for them it is impossible to think of the world as secure and satisfactory until there exists a single world commonweal, preventing war and controlling those moral, biological, and economic forces and wastages that would otherwise lead to wars. And controlling them in the sense that science and man's realization and control of his powers and possibilities continually increase.

(snip)

This point is not yet generally realized. It is too often assumed that the world commonweal will be, as it were, just the one heir and survivor of existing states, and that it will be a sort of megatherium of the same form and anatomy as its predecessors.

But a little reflection will show that this is a mistake. Existing states are primarily militant states, and a world state cannot be militant. There will be little need for president or king to lead the marshalled hosts of humanity, for where there is no war there is no need of any leader to lead hosts anywhere, and in a polyglot world a parliament of mankind or any sort ofcouncil that meets and talks is an inconceivable instrument of government. The voice will cease to be a suitable vehicle. World government, like scientific process, will be conducted by statement, criticism, and publication that will be capable of efficient translation.

The fundamental organization of contemporary states is plainly still military, and that is exactly what a world organization cannot be. Flags, uniforms, national anthems, patriotism sedulously cultivated in church and school, the brag, blare, and bluster of our competing sovereignties, belong to the phase of development the Open Conspiracy will supersede. We have to get clear of that clutter. The reasonable desire of all of us is that we should have the collective affairs of the world managed by suitably equipped groups of the most interested, intelligent, and devoted people, and that their activities should be subjected to a free, open, watchful criticism, restrained from making spasmodic interruptions but powerful enough to modify or supersede without haste or delay whatever is weakening or unsatisfactory in the general direction.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

Did you see that? Democracy is much too messy for the New World Order and would have to be tossed in the ash heap of history “in a polyglot world a parliament of mankind or any sort of council that meets and talks is an inconceivable instrument of government”. The New World Order would have to be managed by “suitably equipped groups of the most interested, intelligent, and devoted people”. No doubt HG Wells feels that he is qualified to be one of those individuals. No doubt he also feels that you and I aren’t smart enough to be one of those people or to be smart enough to elect the right kind of person for one of those positions of authority. Therefore an ‘enlightened elite’ would have to run this New World Order utopia on our behalf. A utopia which is based upon “Science” as explained here

This candid attempt to take possession of the whole world, this Open Conspiracy of ours, must be made in the name of and for the sake of science and creative activity. Its aim is to release science and creative activity and every stage in the struggle must be watched and criticized, lest there be any sacrifice of these ends to the exigencies of conflict.

The security of creative progress and creative activity implies a competent regulation of the economic life in the collective interest. There must be food, shelter and leisure for all. The fundamental needs of the animal life must be assured before human life can have free play. Man does not live by bread alone; he eats that he may learn and adventure creatively, but unless he eats he cannot adventure. His life is primarily economic, as a house is primarily a foundation, and economic justice and efficiency must underlie all other activities; but to judge human society and organize political and social activities entirely on economic grounds is to forget the objectives of life's campaign in a preoccupation with supply.

It is true that man, like the animal world in general from which he has risen, is the creature of a struggle for sustenance, but unlike the animals, man can resort to methods of escape from that competitive pressure upon the means of subsistence, which has been the lot of every other animal species. He can restrain the increase in his numbers, and he seems capable of still quite undefined expansions of his productivity per head of population. He can escape therefore from the struggle for subsistence altogether with a surplus of energy such as no other kind of animal species has ever possessed. Intelligent control of population is a possibility which puts man outside competitive processes that have hitherto ruled the modification of species, and he can be released from these processes in no other way.

There is a clear hope that, later, directed breeding will come within his scope, but that goes beyond his present range of practical achievement, and we need not discuss it further here. Suffice it for us here that the world community of our desires, the organized world community conducting and ensuring its own progress, requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition.

There is no strong instinctive desire for multitudinous offspring, as such, in the feminine make-up. The reproductive impulses operate indirectly. Nature ensures a pressure of population through passions and instincts that, given sufficient knowledge, intelligence, and freedom on the part of women, can be satisfactorily gratified and tranquillized, if need be, without the production of numerous children. Very slight adjustments in social and economic arrangements will, in a world of clear available knowledge and straightforward practice in these matters, supply sufficient inducement or discouragement to affect the general birth rate or the birth rate of specific types as the directive sense of the community may consider desirable. So long as the majority of human beings are begotten involuntarily in lust and ignorance so long does man remain like any other animal under the moulding pressure of competition for subsistence. Social and political processes change entirely in their character when we recognize the possibility and practicability of this fundamental revolution in human biology.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

Yes, you read that right. The world community of our desires requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition and in order to achieve that women can be tranquilized. Once they have control of ‘breeding’ the Open Conspirators can discourage the birth rate of ‘specific types’ as the community may consider desireable.

So who else might not be welcome in the New World Order?

Let me repeat this part “the organized world community conducting and ensuring its own progress, requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition.” A primary condition. Oh yeah, remember George Bernard Shaw? Yeah, let’s have another look at him.

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED

What would be the best way to advance the ‘primary condition’ of the ‘organized world community’?

In order to be as clear as possible about this, let me submit a draft for your consideration of this proposed Declaration of the Rights of Man - using "man" of course to cover every individual, male or female, of the species. I have endeavoured to bring in everything that is essential and to omit whatever secondary issues can be easily deduced from its general statements.

(snip)

"Since a man comes into this world through no fault of his own, since he is manifestly a joint inheritor of the accumulations of the past, and since those accumulations are more than sufficient to justify the claims that are here made for him, it follows:

"(1) That every man without distinction of race, of colour or of professed belief or opinions, is entitled to the nourishment, covering, medical care and attention needed to realise his full possibilities of physical and mental development and to keep him in a state of health from his birth to death.

HG Wells, “The New World Order”

What better way to ensure ‘proper breeding’ than to provide the Proles with healthcare? Remember that the deliberate collective control of population is the primary purpose of The Open Conspiracy. You see, if there are people who get cancer the best thing to do is to make sure that those people getting cancer don’t breed and create other people who may get cancer. You cure cancer by ‘breeding’ cancer out of the human population.

No, you shout! That is not what making health care a right is all about! No? Well let’s look a little deeper shall we? Let’s have a look at what HG Wells said in his book “Anticipations”. You can see the entire article here, and there is a link near the end of the article where you can download the actual book or read it online.

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/hg_wells_anticipations_of_the_new.htm

Wells' New Republic is largely driven by eugenic policies aimed at what Wells calls the "people of the Abyss." These classes of people are those who the New Republic deems inferior, be they Jews, Blacks, the diseased, the incurably melancholy, etc. The supposed superiority of the scientific elite, who have purified themselves of ancient, outdated ideas and restraining morality, places them in a position of dominance in Wells' New Republic. A "reconstructed ethical system" gives rise to a "new ethics" in the New Republic.

Wells writes regarding this new ethics,

"...the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favour the procreation of what is fine and efficient... and to check the procreation of base and servile types..."

Death, writes Wells, must be called to the aid of mankind,

"And the method that nature has followed hitherto in the shaping of the world, whereby weakness was prevented from propagating weakness, and cowardice and feebleness were saved from the accomplishment of their desires... the method that must in some cases still be called in to the help of man, is death."

A "reconstructed ethical system" governs the elite of the New Republic which allows for the killing of lesser types as a greater service to the whole of mankind, but a more selfish motivation of total domination seems to cut to the core of this elite. These men of the New Republic have a "moral justification" for every action. Scientific management and a compulsive desire for efficiency guide their hands. They do display some amount of compassion - if you can call it that - as Wells describes their allowance of some defectives to live, but on the condition that they do not reproduce. If this agreement is violated, murder is not out of the question.

"They will hold [the men of the New Republic], I anticipate, that a certain portion of the population--the small minority, for example, afflicted with indisputably transmissible diseases, with transmissible mental disorders, with such hideous incurable habits of mind as the craving for intoxication--exists only on sufferance, out of pity and patience, and on the understanding that they do not propagate; and I do not foresee any reason to suppose that they will hesitate to kill when that sufferance is abused."

All of this will stand on the "faith" of the men of the New Republic. Wells elaborates,

"The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish, either, in facing or inflicting death, because they will have a fuller sense of the possibilities of life than we possess. They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while; like Abraham, they will have the faith to kill, and they will have no superstitions about death. They will naturally regard the modest suicide of incurably melancholy, or diseased or helpless persons as a high and courageous act of duty rather than a crime."

Let’s check this article from the CATO institute here regarding the new US healthcare law

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10469

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

Here is an article from the Heritage Foundation about the UK’s NHS among other things

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/02/Comparative-Effectiveness-in-Health-Care-Reform-Lessons-from-Abroad

The NHS was established in 1948. It is a single-payer health care system, directly administered by the British government, funded through taxation, and provided mainly by public-sector institutions. Because the NHS is a fully nationalized entity, the central government specifies the capital and current budgets of its regional health authorities and determines the expenditure on drugs by controlling the budgets given to each general practitioner. Overall, NHS health care is rationed through long waiting lists and, in some cases, omission of various treatments.

For the British government, the practice of HTA facilitates rationing by delay. It is a tool that aims to ensure that expensive new technologies are initially provided only in hospitals that have the technical capacity to evaluate them. While the NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme is funded by the Department of Health and, according to its criteria, researches the costs, effectiveness, and impact of health technologies, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) ensures that drugs and devices are safe.

In 1999, the government went a step further and set up the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).[20] At its heart is the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation that issues formal guidance on the use of new and existing medicines based on rigid and proscriptive "economic" and clinical formulas. With the NHS obliged to adhere to NICE's pronouncements, criticism of NICE has been ceaseless, particularly from various patient organizations.

NICE is a controversial body. It has tried repeatedly to stop breast cancer patients from receiving the powerful breakthrough drug Herceptin and patients with Alzheimer's disease from receiving the drug Aricept. The criteria by which this agency makes its decisions have been kept largely secret from the public. As is inevitable with any nationalized health care system, life-extending medicines such as those to treat renal cancers are refused on the grounds of limited resources and the need to make decisions based not on genuine market economics but on an artificial assessment of the benefit that may be gained by the patient and society "as a whole."

Let’s put a few quotes side by side and have a look at them. First from The Heritage Foundation article.

As is inevitable with any nationalized health care system, life-extending medicines such as those to treat renal cancers are refused on the grounds of limited resources and the need to make decisions based not on genuine market economics but on an artificial assessment of the benefit that may be gained by the patient and society "as a whole."

Now let’s take a look at George Bernard Shaw and others (taken from this site,

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Biology/Eugenics.htm )

"The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?"

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

And

"The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else."

Source: George Bernard Shaw, "On the Rocks" (1933), Preface.

HG Wells?

The men of the New Republic ... will rout out and illuminate urban rookeries and all places where the base can drift to multiply; they will contrive a land legislation that will keep the black, or yellow, or mean-white squatter on the move; ... so that childbearing shall cease to be a hopeful speculation for the unemployed poor; ... This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and sensual, is possible. On the principles that will probably animate the predominant classes of the new time, it will be permissible, and I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved."

Source: H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought, Final Chapter "The Faith of the New Republic", (1902)

Hmmmmmmmmm. Of course the best way to ensure ‘proper breeding’ is to control the birth of ‘undesireables’ in the first place. Margaret Sangar has some opinions on that.

"We should not minimize the great outstanding service of Eugenics for critical and diagnostic investigations. It demonstrates ... that uncontrolled fertility is universally correlated with disease, poverty, overcrowding and the transmission of hereditable traits."

Source: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, (1922), p. 174.

And

"We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of state is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization."

Source: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, (1922), p. 187.

The wealth of the state is being diverted by children? Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, now I remember

Here is a video that does the juxtaposition for you

Of course, we all know about John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar”

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

[Stalins Organ]

I'm sure the NWO will manage at least as much an appearance of Democracy as any nation on earth manages - it will make the masses so much more amensable to doing what they are told.

[costard]

Yes, you read that right. The world community of our desires requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition and in order to achieve that women can be tranquilized. Once they have control of ‘breeding’ the Open Conspirators can discourage the birth rate of ‘specific types’ as the community may consider desireable.

No, you read that wrong: it is the instinct that is to be tranquilized. We're looking at selective breeding through gene technology within the lifetime of the next generation.

You're tilting at windmills ASL, and I doubt that your proposed solution for the manifest (according to you) ills and threats presented by any "progressive" group will be anything other than as arbitrary and mentally incompetent as the manifestos you subject to [mediocre] analysis.

[ASL Veteran]

Now then, you can’t have a New World Order if people succumb to their natural tendency to resist government control. Let’s see what HG Wells has to say about this

The older and still prevalent conception of government is bullying, is the breaking-in and subjugation of the “subject,” to the God, or king, or lords of the community. Will-bending, the overcoming of the recalcitrant junior and inferior, was an essential process in the establishment of primitive societies, and its tradition still rules our education and law. No doubt there must be a necessary accommodation of the normal human will to every form of society; no man is innately virtuous; but compulsion and restraint are the friction of the social machine and, other things being equal, the less compulsive social arrangements are, the more willingly, naturally, and easily they are accepted, the less wasteful of moral effort and the happier that community will be. The ideal state, other things being equal, is the state with the fewest possible number of will fights and will suppressions. This must be a primary consideration in arranging the economic, biological, and mental organization of the world community at which we aim.

HG Wells, The Open Conspiracy

The conception of government as bullying. This sentiment is best summed up with this quote from George Washington

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

How to overcome this conception that government is ‘force’ as opposed to being your ‘friend’? This is important because if you can’t get the Proles to see the government as their friend it will be impossible to get them to buy into the New World Order with one world government run by the elites. The New World Order would be resisted by the ‘junior and inferior’.

Why are these people rioting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihe2Y-9e970&NR=1

They are rioting because the government has decided to reduce subsidies. In other words, the people rioting look upon the state as sugar daddy and they want their hand outs to continue. They have become dependent upon Government for their well being. This is the key to unlocking the problem of getting the Proletariat to buy into the New World Order. John Maynard Keynes was a professor of economics at the London School of Economics. The London School of Economics was founded by the Fabian Society (Progressives). Let’s have a look at Keyne’s economic theories

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=afq2007#p/u/27/VoxDyC7y7PM

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9915

Essentially Keynesian economics involves the government or the state pumping money into the economy in order to ‘stimulate’ demand. That’s pretty convenient when you consider that one of the objectives of the New World Order is to get the Proletariat to think that government is your friend instead of being your oppressor. I think Nancy Pelosi sums up both Keynesian economics and the purpose behind it nicely in this clip here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhmYKlsWW4

The bigger the welfare state becomes and the more the common folk are dependent upon it the more they will become a tool of the government and a willing participant in the creation of the New World Order. This is how the Open Conspirator wants the common folk to view the government.

I think this will be my last post on this topic. The links to "The New World Order", "The Open Conspiracy", and "Anticipations" from HG Wells are there for anyone to read if they choose to. Is there something to it? I don't know and I'm not really trying to convince anyone that there is. It's a fact that the Fabian Society - at least before WW2 - was pro Eugenics. I believe that the NHS was brought in by a Labour government in 1948 and according to the Fabian Society's own website every Labour PM has been a member.

Quite honestly I've been waffling back and forth as far as what to make of this stuff. I'm just putting some stuff out there for people to make up their own minds. I was only able to make all these postings because I was already familiar with the Fabian Society before I found HG Wells' books. There are even articles in the Daily Telegraph about HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw from just a few days ago so there really isn't anything I've posted that is 'secret' information. You can easily find all kinds of stuff on the Fabian Society if you choose to look. If someone can make a case that there is nothing to it then I think I would be happy. I honestly would. I guess maybe that's my purpose in posting this stuff. I'm hoping someone can show me that it's all bunk and I can rest easy. Just saying the analysis is mediocre and that I'm tilting at windmills doesn't really add anything though because you haven't specified where the mistakes are and why you think that way.

[Stalins Organ]

what is it you think you need to make something of?

That HG Wells had some idea of how he thought the world should run? doesn't everybody have some idea of how they think that should be accomplished?

Perhaps it is that some people agree with him? Why would that be unusual?

That GBS was a member of the Fabian Society - a not-so-secret member of a not-so-secret socialist organisation?

You've written a lot....but as you yourself conclude, you haven't actually said much!