Published On: Sun, Nov 5th, 2017

In which we observe H G Wells agitating for a New World Order in 1940

Share This
Tags

This is the second part of an analysis of H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940) – the first part being here.

If one didn’t know about it already, one discovers that the likes of H.G. Wells were agitating for a socialist state to be instituted after the Second World War just as soon as the conflict started. “What are we fighting for?” demanded Wells in “The Rights of Man” – as did he and others elsewhere, apparently, because there seemed to be a concerted movement. Wells suggested that it should be for the New World Order – yes indeed. And why would this be a surprise. In his 1933 Luciferian manifesto, “The Shape of Things to Come”, he “predicted” a war that would start over German grievance about land gifted to a newly recreated Poland. Post 9/11, and thanks to the work of Milton William Cooper, who exposed the globalist Masonic western government and its heritage, we can classify Wells’ work of “prediction” as a masterpiece of psychological conditioning – expectation management – based on insider knowledge of a scheme in pursuit of globalist goals.

It is no wonder that in 1945, as soon as the possibility arose, the British voted for a Labour government – which duly nationalised various industries and services; its jewel in the crown the immediately insufficient National Health Service; no wonder because the likes of Wells had spent the war years filling heads with the notion that although Britons may be fighting Nazis on the physical battlegrounds, they were actually winning a collectivised utopian World Pax. There was a big problem, though, for the fight was against one of the two great models† of socialism in the world – the corporate-government system of Germany. And so Wells constructs an idea that the Nazis did not represent proper collectivism; it was the “outrages upon human dignity” that rendered them slightly “above the level of an exceptionally spiteful ape” – as if his version of socialism would ever result in any different outcome. A particular fault of the Nazis was the “concentration camps and the refugees”; very early references to atrocities against the Jews. Wells reports that in his discussions with Tommy in the Ranks, Joe Public, and whoever else he talked to, it was that the Germans were “too bad” which made Britons understand that they faced a gruelling, unremitting fight to force unconditional surrender. A “lynching spirit” had been stirred up – “the young Germany of Hitler, wearing its thick boots (that have stamped in the faces of Jewish women)” was going to be on the receiving end of a different type of British opponent as it had faced in the first outing: “the bayoneting this time will be done in a different spirit”.

And so, the holocaust – although it would have been impossible to yet understand what was going on in Germany in those terms – would nevertheless very early on provide the inspiration for fighting for a collective against a collective. This is incredibly significant. We used to be told that the British didn’t know very much about the persecution of the Jew at the start of the war. Nowadays, we more commonly see stuff like this (source):

[communication intercepts show]  that the British knew that Jews were being targeted for atrocities as early as September 1941 — more than a year before Britain or the United States publicly acknowledged the plight of the European Jews.

Even before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Polish resistance and Jewish groups had been telling Britain and its allies of atrocities against civilians in occupied Poland.

We don’t want to get too sidetracked by this, but there is something important to be imbibed from the detail of this issue. Wells clearly indicates that when he and others were loudly demanding “what are we fighting for?”, and while he couldn’t extract a public official statement of “War Aims” from British Government, the word on the street was about avenging the boot in the face of the Jewish woman – in 1940. In 1940, how are the British people hearing about Nazi atrocities? Could it possibly be on the end of those stories coming out of Poland? Now the author would like the reader to consider lessons learnt from Syria, and to think of the White Helmets in particular; the organisation that fronted as providers of humanitarian aid, but that – as much evidence suggests – was basically a foreign intelligence outfit that staged false flags to provoke intervention by the US military. Think of the lad in Coventry who called himself the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, whose stated aim was “to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria” (as Wikipedia puts it), and from whence he might have got his anti-Assad intelligence – which was then relayed as fact to the public via propagandising state controlled media.

If Britons really wanted to know why they were fighting a war with Germany in 1940, the worst thing they could have done was become interested in Wells’ provocateuring for the New World Order with letters in the Times, and his “The Rights of Man” and other agitprop produced by either him or any of his confederates. Wells had written about the war in 1933, and specifically about why it was necessary: to cause terrible chaos out of which a socialist world state could emerge. Moreover, from our post-9/11 perspective, we may suspect, and find evidence, that the real truth about the question of why the war was being fought was this: Germany had been humiliated in 1918, and then certain powerful people in the USA and Britain, who would prosper from war, engineered a government that would try to rectify that situation militarily.

Wells’ position in the light of what we do know about a contrivance to bring about a World War Two is repugnant.  From “The Rights of Man” we know that while he thought that war needed to be waged against the Nazis and not the Germans per se, he still thought that the German people deserved a lesson for what he portrayed as their responsibility for bringing the war about:

There are, I say, many excuses for the Germans, Versailles and the strangulation after 1919-20, etc, etc, – we all know how sound their excuses are, we concede them almost excessively, we over-do it; none the less they have been made excuses for abominable behaviour – and I am convinced that vigorous bombing and bombarding, town-wrecking and the like, would be an entirely wholesome and chastening experience for the German ‘soul’…

Germans have to see and feel for themselves as recipients, the heroic blonde mothers and that heroic blond little boy, the Nazi-kicker of tomorrow, have to feel in their own skins what sort of war they have made and applauded in Poland.

May the author suggest that Wells shows us what a spiteful Luciferian looks like when he can’t get his own way, or when the danger he wants for others, so as to advance his agenda, instead starts to threaten him. Malevolent and cowardly – despicable and ignoble. An animal, not a god. Wells cannot help but admit that environmental factors engineered by the victorious powers in 1918 were a major cause of the Second World War – he can’t help but admit it because it was the truth. And yet according to him average Germans should have their towns bombed out from beneath them. And in fact, it’s not just the average Ger-man who needs to suffer; Wells specifically wishes death on women and children.

Wells’ hypocrisy regarding this idea of innocents paying for the war in Poland gives off a particularly rancid stink even after 70 years. In “The Shape of Things to Come”, he wrote of war between Poland and Germany as being a conduit for progression into the socialist modernity. In Well’s imagination, these two countries slugged it out for years – while Blighty, with its fat ration-guzzling ruling class – sat safely on the sidelines selling arms to both warring parties. The author suggests that Wells was not happy about the Germany of reality – the Germany which did what it wasn’t supposed to do, and blitzkrieged itself into a position whereby it could wrap up the mould-breaking transformative European conflagration well before it had created very much chaos – if any – from which a new world order had to emerge. In fact, the author thinks that there wasn’t one member amongst the Masonic World State planners of the governing classes of Britain who would have been happy with Germany’s successes in 1939 and 1940. The realisation must have dawned upon them, as Hitler took a day trip to a completely undamaged City of Light, that Britain would have to be in the war in more than just name in order to do some town-wrecking; to set Europe into disarray. And let’s dig down deeper into the hateful desire to see women and children killed, and look at what the act would mean from a Masonic perspective: the author suggests that when Wells talks about children dying for the restitution of a Germany that would be fit to join his World State, he is plainly talking of the sacrifice necessary for the purpose – a sacrifice which the sanctimonious British would have to perform. The RAF started bombing Germany in March, 1940.

Ironically, it has been a vehement opponent of the British devastation of Germany by Lancaster and Wellington, Bishop Bell of Chichester, who has recently had his name blackened with a posthumous and apparently unsubstantiated allegation of child molestation. For more detail of the defence of Bell, the reader should look up Peter Hitchens’ coverage (even the most dangerous of gatekeepers are sometimes good for something); the author only has this to say: the cave-in by the present Cathedral administration without even trying the case against Bell makes the “unpersoning” of the Bishop look like a scheme towards some greater agenda. Bell’s relatively low key memorial monument has been at risk of being removed from the Cathedral – which would be the height of his disgrace. The author thinks that it is proof of Wells’ social engineering success that modern Britons don’t think it fitting that his bones aren’t dug up for the crime of agitating for the actual murder of thousands of children.

 

† The other was the Soviet Union. In “The Rights of Man” Wells appears to be disappointed that it had given up being a champion of international collectivism when Molotov declared that the USSR had no interest in interfering with the internal ideologies of other nations. This was probably convenient, because then Wells could complain about the “mental and moral deterioration of the Soviet government”.  The problem for the Russians was that they had arrived at collectivism along a culturally inferior route: “The collectivism that is rolling down on us from the East knows nothing of the tradition of personal rights. There have been no Magna Cartas east of the Rhine”. It’s not that Wells was confused, dear reader, and didn’t understand that Magna Carta doesn’t feature in the heritage of any shade of socialist state, it was that he was a Luciferian, and for such a man, routine deception is a means to the ends, which justifies the means, and many a promise can be made, for the advancement of one’s own purpose, that is never meant to be kept.

A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>