The socialist “Rights of Man” – towards a New World Order

As a follow up to the previous FBEL article on the grand deception that is the globalist apparatchik, Jeremy Corbyn, this article will be the first in a two part series on the one-time Fabian Society member, H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940). We are going to start with looking at some of the clauses, or the separate pronouncements, that together constitute a “declaration of rights” document, and in a second article we are going to examine the conversational part of the book which discusses and frames the clauses, and which actually makes up the major part of the work. It should be pointed out that the “rights” clauses are the creation of a group that these days might be called a think-tank, and Wells, as he himself explains, is the editor rather than the author.

This article can also be counted as being part of an overall ongoing re-evaluation of the works of the anti-competition Victorian ruling class that conceived the project to return the masses to an equivalent of the monument-building slaves of ancient days – as per the dictates of their Masonic perspective. Any other outcome for humanity would be intolerable; the profane masses must be ruled by Hermetic technocrats who (think they) are achieving godhood. And if we but look closely and see the dead hand that controls western government in the 21st century, we can detect the reality of a control structure that has tentacles in all aspects of the body politic to the point of being able to wage psychological warfare on Britons as if they are have been conquered by force of arms: that it smacks of the occult society – secretive, and ruthlessly effective at keeping itself secret. Additionally, when we consider the shape of the political environment we live in, we can see the desired Luciferian “utopia” is very near completion, and we can detect signalling in mass culture which is intended to indicate who has been organising its manifestation (see “Interstellar”).

The back cover of the Penguin Special (2015) edition of Wells’ “The Rights of Man” spouts the following to establish the works’ significance:

The fearlessly progressive ideas… [Wells] set out were instrumental in the creation of the UNs Declaration of Human Rights, the EU’s European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s Human Rights Act [1998].

If the reader is aware of it, he will also notice that Theodore Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” looks awfully familiar to Wells’ production. Little wonder, for Wells’ work was intended to be used as a tool of worldwide agitation for the creation of a “new world order” – yes, Wells used this phrase in 1940. When we know Wells’ Bill of Rights for what it is, these “sleeve notes” are telling us that socialism has been institutionalised in Britain. There will be no revocation either while people continue to vote for the LibLabCon; the Tories’ proposed UK Bill of Rights appears to be intended as some subsidiary of the ECHR. That things have got so bad in the country of Common Law is thanks to the realisation of Wells’ “rights” – as we shall see – so that government can make good drones for the socialist beehive; people are not aware of their real individual rights. As we go through these clauses, the reader needs to remember that “rights” which would mean a person drawing on welfare are not rights at all. Welfare inevitably means taxation, which means the infringement of the real individual right to one’s own property and capital.

The first clause tells us the extent of the world welfare state envisioned by Wells et al:

Every man without distinction of race or colour 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.

It is clear that welfare covers everything that a man could ask a government for, from the cradle to the grave, because the recipient of the entitlement gets it without discrimination – he is “every man”. He could be jobless, and therefore contributing nothing himself, but it would still be his right to enjoy the things mentioned in the clause. Indeed, Wells suggests that a man in the new world order, if he wants to, wouldn’t need to do anything in return for his entitlement. But by his other writings we know that Wells’ was aware of the impracticalities of Malthusian “useless eating”, and from his “Declaration of Rights” itself, also clearly understands that a welfare state relies on taxation, and so underneath the soundbytes, we find that the socialist Bill of Rights denies the life of leisure that it appears to promise‡. No surprise, as casually disposed-of deception is at the heart of socialism. We’ll discuss this some more as we deal with the second clause:

[Every man] is entitled to sufficient education to make him a useful and interested citizen…

This very first line gives us a clue about the real nature of entitlement to welfare. The citizen is educated so that he is “interested” – meaning that he doesn’t become disillusioned with the system. This means that the system wants to have “every man” fully invested in it. The purpose for which will become clear. The clause goes on…

…that… [every man] should have easy access to information upon all matters of common knowledge throughout his life and enjoy the utmost freedom of discussion.

At first glance this looks great – it seems to suggest free speech. But look again. The subject matter of unlimited discussion is restricted to that which is “common knowledge”. Obviously, the government would control this because of a lack of competition in the system (which has yet to be discussed, but for the moment, the reader should trust that it truly would be the case). No competition in terms of cultural leadership would mean that “common knowledge” would only work to further the interests of the system. Indeed, that this idea appears in a clause which talks about education is precisely to do with the fact that “common knowledge” would be the continued propagandising that an individual would receive after school and throughout his adult life (we should recognise that this has been instituted in 2017 UK from its cultural environment). Education is for making a man useful to and invested in the system.

Now, in further pursuit of the answer to why every man should be fully invested in the system, we skip to clause (5)

That… [every man] may engage freely in any lawful occupation, earning such pay as the need for his work and the increment it makes to the common welfare may justify. That he is entitled to paid employment and to a free choice whenever there is any variety of employment open to him. He may suggest employment for himself and have his claim publicly considered.

Notice the choice of words, for it is deliberate. A man earns pay when his produce is owned by another – or, when he is in the employ of another party. When a man produces his own goods to sell, he is not paid, but instead has a turnover – expenses versus income from sales. Indeed, the later overt use of the word “employment” makes it clear that in the socialist “utopia”, every man is working for someone else. So there is a problem, because if every man is earning pay, who, then does that leave to offer employment? Well, it is the government, of course – and it is imperative to understand that when we’re talking about governmental control of the means of production – which we are – then there is absolutely no difference between pure government, and several corporations incorporated into government (which is how the present UK government is constituted). It is only the names given to the types of socialism that differs: one is communism, the other is fascism. Above all else, here we see why the State would be interested in wanting people to be healthy from cradle to the grave, and to remain engaged and useful – to be a good human resource; to serve the collective underneath the government.

Please notice that in this clause about employment in return for pay, there is nothing about a right to withhold labour as a means to obtain a better rate. This would be perfectly acceptable under a scheme of real individual rights, but in the socialist “utopia” it must qualify as being disillusioned with the regime. We must come to this conclusion because of how, in principle, there should be no such thing as industrial dissatisfaction in the socialist “utopia” because of how it is arranged so that anyone can leave a job and subsist on welfare – or demand another job. It would follow that anyone who thought that they needed to strike for a pay rise would run the risk of slipping into a new classification of “criminal” that the socialist “utopia” by necessity must invent in order to maintain the illusion of its infallibility: the dissident. We’ve hinted at this sort of person already in this article: the man disillusioned with the system; the man who reacts against his conditioning – or “education” – that is supposed to make him useful. We’ll return to this person momentarily.

Notice that there are two considerations for how much pay an employed individual is to receive: 1) the demand for the work being done, and 2) how much tax (which is what is meant by “increment”) that must be produced by the employment to support the collective. In the social “utopia”, only the government employs – so that it can rake back to pay for the State. Where does the wealth come from so that it can be distributed for the people who are specifically told that the socialist “utopia” is their great hope? We need to consider another related clause in order to proceed:

(7) That… [every man] shall have the right to buy or sell without any discriminatory restrictions anything which may be lawfully bought or sold, in such quantities and with such reservations as are compatible with the common welfare.

This clause† is redundant. It is just dressing to lure the unsuspecting in to a trap. It looks like it is talking about individuals with turnover, but that cannot be the case, since everyone gets paid as an employee. There is also a huge self-contradiction regarding the claim that there would be no restrictions on trade – except those that the State would place on them to enforce compatibility for the common welfare. And the State would undoubtedly discriminate, because what is good for government is for it to face no competition. So, the clause is a complete deception. The only thing it can possibly be talking about is how people cannot be prevented from buying from State-owned shops where management is nothing to do with ownership, but is there to facilitate the restocking of State-supplied products (as we shall see, the State monopolises natural resources and their production into saleable items).

And so, with no economic competition, and with government in full control of production, it would be able to execute a centrally planned economy where it decided what the people wanted to buy. Now, historically, such things have failed because people don’t want the same thing as government wants for them. However, with the ability to control cultural consumption – “common knowledge” – government would be free to direct demand according to a political agenda – and this is what it does in our current time with the drive towards “sustainability” (Agenda 21) and the propaganda regarding climate change, or with the big lie that the NHS is the best medical care system in the world. The bottom line is that true demand is a disruptive factor in centrally controlled economies unless it is manufactured by aligning public taste with political agenda. In this case, in no sense of the word would people be free. To add insult to injury, the State would deem a product that was in demand to be rich pickings in terms of tax, and so, there won’t be a benefit in terms of net pay – especially for people who work in less valued roles within the process of producing particularly in-demand goods or services. On the other hand, more valued servants of the State in positions integral to the workings of the system would be permitted a high gap between income and tax to encourage a belief in the success of the system – to foster personal investment in it so that they don’t become disillusioned. The bitter truth of the matter is that the socialist state can only survive if it creates the sort of “have and have-not” economics that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn are always rebuking to foment and manipulate their political base.

This brings us to this:

(6) That… [every man] may move freely about the world at his own expense. That his private house or apartment or reasonably limited garden enclosure is his castle, which may be entered only with his consent, but that he shall have the right to come and go over any kind of country, moorland, mountain, farm, great garden or what not, where his presence will not be destructive of some special use, dangerous to himself nor seriously inconvenient to his fellow-citizens.

Because the segue demands it, let’s deal with this first: it is eminently evident that it must be the upper echelon – those who are “bribed” to support the system – who would get to travel around the world. They could afford it – “every man” would not be able to. Pure deception. The second thing to talk about is how this clause is absolutely the Agenda 21 that has been rolled out globally at the end of the 20th century, where the great outdoors is State-owned; notice there is nothing about “he shall have the right to come and go where his presence is not objected to by private landowners”. Furthermore, citizens have to live in restricted living spaces with little or no capacity to produce their own natural resources. This means that natural resources all belong to the government. Farms are State owned. It is a reiteration of the reality of the centrally planned economy in the socialist “utopia”. And it makes the author wonder if, through a study of the plan for and implementation for the socialised state, we haven’t discovered the real reason that agriculture has been subsidised these many long years (one in five of the biggest recipients of EU subsidies are reportedly billionaires). The general aim must be to help keep land in the hands of a relative few, who are beholden to government, and who don’t then have to sell piecemeal to individuals who could afford it (although big construction companies are sold swathes of land to create more restricted living spaces).

Now we finally return to the topic of what happens to those who don’t remain interested in and committed to the system; those who would react against their conditioning for making them useful – in short, any who would show the socialist “utopia” as flawed:

That a man unless he is duly certified as mentally deficient shall not be imprisoned for a longer period than three weeks without being charged with a definite offence against the law, nor for more than three months without a public trial. At the end of the latter period, if he has not been tried and sentenced by due process of law, he shall be released.

Forget all the pretence of being concerned for habeas corpus, for it doesn’t apply for the real criminals in the socialist “utopia”. Justice only applies to those who haven’t been declared mentally deficient by the State; obviously it is imperative to deny a day in court for political criminals in order to save the image of government infallibility.

This brings us to this clause:

That… [every man] and his personal property lawfully acquired are entitled to police and legal protection from private violence, deprivation, compulsion and intimidation.

There are two things to notice here. Firstly, the private person and his property is only in need of protection from private crime. The government can never commit crime against the person or his property, that is to say, when government causes injury against those things, it isn’t classified as criminality. The legal system is not there to protect a private individual from crime by the government. Secondly, the emphasis here isn’t on a householder protecting his own person or property (which is the fundamental stuff of individual liberty) – instead it is on abdicating that right and handing it to the police and the legal system. When you abdicate to the government a right to protect you, you give it an excuse to identify you as its property. In this clause, abdication has been assumed, and Wells is insisting on the government protecting its own assets. In the socialist “utopia”, there is no such thing as a private individual after all. And one is not guaranteed safety no more than one is guaranteed health in a national health service, for the contract leaves one open to not being protected because police might have to prioritise to 1) deal with “crime” against government (committed by dissidents who, for various reasons, become disruptive figures to the socialist “utopia”) – or political crime, and 2) deal with crime against those more valuable to the State. This is pretty much where we are at in Britain today, are we not?

‡ The late-20th century socialist State actually found a way for the welfare client to be a resource. Whole service industries, paid for by tax payers, are built around administrating welfare recipients.

† Wells claimed that this clause was aimed at preventing profiteering by forced scarcity – storing up goods to reduce supply, and artificially create demand and therefore increase the price. However, this can only be done by an individual or company with a monopoly, or who is conspiring with others to achieve an effective one. But when the government owns everything exclusively, who else can create forced scarcity?