Is “science” being used to promote a political agenda?  Duh.

This is hocus pocus waffling by NASA, in order to promote fear of carbon dioxide, and to promote the globalist push for carbon/energy taxes.

Carbon dioxide is a clean non-polluting gas that is essential for plant life.  It is something we breath out, and is emitted by combustion.  Combustion is required for heating our homes and is essential for the survival of human life and society.

So NASA’s main function is revealed by such propaganda to be the promotion of the globalist power agenda, which includes the discredited climate change scam.

“High above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again…”

…”Something is going on that we do not understand”…

…”But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”

“… the situation is complicated. There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2.”

…”The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify …”

(QUOTE) “Or not.”  (UNQUOTE)

More on this subject of obsessing over carbon dioxide.

More on the climate scam and the origin of the policy of making man the “enemy”  – through various fears – in order to “unite” us.

This event tomorrow in Toronto includes academics (unelected but receiving public funds), corporate representatives (unelected but often receiving public funds), NGO representatives (unelected but often receiving public funds) and a couple of politicians also (always receiving public funds).

We can see the post-democratic structure of “decision-making” emerge all around us.   And “public-private partnership”.   All it means is that you are not represented at all as an individual in important decisions.  You just get to fund the decision makers – involuntarily through taxes.

Your opinion as an individual is irrelevant to the process managed by professional “experts”.   The old democratic structure mostly gave you the appearance of having some input.   Now you don’t even have that.

But you can pay your rising electricity bills and your taxes.   And you can pay a couple of hundred bucks and go listen to them talk.  And you can watch and listen to the news media lie to you every day about what’s important.  We get to watch and listen.  Good for us.   But we’re probably not even doing that because of World Cup soccer.

“In advance of the G-20 meeting in Toronto, Corporate Knights and the International Institute for Sustainable Development will host this summit in honour of Jim MacNeill’s  lifetime accomplishments in advancing sustainable development.

“The summit will be chaired by Maurice Strong, whose idea it was to marry the occasion of honouring Mr. MacNeill’s life’s work with a strong substance-based dialogue that lays down in no uncertain terms just what it will take to make the 21st century pursuit of sustainable development a success.”

According to the pdf, Jim MacNeill was Secretary General of the Brundtland Commission and principal author of its landmark report “Our Common Future”.

For example, the theme of the lunchtime dialogue is “Integrating sustainable development into decision making” and includes the following participants:

• Chair: Maurice F. Strong, pc, cc, om, frsc
• Galen G. Weston, Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Limited
• Mayor David Miller, Toronto
• Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada
• Kathy Bardswick, President and ceo, The Co-operators Group

Sustainable development, Brundtland Commission, Agenda 21 – these just mean planning everything we are allowed to do in the future,  including population control.

The machinations you see in the news every day from various kinds of institutions – and the controls we have lived under most of our lives, which are getting worse – this is “just what it will take” to make “sustainable development” – centralized control of all resources, including human beings – a “success”.

This page explains the agenda of the Canadian branch of the World Federalist Movement, which is one of many powerful non-governmental non-representative private organizations that push for world government.

They make it sound as appealing as possible, but it means giving up sovereignty:

“…World Federalists are committed to overcoming the division of our world among competing states, interests and sovereignties. We understand and uphold the oneness of humanity. And we recognize the many technological, social and political forces that are stitching together tomorrow’s global community…”

It mentions these “forces” as if they just arise spontaneously and push us along towards world government naturally.

Also it asserts the “oneness” of humanity.  Or Star Trek fans could call it the BORG-ness of dominated humanity.  So the New Age rhetoric is fully utilized.  If we literally became one, we would all lose our individual decision-making abilities and self-ownership.   So being mindless and powerless sounds so nice to some.

World government will mean more controls over our lives, more taxes and more power centralized in the hands of the same elites who dominate us now.

International site: World Federalist Movement and Institute for Global Policy

(Related Series: more information on Wells)

By Alan Mercer, http://www.silencemeansconsent.com/

From The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings, 1933, Waterlow & Sons Ltd., London.

The Open Conspiracy is a non-fiction book by author H. G. Wells, who is more famous for his science fiction stories, such as The Time Machine and War of the Worlds.

Ch. I ‘The Present Crisis in Human Affairs’

Certain themes are repeated.   Wells writes about the “abolition of distance” as technology brought the world closer together. (p. 10)

He complains about an “alarming increase in population” because of the prolongation of life. (p. 11)

He emphasizes the ever present danger of another world war, implying all the time that people need to shape up and follow the internationalist prescription for how the world should be rearranged – in order to prevent war.  The same type of fear message was still prevalent later during the Cold War:

“Over everything human hangs the threat of such war as man has never known before, war armed and reinforced by all the powers and discoveries of modern science.” (p.11)

He talks about how the state structure worked for a while but states now “jostle each other exasperatingly”.

“Commerce under the new conditions is perpetually breaking nationalist bounds and making militant raids upon the economic life of other countries.” (p. 12)

By this, he is flipping over the Socialist side of his cap to reveal the Capitalist side – meaning they’re not opposite to him -  and he is emphasizing how the nation state is just something that gets in the way of international commerce or trade, which we’re supposed to always assume is legitimate trade as opposed to looting of resources carried out for hundreds of years by European aristocracies and their corporations.

Think about it. If the government of a nation actually did represent its people, then the nation would be something real and solid where others would have to respect the laws or face consequences.    It would be just as if you tried to invade a family’s home in which the men of the home stood ready to protect their family, their natural rights and freedoms, their property rights, and their tribal rights from the invaders.

But somehow nations are just slipping away into a worldwide mush, not having done a very good job of defending rights anyway.  How convenient that is!  It’s as though people were really NOT represented by the national government at all!  Because whatever boundaries they have ultimately count for nothing.   So of course, by now, internationalists have already taken over, and we see our national leaders signing international treaties every other week as they bring us closer to world government.

He carries on about war and how bad it’s going to be for people:

“gets at the ‘non-combatant’ almost as searchingly as at the combatant, and has acquired weapons of a stupdendous cruelty and destructiveness.”

“…We are being continually being urged by our training and traditions to angtagonisms and conflicts that will impoverish, starve, and destroy both our antagonists and ourselves.” (p. 12)

Here he talks nonsense about “our training and traditions” as if it didn’t require incredible propaganda and effort by the ruling class to get ordinary people to participate in the horrible mass death and destruction of World War I.

Well, playing the role of critic of the system he’s a part of, like Bertrand Russell, admits the people:

“are being 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.” (p. 12)

So Wells is really blaming the separateness, the lack of political unity in the world as the cause of war.  And I have heard this kind of message all my life.   Is separateness really the cause of war and conflict?  Could we not argue that separateness, independence, minding our own business and respecting others’ space and rights would more likely to lead to peace?   Isn’t this in line with our own experiences? Are we also to blame conflict on the fact that individuals are separate?  It’s insanity to eliminate separateness.

Weren’t Napoleon and Alexander the Great and others attempting to eliminate separateness through war?  And what we have going on nowadays is just the continuation of their goal – with a mixture of more clever strategies however – militarization, threats, death, propaganda, lies and looting – all attempting to achieve the elimination of separateness.

In my opinion, it is more plausible that there are people with destructive personality traits – in control of nations – causing these incredible unnatural wars that Wells writes about – who are in constant fear because they do not control all nations, all resources and all individuals.  And that is what motivates them and their totalitarian propaganda.   Because, no, they will not be happy until everyone is predictable and under their thumb.  They don’t like competition.  They don’t like people defending their rights or standing up to them.   In other words, a certain kind of person causes war deliberately because he is twisted up.    People like that will always be with us, unfortunately, and they try to take advantage of everyone else, and they try to control everyone else.  If we could stop being fooled by them, and if regular people stood up for each other, then there would be some hope.

Of course Wells doesn’t talk about it in these terms.  A unified world would just be another kind of world with these kinds of control freak psychopaths running amok over everyone else, with no alternatives.   The utopia of world “unity” means only one way of doing things.  It means you are controlled, no escape from taxation and regulation, because all regions of the earth will be bound together.  You will be even less free than you are now.  You will have no alternative way of organizing your life and society.  So you will not be a threat to them.   No system will be allowed to threaten their control.  That’s the motivation of world government and that is what they mean by “peace” and the absence of war.   No competition.

Peace to an ordinary person means treating others and their rights with respect and administering justice to prevent criminals from taking over, but you see, those ideas never really got off the ground unfortunately.   Because of our various indoctrinations, most people project their own sensibilities onto the world and everyone else and fail to see that the system that pretends to be just and pretends to protect us is just a sham.

“Peace” to those at the top pushing world government means no opposition, and no resistance allowed.   And they don’t have the moral values that prevent ordinary people from stealing and killing in order to achieve their ends.  But ordinary people are easily fooled and seduced.  Most of us never learn and are easy prey.

The word “pre-scientific” implies that there is some natural historical march towards a “scientific” society.  It means a planned managed society by a technical expert class, a type of feudalism, as opposed to a society based on freedom and individual rights.    The progress towards this “scientific” society has been managed by the members of the “Open Conspiracy” that Wells writes about.

Continued  Part 2

Following up on the idea of economic boycott to effect change,  taxfree15.com targets a few days each month with April 15-18 coming up.   That’s an excellent idea, but there may also be some actions appropriate for ongoing boycotts.

One idea is getting rid of your television.  Since we are coming up to “TV Turn Off Week”, April 19-25 which some Americans observe,  let’s take advantage of that to go all the way.

Cancel your cable service or satellite TV subscription.

First of all, many people out there won’t believe there is any problem that requires a boycott. They are OK with all the lies that are funneled through the politicians, “reporters” and TV anchors on television day after day to justify the Iraq war for example, and the next war after that, and the next war after that….  That’s OK with them.

They’re OK.  They’re watching all the sports.  They’re watching all the porn the cable industry has been pushing on families for years.   They’re watching all the soaps and they’re watching all the action shows where the “good guys” torture people (indoctrination).  And they’re watching all the politically correct and intentionally degrading sitcoms  – you know, like the one where the hero’s ex-girlfriend has a sex change and sleeps with his mother.   Seriously.   Does that lower their opinion of their fellow human beings and weaken the bonds between people?   Probably does.   But everything’s fine!   It’s all right.

Which is a perfect reason why we should boycott television.

Because people actually believe everything’s all right.  Try telling them otherwise.  They just won’t listen.  Because their brains are mush.  It happens to everyone watching TV.  I’ve been there.

Federal, provincial and local  governments and their private partners are taking away more rights and freedoms.   They have expanded the “green belt” control of private lands for years, they have expanded controls on speech.   They have expanded surveillance of homes through the excuse of the drug war.  They have ratcheted up the laws for police RIDE checkpoints, who stop and interrogate innocent people.  They have made throwing away your garbage an onerous task.  They have implemented “Smart Growth” plans in Ontario, and the public-private-partnership system is going to implement “smart meters” for monitoring and control of your home appliances (read!).   They have expanded government monitoring of our financial transactions.

You didn’t know about that?  The TV news anchorman didn’t tell you?!

Governments – and their corporate and UN-connected bosses – have beefed up their powers to interfere with property owners through the Ontario “Clean Water” Act and anti-smoking laws.  And so on.  They are involved in the constant ongoing destruction of national sovereignty.  They never stop.  They have stepped up violations of our privacy with body scanners.  Other unbelievable devices are about to be unleashed. They never stop threatening foreign countries and coming up with excuses to threaten them. And so on. And so on.  Worse and worse.

But everything’s OK with some people.  They’re fine.    Living well enough, not worried about anything.   The world is OK, our government’s NATO gang are dropping bombs on innocent people in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  People are being arrested and detained without trial for years.

“So what?  They’re different.  Everything’s fine!  I’m going to watch my favorite TV show.  Business as usual.”

I think much of their problem is that they leave the TV plugged in.  Do you know how many decades we have lived with TV?  Yes, regulated, licensed and often funded by governments. How much of what you think you know is just a pack of lies?

Global government and currency is on the horizon.   Climate change propaganda and the resulting carbon tax policy proposals threaten our ability to heat our homes, drive to work, pay our bills and survive.    Independence, freedom and rights are being destroyed.   But the TV news hosts are smiling at you every night, and telling you about the latest movies and celebrity gossip.

Some of us don’t think everything’s fine.

So it’s hard at first, I know, but I don’t have cable, or satellite TV.  Try it.   It takes some effort though.   But it helps you wake up.   To tell you the truth, you’ll find it’s absolutely necessary to do this if you want a clear head.

So that’s my suggestion for those of you out there who know there is a problem.  Try it.  Boycott the establishment television media and its propaganda.  Stop letting your children be indoctrinated.    Get them outdoors.  Get them reading.  Read more yourself.  Wake yourself up by switching it off.

There is a lot more to say about the boycott idea.   Partly it cuts off tax income to the government.  Partly it gets the attention of corporations who go along with government policies and the policies of  private groups who advise governments.

The party political system is for show – it’s fake – and government red tape and restrictions are onerous to wrestle with, so it’s essential to go far beyond conventional politics even if something could be done that way at all.

Because people seem to have so much dividing them, but I wonder if maybe there is common ground to be discovered among regular Canadians if they stopped listening to the people “at the top”, who are put on pedestals, if they stopped listening to mainstream media, if they stop letting themselves be brainwashed by the hypnotic effect of TV.    Maybe many would wake up and they would drop the false “left”-”right” paradigm, and they’d realize a lot of what they think they believe is just downloaded into them from some guy in a suit and tie on TV.

It’s no longer just the third world under the gun.   Look at what has happened to Greece where they are being pressured to give up their islands.  And the people of Iceland have been pushing back, having identified the real problem.

Where did our tax money go to during the lending crisis (which just happened suddenly out of the blue supposedly)?  The banks.  And this is on top of the regular interest payments each taxpayer pays to lending institutions.    According to debtclock.ca, that’s 14 cents of every tax dollar on interest, or $84 million a day.   Why do you think nations like Canada maintain national debts in the first place?  It’s intentional.   It’s an outrage.  The borrower is servant to the lender.    The politicians aren’t working for the people.  The system is all myth, built on fiction.

It’s clearer to more of us now what the purpose is of the carbon dioxide propaganda, and the “war on terrorism”, and the “anti-terrorism” civil liberties violations and attacks on property rights that have gone along in parallel for years.  The purpose is to bring us down economically, to make us helpless, put us into complete debt, so that Canadians are forced to give up all their real assets eventually – both private and public – to international banks and corporations who take control of world resources on behalf of a new system of total world governance.

People who don’t want to live under a police state will not be listened to at all unless they take this kind of boycott action or other effective peaceful protest.  Exercise your economic power while you still have some.    Getting rid of your TV benefits you and your family directly, and if there are enough participants, it gives a jolt to the politicians and big media corporations, to make them reflect upon the need to respect the freedoms, rights and dignity of those they pretend to serve.

Quoting from the site:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A “PATRIOT?”

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government……..no longer presumed!

And the strategy is this, starting on the 15th of each month, April 15-18 for example:

1) NO WORK, NO SCHOOL

* Our future depends on restoring our rights. Plan ahead, ask for time off, use vacation days or whatever it takes. Get school assignments for your children, who will able to learn about our Constitution through online programs. IF YOU FEEL YOU MUST GO TO WORK, THEN GO! PARTICIPATE IN THE OTHER STEPS. DO WHAT YOU CAN!! LEARN ABOUT THE ARTICLES OF FREEDOM & OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! – IT’S A MONEY GAME – THEY WANT OURS, TIME TO CHANGE THE RULES.

2) NO SHOPPING – DON’T BUY

* DON’T BUY ANYTHING FROM LARGE CORPORATIONS, FAST FOOD PLACES, ONLINE STORES, ETC. Again, plan ahead for medications, gasoline, and food. If you have to shop then go to a Mom & Pop! IF EVERYONE KEEPS THEIR MONEY FOR 4 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, OFFSHORE BANKS WILL NOTICE

3) DON’T COMPLY

* TAKE YOUR MONEY & SAVINGS OUT OF LARGE CORPORATE BANKS, OR LEAVE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED TO COVER MONTHLY BILLS. WORK AT GETTING OFF THE GRID AND FORMING CO-OPS WITHIN COMMUNITIES. WE NEED EACH OTHER, AND IT WILL BE OUR NETWORKING ENERGY, AS ONE, WHICH WILL ENSURE SUCCESS!

4) ASK WHY? (THIS IS ESSENTIAL!)

* WHY ARE WE ALLOWING OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE IGNORED?
* WHY DO OUR CHILDREN HAVE TO SACRIFICE FOR BANKING SCAMS?
* WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING POLICIES THAT DON’T SUPPORT US?

NOW PICK UP THE PHONE & CALL YOUR “REPRESENTATIVES”, CONGRESSMEN, ETC. LET THEM KNOW YOU’RE PARTICIPATING IN THIS STRIKE, AND ASK QUESTIONS YOU FEEL ARE IMPORTANT.

• 2010 report: Ministry of Defence Strategic Trends Programme Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2040 (4th Edition) (Local link)

“The developed world is likely to experience a degree of transformation as it moves from a consumerist society based on freedom of choice to a more constrained, sustainable societal model that provides financial and social rewards to encourage greener practices and discourage waste.” (p. 27)

“The social tensions caused by intrusive global culture are likely to be most acute amongst those who seek to maintain their indigenous and traditional customs and beliefs, and feel threatened by changes. This is likely to lead to an increasing number of individuals and groups, many of whom form around single issues that differentiate them from wider society, becoming marginalised and possibly radicalised.” (p. 29)

etc. etc.

• 2006 report: UK Ministry Defence: The DCDC (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre) Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036 (3rd Edition) (Local link)

• Commentary at oldthinkernews.com, March 18, 2010 – New MoD Strategic Report Extends Vision to 2040

• Commentary at cuttingthroughthematrix.com, March 18, 2010 (podcast)

By Alan Mercer, http://www.silencemeansconsent.com

Was the Milner group seeking world government?  There are very interesting audio tapes in which Carroll Quigley, a member of the same Establishment, challenges the interpretation that the Rhodes-Milner group he described was seeking world domination.   In his books, he focused on their efforts to unite the English speaking nations as one of three power blocs in the world to balance Germany and Russia (and the details of what he has to say about their connection with Germany is extremely important).  To me, he seems to be splitting hairs more than once in the interview.

By the way, there is a quote attributed to Quigley on that same page about “one world rule”, and half of this is false according to this site, and I can’t find it in The Anglo-American establishment or Tragedy and Hope.

In any case, in The Anglo-American Establishment, Carroll Quigley quotes the purpose of Cecil Rhodes’ secret society from his first will (1877):

“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise, … the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”  (p. 33, Ch. 3, GSG & Associates)

Which sounds like a world government to me.    Rhodes makes dominating the world sound as idealistic as possible.  But I bet many world government pushers nowadays are not so happy with the association of their goal with Rhodes and his nasty reputation.

And here is another quote from  Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley (same publisher, Ch. 7,  p. 324), about the early twentieth century:

“In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.  This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. …”

I suppose we could investigate how equivalent the Rhodes-Milner group and the resulting Royal Institute of International Affairs and Council on Foreign Relations were to the “powers of financial capitalism”. 80%, 90%, 99%?

But these quotations are enough to back up my point that highly influential aristocratic men in government and finance in English-speaking countries were seeking a type of world government just like socialists H. G. Wells and the Fabian Society.

End

Next Series: H. G. Wells “The Open Conspiracy”

By Alan Mercer, http://www.silencemeansconsent.com

I notice that Bertrand Russell also advocates world government in The Impact of Science on Society, using similar arguments to H.G. Wells, namely that wars will get worse and worse unless people adopt a sweet and cuddly world government.

It looks to me like this:   Collect as many corrupt national rulers, politicians and professional revolutionaries together as possible through secret societies, indebtedness, blackmail, etc.   Make the national system as unlivable and intolerable as possible.  Make it fail.  Make it bloody.  Put a lot of effort into it.   Yes.  Grit your teeth and twist that knife!   Incite as much conflict and suffering and crises – make-believe or real – as possible, so that people will beg for a world government.   “Nothing works”.  “Crime!” “Human rights abuses”. “Injustice”.  “Food shortages”.  “Energy shortages”.  “Pandemic!”  “Climate change!”  It’s always “broken”.  Please “fix” it.   “We are unworthy narrow-minded lowly people compared to politicians and central banks.  Please save us!”  This is how a supposedly saint-like world-government-in-waiting is making work for itself and plushing up the pillows to give itself a cozy future.   Simple as that.

Wells (previously a World War I propagandist, remember) presents his “choice” for all of us:

“The former alternative opens out before us the prospect of a long series of probably more and more destructive wars which may lead to the exhaustion and degeneration of our species; the latter demands mental and moral adjustments of the most complex, difficult and laborious sort.  It means a tremendous break with tradition and a fundamental reconstruction of education of throughout the world.  But to me plainly it is the only sane course for human effort..” [p.19]

In other words, he admits that world government is totally unnatural (like many current nation-states and federations also, let’s face it).

Wells developed the idea in William Clissold of

“an Open Conspiracy, of a sustained conscious and deliberate thrust towards cosmopolitanism and free world exchanges, in economics, in finance, in thought and purpose.  In earlier books I had called the Open Conspiracy idea The New Republic or the Order of the Samurai…”[p. 20]

“Political readjustment, and the development of world controls of the living interests of mankind, have to follow the necessities of such a thrust.”   [p.20]

“Living interests” appears to mean all resources that used to be under the control of various peoples and local individuals.   And in that regard, the United Nations “Agenda 21”  from 1992, shows that the entire world, its people and resources, will be centrally organized under “world controls”.  You can read it.  Did anyone even inform you, or ask for your opinion?

Wells wanted Lord Melchett to

“lower the barriers about the Empire and develop alliances in the direction of federal association [the same as the Rhodes-Milner goal explained by Quigley], a frank and friendly disposition to financial and economic co-operations and amalgamations with foreign, and particularly with American, German, and French groups, and a friendly and helpful attitude towards the propaganda of cosmopolitan ideas and the reconstruction of education in cosmopolitan lines.”  [p. 21]

And so we now have UNESCO and its educational doctrines for children.  And what would “cosmopolitan” refer to if not to the undermining of influences and values that compete with the goals of the Open Conspiracy and the UN?

Wells – this essay is before World War II -  expected another war and spelled out a cause and effect.   The British Empire’s

“present disposition to build tariff walls along these threads and so monopolize the economic advantages its disproportionate share of the productive areas of the earth give it, will practically oblige less fortunately situated imperialisms to assume an attitude of hostility.” [It sounds like he’s thinking of a confrontation with Japan].  If “it will not have economic pooling then it will get war. And the next time it gets a world war because of its disproportionate share of tropical sunlight, it may find itself with a less fortunate selection of allies – or with no allies”.  [p. 22]

And it makes you wonder about the real reason behind the imperialist “protectionist” policy that Wells describes, because it seems like a policy that begs for war.  And people can take one side or the other and debate it like Wells did – as if there are really two different types of imperialism – as if “left” vs. “right” is for real – as if “free trade” vs. “protectionism” is for real – as if “communism” vs. “capitalism” is a real debate – to give other examples of the tool of the dialectic process.   The resulting war would lead to more people begging for world government.  And isn’t that the policy goal – of some group – in the first place?

In our day, both imperialist [they don't call it that anymore] and internationalist rulers undermine local sovereignty and efforts at independence.   Imperial ambitions and wars disperse our energies away from what is local and personal towards this elite club’s ambitions of world empire.  That’s why we are never urged to focus on our own rights and those of our neighbours locally, but we are always directed towards disasters far away from us – usually made worse by the past and current actions of our own interventionist governments – as with Haiti or Afghanistan.  And we helplessly sit by and watch Big Daddy manage every disaster.

And in the “developed world” we are supposed to think we are better off and wealthier and have our lives in order  – when we do not! In fact, we control nothing the government does and have a say over nothing of importance.  Even Members of Parliament just do what their party leaders tell them. We are submerged in media and propaganda that fills our minds with entertainment and trivia.  We are showered in credit cards that also consume our time and energy.  We can barely keep our families together.   Values of respect for human decency and rights crumble into dust and blow away in the wind.

Wells discusses the idea of a united Europe even back then:

“The idea so popular already among the younger generation abroad, the idea of subduing national patriotism to a United States of Europe, which M. Briand has recently taken up, is a plain retort to the idea of our monopolistic imperialist system.” [p. 23]

And here we are, in 2010, with the European Union more complete than ever after the Lisbon Treaty.

Wells poses his “Open Conspiracy as the modern scientific opposite and alternative to their [Melchett, Beaverbrook, Sir Richard Gregory’s] semi-romantic, short-sighted, and foredoomed imperialism”.   [p. 24]

So today we have the “liberal” or “socialist” internationalist elites who pretend to be disappointed with the militaristic ultra-patriotic neo-conservative imperialists  – a group actually formed by “ex”-Socialists or “ex”-Trotskyites.  And liberals and neoconservatives seem to be on different sides of a spectrum of “left” and “right” just like the Fabians and Milner.

And you can see this clearly with the modern activity of the “left-wing” Fabian Society for example.   In recent years, we have observed Fabian Society member and British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair advocate for the Iraq War side by side with “right-wing” “neo-conservative” George Bush, as well as at the same time, advocate for building institutions of world government like the European Union.

Blair’s Fabian successor, Gordon Brown has also announced “the New World Order” at the G20 meeting in April, 2009, the same as George Bush Senior did in the early 1990’s.

Also, even the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, presented his speech about the “New World Order to which we should aspire” (International Economic Forum of the Americas Conference of Montreal, Montreal, 11 June 2009).

And “conservative” Prime Minister Harper of Canada at the G8 meeting in 2009 announced “there is going to have to be some semblance of global governance on these questions”.

So these supposed political opposites, Brown (“left”) and Harper (“right”), end up both advocating the same thing!  How is that?   Just like H. G. Wells and Russell (“left”) and the Milner group (“right”) advocated the same goal – world government.   And here we are in 2010, on the verge of world government.  What a coincidence!  What a lot of well-dressed scam artists.   Those who live in the fantasy of “left” and “right” debates, and those who deny the approach of world government, should snap out of it.

(Part 4)