Comments on The Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells
By Alan Mercer
(From The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings, 1933, Waterlow & Sons Ltd., London)
Continued from Part 15
“The younger, more vigorous intelligences in the great business directorates of today are beginning to realize the uncompleted implications of their enterprise. A day will come when the gentlemen who are trying to control the oil supplies of the world without reference to anything else except as a subsidiary factor in their game will be considered to be quaint characters. The ends of Big Business must carry Big Business into the Open Conspiracy just as surely as every other creative and broadly organizing movement is carried.” (p. 82)
So monopolizing tendencies were to be fit together into an agenda of world government. How far have things gone since he wrote that? It’s a question that deserves attention as we approach the 2010 G8 and G20 Summits in Canada.
Wells’ whole way of presenting these ideas, using the word “progressive” and “modern” is to convey the idea of inevitability to his world-encompassing agenda, and by implication the futility of resisting it. He paints the world as full of evil and how it needs to be fixed, but he wants it to be fixed from top to bottom as a whole. It’s just amazing that we should all bow to the opinions and solutions of people like Wells and submit to their judgments and qualifications as high priests and saviors.
How natural is this “progressive” agenda really? How much money has gone into it from tax-payers? From debt interest payments? How much tax money has gone into funding and determining the directions of science and technology all these years? How much money has had to be paid out from governments and foundations and corporations in societal propaganda? How many assassinations? How many dirty tricks and manipulations to get nations into debt? Think of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.
How much attack on tradition and undermining of institutions, and societal revolution? How many rigged wars have gone into unification and control of resources? How much effort has been spent on international treaties and how much corruption has been involved in undermining nation states and independence movements? Not to mention funding of population control. Think about it. We should all be looking at these questions.
The parable of the Pig of Provinder Island (p. 82 – 84) is presented as an argument to Wells’ fellow “progressives” about why they should join forces to kill the whole pig, how they should not be stupid and just try individual small efforts at particular reforms as when each of the stranded sailors on the island tackles only a part of the pig. It doesn’t work, because the pig just BITES back when they try that.
His strategy is to destroy the current system as a whole so people like him can rebuild it according to their own design. They want to feed off the whole dead pig, not bits and pieces. They love the bacon flavour, they “love” humanity so much, so they have to go for broke and destroy existing institutions regardless of specific pros and cons – morality, family, religion, nation states, individual rights, autonomy, whatever. And then they can complete their wonderful utopian world on top of the wreckage, fitting everything together and arranging it just so according to their own tyrannical notions.
This is called the “policy of the whole hog“.
Another point about this: if you tried to implement changes in some nations, e.g. certain kinds of taxes, then people would just move eventually to other nations. So you couldn’t control everyone that way. So the globalist institutions work on treaties to seal off escape. Same with regulations. If people couldn’t tolerate certain regulations, off they go to some country where they don’t have them. Seal off escape with treaties. If you tried to implement body scanners in just a few nations, many people might just stop traveling to those nations. They can’t have that. Same with population policies. So that’s what’s going on all the time with international treaties. Globalization means total global control. Globalists can’t leave people alone, or else people might decide to go their own way and do their own thing. That’s why we have all these international summits, and wars.
Probably there will be nations and individuals and states/provinces raising opposition, but will it be enough? I don’t believe personally that the will to resist the Open Conspiracy is enough yet. It doesn’t have to a majority at all. But it’s not there yet. But it has to be. There needs to be an awakening to the ideas of individual rights and liberty and an understanding of what liberty means and why we have had very little of it. Liberty means respecting the autonomy and rights of other individuals and groups. It means not pushing them around and threatening them. You really think these guys at the G8 and G20 are going to discuss liberty?
Ch. XVII – The creative home, social group, and school: the present waste of idealistic will
“Now in each generation of the Open Conspiracy, until it can develop its own reproductive methods, must remain a minority movement of intelligent converts.” (p. 85)
And then he discusses the need for the Open Conspiracy to educate its children carefully, and to
“experiment in novel educational methods and educational atmospheres…” (p. 85)
“Successful schools would become laboratories of educational methods and patterns for new state schools.” (p. 86)
One of the progressive experimental schools of that time, Beacon Hill, was founded by fellow Fabian, Bertrand Russell. Here are some comments quoted from his daughter’s biography of her father and his school (Lady Katerine Tait). Also, this other essay (pdf) about Russell’s school by Deborah Gorham is interesting and makes you wonder about the meanings of “freedom” and “libertarian”. We can recommend individual choice for everyone, fine, and encourage children to think for themselves, great. But that is contradicted by the idea of imposing an educational system on parents – or by fooling parents into thinking that it reflects their values, or nullifying the rights of parents. That’s not liberty. Letting parents have their own schools is liberty. Yes. Great. But to decide – as a model for state schools (forced on people to one degree or another) – how everyone should think about the world – that’s not liberty. Traditional protections in Canada etc. uphold the rights of parents as having natural jurisdiction over their children, and also uphold freedom of religion, expression and conscience. We need these protections. To break down social structures such as monogamy and family will not protect children. To atomize society, which has been done thoroughly in Western countries, will not make us stronger and give us more liberty and rights protection from the State. That’s the point. Breaking down all societal structures does not automatically lead to freedom at all. It leads to isolated individuals, as portrayed in Orwell’s 1984, with no one to help them, at the mercy of a totalitarian state. Totalitarians don’t want the competition.
We have imperfect structures in society naturally, that are often subject to abuse, but which also provide stability, namely the family and extended family. But these have been weakened. And then there are moral rules about how to treat others. And philosophers and academics have been paid big bucks to question morality. But the entertainment industry is working full steam on that obstacle to tyranny. Also people get along with each other by following conventions about trade, property and hospitality, etc., and these are sometimes healthy. But they are undermined by State-imposed legislation and by the State imposed “justice” systems. Then there are different religions. Then there are political institutions. And some aspects of those things may be healthy and a lot of it unhealthy.
But then there is the “perfect” World State of the “progressive” Open Conspiracy, raising itself up as God, advanced tax-funded technology and science in its pocket, looting everywhere, propagandizing and seducing everyone, ready to clobber those who don’t submit.
Wells expresses the hope that the
“Open Conspiracy children will become a social elite…” (p. 86)
I think he is right, more so in the past, for youth, that the
“local religious powers … made a more comprehensive attack upon his conscience and imagination”.
In my case, in the 1980’s, it was a worldwide religious media that influenced me rather than local religious authorities. But Wells had a new “faith” for everyone back in his time:
“Now the old faiths are damaged and discredited, and the new and greater one, which is the Open Conspiracy, takes shape only gradually…” ( p. 86)
He appeals to youthful idealism:
“It has no natural disposition towards the shallow and confused life. Its demand as ever is, “What am I to do with myself?” … ” (p. 87)
And many youth are seduced by easy propaganda masquerading as “truth” and idealistic-sounding philosophies that criticize the problems they see with society and offering “new solutions” or promises about the future. I fell for that with my religion also. And what works even better are nice NGO salaries from idealistic-sounding organizations – with lots of money from taxpayers also – who are building a world government.
Ch. XVIII – Progressive development of the activities of the open conspiracy into a world control and commonweal: the hazards of the attempt
Speaking of the old political boundaries,
“… the Open Conspiracy will come to grips with the powers that sustain these boundaries.” (p. 88)
It will also dissolve and repudiate
“many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices.” (p. 88)
So we see today, people “free” in all sorts of ways that don’t matter: virtual worlds, all kinds of entertainment and fiction, all kinds of television and flashing lights and fashion choices. As far as important decisions about having children or how to make a living or what they’re allowed to do with their property (re: Greenbelt Act), if they have any, or what they’re allowed to keep, or input to decisions, opting out, opting in, what they’re allowed to believe, grow, buy, sell, make, energy use – forget it. It’s bad enough with licensing as it is. The future of those types of freedoms that MATTER is bleak as long as we let things continue in the direction they are being pushed. Do we want to live our own lives and make our own decisions? AT ALL? I think most of us are not even aware there is a problem.
Many seem to already think in this paradigm that they need the government to approve what they do.
He has an unfortunate way of expressing the following:
“The Open Conspiracy proposes to end and shows how an end may be put to that huge substratum of underdeveloped, undereducated, subjugated, exploited, and frustrated lives upon which such civilization as the world has known hitherto has rested …” (p. 88)
People might interpret that in a positive way, but in the context of his eugenics ideas, it means that there won’t be allowance for any such loose ends or alternative ways of living in his economic system. We are already brainwashed into this mindset. So many people already are told to believe that there is some world standard of education, some world standard of development that must be imposed on every culture. As if we even have any idea what is going on with other cultures half way around the world! But these cultures can’t maintain their independence if they are raised to these imposed “standards”. And this tyranny is coated in so much glossy propaganda color, talking out both sides of its mouth, with endless brutal warfare and mandatory sterilization programs. (Read about it: Uzbekistan and China recently. Peru in the 90’s.)
Again, he allows for militarism as long as it’s for the cause of his so-called “World Peace” or Pax Mundi, meaning world government. So how is that different or less ridiculous from previous war propaganda? It isn’t any different. War is Peace, as the slogan goes in Orwell’s 1984.
“Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance, and even from the outset, where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade, it must fight. Its first fights will probably be for the right to spread its system of ideas plainly and clearly throughout the world.” (p. 88)
And I think this explains so much about the wars that are going on now. The Open Conspiracy encounters obstacles to its “light” (its dictates, its communications technology, its culture, its financial systems, its attempts to control resources) and feels the urge to start pounding away physically.
Wells discusses how he doesn’t believe there will be serious resistance to the “dissemination of these views and the early organization of the Open Conspiracy” in English-speaking countries or liberal-minded European countries because of their belief in “liberties of thought”. (p. 88,89)
I wonder if the Establishment protected freedom of speech for so long, mainly so that these types of totalitarian socialist ideas could be freely promoted. In addition to making tax-payers fund these ideas at Canadian universities, as well as make them pay for arts and culture funding, as well as having government control of broadcasting and deciding which stations get to broadcast and on what terms. In addition to having the government determine the direction of society in terms of funding to corporations and university scientific research, especially during wars, hot and cold. For decades and decades.
And as we approach world government (remember the upcoming G8 and G20 meetings), it seems that the ideal of freedom of speech has been gradually coming to an end in Canada, and is openly being threatened in the U.S.
Wells hoped that a large portion of the civilized world may have their minds
“readjusted to the idea that their existing governments are in the position of trustees for the greater government of the coming age.” (p. 89)
The G8 / G20 is not representing YOU as an individual citizen – and they never did. Not even trying. But according to the CBC, they are spending $1.1 billion dollars on the June 2010 G8 and G20 summits.
Wells didn’t believe violence – “police, jail, expulsions, …, outlawry and warfare” – would be necessary in the highly “civilized” “Atlantic communities”. But if it was necessary,
“the Open Conspiracy, to the best of its ability and the full extent of its resources, must become a fighting force and organize itself upon resistant lines.” (p. 89)
The Open Conspiracy will play the part of King John “resisting” the backwards Robin Hoods. I’m sure that’s how King John and the Sheriff see the middle and working classes. Boy, don’t you dare act all back woods in the New World Order, says Wells the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Robin Hood wants to hunt in the woods, or build his own small castle. No way, says King John. “Get out of my woods. Stop oppressing my deer and my woods. How dare you cut my trees and burn my fuel! How dare you use my water! How dare you want health freedom? How dare you build on your own land! Who do you think you are? You think you are free? You think you can hunt, travel, drink, eat, smoke, build and breed without permission, without “green” inspections, without road checkpoints, and without carbon taxes?” So there is the voice of King John and the “environmental” movement (banking elites) – to the people.
Yes, the G8 and G20 is a corrupt “resistance” movement, resisting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, fighting back against property rights, autonomy, sovereignty, independence and liberty and people doing things their own way. Crushing all the little people that stand in their way, with their sound cannons, and God knows what else super-cool sci-fi Wellsian terror technology, paid for with OUR taxes. Part of that $1.1 billion that our “freedoms” pay for!
Sounding like a true neocon, or liberal imperialist, Wells paints his picture:
“In the face of unscrupulous opposition creative ideas must become aggressive, must define their enemies and attack them. By its own organizations or through the police and military strength of governments amenable to its ideas, the movement is bound to find itself fighting for open roads, open frontiers, freedom of speech, and the realities of peace in regions of oppression. The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of territory. It lies within the power of the Atlantic communities to impose peace upon the world and secure unimpeded movement and free speech from end to end of the earth.” (p. 89)
Sounds so wonderful, parts of that. Dolls all his tyranny and violence up and repeats the word “freedom” over and over just like a neocon or statist “liberal”. “Peace”. “Open” this and “open” that. Says the Open Conspiracy: “Open your bloody door or I’ll burn your house down. Like at WACO. Open your gates. Drop your shields. Tear down those walls that are protecting you from us.” That’s fighting “oppression”. Sure it is, buddy. “Unimpeded movement” for the forces and systems of the Open Conspiracy. Unimpeded movement and “free speech” for their “light” so they can tear the whole world down and start over. And anyone who disagrees is “noxious” and “obstructive”. Yes, I get it.
It all sounds so familiar. They’re going to fix the world up using violence and death because they care so much about people. No wonder people are so messed up listening to all the hypocritical war propaganda and bile coming from the mouths of political leaders, via that disgrace of the mainstream media.
Wells talks further about “imposing disarmament” and even invokes “freedom” before talking about a world that is “pacified and policed”. Pacified and policed, a possible slogan for the New World Order. Sounds like “freedom” to people like Wells. (p. 89)
Wells criticizes anti-interventionist, anti-imperialist versions of liberalism:
“The most inconsistent factor in the liberal and radical thought of to-day is its prejudice against the interference of highly developed modern states in the affairs of less stable and less advanced regions. This is denounced as “imperialism” and regarded as criminal…” (p. 89)
So he says, yes, it was disgusting for so-called nationalist entities to do that, but it’s absolutely okay for a power-hungry resource-hungry world totalitarian structure to interfere in supposedly backwards nations who supposedly don’t know what they’re doing, and who need to be instructed by holy superior world controllers who just want what’s good for everyone:
“as the merger of the Atlantic states proceeds, the possibility and necessity of bringing areas of misgovernment and disorder under world control increases..” (p. 90)
World War I wasn’t enough. Wells says there would have to be more war in order to have the perfect society because people still want to do things their own way. He doesn’t like “problems”. And as you know, from listening to to the governments of NATO nowadays, of course, they get the military out to go to war, because as they believe, “VIOLENCE SOLVES PROBLEMS”. And the entire media and society teaches that to your children (if they’re still yours) by its actions, by its war promotion. Maybe you’re okay with that. Maybe you buy into it. Maybe the kids are confused though.
“…there is still much actual warfare before mankind, on the frontiers everywhere, against brigands, against ancient loyalties and traditions which will become at last no better than excuses for brigandage and obstructive exaction. All the weight of the Open Conspiracy will be on the side of the world order and against that sort of local independence which holds back its subject people from the citizenship of the world.” (p. 90)
So he characterizes independent nations as practicing “misgovernment” and as nothing better than oppressive robbers that hold back their people. There’s some truth to that. But how convenient that is for the world order to hold itself up as a godlike savior by diminishing independent nations in their propaganda. And how familiar it sounds. The current world order characterizes itself as loving people and giving them aid and education (and debt and war). But we need to examine the actions of the United Nations, the United States and key globalist powers in the world objectively. Will their actions and the results of their policies in human terms stand up to clear-eyed scrutiny?
Wells worries about how much opposition there may be:
“No one can yet estimate the possible strength of reaction against world unification …” (p. 90)
Wells explains that as long as the Open Conspiracy is just a discussion, it may spread because it is not noticed (p. 90).
“as its organization becomes more effective and aggressive, as it begins to lay hands upon education, upon social habits, upon business developments, as it proceeds to take over the organization of the community, it will marshal not only its own forces but its enemies….” (p. 90)
Ch. XIX – Human life in the coming world community
Just like I heard from my religious gurus, Wells sells readers on how happy mankind will be in his utopia. He has it all worked out:
“Not one of us is yet as clear and free and happy within himself as most men will some day be.” (p. 92)
Man won’t be constrained by current limitations, but (those who are allowed to be born) will have the full benefit of biological eugenics control and scientific dictatorship. It’s like the Olympics all year long:
“A graver humanity, stronger, more lovely, longer lived, will learn and develop the ever enlarging possibilities of its destiny.” (p. 92)
I would like to skip over it, but Wells seems to imply that Open Conspirators living back in his time will live again using some kind of advanced technology:
“And so mankind, ourselves still living, but dispersed and reconstructed again in the future, will recall with affection and understanding the desperate wishes and troubled efforts of our present state”. (p. 92)
And this recalls the Resurrection of the elect in the New Testament and the Book of Revelation. So Wells never fails to terrify with his ideas, and he lets them all hang out. And anyone could dismiss the non-fiction ideas of Wells as a science fiction writer speculating about the future, if they ignored his propaganda, government and policy work. But basically he would be easier to dismiss if he was the only one with these ideas. But he wasn’t.
You know, the liars and power-mongers always have something to offer us. Just as soon as they’re done destroying all resistance, of course, violating basic moral injunctions against murder, theft and lying.
We are lied to our whole lives and threatened and forced to pay up endless taxes and pay the banks endless money and we’re limited and regulated and stopped at checkpoints by control freaks. But this same type of person, Wells, here he is offering us a future world full of happiness, “knowledge and power” and “possibilities”. (p. 92) But there won’t be freedom, really, but he’ll call it freedom anyway. Sort of like New Freedom where you get to be drugged.
“is with cruelties and frustrations, stupid, heavy, and hateful things from which we shall escape at last, less like victors conquering a world than like sleepers awaking from a nightmare in the dawn.” (p. 93)
And it’s true, you know, that this world is oppressive and frustrating for so many people, but are we really going to expect a better world from the members of the Open Conspiracy who want total control? What exactly are all their “frustrations” and hatreds? I can only imagine what goes on in the minds of these types of people as they get frustrated with others doing their own thing.
How can we have happiness without the chance of real freedom? How can there be happiness in a world that is totally controlled and planned?
Doesn’t happiness come from a clear conscience, from doing the right thing with respect to our fellow human beings, from treating others justly and respecting their rights and autonomy? We should be promoting freedom and rights for ourselves and our neighbours and insisting on these things.
We should be exercising our own control and our own decisions in our own lives now. We need to stand up for these things in this world. So we can be happy NOW – on the track towards spiritual wholeness NOW, standing up for the truth, happy with our selves in the present day, regardless of what happens to us.
Our lives are short. We should not be waiting for a perfect world with a perfect future with perfect masters. This is our world now as much as it is those who abuse and rule over people. We have rights. We have responsibilities to protect those rights. We were born here too. We have our own individuality and our own ways. And these things need our protection.
And we should not let ourselves be sold pie-in-the-sky any more by totalitarians. Throw the pie back in their face.
Value for value. If you appreciate this series, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.