By Alan Mercer
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.
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.
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.