↓
 
Home→F2→Policy Themes of Brave New World: H. G. Wells on Religion

Policy Themes of Brave New World: H. G. Wells on Religion

Canadian Liberty Posted on by

By Alan
PowerAndReality.com
Initial partial posting: February 16, 2017
Updated: February 20, 2017
Latest Edit: April 16, 2017

Previous in series

For other articles on “Policy Themes of Brave New World”, see series contents.

In his 1933 non-fiction manifesto, The Open Conspiracy, H. G. Wells (1866–1946) writes about how to achieve control over the world through undermining opposing institutions and attitudes [1].

Wells, a student [2] of T. H. Huxley (grandfather of Aldous and Julian), was a very influential propagandist.

According to the IMDb biography of H. G. Wells,

. . . In any appraisal [of] the 20th century, H.G. Wells must be considered among its very most important and influential thinkers and authors. . . . [2]

Like Annie Besant, Wells was a significant figure in the Fabian Society along with George Bernard Shaw, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, and others [2][3].

The History of the Fabian Society by Edward R. Pease relates that Wells once spoke about “scientific administrative areas” in municipal affairs, which seems relevant to the idea of scientific dictatorship [3].

During World War I, Lord Beaverbrook, the British Minister of Information, had successful authors such as H. G. Wells write war propaganda in the form of newspaper articles and pamphlets [2] [4].

In Imperialism and The Open Conspiracy, Wells explains that he was a member of the Club of Coefficients, which included some very powerful figures:

In a little dining and debating club of thirteen members, invented by Mrs. Sidney Webb, people like Mr. Bertrand Russell, the late Lord Haldane, the new Lord Passfield and myself, met and rubbed minds with people like Mr. Amery, Mr. Leo Maxse, Mr. Mackinder, Lord Milner, and Lord Grey. Our alleged object was to get a common conception of the Empire (p. 10) [5].

The same meetings are mentioned in The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, a professor at the United States School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University:

Milner was the creator of the Round Table Group. In the sketch of Milner in the Dictionary of National Biography, written by Basil Williams, we read: ‘He was always ready to discuss national questions on a non-party basis, . . . , and in a more heterogeneous society, the ‘Coefficients,’ where he discussed social and imperial problems with such curiously assorted members as L. S. Amery, H. G. Wells, (Lord) Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, (Sir) Michael Sadler, Bernard Shaw, J. L. Garvin, William Pembler Reeves, and W. A. S. Hewins (Ch. 7, p. 137) [6].

Control, Power and the New Faith

In The Open Conspiracy, Wells expresses his opinion that there is a:

necessity for world biological controls, for example, of population and disease (p. 72)[1].

His goal is “world control”:

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) [1].

He writes that “Open Conspiracy children will become a social elite . . . (p. 86) [1]”

Wells writes about the new faith:

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) [1].

Changes to Beliefs and Behavior

Well states that the Open Conspiracy will repudiate:

many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices (p. 88) [1]

Wells advocates in his works (implicitly or otherwise) what can be called “sexual freedom”–sexualization or promiscuity–even though it is a tool of the scientific dictatorship described in Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World [7]. Huxley also acknowledges the tyrannical purpose of sexual freedom in his later non-fiction work, Brave New World Revisited [8].

In our lifetime, we have seen the results of of social engineering that weakened attitudes and rules which I believed helped to protect family stability and also children against sexual abuse.

Traditional religion, flawed as it is, got in the way of this agenda. This is because it presents an authority that is independent of the new religion of the Open Conspiracy, which includes the deification of human government and especially the potential “scientific” World State being molded from Huxleyan “humanism,” scientism and mysticism.

Since the Rockefeller-funded fraudulent PEDO-science of Alfred Kinsey was used to overturn attitudes and laws [9], social restrictions on pornography have disappeared–and its presence has escalated (along with brutality and torture as entertainment).

For a long time, children have been exposed to scenes of adult sexuality of varying degrees via the television, magazines, movies and Internet. It would be better if people were aware of the blatant contradiction that it is still not acceptable or legal for children to be exposed to nudity and sexual displays [10]–but exposure via the god-level Media is ignored and played down. Most of us have grown up with this situation, so it escapes our attention. On top of what the corporate media has done, even more of a contradiction exists with post-Kinsey government education programs pushing the Huxley sex education agenda further and further [11].

The Open Conspiracy Fights for the Right to Spread Its Ideas

Wells asserts that

Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance, . . . 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 . . . (p. 88) [1].

Freedom of speech is cherished in societies like Canada. However, in retrospect, in my opinion, I would speculate that for much of the twentieth century, this freedom is likely to have been defended most often by persons working on behalf of the corporate oligarchy—for its misuse—in order to promote, not the free exchange of ideas, but the one-way driving of social engineering–via the oligarch’s tools, which include pornography, Marxism and ideological propaganda of the Wellsian variety. This includes news and entertainment media, universities, the culture and arts. And we know that a substantial amount of funding in these areas comes from our taxes [12]. The use of such subsidies to alter social structures–and to expose children to sexual interference and exploitation–is an abusive betrayal of the public and whatever democratic principles we believe we have.

By the way, the oligarchs are not ideological in a conventional sense. Other public relations tricks and tools of societal change can be listed, and may not all seem as ideological or left-wing in nature. If you pay attention to formats such as morning radio news talk for example, the formula often is that some “problem” is presented and along comes a representative guest of an “association” of some kind that supplies the “solution.” And voilà, we have certain laws eventually introduced to spy on people in their cars or in their homes or in their bodies in the name of fighting “global warming,” terrorism, alcohol, drugs, smoking, obesity, waste, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, using Wells’ statement as evidence, the promotion of free speech has been one-sided and was carried out more and more to the exclusion of traditional ideas, or reality-based ideas about human life and human nature, even to the extent that so-called hate speech for a gradually increasing number of subject categories has been criminalized. Bear in mind that the Canadian hate speech law has been challenged by a minority of Supreme Court justices [13]. It is in opposition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and older formulations of rights and freedoms present since the days before Canada was founded [14] [15].

Religion With Emphasis On Individual Submission To The Collective

H. G. Wells refers to the “The Call To Action Of The Servants Of The Open Conspiracy.” From Ch. 5 “Religion in the New World”:

The clear-minded Open Conspirator . . . is obliged to believe that only by giving his life to the great processes of social reconstruction . . . can he do well with his life (p. 22) [1].

Wells describes his idea of a new religion. He praises the aspect of religions that “demanded great subordinations of self ” because “therein lay their creative force.”

Wells describes his new religion further:

The conception of progress as a broadening and increasing purpose . . . turns religious life towards the future. We think no longer of submission to the irrevocable decrees of absolute dominion, but of participation in an adventure on behalf of a power that gains strength and establishes itself (p. 25) [1].

It seems unavoidable that if religion is to develop unifying and directive power . . . it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous prolongation of personal ends. The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system (p. 26)[1].

From Ch. VI “Modern Religion is Objective”:

The idea of inner perfectibility dwindles with the diminishing importance attached to individuality. We cease to think of mortifying or exalting or perfecting ourselves and seek to lose ourselves in a greater life. We think less and less of “conquering” self and more and more to escaping from self. If we attempt to perfect ourselves in any respect it is only as a soldier sharpens and polishes an essential weapon (p. 27) [1].

I want to explain how this quote, I think, which seems positive in a misleading way, is a very important element in the dehumanization process—the process of removing the soul from what becomes just a conscienceless shell—a mere tool of the power elite, a shell who only looks like a human being.

Regardless of the truth of religious doctrines, Wells had an obnoxious attitude towards individual spiritual and moral struggles. He thinks a personal religion of a “secluded duet between the individual and his divinity” “may be regarded as a perversion of the religious impulse.” He claims that a “normal religious process takes the individual out of his egotism for the service of the community (p. 22) [1].”

The word “community” sounds nice, but it means whatever system of government he has in mind that manages the planet in detail, including our minds and bodies.

The subordination of the self–the subordination of the individual–is the aspect of religion that Wells exalts the most.

It’s not to say that he doesn’t have a point about our desire to be part of something bigger, about the desire to make things better for our fellow human beings—but I certainly disagree with what he thinks is better or “progress.”

There is something to be said that people may be obsessing too much about their individual lives in certain ways, especially in recent decades, because I think that people are spending too much time on “improving” themselves in superficial and materialistic ways. In fact, that is likely to be another stage of the same Open Conspiracy, with the Huxleyan social changes that have taken place—the strange combinations of materialism and mysticism that has been dropped on us. There is a lot to be said about this topic—how people are judging themselves and others by their level of prosperity—and attributing prosperity and happiness to positive thinking, while discounting real evil that is going on and how it is hurting others, even as the evil encroaches on their own circles.

I certainly disagree with what Wells is implying, that we should stop focusing on the importance of individual character and personal moral behavior. In fact, to make a world that is actually better, we need to stop going along with the corrupt institutions that lord it over us, we need to switch off the bossy noise and tap in to our own individual powers of thought, and we need to learn more about what the good aspects of what traditional religion used to emphasize, which was to pay attention to personal integrity, to not endlessly pat ourselves on the back, to remove corrupt influences from our lives, to sift out the lies from the truth, to not be blindly unthinking, obedient slaves to the humanist dictatorship his kind are erecting. We need to have BOTH a concern for our own individual souls (as people used to say) and ALSO a concern for others, a sense of building a more livable future for our fellow human beings—and maybe that has nothing to do with the kind of “future” his clique have been busily trying to build for generations now. In fact, maybe his “progress” is something we need to protect ourselves from, and no doubt we’ve had too much of it already.

And that’s not to say the old system is something we should go back to and pretend that it cared for our well-being and freedom and rights all that much either. It certainly didn’t seem to let us think very much for ourselves. If we had learned to think freely under the old religious systems, and talk freely about life, we would never have been sitting ducks for the Brave New World policies of the scientific dictatorship.

In other words, going along and blindly following anything—this extreme form of collectivism in which we focus on trivial things as if we are babies and let the “rulers” focus on the important things and tell us what to think–is just another way to spell “corruption.” And it’s all around us, and we are already suffering for it in incredible ways—or we will suffer in spite of our “positive thinking” propaganda training. But we dismiss as “conspiracy theories” what should be obvious cause and effect.

What evils result from elevating criminality and putting it on a pedestal and believing all the lies and garbage it flings at us and sells to us? What evils result from failure to think, from failure to discern and judge, from failure to condemn? Nobody should need to tell you.

Disposing of Conflicting Standards and Traditions

Wells writes about “disposing of” “conflicting standards and traditions.”

He emphasizes the tiresome Fabian gangster formula about how we need to have a world government or else the bosses will continue to start wars (not worded that way of course):

. . . to make an end to war we must be cosmopolitan in our politics. It is impossible for any clear-headed person to suppose that the ever more destructive stupidities of war can be eliminated from human affairs until some common political control dominates the earth, and unless certain pressures due to the growth of populations, due to the enlarging scope of economic operations or due to conflicting standards and traditions of life, are disposed of (p. 28) [1].

To avoid the positive evils of war, and to attain the new levels of prosperity and power that now come into view, an effective world control, not merely of armed force, but of the production and main movements of staple commodities and the drift and expansion of population is required. It is absurd to dream of peace and world-wide progress without that much control . . .(p. 28) [1]

Doesn’t that sound like he wants centralized control over the distribution of all basic commodities? So much for “free trade”? How else can you control the people globally unless you force them all to compete with the cheapest labor and goods from the other side of the world and be dependent on those goods so that they can be effectively rationed when populations start getting out of hand? The Open Conspiracy utopian rulers need to be able to choke off basic supplies when there is “rebellion” and unplanned growth, right?

And of course, they need to “dispose of” pressures “due to conflicting standards and traditions of life,” right?

So continuing on with the theme of suppressing individual conscience and moral development, Wells’ attitude ties in with efforts to suppress freedom of conscience, which I have commented on [16] when it comes to medical professionals—or whole societies–having conscientious convictions that prevent them from participating in practices they object to.

Depending on the individual, this might include practices such as abortion, contraception, sterilization, administering certain drugs or vaccines they believe to be unwarranted, performing certain surgeries they consider to be mutilation, practices that are often funded by tax-payers in countries such as Canada—in violation of the personal conscience of many tax-payers!!

Freedom of conscience, and other key freedoms, is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [15] but some people still have the gall to challenge personal conscience—obviously—because they work for their masters’ agenda, which is tyranny. And tyranny necessitates corruption, because it can’t stand personal conscience opposing it. It has this sick desire to replace God and turn a human being into a machine that just does what it is told. Slavery has always been with us, just because the “fit” survive and “might makes right.” Some people just see the rest of us as taking up their space.

Forcing people to go against their conscience is an aspect of impoverishing, monopolistic, violent (see foreign policy especially), uncivilized tyranny. Using half-baked, irrational and emotional arguments to attack such rights and freedoms—introducing anti-terrorism legislation for example–is a feature of a society that has been dehumanized and victimized by psychological warfare. In place of the old freedoms, it offers new “freedoms” where you don’t get to be a normal human being living in reality anymore.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE [18]

The same concepts repeat with each of these oligarchy-serving society-manipulating individuals. Bringing in a type of religious concept that we have already discussed, related to Julian Huxley’s transhumanism, such as the noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin and Terence McKenna’s idea of the Internet as a global mind [17], H. G. Wells describes his Open Conspiracy as a type of intelligent and consuming form of life that grows of its own accord:

It [the Open Conspiracy] may also assimilate great masses of intelligent workers. As its activities spread it will work out a whole system of special methods of co-operation. As it grows, and by growing, it will learn the business of general direction and how to develop its critical function. A lucid, dispassionate, and immanent criticism is the primary necessity, the living spirit of a world civilization. The Open Conspiracy is essentially such a criticism, and the carrying out of such a criticism into working reality is the task of the Open Conspiracy. It will by its very nature be aiming not so much to set up a world direction as to become itself a world direction, and the educational and militant forms of this opening phase will evoke, step by step, as experience is gained and power and responsibility acquired, forms of administration and research and correlation (p. 32)[1].

Wells talks about the will to have the “map” complete and up to date. The analogy to a living intelligent system continues:

And through that will it will produce as the central organ the brain of the modern community, a great encyclopedic organization, kept constantly up to date and giving approximate estimates and directions for all the material activities of mankind (p. 38) [1].

It becomes like the man-made mind of the elite’s governmental, ruling structure, its man-made substitute for “God”, a type of Artificial Intelligence in some sense.

As mentioned, Terence McKenna identified the Internet in this way, as a global mind [17], and possibly it may eventually become very similar to what Wells wrote about, and what Teilhard de Chardin called the “noosphere” [17], and what Jacques Attali wrote about in A Brief History of the Future –a “collective intelligence” [18].

I would compare it to an attempt to create a substitute for God which parallels the biblical story of the Tower of Babel [19].

Furthermore,I can’t help thinking of Revelation 13:14-15, which I see as possibly a plan or at least a pattern of human nature rather than a literal prophecy, in which the miracle-working world dictatorship (Beast, or Roman Empire historically) has everyone worship its image, which is somehow given life and the power of speech, an impressive false substitute for God [20]. Probably others have noticed this comparison. Is this just referring symbolically to a Roman emperor, or is it an analogy to an occultic AI (Artificial Intelligence) project? Again, there is the world, including our nature, as God created it, and then there is the modified and perfected world of the occultist, technocratic, GMO, smart dust, Agenda 21, super-surveillance, technology-worshiping, pseudo-scientific, power-lusting, tower-to-heaven builders.

The Internet was created by the globe-straddling United States military [21][22], which divides the world up into regions [23]. Note that President George Bush Sr. announced the concept of the Wellsian New World Order (another of his books is The New World Order [2]) several times, referring to “a new world of possibilities [24].” Note also that the United States includes another organization in New York City called the United Nations, which has a similar name. Both, in my view, serve the same mission of creating a world government.

Additional Information


[1] (a) H. G. Wells, “The Open Conspiracy,” from The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings, 1933, Waterlow & Sons Ltd., London.

(b) My analysis of The Open Conspiracy: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=7771


[2] IMDb page for H. G. Wells: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920229/ has a list of his fictional works that have been made into films and television shows.

The IMDb biography by Charles R. Keller II of The H.G. Wells Society includes a list of his non-fiction works: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0920229/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

A member of the Fabian Society, [Wells] . . . wrote several socio-political works dealing with the role of science and the need for world peace . . .

Wells attended

. . . London’s Normal School of Science where he studied biology under Darwin’s “bull dog,” the great T.H. Huxley . . .

. . . After spending time with the British government’s War Office in the Propaganda Department and helping to define a clear set of war aims, he resigned and returned to writing propaganda his way. . . .

The World Set Free (1914)

. . . was a prophetic novel about a world war . . . which included a remarkably accurate forecast of atomic warfare and even coined the term “atomic bomb” . . .


[3] The History of the Fabian Society by Edward R. Pease, 1916. See https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Pease_History_of_the_Fabian_Society-2.pdf.

See Chapter IX. Wells seems to have tried to take over the Fabian Society:

The substance of the controversy was whether the members desired to hand over their Society to be managed by Mr. Wells alone, or whether they preferred to retain their old leaders and only to accept Mr. Wells as one amongst the rest (p. 98).

Mr. Wells became a member in February, 1903, and in March gave his first lecture to the Society on a very technical subject, “The Question of Scientific Administrative Areas in Relation to Municipal Undertakings,” a paper subsequently published as an appendix to “Mankind in the Making” (p. 98).


[4] Article on Lord Beaverbrook: http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/beaverbrook.htm.


[5] (a) H. G. Wells,Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy, Criterion Miscellany No. 3, Faber & Faber, London, first published 1929.

(b) My comments on Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy:
https://canadianliberty.com/?p=7737.


[6] The Anglo-American Establishment, by Carroll Quigley, publisher: G S G & Associates.


[7] Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, London: Flamingo, 1994, Orig. Published: 1932. Introduction by David Bradshaw.

My commentary on Brave New World is here: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=17829
Sexualization in the novel:


[8] Brave New World Revisited, originally published 1958. Electronic editions published 2000, 2010 by RosettaBooks LLC, New York. ISBN Mobipocket edition: 9780795300165

My commentary on Brave New World Revisited: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=17795.
What Huxley says about sexual freedom is referred to here: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=17477


[9] For the reality of Alfred Kinsey (as opposed to the propaganda, which creates division based on authority-induced, emotionally-based beliefs which prevent us from examining the facts), see Dr. Judith Reisman’s website: www.drjudithreisman.org [or http://www.drjudithreisman.com. These links don’t work as per April 16, 2017 for some reason]. Her information includes the role of the Rockefeller Foundation, the origin of the sexual revolution, the role of pornography, the history of sex education and related institutions. For example, Dr. Reisman has recommended some documentaries and I’ve linked to my summaries of these:


[10] Criminal Code of Canada http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence . . .
Exposure
(2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person who is under the age of 16 years
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence . . .
<strongNudity
174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
(a) is nude in a public place, or
(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Nude
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.
Consent of Attorney General
(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.
[NOTICE HOW A CABINET MINISTER SEEMS TO HAVE THE POWER TO CANCEL OUT This particular section of the LAW – not much of a law if it can be turned on and off from on high. Case by case I understand, but the power to judge each situation should be spread out among the citizenry in my opinion.]
. . .
Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place [that sounds like the arts and media],
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by . . .
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


[11] http://globalnews.ca/news/1847912/sexual-education-compared-across-canada/
Sexual education compared across Canada, February 24, 2016


[12] Just a small example. Ontario government website: http://www.arts.on.ca/home?lang=en-ca

Accessed February 18, 2017:

VITAL ARTS, PUBLIC VALUE
More than 50 years of providing support to artists and arts organizations across Ontario

Other small examples regarding a university, including plenty of government subsidies towards areas of research that affect our culture:
Policy themes of Brave New World – Control Over Science
https://canadianliberty.com/?p=2324


[13] See my post https://canadianliberty.com/?p=19008 Continued Assault on Freedom of Speech – Nothing Personal, in which I refer to the dissenting opinion in the Keegstra case as quoted here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/1994/13.html:

In the dissenting judgment, McLachlin J. was particularly concerned by what she saw as the breadth, vagueness and subjectivity inherent in section 319(2). . . .


[14] Rights and freedoms as ideals are part of our early history in societies like Canada, and not just in America. I can point to the books by Janet Ajzenstat on the Canadian political system as a reference for this point. I comment on them here: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=18792.


[15] https://canadianliberty.com/?p=16882 – Forsaken Principles of Canadian Society.
Post includes information on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also to a pre-Charter formulation of our rights and freedoms, Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights.


[16] My series “Freedom of conscience vs. global population policies” includes documentation on various topics and concludes with Part 14: https://canadianliberty.com/?p=21378


[17] See: http://powerandreality.com/policy-themes-of-brave-new-world-religion-public-relations-drugs-transhumanism-evolution-doctrine-implies-inevitability-of-developments-instead-of-their-being-the-result-of-planning/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna

He also became enamored with the Internet, calling it “the birth of [the] global mind . . .


[18] Jacques Attali, A Brief History of the Future, summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_the_Future. Article (accessed February 19, 2017) refers to the concept of “collective intelligence” described in Attali’s book.

There is a detailed Wikipedia Article on this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence which includes a reference to a book by H. G. Wells called World Brain. This article includes information on how “Collective Intelligence” relates to the Internet.


[19] Genesis 11:1-9 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11:1-9&version=KJV

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.


[20] Revelation 13:14-15 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=KJV

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


[21] For information surrounding the history of the Internet and the bigger picture of the scientific dictatorship under development, see the film, The NET: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet by Lutz Dammbeck (2003). It can be currently found on YouTube and I’ve linked to it here:https://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273.


[22] Wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

The US Department of Defense awarded contracts as early as the 1960s for packet network systems, including the development of the ARPANET.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.


[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

The United States currently has nine Combatant Commands, organized either on a geographical basis (known as “Area of Responsibility”, AOR) or on a global, functional basis:
U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)
U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM)
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)
U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM)
U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM)
U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases


[24] See https://canadianliberty.com/?p=16876

Series Contents

Value for value: If you appreciate the information provided, please support this project.
↑