The slur of “conspiracy theory” is used by those unscrupulous persons who desire to shut down discussion of any sort regarding uncomfortable subject matter. They accuse proponents of certain ideas or facts as “conspiracy theorists,” which is the verbal equivalent of labeling someone as a “racist;” that is, an individual who is one of those social undesirables, which by implication means that is he deserves to be popularly ostracized. Unfortunately for the guardians of the status quo, the truth can never be made to kowtow to the culture creation industry.
Despite opening up as an alleged political tract on international relations (that is, diplomacy, trade, and war), the author wastes no time in revealing what he observes and is interested in. Describing what he saw as the rising supremacy of “business” over government, Wells says:
“Still the minds of our comfortable and influential ruling-class people refuse to accept the plain intimation that their time is over, that the Balance of Power and uncontrolled business methods cannot continue, and that Hitler, like the Hohenzollerns, is a mere pustule on the face of a deeply ailing world. To get rid of him and his Nazis will be no more a cure for the world’s ills than scraping will heal measles. The disease will manifest itself in some new eruption. It is the system of nationalist individualism and unco-ordinated enterprise that is the world’s disease, and it is the whole system that has to to go. It has to be reconditioned down to its foundations or replaced. It cannot hope to ‘muddle through’ amiably, wastefully, and dangerously, a second time.
“World peace means all that much revolution. More and more of us begin to realize that it cannot mean less.”
Wells is literally saying here that the fundamental problem of war lies in the very existence of nation-states. While anarchists of all stripes would agree with Wells on that very limited point, the medicine that Wells intends to prescribe for what ails the human species I think would be repugnant to even those who espouse the complete abolition of government. His remedy is revealed when he states:
“Now it has to be made clear that these two things, the manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind, are aspects of one and the same process.”
This would seem to suggest that global governance is required to end war alongside its other task of establishing a centrally managed economy. I shudder to think of what he meant by the “collective control of the… biological life of mankind.”
Wells goes on to preach about the wonderfulness of collectivism and the dynamics of the Haves and Have-Nots (as with socio-economic class-based analysis, this is in actuality a false dichotomy, much like The Left-Right Paradigm). What I did find intriguing was that he admitted that the original socialists wanted nothing less that global socialism. He then suggests to his readers that collectivism should be divorced from class warfare, since Karl Marx was economically incompetent and thus such a focus is impeding effective collectivism.
While decrying the lack of foresight by the Allied powers should they defeat the Axis, Wells says:
“I do not see any way to a solution of the problem of World Peace unless we begin with a confession of universal wrong-doing. Then we can sit down to the question of a solution with reasonable prospect of finding an answer.”
Then Wells asks why anyone has a problem with the Soviet Union. Revealingly, he says:
“The question of whether collectivisation is to be ‘Westernized’ or ‘Easternized,’ using these words under the caveat of the previous paragraph, is really the first issue before the world today. We need a fully ventilated Revolution. Our Revolution has to go on in the light and air. We may have to accept sovietisation à la Russe quite soon unless we can produce a better collectivisation. But if we produce a better collectivisation it is more probable that not that the Russian system will incorporate our improvements, forget its reviving nationalism again, debunk Marx and Stalin, so far as they can be debunked, and merge into the one world state.”
What he is literally saying here is that it would be desirable for the Communists to merge with the corporatist Western powers into a one world government. He also goes on to describe how the monetary manipulation of the economy through the control of credit and debt is strategically integral in any sort of federated unions of nation-states.
Next, he mentions three types of revolution: the Catholic reactionary (or more accurately, counter) revolution, the coup d’état conspiratorial revolution, and the socially engineered revolution. The New World Order is of the third kind, and Wells describes its characteristics:
“This new and complete Revolution we contemplate can be defined is a very few words. It is (a) outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed, plus (b) a sustained insistence upon law, law based on a fuller, more jealously conceived resentment of the personal Rights of Man, plus (c) the completest freedom of speech, criticism, and publication and sedulous expansion of the educational organisation to the ever-growing demands of the new order. What we may call the easter or Bolshevik Collectivism, the Revolution of the Internationale, has failed to achieve even the first of these three items and it has never even attempted the other two.
“Putting it at its compactest, it is the triangle of Socialism, Law, and Knowledge, which frames the Revolution which may yet save the world.”
“There will be no day of days then when the new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, and even as it comes into being it will develop fresh perspectives, discover unsuspected problems and go on to new adventures. No man, no group of men, will ever be singled out as its father or founder. For its maker will be not this man nor that man nor any man but Man, that being who is in some measure in every one of us. World order will be, like science, like most inventions, a social product, and innumerable number of personalities will have lived fine lives, pouring their best into the collective achievement.”
Sounds exactly like the corporate Borg system we are currently suffering under. Does this not sound like the world we inhabit today? Interestingly, Wells additionally admits:
“Nor does it alter the fact that that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
What this means is that dissidents of all kinds are fundamentally opposed to this New World Order; that is, an interlocking global structure of world socialism. I also found this particular aspect of the New World Order intriguing:
“It is not unreasonable to anticipate the development of an ad hoc disarmament police which will have its greatest strength in the air. How easily the spirit of an air police can be denationalized is shown by the instance of the air patrols on the United States-Canadian border, to which President Roosevelt drew my attention…an ad hoc disarmament police with its main strength in the air would necessarily fall into close co-operation with the various other world police activities.”
Who needs a global “air police” when you have UAVs that can fly up to 25,000 feet for up to 40 hours that is also capable of delivering a weapons payload of 1.5 tons that can rain down destruction upon Pakistani civilians? Then again, there is the very existence of NATO itself, but I digress. Wells concludes with:
“These are some fragmentary intimations of the quality of that wider life a new world order can open to mankind… I have set down nothing that is not strictly reasonable and practicable… there is really nothing novel about this book.”
I have no doubt he thinks so, and unfortunately history has proven him correct, for while the lighting fast military invasions so characteristic of 20th century fascism failed, the incremental socially engineered techniques of their Fabian socialist counterparts have proven their success since we are experiencing it right now through the mechanizations of the Establishment itself.
H.G. Wells’ The New World Order is a chillingly accurate foretelling of what has not only has transpired, but will continue to do so unless it is immediately halted. I have no doubt that Wells would be pleased by the banker bailouts of 2009, the unprecedented mass reliance upon the welfare State, and a 14-figure national debt, although he probably wouldn’t enjoy the imperialistic wars of aggression as much, but it’s not too farfetched that if he were alive today, he would be more than happy to claim that these undeclared illegal wars only happened because of countries, not because of the corporatist special interests, such as the military-industrial complex and the international banking cartel that funds them.