|
||||||
|
Comments on Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells, Part 4 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):
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:
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. Comments on Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells, Part 3 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:
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
“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
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
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:
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. Comments on Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells, Part 2 By Alan Mercer, http://www.silencemeansconsent.com Even though this essay by Wells is critical of Beaverbrook’s views on empire, according to firstworldwar.com, Beaverbrook was the British Minister of Information in 1918 and encouraged authors, including H. G. Wells, to write war propaganda articles and pamphlets. In other words, Wells worked for the Ministry of Information for the British government during World War I. As Quigley explains, besides controlling critical major publications such as the Times of London, Milner and his colleagues were “all-pervasive” in the government in the later stages of World War I and had men placed in the propaganda department (Wellington House) and the Department of Intelligence (Anglo-American Establishment, p. 145). Also during World War II, the Milner Group were highly influential in major publications, and in particular areas of government, including the Research and Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office, and the Ministry of Information (Quigley, p. 303). Wells mentions his view of the German system like a “closed fist”, but the British Empire “was like an open hand spread throughout the world. It had and could have no natural economic unity at all.” [p.11] I would picture Wells’ idea about the ideal role for the British Empire as being like a world-straddling blender of violence and cultural demolition (like America’s role today under its internationalist rulers):
So much for “liberal” ideology! All these ideologies were just covers for world empire whether its called “patriotic” or “cosmopolitan”. But Wells was disappointed with imperialists who “have so maintained their preference for battleships over brains…”, and have stuck to “the erection of mean and stupid tariff obstacles…” [p. 11,12] Wells “should be glad to see the English-speaking communities throughout the world free now to recombine in some more progressive unity….”. And the Milner Group also had this exact same goal, promoted as Imperial federation by Lionel Curtis and other members of the Milner Group. The compromise became the British Commonwealth (Quigley, p. 57). Wells:
So the trend towards world government had already progressed beyond the confines of the British Empire, but the British Empire had helped to get it started.
In other words, since communication is worldwide, government administration must be worldwide. That’s his logic. Wells calls it a “fundamental political principle”. By that logic, if you could extend communication and travel to Mars, and you represent an oligarchy that poses as a democracy, you MUST extend your oligarchy and oppressive system of regulations and taxation to Mars (if Mars had inhabitants). So then you would proceed to propagandize the Martians and subvert their culture, to gradually convince them that they should join the “Federation of Planets” a la Star Trek and that they should want to have exactly the same system of education, banking and law, etc. And this is exactly the kind of propaganda every person on Earth is subjected to right now minute by minute, day in and day out by political, media and corporate elites who promote the United Nations and internationalist policies as well as cultural and military domination by the United States that goes hand in hand with the UN. He complains that
Even in his time, Wells says people were fed and clothed with resources from all over the world.
A change “… of scale and economic range demands a corresponding change in political forms. … problem for mankind that has to be consciously faced and solved.” [p.18] The same push for a change in “political forms” advances today. Why should I want to impose on other nations the system I live under that requires me to ask permission for everything (marriage licenses, garage sale permits etc.), and regulates more and more of my life every day? Why would I want to inflict that on others around the world, so that it was everywhere and I had nowhere to go to escape it? Wells sounds like someone writing on behalf of opportunism and power lust on a global scale. Creating a world government means concentrating control of the world’s resources in the hands of an elite class. Regardless of the nominal type of government – a fake kind of democracy like we have now is more than we can hope for with a world government - the bureaucracy, military, monetary institutions and private corporations controlling such a world government would have unlimited power over all of us. To paint their motives as mainly idealistic is just wishful thinking – or worse - and I think that was the job of authors like H. G. Wells. He argues that “the sovereign states of the world have been thrusting out in a blind effort to achieve the new scale”. And “lucid attempts of all the main sovereign states of the world to secure a world-wide control of resources …. More or less conscious efforts of once national states to become world-wide” [p. 18] So these various European empires were competing for control of resources, using military power, as if the world belonged to them. I was reading through an account of World War II, and I was thinking how ludicrous it was that Japan, for example, was attacking Chinese, European and American territory all over the Pacific. Did the rulers of Japan actually think they would be successful or that it was wise to use force in order to have the resources they needed? It makes no sense unless we start questioning this idea that they had the best interests of their own people at heart. To me, I think that ordinary people – Japanese or American or British - would just trade for resources they need and would respect each others’ way of life. So the world wars make no sense to me except as the machinations of elitists at the top of each nation pretending to be acting in the interests of those nations. And Wells is saying that this system won’t work. And I think it is mainly because the rulers of these nations/empires did not believe in the national system, and were not interested in preserving nations as independent and sovereign. Wells pushes this key propaganda argument based on the idea that nations can’t help going to war with each other until they create a single world state:
Continued: Part 3 Comments on Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells Criterion Miscellany No. 3, Faber & Faber, In a non-fiction article, Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy, published in 1929, author H. G. Wells (War of the Worlds, etc.) advocates a unified world state. The point of his article is to criticize the idea of a “self-sufficient” patriotic Wells put across the idea in his story, The World of William Clissold, that “… great complexes [corporations] already transcend the boundaries of existing sovereign states, and that they make for a single economic world organization, for Cosmopolis that is and not for Empire.” [p.6] I think it is significant for those who are steeped in the left-right paradigm that Wells advocated “socialism” at the same time that he also promoted “free trade” policies and promoted the style followed by large corporations. Wells asserts he was a strong imperialist in the days of the Boer War, but that imperialism changed. His ideal was “cosmopolitan” and his opposition to “nationalism and nationalist patriotism has never varied”. These “forms”, he asserts, are “degrading” and produce “intellectual difficulties” that are “in the way to the world state and a rationalized conduct of human affairs.” [p.7] In other words, his goal, and that of his pals, was a centrally planned world government; and the To him, the Note that he glorifies the banking establishment: “The City really ran the credit of the world.” He thought it had been “conceivable”, that “in co-operation with other liberal powers”, the Wells says he wrote about these ideas in Anticipations (1900, ‘The New Republic’) and Modern Utopia, and was opposed to the “opposite conception of Empire” of the kind promoted by Rudyard Kipling, as a “system of high and swaggering conquest”. [p. 8] He claims that because Joseph Chamberlain embraced protectionist policies, “the Empire turned its back upon its possibilities as a world nexus, and faced towards narrowness, patriotism, and inevitable conflict with the rest of mankind.” [p.9] Wells describes the Club of Coefficients meetings: “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] The same meetings are mentioned in The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, a professor at the United States School of Foreign Service at “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.” [Anglo-American Establishment, by Carroll Quigley, Ch. 7, p. 137, publisher: G S G & Associates] It’s striking that these meetings included both “left” and “right” – Fabian socialists such as Wells, Shaw and Russell meeting with prominent “conservatives” such as Milner. According to Quigley, Lord Alfred Milner, who held significant roles in the British government, carried on work of Cecil Rhodes using the secretive “Milner Group” to promote the goal of world imperial federation. The Milner Group created the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which became the CFR or Council on Foreign Relations in the Lord Milner was a “combination of technocrat and guild socialist” (Quigley, p. 131), disagreeing with some members of his group who favoured traditional monetary policies, and I think he was another of these imperial protectionists Wells disagreed with. Quigley also says (p. 130, 131) that the Milner Group, “in the early stages at least”, promoted an “undemocratic kind of socialism, which was willing to make many sacrifices to the well-being of the masses of the people but reluctant to share with these masses political power that might allow them to seek their own well-being”. So it seems that the Milner Group was flying from the “right” to the same elitist utopia that Wells and the Fabians were flying to from the “left”. Milner was tied in with the British financial establishment and worked for a time as an adviser for certain international financiers in On p. 190 of the Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley gives an idea of the banking and industrial power of the Milner Group and their backing for the Royal Institute for International Affairs: “…In 1929 pledges were obtained from about a score of important banks and corporations, promising annual grants to the Institute. Most of these had one or more members of the Milner Group on their boards of directors. Included in the group were the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; the Bank of England; Barclay’s Bank; Baring Brothers; the British American Tobacco Company; the British South Africa Company; Central Mining and Investment Corporation; Erlangers, Ltd; the Ford Motor Company; Hambros’ Bank; Imperial Chemical Industries; Lazard Brothers; Lever Brothers; Lloyd’s; Lloyd’s Bank; the Mercantile and General Insurance Company; the Midland Bank; Reuters; Rothschild and Sons; Stern Brothers; Vickers-Armstrong; the Westminster Bank; and Whitehall Securities Corporation.” Leo Amery, listed by Wells as attending the Club of Coefficients meetings, was also one of the central members of the Milner Group (Quigley, p. 312). The “Lord Grey” mentioned by H. G. Wells or “Sir Edward Grey” mentioned by Quigley refers to the British foreign secretary during World War I of that name. This particular Grey was apparently not a core member of the Milner Group (Quigley, p. 312), but Quigley says Milner was closely associated with Sir Edward Grey (p. 30, 38) and the Liberal League (imperialist liberals) which included Grey. Continuing with the Club of Coefficients, Mrs. Sidney Webb was Beatrice Potter who married Sidney Webb in 1892. (Not the same as Beatrix Potter). According to sparacus.schoolnet.co.uk: “Sidney Webb was at this time a leading figure in the Fabian Society. The society believed that capitalism had created an unjust and inefficient society. The members, who included Edward Carpenter, Annie Besant, Walter Crane, and George Bernard Shaw agreed that the ultimate aim of the group should be to reconstruct “society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities“. Beatrice also shared these views and also joined the group.” Philosopher Bertrand Russell, who attended, in addition to George Bernard Shaw, was also a member of the Fabian Society: “In 1931 Bertrand succeeded his elder brother as 3rd Earl of Russell” and became a member of the House of Lords. So the British aristocracy included a Fabian socialist, as well as Liberals like Grey and Conservatives like Milner. Updated topic pages:
Attn: Ontario Science Centre, Ontario M.P.P’s, “Body Worlds” I notice that the Ontario Science Centre is displaying human bodies soaked in plastic again. And in all sorts of entertaining positions – as if the point literally was to degrade human beings in the eyes of those who have been desensitized – by entertainment – to horror and the defilement of what used to be sacred. I don’t want to get into a debate, and I don’t have any questions for you. Let me make a few points very simply: First, this exhibit is disgusting and offensive and I have never been back to the Ontario Science Centre since the first similar exhibit was promoted years ago. Second, I believe the Ontario Science Centre and Body Worlds are participating in an attack on moral values, the values where we view individual human lives as sacred, the ones which are violated everyday in this world in which bombs are dropped with expensive tax-funded military equipment. Third, I feel it’s my right to insist that the official representatives of the people of Ontario withdraw and refund my tax funding from the Ontario Science Centre. And let it shut down for all I care! Because this is an assault on traditionally held values where human life is respected – and this includes the treatment of the bodies of the deceased, volunteers or not. Since the value we used to place on human life acts as a barrier that works to prevent atrocities against our fellow human beings, I don’t see how funding the Ontario Science Centre is a suitable function of the Ontario government, which should represent the interests of the people it supposedly serves and protects. This type of exhibit was not acceptable 20 years ago, so obviously there has been a long gradual process of subversion and demoralization. Yes, people are literally undermined by this exhibit in how they view themselves and each other. If the government insists on funding this exhibit, then I would start to wonder what kind of economic and political policies are in sync with it. -Alan Mercer Details: http://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/bodyworlds/default.asp http://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/bodyworlds/assets/BODY.WORLDS.FAQ.pdf Funding: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005946 Updated: Subversion of Culture and Values Updated: Utilities – Centralized Detailed Monitoring and Control – “Smart Grid” This video documents the creeping assaults on our rights and independence, including biometrics, surveillance, and a confrontation with Frank McKenna over the Bilderberg group. Ignatieff says Canada should set up cap-and-trade system with or without U.S., Canadian Press, www.google.com, Nov. 26/09. Both parties are pushing carbon controls, playing their games of pretending to oppose each other, with the Conservatives even pretending to have nothing to do with it. And Ignatieff tries to play the pro-Canadian card, pretending Canada will actually do this independently of the international government that is taking shape in front of our eyes! Yeah, right. If his proposal is followed, we will ALL PAY if businesses “pass a certain emissions level” of a clean odorless life-giving gas called carbon dioxide – which is an unavoidable product of heating our homes and fueling our vehicles – or of producing expensive “alternative energy” products or of manufacturing clothes or of cooking our food – in other words an unavoidable result of our survival. We also breath it out. Do you think maybe they will introduce a penalty for having “too many” children eventually? The ruling class would love to do that if they could get away with it. Actually nobody is stopping them from moving in that direction. Which businesses do you think will go under first? Smaller independent ones of course. And everyone’s costs will rise, and there will be less of everything! And for a few people, they might actually make money off of those who have to PAY more. Hence the “trade”. The losers who “emit too much” can “trade” – by government coercion – their money to a handful of very rich people who might actually escape losing money like everyone else. It’s the public-private-partnership system where they have it all worked out for the new kind of total parasite – or suckers – who think they will profit as others go under – completely under – because of a lie. What a disgrace we are being lied to and blamed for “global warming”, and they plan to rob us blind based on their fable. Ignatieff and his godlike buddies also plan to maintain the earth’s temperature below a certain level. A new make-believe imperative for a new religion of total control. It wouldn’t occur to normal people. But they’ll keep repeating absurdities until we believe in them.
Ignatieff vows climate-friendly legislation, Canwest News Service, canadian.com, Nov. 26/09. What these people have done over the last few years is redefine the term “pollution” to mean gases that are “trapping heat in the atmosphere”. Using that logic, it must mean that water vapor – another product of combustion – is the biggest “pollutant” of all, because it’s a much larger contributor to greenhouse gases, whereas the quantity of carbon dioxide is minuscule. Are you prepared to label water vapor a “pollutant”? If not, why not? Go for it. Explain to me why we should not be punished for emitting water vapor too. Which is “cleaner” – carbon dioxide or water vapor?! Try to answer that. Also, let’s label the oceans as “polluters” also, because they emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide. Also the decaying vegetation and animal matter in the forests, let’s label all these non-human entities “polluters” or “sources of pollution”, because they emit huge quantities of carbon dioxide. Are plants and trees that require the intake of carbon dioxide to survive – are they enablers of this so-called “pollution”? Or do climate change scam promoters not have any consistency at all? Do I have to spell it out for you? We are being LIED TO. And it’s all about US – about controlling human beings – not helping us. To these people, WE are the enemy. We are taking up too much space! This international club that trains people like Harper and Ignatieff to distract us with trivial distinctions – are introducing a society – a world government – of total control over everything in our lives. A lot of us were NOT indoctrinated with this rubbish when we were children, so it doesn’t “take” with some of us. But this is being shoveled into your kids’ heads right now at the “education” centres you send them to. Paying penalties or taxes means less carbon dioxide emission and it means less production of everything, including everything we need to survive. What kind of future does that lead to if we are penalized for our own survival? |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Liberty - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
