“It was while Augustus Cæsar, the first of the Emperors, was reigning in Rome that Jesus who is the Christ of Christianity was born in Judea. In his name a religion was to arise which was destined to become the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. Now it is on the whole more convenient to keep history and theology apart. A large proportion of the Christian world believes that Jesus was an incarnation of that God of all the Earth whom the Jews first recognized. The historian, if he is to remain historian, can neither accept nor deny that interpretation. Materially Jesus appeared in the likeness of a man, and it is as a man that the historian must deal with him. He appeared in Judea in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar. He was a prophet. He preached after the fashion of the preceding Jewish prophets. He was a man of about thirty, and we are in the profoundest ignorance of his manner of life before his preaching began. Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels. All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality. One is obliged to say, “Here was a man. This could not have been invented.” But just as the personality of Gautama Buddha has been distorted and obscured by the stiff squatting figure, the gilded idol of later Buddhism, so one feels that the lean and strenuous personality of Jesus is much wronged by the unreality and conventionality that a mistaken reverence has imposed upon his figure in modern Christian art. Jesus was a penniless teacher, who wandered about the dusty sun-bit country of Judea, living upon casual gifts of food; yet he is always represented clean, combed and sleek, in spotless raiment, erect and with something motionless about him as though he was gliding through the air. This alone has made him unreal and incredible to many people who cannot distinguish the core of the story from the ornamental and unwise additions of the unintelligently devout.
We are left, if we do strip this record of these difficult accessories. with the figure of a being, very human, very earnest and passionate, capable of swift anger, and teaching a new and simple and profound doctrine—namely, the universal loving Fatherhood of God and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. He was clearly a person—to use a common phrase—of intense personal magnetism. He attracted followers and filled them with love and courage. Weak and ailing people were heartened and healed by his presence. Yet he was probably of a delicate physique, because of the swiftness with which he died under the pains of crucifixion. There is a tradition that he fainted when, according to the custom, he was made to bear his cross to the place of execution. He went about the country for three years spreading his doctrine and then he came to Jerusalem and was accused of trying to set up a strange kingdom in Judea; he was tried upon this charge, and crucified together with two thieves. Long before these two were dead his sufferings were over. The doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought. It is small wonder if the world of that time failed to grasp its full significance, and recoiled in dismay from even a half apprehension of its tremendous challenges to the established habits and institutions of mankind. For the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus seems to have preached it, was no less than a bold and uncompromising demand for a complete change and cleansing of the life of our struggling race, an utter cleansing, without and within. To the gospels the reader must go for all that is preserved of this tremendous teaching; here we are only concerned with the jar of its impact upon established ideas.
The Jews were persuaded that God, the one God of the whole world, was a righteous god, but they also thought of him as a trading god who had made a bargain with their Father Abraham about them, a very good bargain indeed for them, to bring them at last to predominance in the earth. With dismay and anger they heard Jesus sweeping away their dear securities. God, he taught, was no bargainer; there were no chosen people and no favourites in the Kingdom of Heaven. God was the loving father of all life, as incapable of showing favour as the universal sun. And all men were brothers—sinners alike and beloved sons alike—of this divine father. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus cast scorn upon that natural tendency we all obey, to glorify our own people and to minimize the righteousness of other creeds and other races. In the parable of the labourers he thrust aside the obstinate claim of the Jews to have a special claim upon God. All whom God takes into the kingdom, he taught, God serves alike; there is no distinction in his treatment, because there is no measure to his bounty. From all, moreover, as the parable of the buried talent witnesses, and as the incident of the widow’s mite enforces, he demands the utmost. There are no privileges, no rebates and no excuses in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But it is not only the intense tribal patriotism of the Jews that Jesus outraged. They were a people of intense family loyalty, and he would have swept away all the narrow and restrictive family affections in the great flood of the love of God. The whole kingdom of Heaven was to be the family of his followers. We are told that, “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hands towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” And not only did Jesus strike at patriotism and the bonds of family loyalty in the name of God’s universal fatherhood and brotherhood of all mankind, but it is clear that his teaching condemned all the gradations of the economic system, all private wealth, and personal advantages. All men belonged to the kingdom; all their possessions belonged to the kingdom; the righteous life for all men, the only righteous life, was the service of God’s will with all that we had, with all that we were. Again and again he denounced private riches and the reservation of any private life.
“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these things have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. “And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answered again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. Moreover, in his tremendous prophecy of this kingdom which was to make all men one together in God, Jesus had small patience for the bargaining righteousness of formal religion. Another large part of his recorded utterances is aimed against the meticulous observance of the rules of the pious career. “Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written,“This people honoureth me with their lips, “But their heart is far from me. “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, “Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
It was not merely a moral and a social revolution that Jesus proclaimed; it is clear from a score of indications that his teaching had a political bent of the plainest sort. It is true that he said his kingdom was not of this world, that it was in the hearts of men and not upon a throne; but it is equally clear that wherever and in what measure his kingdom was set up in the hearts of men, the outer world would be in that measure revolutionized and made new. Whatever else the deafness and blindness of his hearers may have missed in his utterances, it is plain they did not miss his resolve to revolutionize the world. The whole tenor of the opposition to him and the circumstances of his trial and execution show clearly that to his contemporaries he seemed to propose plainly, and did propose plainly, to change and fuse and enlarge all human life. In view of what he plainly said, is it any wonder that all who were rich and prosperous felt a horror of strange things, a swimming of their world at his teaching? He was dragging out all the little private reservations they had made from social service into the light of a universal religious life. He was like some terrible moral huntsman digging mankind out of the snug burrows in which they had lived hitherto. In the white blaze of this kingdom of his there was to be no property, no privilege, no pride and precedence; no motive indeed and no reward but love. Is it any wonder that men were dazzled and blinded and cried out against him? Even his disciples cried out when he would not spare them the light. Is it any wonder that the priests realized that between this man and themselves there was no choice but that he or priestcraft should perish? Is it any wonder that the Roman soldiers, confronted and amazed by something soaring over their comprehension and threatening all their disciplines, should take refuge in wild laughter, and crown him with thorns and robe him in purple and make a mock Cæsar of him? For to take him seriously was to enter upon a strange and alarming life, to abandon habits, to control instincts and impulses, to essay an incredible happiness.” ƒMatt. xii, 46–50.Mark x. 17–25.Mark vii. 1–9.”
SIGNED, the GHOST of CHRISTMAS FUTURE
H.G. Wells’ Vision Comes Alive With the Great Reset Agenda
by Matthew Ehret / December 24, 2020
“In the Time Machine, society one million years in the future has evolved into two separate species called Morlocks and Eloi. The Morlocks represent the ugly dirty producers who by this future age, all live under ground and run the world’s manufacturing. The Eloi are the effect of the inbreeding of the elite, who by this time are simple-minded, Aryan, above-ground dwellers living in idleness and consuming only what the Morlocks produce. What was the trade off? The Morlocks periodically rise above ground in hunting parties to kidnap and eat unsuspecting Eloi in this symbiotically vicious circle of life. This famous story was written by a young British writer in 1893 whose ideas and pioneering work in shaping new techniques of cultural warfare which profoundly affected the next 130 years of human history. These ideas led to the innovation of novel techniques of “predictive programming”, and to mass psychological warfare. In contrast to the optimistic views of mankind and the future potential envisioned by the great science fiction writer Jules Verne earlier, Wells’ misanthropic tales had the intended effect of reducing the creative potential and love of humanity that Verne’s work awoke.
To restate the technique more clearly: By shaping society’s imagination of the future, and embedding existential/nihilistic outcomes within his plotlines, Wells realized that the entire zeitgeist of humanity could be affected on a profound level than simple conscious reason would permit. Since he robed his poison in the cloth of “fiction” the minds of those receiving his stories would find their critical thinking faculties disengaged and would simply take in all trojan horses embedded in the stories into their unconsciousness. This has been an insight used for over a century by social engineers and intelligence agencies whose aim has always been the willing enslavement of all people of the earth. While he is best known for such fiction works as The War of the Worlds, The World Set Free, The Invisible Man, The Island of Doctor Morrow, and The Time Machine, Wells’ lesser-known non-fiction writings like The Open Conspiracy, The New World Order, The Outline of History, The Science of Life and The World Brain served as guiding strategic blueprints for the entire 20th century war against sovereign nation states and the very idea of a society built on the premise of mankind made in the image of God.
The members of the London-centered oligarchy to which Wells had devoted himself at an early age had found themselves stuck in a rut by the turn of the 19th century. These inbred families and retainers who managed the dying British Empire had long been encrusted by the vices of decadence by the time a young man of low breeding and high talent arose amidst the London-ghettos treating syphilis patients as a surgeon’s assistant. This young surgeon’s name was Thomas Huxley. Huxley possessed a sardonic wit, a deep misanthropy, and an intelligence that were soon discovered by powerful patrons, and by his mid-20’s, this young man found himself a rising star in Britain’s Royal Academy of Science. Here he quickly became a leading creative force, shaping Britain’s powerful X Club, serving as Darwin’s bulldog promoting popular debates featuring himself against literalist members of the clergy.
In these debates he argued for Darwin’s chaos-bound interpretation of evolution. He also founded Nature magazine as a propaganda instrument which has been used to enforce scientific consensus favorable to a world empire to this very day. Huxley chose his opponents carefully, ensuring that he could easily and publicly obliterate the arguments of simple-minded Anglican clergy, and thus convince all onlookers that the only choice they had to account for the evolution of new species was either literal Biblical creationism or his brand of Darwinian evolution. The many alternative scientific theories of the 19th century (such as those found in the works of Karl Ernst von Baer, Georges Cuvier, Lamarck and James D. Dana) which accounted for both the evolution of species, and the harmonics of all parts to a whole, as well as creative leaps were forgotten amidst this false dichotomy which this author unpacked in a recent interview.
During his later years, Huxley mentored a young H.G. Wells, together with a whole generation of new imperial practitioners of the arts of social engineering (and social Darwinism). This social engineering soon took the form of Galton’s eugenics quickly becoming an accepted science practiced across the western world. Wells was himself the son of a lowly gardener, but, like Huxley, exhibited a strong misanthropic wit, passion and creativity lacking in the high nobility, and he was thus raised from the lower ranks of society into the order of oligarchical management by the 1890s. During this moment of vast potential- and – it cannot be restated enough- the oligarchical order that had grown overconfident during the 200+ years of hegemony were petrified to see the nations of the earth rapidly breaking free from this hegemony thanks to the under the international spread of Lincoln’s American System across Germany, Russia, Japan, South America, France, Canada and even China with Sun Yat-sen’s 1911 republican revolution.
As outlined in Cynthia Chung’s ‘Why Russia Saved the USA’, the oligarchy just no longer seemed to have the creative vitality and sophistication required to snuff out these revolutionary flames. Wells described this problem in the following terms: “The undeniable contraction of the British outlook in the opening decade of the new century is one that has exercised my mind very greatly… Gradually, the belief in the possible world leadership of England had been deflated by the economic development of America and the militant boldness of Germany. The long reign of Queen Victoria, so prosperous, progressive and effortless, had produced habits of political indolence and cheap assurance. As a people we had got out of training, and when the challenge of these new rivals became open, it took our breath away at once. We did not know how to meet it…” The science of population control advanced by Huxley, Galton, Wells, Mackinder, Milner and Bertrand Russell was the basis for a new scientific priesthood and “world government” that would put a stop to the startling disequilibrium unleashed by the electric spread of sovereign nation states, protectionism and commitment to scientific and technological progress.
H.G Wells, Russell and other early social engineers of this new priesthood organized themselves in several interconnected think tanks known as 1) the Fabian Society of Sidney and Beatrice Webb which operated through the London School of Economics, 2) the Round Table Movement begun by the fortunes left to posterity by the racist diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes which also gave rise to the Rhodes Trust, and Rhodes Scholarship programs established to indoctrinate young talent in the halls of Oxford, and finally 3) the Co-Efficients Club of London. As noted by Georgetown Professor Carol Quigley, in his 1981 The Anglo-American Establishment, membership in all three organizations was virtually interchangeable.
Wells described the rise of these original think tanks and documented the inner elite’s inability to meet the challenge of the times saying: “Our ruling class, protected in its advantages by a universal snobbery was broad-minded, easy going and profoundly lazy… Our liberalism was no longer a larger enterprise, it had become a generous indolence. But minds were waking up to this. Over our table at St Ermin’s Hotel wrangle Maxse, Bellairs, Hewins, Amery and Mackinder, all stung by the small but humiliating tale of disasters in the South African war, all sensitive to the threat of business recession, and all profoundly alarmed by the naval and military aggressiveness of Germany.”
Fearful of the prospect of a US-Russia-China alliance outlined in depth by Fabian/Roundtable members Halford Mackinder and Lord Alfred Milner, the solution was simple: kick over the chess board and get everyone to just slaughter each other. Accounts of the British imperial efforts to orchestrate this war have been told in many locations, but none as efficiently as the 2008 documentary 1932: Speak Not of Parties. In the wake of the destruction which left 9 million dead on all sides and ruined countless lives, Wells, Russell and the Milner Roundtable became leading voices for world government under the League of Nations (c. 1919) advocating “enlightened cosmopolitanism” to replace the era of “selfish nation states”.
A decade after its founding, the League was less successful than Wells and his co-thinkers would have liked, with nationalists from around the world recognizing the evil hand of empire lurking behind the apparent language of “liberal values and world peace”. Sun Yat-sen, among many others was among the anti-Wellsian voices and warned his fellow Chinese in 1924 not to fall into this trap saying: “The nations which are employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole world are advocating cosmopolitanism [aka: global governance/globalization -ed] and want the world to join them… Nationalism is that precious possession by which humanity maintains its existence. If nationalism decays, then when cosmopolitanism flourishes we will be unable to survive and will be eliminated”. In response to this patriotic resistance across the world, a new strategy had to be concocted. This took the form of H.G. Welles’ 1928 The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution. This little-known book served as a guiding blueprint for the next century of imperial grand strategy calling for a new world religion and social order.
According to Wells: “The old faiths have become unconvincing, unsubstantial and insincere, and though there are clear intimations of a new faith in the world, it still awaits embodiment in formulae and organizations that will bring it into effective reaction upon human affairs as a whole.” In his book, Welles outlines the need for a new scientific gospel to supersede the Judeo-Christian faiths of the western world. This new gospel consisted of a series of tomes which he and his colleague Julian Huxley composed, entitled: 1) The Outline of History (1920) where Wells re-wrote all of history wishing this analysis to replace the book of Genesis, 2) The Science of Life (1930), co-written with Sir Julian Huxley (Thomas Huxley’s Grandson who continued the family tradition along with Aldous), and 3) The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). Part of this immense project to create a new coherent synthetic religion to re-organize humanity involved a re-packaging of a Darwinism that was falling out of favor with many scientists of the 1920’s. They recognized its failure to account for obvious features of nature such as directionality in evolution, spirit, intention, ideas and design. This re-packaging took the form of the “New Evolutionary Synthesis” which attempted to save Darwin’s theory and its eugenic corollaries using Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s doctrine of the “Omega Man”.
De Chardin’s system synthesized the foundation of Darwinian assumptions with an acknowledgment of evolutionary directionality, the possibility of spirit, and the existence of mind as a force of nature. The destructive slight of hand used by Chardin was that all of these “transcendent” features of design- spirit, mind, reason, etc.- were: 1) bound to a finite future point of no change which dominated and guided all apparent change in living space time, and 2) binding the world of mind and spirit to the forces of the material world. The Chardin-Huxley-Wells remix kept Darwin’s laws relevant and kept science compatible with imperial modes of social organization. Outlining the aims of The Open Conspiracy, Wells writes: “Firstly, the entirely provisional nature of all existing governments, and the entirely provisional nature therefore, of all loyalties associated therewith; Secondly, the supreme importance of population control in human biology and the possibility it affords us of a release from the pressure of the struggle for existence on ourselves; and Thirdly, the urgent necessity of protective resistance against the present traditional drift towards war.”
By 1933, the planned Bankers’ Dictatorship, meant to solve the four years’ long great depression and organized during the months-long London Conference, was on the verge of being sabotaged by the recently-elected American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was then that Wells published a new manifesto in the form of a fiction book called ‘Shape of Things to Come: The Ultimate Revolution’. This book (soon made into a Hollywood movie), served as an early tool of mass predictive programming showcasing a world destroyed by decades of global war, pandemic, and anarchy- all caused by… sovereign nation states. The “solution” to these dark ages took the form of a masonic society of social engineers who descended from planes (Wells’ ‘Benevolent Dictatorship of the Air’) to restore order under a world government.
Wells had his main character (a social psychologist) state “while the World Council was fighting for and directing and carrying on the unified World State, the Educational Control was remoulding mankind”. The social psychologists managing the World Government were “becoming the whole literature, philosophy and general thought of the world… the reasoning soul in the body of the race.” The greatest problem to overcome, stated Wells, was “the variability of mental resistance to direction and limits set by nature to the ideal of an acquiescent cooperative world.” Wells’ hero, Gustav de Windt, was “pre-occupied by his gigantic schemes for world organization, had treated the ‘spirit of opposition’ as purely evil, as a vice to be guarded against, as a trouble in the machinery which was to be minimized as completely as possible.”
In 1932, Wells gave an Oxford speech championing a global order run by liberal fascists saying: “I am asking for liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis”. This was not paradoxical when one realizes that the rise of fascism was never a “nationalist” phenomenon as popular history books have asserted for decades but rather was the artificial consequence of a supranational financier-oligarchy from above who wished to use “enforcers” to bend their societies to a higher will.
By the time World War II began, Wells’ ideas had evolved new insidious components that later gave rise to such mechanisms as Wikipedia and Twitter in the form of “The World Brain” (19937) where Wells calls for reducing the English language to a “basic English” of 850 accepted words which would make up a world language. In this book, Wells states that “thinkers of the forward-looking type whose ideas we are now considering, are beginning to realize that the most hopeful line for the development of our racial intelligence lies rather in the direction of creating a new world organ for the collection, indexing, summarizing and release of knowledge, than in any further tinkering with the highly conservative and resistant university system, local, national and traditional in texture, which already exits. These innovators, who may be dreamers today, but who hope to become very active organizers tomorrow, project a unified, if not centralized, world organ to pull the mind of the world together.”
By 1940, Wells wrote the The New World Order which again amplified his message. In writing this, he coordinated his efforts with the many Fabians and Rhodes Scholars who had infiltrated western foreign policy establishments in order to shape the the war, but more importantly, the post-war global structure. These were the networks that hated Franklin Roosevelt, Vice-President Henry Wallace, Harry Hopkins and other genuine “New Dealers” who wanted nothing more than to destroy colonialism once and for all in the wake of the war. Wells insists that the “new age of brotherhood” that must guide the new United Nations must not tolerate sovereign nation states as FDR dreamed (and as was formally enshrined in the UN Charter) but must rather be guided by his caste of social engineers pulling the levers of production and consumption within a system of mass “collectivization” saying: “Collectivisation means the handling of the common affairs of mankind by a common control responsible to the whole community. It means the suppression of go-as-you-please in social and economic affairs just as much as in international affairs. It means the frank abolition of profit-seeking and of every device by which human beings contrive to be parasitic on their fellow man. It is the practical realisation of the brotherhood of man through a common control”. If Wells’ outlines look similar to those ideas recently made public by the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, then don’t be surprised.
With Wells’ 1946 death, other Fabians and social engineers continued his work during the Cold War. One of the leading figures here being Wells’ associate, Lord Bertrand Russell, who wrote in his 1952 The Impact of Science on Society: “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part… it may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment.” “The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.”
“Various results will soon be arrived at. First that the influence of home is obstructive. Second that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Thirdly verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.” Although the bodies of Wells, Russell and Huxley have long since rotted away, their rotten ideas continue to animate their disciples like Sir Henry Kissinger, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Lord Malloch-Brown (whose disturbing celebration of the Coronavirus as a golden opportunity to finally restructure civilization) should concern any thinking citizen. The idea of a “Great Reset” expounded by these modern mouthpieces of history’s bad ideas signals nothing more than a new Dark Age which should turn the stomach of any moral being.
It is here useful to hold the words of Kissinger in mind who had channeled the spectre of Wells telling a group of technocrats in Evian, France in 1992: “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”