Herbert George Wells
Herbert George Wells was born on 21 September 1866 in Bromley, Kent County, England into a poor family; his mother was Sarah Neal, maid to the upper classes, and his was father Joseph Wells, shopkeeper and professional cricket player. By way of his anthropology/eugenics teacher Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous and Julian, at the Normal School of Science in London, he was recruited to become a literary empiricist for the British Empire. During his career, Wells wrote books on eugenics, fascism, psychology, sociology, and many other topics; his favorite being the future of the British Empire or as he called it the World State. The World State described best in ‘The Open Conspiracy’, addressed a world run by an elite group of sociologists, psychologists, and scientists, which was manifested to Wells’ liking in the Mussolini and Hitler dictatorships.
Under Mussolini, Fascism was the beginning of the World State, but was not the ideal World State as Wells’ said: “I am asking for liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” [a:name=fnB1;title=fnB1][a:href="#fn1"][/a]
The World State of Wells was argued necessary from the assumed truth of Malthus’ argument of a limited population growth, an argument bolstered by genocidalist Al Gore along with others today. Malthus’ lie allowed for arguments sake the necessity of a world government, conceived of by Wells, as a means of managing the resources of the planet, coping with over population, and insuring the continued innovations in technology. In the famous doctrine of Wells, ‘The Open Conspiracy’, he explained the structure of this world government:
“Let us make clear what sort of government we are trying to substitute for the patchwork of to-day. It will be a new sort of direction with a new psychology. The method of direction of such a world commonweal is not likely to imitate the methods of existing sovereign states. It will be something new and altogether different.
“This point is not yet generally realized. It is too often assumed that the world commonweal will be, as it were, just the one heir and survivor of existing states, and that it will be a sort of megatherium of the same form and anatomy as its predecessors.
“But a little reflection will show that this is a mistake. Existing states are primarily militant states, and a world state cannot be militant. There will be little need for president or king to lead the marshalled hosts of humanity, for where there is no war there is no need of any leader to lead hosts anywhere, and in a polyglot world a parliament of mankind or any sort of council that meets and talks is an inconceivable instrument of government. The voice will cease to be a suitable vehicle. World government, like scientific process, will be conducted by statement, criticism, and publication that will be capable of efficient translation.
“The fundamental organization of contemporary states is plainly still military, and that is exactly what a world organization cannot be. Flags, uniforms, national anthems, patriotism sedulously cultivated in church and school, the brag, blare, and bluster of our competing sovereignties, belong to the phase of development the Open Conspiracy will supersede. We have to get clear of that clutter. The reasonable desire of all of us is that we should have the collective affairs of the world managed by suitably equipped groups of the most interested, intelligent, and devoted people, and that their activities should be subjected to a free, open, watchful criticism, restrained from making spasmodic interruptions but powerful enough to modify or supersede without haste or delay whatever is weakening or unsatisfactory in the general direction.
“A number of readers will be disposed to say that this is a very vague, undefined, and complicated conception of world government. But indeed it is a simplification. Not only are the present governments of the world a fragmentary competitive confusion, but none of them is as simple as it appears. They seem to be simple because they have formal heads and definite forms, councils, voting assemblies, and so forth, for arriving at decisions. But the formal heads, the kings, presidents, and so forth, are really not the directive heads. They are merely the figure heads. They do not decide. They merely make gestures of potent and dignified acquiescence when decisions are put to them. They are complicating shams. Nor do the councils and assemblies really decide. They record, often very imperfectly and exasperatingly, the accumulating purpose of outer forces. These outer really directive forces are no doubt very intricate in their operation; they depend finally on religious and educational forms and upon waves of gregarious feeling, but it does not in the least simplify the process of collective human activity to pretend that it is simple and to set up symbols and dummies in the guise of rulers and dictators to embody that pretence. To recognize the incurable intricacy of collective action is a mental simplification; to remain satisfied with the pretensions of existing governmental institutions, and to bring in all the problems of their procedure and interaction is to complicate the question.
“The present rudimentary development of collective psychology obliges us to be vague and provisional about the way in which the collective mind may best define its will for the purpose of administrative action…”
“…This unified world towards which the Open Conspiracy would direct its activities cannot be pictured for the reader as any static and stereotyped spectacle of happiness.”
It is thought by the uneducated that Wells was a prophet, but that is far from the truth. His great prophecies, such as the Shape of Things to Come, were merely the intended effect of the British Empire’s end game strategy. And Wells was not alone in his endeavor to establish this intended effect, but rather had many “scientific” collaborators, ranging from sociologists and politicians to biologists and chemists, such as his son, zoologist and author George P. Wells and his friend, biologist Sir Julian Huxley (Aldous’ brother), whom helped him write The Science of Life (1930), a book which was the scientific justification for a World State.
[a:name=fn1;title=fn1][a:href="#fnB1"][/a] A public speech delivered by Herbert George Wells at Oxford in 1932