What do you think?
Rate this book
The New World Order
The New World Order is an important book by novelist H. G. Wells and features his belief that it would be beneficial to the world if a new world order ruled the world which would united all the worlds people and at the same time cause war to no longer exist. This is an excellent book for individuals who are interested in reading about H. G. Wells New World Order belief as well as people who are fans of his writings.
142 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
73 people are currently reading
804 people want to read
About the author
H.G. Wells
5,357 books11.1k followersHerbert George Wells was born to a working class family in Kent, England. Young Wells received a spotty education, interrupted by several illnesses and family difficulties, and became a draper's apprentice as a teenager. The headmaster of Midhurst Grammar School, where he had spent a year, arranged for him to return as an "usher," or student teacher. Wells earned a government scholarship in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley at the Normal School of Science. Wells earned his bachelor of science and doctor of science degrees at the University of London. After marrying his cousin, Isabel, Wells began to supplement his teaching salary with short stories and freelance articles, then books, including The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898).
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 20, 2022
"The New World Order" by H.G. Wells highlights one of the most important concepts impacting our modern times. But the book is extremely flawed.
It outlines the philosophy and framework for a global solution to endless humanitarian crises and conflict, namely a scientific one-world government and economy. These ideas have informed corporate and public policy to this day as we grow closer each passing decade to Wells's dream.
He bases this global utopia off of the idea of collectivism, which he is careful to differentiate from socialism or communism. Modern progressives and conservatives may be surprised at how vitriolic Wells is towards Marxism, and how prescient his remarks are regarding current class warfare in the Western world. He calls Marx "that sedentary man with the great beard," who he considers lazy and full of unfounded hatred against the bourgeoisie simply because he was too unwilling, untalented and unskilled to reach the upper classes that he himself believed he deserved. Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a doctrine of pure hatred, no different than Nazi propaganda, says Wells. He says that such movements all follow the same simple formula: 1) identify a vulnerable class of "have-nots" (proletariat) 2) manipulate them to believe they are being oppressed by a system (capitalism) created by a bogus "bad guy" (bourgeoisie) 3) convince them that overthrowing the identified system will solve all their problems.
I was struck by how similar this formula is to the one employed by American Democrats and Republicans today. You are being suppressed by systemic racism engineered by the whites who are inherently flawed, colonial, and racist! You are being suppressed by a corrupt system that wants to flood the country with brown people who will change the voting demographics forever and take your jobs! And in both cases, as Wells puts it, the "suppressed" need learn nothing, plan nothing, build nothing--just destroy. In Russia, this kind of thinking merely replaced the czar with people like Lenin and Stalin. But this was not the first time this happened. In France, the Revolution merely replaced the monarchy with The Reign of Terror. And it won't be the last time.
It is this tendency of lack of conscience on the part of people jealous for power and the suseptibility of the masses to be manipulated that led Wells to conceive of the New World Order, a global utopia with no sovereign borders under central benevolent and scientific control based on "collectivism."
Ironically, as much as Wells believed that Russian Marxism was a bastardization of collectivism, he still constructed his globalist ideas around Soviet communism--Trotsky’s idea of a worldwide government and Lenin’s idea of an intellectual nucleus that will control all the aspects of society.
Even more ironically, as much as Wells criticized Marx for basing his Socialist Manifesto on emotion rather than intelligence, Wells seems to fall into the same trap. Wells wrote "The New World Order" in response to World War II, but he never really made the connection between Nazism and a global alliance of fascist regimes that worship the state. Wells saw the nation-state as the cause of wars, while in fact, it seems to me that history has shown quite the opposite. Has conflict been the result of people respecting the sovereign borders and way of life of others, or when they interfere? Did Hitler really invade Poland and Czechoslovakia because he was defending the German people? Why did he begin a European-wide extermination of an entire culture? Was it nationalism? No, on the contrary, he was pursuing global aspirations. Instead of conservative white American males or Mexicans crossing the border, the identified system that needed replacing was ostensibly Jewish, and Hitler had plans to take over and solve this problem on a global scale. It seems that whenever one government or culture has expectations that their way is the right way, that the world should conform to one mode of thinking, to one religious faith, to one language, we get holocaust and genecide. We get crusades and jihad. We get colonialism and imperialism. We get invasion and conversion. We get the reservation and the ghetto.
Wells thinks that in order to achieve world peace, the system of sovereign states must be abolished to establish World Government. He talks at length about the benefits of such a society, but doesn't give details about how this could be brought about, or the pitfalls that such an endeavor would be sure to encounter. To whom will the power and responsibility fall to get all the world's cultures and societies in line? And in line with what? What would a global culture and economy look like? He holds the League of Nations as a poster child for how this could be done, but it didn't succeed, nor did it's replacement, the United Nations, in getting people to play nice with each other to achieve common interests. This is partially because these organizations could never get everyone in the club, nor did they want to, nor could all voices be heard equally. This is why the American founders developed an electoral college, because they recognized that smaller states might never have a voice.
Of course, Wells believes that the electoral college and the two party system must be abolished for a nonpartisan system of government. I certainly agree that the two parties are ultimately failing to represent the real needs of everyday constituents. But Wells gives us no insights into what a replacement would really look like. Just get rid of them, he says. OK, but then what? People are as different from one family member to the next, from one neighbor to the next, let alone from one country to another halfway across the globe. How do we manage such a diverse population? The fact is that globalist ideals have failed to recognize these differences just as they have failed to bring us together based on our common humanity. What works for one subset in one region of the globe is like putting a square peg in a round whole somewhere else.
In fact, as we move towards a globalist society in real life, we seem to be more divided than ever. Advancements in shipping, air travel, the internet, and social media have eliminated distance between the world's cultures, which Wells says is a prerequisite for establishing the new world order. However, as we share cultures, we share COVID-19, deforestation, fentanyl, child pornography, prostitution, and McDonald's. Europe is "united" under a common currency and under common masters who know and care nothing for the needs of the various societies and cultures embedded within. This is like having Google maps redirect you through a highway that is freqently used by farm vehicles and truckers--your app says it's the fastest route, but only the locals know you'll never get anywhere on that road. This inevitably led to Brexit with more division to come. In the meantime, more and more territories, former autonomous kingdoms and principalities, historical provences, and ethnic regions are clamoring for independent statehood. We don't have Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia anymore, do we? And in the latter, Serbia keeps hemorrhaging even more countries--first Montenegro, then Kosovo, with Vojvodina also wanting to satisfy their long-standing itch. The Soviet Union is no longer a union, giving us Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. And in Africa, we now have Eritrea, Namibia, and South Sudan. Meanwhile, we've had NAFTA, SICA, APTA, AfCFTA, the Southern Common Market, CPTPP, NATO, WHO, WTO, the Paris Climate Accord, the World Knowledge Forum, the World Economic Forum, the Montreal Protocol, the Bilderberg Group, and a legion of other free trade agreements, global justice efforts, lobbying groups, think tanks, and neoliberal movements promoting influence over the lives of citizens by non-elected officials and billionaires. We have Germany and Sweden and Great Britain opening up their borders, only to have their new guests isolate in newly formed ethnic neighborhoods with little interest in assimilation. So we have increased efforts at globalization, yet we get more and more nationalism. And have globalist efforts done anything to assuage a hungry and angry population of proletariat ready for any kind of revolution?
But let's assume we are able to establish a new world order. Who will hold a global government accountable to the people? Wells rightfully points out that free speech and global debate is necessary to achieve world peace. Yet he offers no details on how free speech can be safeguarded against censorship by an all powerful oligarchy of global elites. He was acutely aware of how concentrated power corrupts. In observing the kind of disparate information coming from Herr Goebells in Germany and from Britain's Ministry of Information, Wells was also concerned about news and punditry being disseminated "under the advice" of "nonrepresentative persons." He would certainly be likely to listen to MSNBC and Fox News and say, "Well, clearly somebody here must be beholden to their masters!" Communication controlled by the rich and influential is entirely unreliable--it is propaganda. If he was aware of this danger by 1940 before the age of the numerous global mega-corporations that we have today, how did he think things could get any better under a new world order? We are already seeing how global forces are operating to censor speech in everything from labeling vocal parents at school board meetings as terrorists to banning a U.S. president from social media. And this kind of action is applauded by people who tend to hold the Wellsian view that governance and influence should be retained only by those who know what's best. They think corporate tech giants and their fact checkers, as well as political dynasties, know what is fake news, not a narcissistic, bombastic orange outsider, and certainly not the citizens who are incapable of deciding for themselves. How would Wells propose to promote "vigorous publication" and spirited debate in the face of the incredible power of a global government? He doesn't give us a clue.
Similarly, he has a whole chapter dedicated to how to preserve liberty in the face of collectivization, but he doesn't really explain this either. He proposes a "new" declaration of human rights that should be followed by a global system, but it sounds no different than what capitalist countries had been following already. So much for seeing any new ideas there.
What you do see is Wells' personality front-and-center. To believe that a system based on a chosen oligarchy who "know better" is inherently elitist, and you see this elitism rampant in Wells. He often refers to people as stupid and ignorant. The Hindu and Muslim populations he refers to as "dusky peoples." He talks about Catholics as inherently destructive--he even states the entire French Revolution was the fault of "Catholic living and teaching" with no supporting evidence, and that the shifty cutthroats celebrating the guillotine were the product of Catholic church reaping what they sow. This is the kind of stuff that drove people like Hillaire Belloc nuts, and of course, Wells counts him among his many "antagonists." Wells must have had a fragile sense of narcissism, because he always complains about his "enemies" in almost every non-fiction book he has written. He sure talked a good humanitarian game, but I think the man had some personality problems.
My final criticism about the book is that Wells doesn't speculate much on what such a global society, if successful, will look like a century or more from now. He says that people will live in more mobile homes and spend more time traveling. That's it? All this work of globalization to live in trailer parks? So we've managed to eliminate distance, removed incentives for corporate exploitation, completely eliminated borders, and smoothed the divides brought about by religious and linguistic differences! Hurray! We've undone Babylon! But what does this leave us with? A mono-culture? Every street in every city of every continent with a McDonald's and a Starbucks and a Walmart? People getting their goods and services delivered by Amazon and Uber, only interacting with each other across the globe virtually through avatars? Where's the diversity that our celebrities at the Golden Globes and the Oscars and the BBC keep talking about? If we eliminate diversity as we eradicate distance to the point where there are no cancerous or destructive deviations in thought, according to our enlightened scientific and all wise global deities, then we are left with a situation akin to North Korea or Nazi Germany--a uniform population that only worships the State.
Wells tries to say this is a book of guiding print, not the endless specific problems of adjustment to a new world order. Of course. That the easy way out. But the subtitle of "The New World Order" is "Whether it is Attainable, How it can be Attained..." He really made no argument for that. Seems like false advertising to me.
So do I think a new world order is attainable? No. I do think we must expect more globalization, but that's not really a new world order. It's exploitative colonization by a bunch of corporate powers from multiple countries instead of one imperial force. The ideas in "The New World Order" sure sound good to many of us who dream of a more sane world, but unfortunately, these same ideas sound even better to the world's rich and powerful who wish to permanently consolidate their power.
But globalism will always have an upward battle. Even in the face of a mono-culture, human beings tend to congregate into factions--take nationalism completely away, and you still have people rooting for their favorite football team. This is engrained in our DNA. To deny this is to deny nature. You can keep a domesticated dog in the house all it's life, but if it get's loose, it will find other stray dogs and form a pack. Therefore, to deny nature, one must ensure the dogs are never let out. Or neuter them. And unfortunately, that kind of consequence is inherit in any kind of globalist collectivist utopian ideal. It still requires a deep division of humanity, a division into those who with the power and those that submit. How do you permanently achieve such a division? Hitler is long dead, but believe me, there are those prepared to take his place. Wells himself even had his own chilling final solution. He doesn't go into it in this book, but read his chilling "The World Set Free."
This is not to say that "The New World Order" is only for naive cocktail party liberals or tinfoil hat conspiratorial conservatives. On the contrary, I think now more than ever we all should be studying these ideas and keeping them in mind whenever we watch what is going on in our country and across the world. Now more than ever, when we say diversity is our strength, we need to put our actions where our mouth is--preserving diversity of culture, economies, and opinions.
After all, empire-building and colonialism still result in the same problems no matter whether you call it imperialism or a New World Order.
SCORE: Three stars purely for the impact of this important book on politics, human rights, and social engineering over the decades since the last World War. But it is not a rigorous academic study with conclusions that are supported, nor does it give meaningful details on how a new world order would be attainable. This book is purely an emotional plea for world sanity with no real solution. Yet, it should be read as a primer to understand a certain mindset in places like Washington DC or Downing Street or Brussels or Davos.
It outlines the philosophy and framework for a global solution to endless humanitarian crises and conflict, namely a scientific one-world government and economy. These ideas have informed corporate and public policy to this day as we grow closer each passing decade to Wells's dream.
He bases this global utopia off of the idea of collectivism, which he is careful to differentiate from socialism or communism. Modern progressives and conservatives may be surprised at how vitriolic Wells is towards Marxism, and how prescient his remarks are regarding current class warfare in the Western world. He calls Marx "that sedentary man with the great beard," who he considers lazy and full of unfounded hatred against the bourgeoisie simply because he was too unwilling, untalented and unskilled to reach the upper classes that he himself believed he deserved. Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a doctrine of pure hatred, no different than Nazi propaganda, says Wells. He says that such movements all follow the same simple formula: 1) identify a vulnerable class of "have-nots" (proletariat) 2) manipulate them to believe they are being oppressed by a system (capitalism) created by a bogus "bad guy" (bourgeoisie) 3) convince them that overthrowing the identified system will solve all their problems.
I was struck by how similar this formula is to the one employed by American Democrats and Republicans today. You are being suppressed by systemic racism engineered by the whites who are inherently flawed, colonial, and racist! You are being suppressed by a corrupt system that wants to flood the country with brown people who will change the voting demographics forever and take your jobs! And in both cases, as Wells puts it, the "suppressed" need learn nothing, plan nothing, build nothing--just destroy. In Russia, this kind of thinking merely replaced the czar with people like Lenin and Stalin. But this was not the first time this happened. In France, the Revolution merely replaced the monarchy with The Reign of Terror. And it won't be the last time.
It is this tendency of lack of conscience on the part of people jealous for power and the suseptibility of the masses to be manipulated that led Wells to conceive of the New World Order, a global utopia with no sovereign borders under central benevolent and scientific control based on "collectivism."
Ironically, as much as Wells believed that Russian Marxism was a bastardization of collectivism, he still constructed his globalist ideas around Soviet communism--Trotsky’s idea of a worldwide government and Lenin’s idea of an intellectual nucleus that will control all the aspects of society.
Even more ironically, as much as Wells criticized Marx for basing his Socialist Manifesto on emotion rather than intelligence, Wells seems to fall into the same trap. Wells wrote "The New World Order" in response to World War II, but he never really made the connection between Nazism and a global alliance of fascist regimes that worship the state. Wells saw the nation-state as the cause of wars, while in fact, it seems to me that history has shown quite the opposite. Has conflict been the result of people respecting the sovereign borders and way of life of others, or when they interfere? Did Hitler really invade Poland and Czechoslovakia because he was defending the German people? Why did he begin a European-wide extermination of an entire culture? Was it nationalism? No, on the contrary, he was pursuing global aspirations. Instead of conservative white American males or Mexicans crossing the border, the identified system that needed replacing was ostensibly Jewish, and Hitler had plans to take over and solve this problem on a global scale. It seems that whenever one government or culture has expectations that their way is the right way, that the world should conform to one mode of thinking, to one religious faith, to one language, we get holocaust and genecide. We get crusades and jihad. We get colonialism and imperialism. We get invasion and conversion. We get the reservation and the ghetto.
Wells thinks that in order to achieve world peace, the system of sovereign states must be abolished to establish World Government. He talks at length about the benefits of such a society, but doesn't give details about how this could be brought about, or the pitfalls that such an endeavor would be sure to encounter. To whom will the power and responsibility fall to get all the world's cultures and societies in line? And in line with what? What would a global culture and economy look like? He holds the League of Nations as a poster child for how this could be done, but it didn't succeed, nor did it's replacement, the United Nations, in getting people to play nice with each other to achieve common interests. This is partially because these organizations could never get everyone in the club, nor did they want to, nor could all voices be heard equally. This is why the American founders developed an electoral college, because they recognized that smaller states might never have a voice.
Of course, Wells believes that the electoral college and the two party system must be abolished for a nonpartisan system of government. I certainly agree that the two parties are ultimately failing to represent the real needs of everyday constituents. But Wells gives us no insights into what a replacement would really look like. Just get rid of them, he says. OK, but then what? People are as different from one family member to the next, from one neighbor to the next, let alone from one country to another halfway across the globe. How do we manage such a diverse population? The fact is that globalist ideals have failed to recognize these differences just as they have failed to bring us together based on our common humanity. What works for one subset in one region of the globe is like putting a square peg in a round whole somewhere else.
In fact, as we move towards a globalist society in real life, we seem to be more divided than ever. Advancements in shipping, air travel, the internet, and social media have eliminated distance between the world's cultures, which Wells says is a prerequisite for establishing the new world order. However, as we share cultures, we share COVID-19, deforestation, fentanyl, child pornography, prostitution, and McDonald's. Europe is "united" under a common currency and under common masters who know and care nothing for the needs of the various societies and cultures embedded within. This is like having Google maps redirect you through a highway that is freqently used by farm vehicles and truckers--your app says it's the fastest route, but only the locals know you'll never get anywhere on that road. This inevitably led to Brexit with more division to come. In the meantime, more and more territories, former autonomous kingdoms and principalities, historical provences, and ethnic regions are clamoring for independent statehood. We don't have Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia anymore, do we? And in the latter, Serbia keeps hemorrhaging even more countries--first Montenegro, then Kosovo, with Vojvodina also wanting to satisfy their long-standing itch. The Soviet Union is no longer a union, giving us Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. And in Africa, we now have Eritrea, Namibia, and South Sudan. Meanwhile, we've had NAFTA, SICA, APTA, AfCFTA, the Southern Common Market, CPTPP, NATO, WHO, WTO, the Paris Climate Accord, the World Knowledge Forum, the World Economic Forum, the Montreal Protocol, the Bilderberg Group, and a legion of other free trade agreements, global justice efforts, lobbying groups, think tanks, and neoliberal movements promoting influence over the lives of citizens by non-elected officials and billionaires. We have Germany and Sweden and Great Britain opening up their borders, only to have their new guests isolate in newly formed ethnic neighborhoods with little interest in assimilation. So we have increased efforts at globalization, yet we get more and more nationalism. And have globalist efforts done anything to assuage a hungry and angry population of proletariat ready for any kind of revolution?
But let's assume we are able to establish a new world order. Who will hold a global government accountable to the people? Wells rightfully points out that free speech and global debate is necessary to achieve world peace. Yet he offers no details on how free speech can be safeguarded against censorship by an all powerful oligarchy of global elites. He was acutely aware of how concentrated power corrupts. In observing the kind of disparate information coming from Herr Goebells in Germany and from Britain's Ministry of Information, Wells was also concerned about news and punditry being disseminated "under the advice" of "nonrepresentative persons." He would certainly be likely to listen to MSNBC and Fox News and say, "Well, clearly somebody here must be beholden to their masters!" Communication controlled by the rich and influential is entirely unreliable--it is propaganda. If he was aware of this danger by 1940 before the age of the numerous global mega-corporations that we have today, how did he think things could get any better under a new world order? We are already seeing how global forces are operating to censor speech in everything from labeling vocal parents at school board meetings as terrorists to banning a U.S. president from social media. And this kind of action is applauded by people who tend to hold the Wellsian view that governance and influence should be retained only by those who know what's best. They think corporate tech giants and their fact checkers, as well as political dynasties, know what is fake news, not a narcissistic, bombastic orange outsider, and certainly not the citizens who are incapable of deciding for themselves. How would Wells propose to promote "vigorous publication" and spirited debate in the face of the incredible power of a global government? He doesn't give us a clue.
Similarly, he has a whole chapter dedicated to how to preserve liberty in the face of collectivization, but he doesn't really explain this either. He proposes a "new" declaration of human rights that should be followed by a global system, but it sounds no different than what capitalist countries had been following already. So much for seeing any new ideas there.
What you do see is Wells' personality front-and-center. To believe that a system based on a chosen oligarchy who "know better" is inherently elitist, and you see this elitism rampant in Wells. He often refers to people as stupid and ignorant. The Hindu and Muslim populations he refers to as "dusky peoples." He talks about Catholics as inherently destructive--he even states the entire French Revolution was the fault of "Catholic living and teaching" with no supporting evidence, and that the shifty cutthroats celebrating the guillotine were the product of Catholic church reaping what they sow. This is the kind of stuff that drove people like Hillaire Belloc nuts, and of course, Wells counts him among his many "antagonists." Wells must have had a fragile sense of narcissism, because he always complains about his "enemies" in almost every non-fiction book he has written. He sure talked a good humanitarian game, but I think the man had some personality problems.
My final criticism about the book is that Wells doesn't speculate much on what such a global society, if successful, will look like a century or more from now. He says that people will live in more mobile homes and spend more time traveling. That's it? All this work of globalization to live in trailer parks? So we've managed to eliminate distance, removed incentives for corporate exploitation, completely eliminated borders, and smoothed the divides brought about by religious and linguistic differences! Hurray! We've undone Babylon! But what does this leave us with? A mono-culture? Every street in every city of every continent with a McDonald's and a Starbucks and a Walmart? People getting their goods and services delivered by Amazon and Uber, only interacting with each other across the globe virtually through avatars? Where's the diversity that our celebrities at the Golden Globes and the Oscars and the BBC keep talking about? If we eliminate diversity as we eradicate distance to the point where there are no cancerous or destructive deviations in thought, according to our enlightened scientific and all wise global deities, then we are left with a situation akin to North Korea or Nazi Germany--a uniform population that only worships the State.
Wells tries to say this is a book of guiding print, not the endless specific problems of adjustment to a new world order. Of course. That the easy way out. But the subtitle of "The New World Order" is "Whether it is Attainable, How it can be Attained..." He really made no argument for that. Seems like false advertising to me.
So do I think a new world order is attainable? No. I do think we must expect more globalization, but that's not really a new world order. It's exploitative colonization by a bunch of corporate powers from multiple countries instead of one imperial force. The ideas in "The New World Order" sure sound good to many of us who dream of a more sane world, but unfortunately, these same ideas sound even better to the world's rich and powerful who wish to permanently consolidate their power.
But globalism will always have an upward battle. Even in the face of a mono-culture, human beings tend to congregate into factions--take nationalism completely away, and you still have people rooting for their favorite football team. This is engrained in our DNA. To deny this is to deny nature. You can keep a domesticated dog in the house all it's life, but if it get's loose, it will find other stray dogs and form a pack. Therefore, to deny nature, one must ensure the dogs are never let out. Or neuter them. And unfortunately, that kind of consequence is inherit in any kind of globalist collectivist utopian ideal. It still requires a deep division of humanity, a division into those who with the power and those that submit. How do you permanently achieve such a division? Hitler is long dead, but believe me, there are those prepared to take his place. Wells himself even had his own chilling final solution. He doesn't go into it in this book, but read his chilling "The World Set Free."
This is not to say that "The New World Order" is only for naive cocktail party liberals or tinfoil hat conspiratorial conservatives. On the contrary, I think now more than ever we all should be studying these ideas and keeping them in mind whenever we watch what is going on in our country and across the world. Now more than ever, when we say diversity is our strength, we need to put our actions where our mouth is--preserving diversity of culture, economies, and opinions.
After all, empire-building and colonialism still result in the same problems no matter whether you call it imperialism or a New World Order.
SCORE: Three stars purely for the impact of this important book on politics, human rights, and social engineering over the decades since the last World War. But it is not a rigorous academic study with conclusions that are supported, nor does it give meaningful details on how a new world order would be attainable. This book is purely an emotional plea for world sanity with no real solution. Yet, it should be read as a primer to understand a certain mindset in places like Washington DC or Downing Street or Brussels or Davos.
July 2, 2024
H G Wells - A Nova Ordem Mundial
É um texto interessante. Escrito no início da IIGM e publicado em 1940, contem uma visão muito romântica do que seriam as causas de uma guerra e do papel que atribuía a alguns dos seus intervenientes como José Estaline e Neville Chamberlain. Este romantismo chocou de fronte com a realidade e o momento desse confronto está retratado no livro "Churchill's First Days: The Five Days That Saved England") de Andrew Roberts, onde a história surge bem mais crua que no texto de Wells.
HG Wells era marxista, um não comunista, era, aos olhos de hoje, um social-democrata de esquerda, era, alguém com uma visão romântica da história. E, como todos os românticos vêem-na pelo lado otimista, são “panglossianos”. Para HG Wells, a grande revolução e a boa governação da humanidade resultaria do reconhecimento dos erros cometidos desde os primórdios da civilização, erros que conduziram à exploração do homem pelo homem, à ganância, ao consumo e à destruição do meio ambiente. Para Wells, o homem ao assumir o topo na hierarquia da predação tinha não só criado uma teia de compromissos que destruíam o meio ambiente, mas, fruto da “ganância” tinha criado as condições que resultaram em duas guerras mundiais – “A humanidade ao contrário das outras espécies animais não está ameaçada pela fome ou pela escassez. Não está ameaçada pela escassez mas pela abundância. A espécie humana destrói-se a si mesmo”. Para Wells, era necessário um governo mundial que liderasse a humanidade e lhe desse um rumo de felicidade e prosperidade. São tudo bons princípios, são todos bons objectivos, mas, mas falta indicar qual o caminho a trilhar, pois o sugerido estava contaminado por um romantismo que poderíamos resumir como de “Lês lendemains qui chant” - uma visão utópica e romântica dos marxistas de finais de XIX e primeira metade do século XX achavam ser possível conjugar liberdade e igualdade. Foi nesse romantismo que em grupo se opuseram à entrada na GM desse século sempre sublinhando que essas não eram guerras que interessassem ao movimento operário, ao proletariado. Nunca as viram como uma ameaça da liberdade ou resultado de equivalentes europeias e asiáticas a uma “Doutrina de Monroe” com que se justificava o alargamento de fronteiras. Foram românticos, foram utópicos e permitiram que dentro de portas se desenvolvesse o que condenavam, i.e., o ressurgimento da cultura do individual. A posição de HG Wells está alinhada com esta visão romântica, ainda que difira dos marxistas da altura que rejeitaram a contenda por acharem que esta se opunha ao movimento operário internacional e a solidariedade do proletariado mundial. HG Wells, ridicularizava a luta de classes e o movimento operariado. Wells era um coletivista, mas um coletivista romântico que acha que cada um se sentir confiança no sistema e em si, só consome o que necessita.
Se a análise que fez do período político entre guerras pecou por ser coloquial, a sua antevisão para esse bom governo mundial, pelo menos visto aos olhos de hoje, é de um romantismo sem músculo. Analisou bem a Liga das Nações e a sua inépcia na gestão das querelas mundiais, viu bem quando achou que toda a propaganda governamental é nociva e contrária à democracia. Sublinhou bem o papel de controlo dos ministérios da propaganda, está certo quando assume que as guerras partem sempre de posições de egoísmo e solipsismo, mas como todos os “visionários” tem a presunção que a sua época é a pior de todas, a de maior degredo e desrespeito pelos valores humanos. É sempre uma visão paroquial e pessimista da realidade e no fundo um desconhecimento absoluto da escala do tempo onde as grandes mudanças se operam. E no seu tempo houve outros visionários que tiveram nas suas obras de ficção uma visão da civilização e da humanidade muito mais próxima de realidade. Refiro-me à visão de Aldous Huxley em “Admirável Mundo Novo”, um visão que HG Wells não desenvolve e analisa, limitando-se apenas a considera-la ridícula.
Em 1940 estava-se ainda no início da IIGM. Muitos dos horrores de então só seriam conhecidos depois, mas muitos autores já tinham identificado os pecados originais que depois resultaram na barbárie que é hoje reconhecida a esses tempos. Estava certo quando reconhecia os mundos italiano alemão e russo como mundos onde imperava uma polícia da opinião em oposição a um outro mundo que se considerava livre mas que se apresentava limitado pela dificuldade em se ter uma opinião não ortodoxa ou ter ideias ousadas. Porém, errou quando viu Estaline como um bom governante, alguém que pugnava pela melhoria das condições individuais do seu povo. Passou-lhe completamente ao lado as pulsões de poder e império protagonizadas por uma URSS e um líder cujo objectivo era o poder e nunca o bem comum. Falhou completamente nesta análise do indivíduo e o infinito, não fez ressonância das informações que seguramente lhe foram transmitidas sobre o comportamento dos estalinistas na guerra civil espanhola, assim como não denota qualquer indignação com as purgas soviéticas que tinham ocorrido durante a década de 30. No meio de tanta angustia remeteu-se a um marxismo coletivista romântico.
Contudo se pensamos que a visão que tinha de harmonia entre nações e o marxismo coletivista romântico que denotava poderiam ser prenuncio de uma social-democracia que está na base das posições mais federalistas de uma comunidade económica europeia, HG Wells surpreende-nos por entre as suas posições de esquerda assumir que a liderança mundial, a nova ordem deveria assentar nos países de língua anglo-saxónica mais os que se lhe quisessem aderir. Para HG Wells, a boa governação britânica do império, e o poderia da marinha britânica eram factos que poderiam participar e cimentar a construção da nova mundial. Na verdade, não me espanta, que os britânicos assim pensassem, e nisso Wells era vulgar ao ter uma visão paroquial do mundo do século XX e não entender que foi o choque dessa visão com os nacionalismos que cresceram à sombra da revolução industrial que colocou a humanidade numa guerra de dois atos. Escapou-lhe este entendimento, da lutar recorrente entre poder instituído e poder desafiante. Quem não conhecer o passado, não compreende o presente e não é previdente quanto ao futuro.
Um aspecto interessante da leitura deste texto é a análise que faz da guerra e do aparecimento de uns média presunçosos quando diz “um dos aspectos mais desagradáveis de um estado de guerra é o aparecimento de um enxame de chico-espertos em posições de autoridade. Empolgados, preconceituosos, prontos a mentir, distorcer e em geral a manipular as pessoas para estados de aquiescência, resistência, indignação, vingança, dúvida e confusão, estados de espírito que se espera poderem conduzir a uma vitória militar”. O quanto revejo nestas palavras do que vou ouvindo aos “peritos” sobre a guerra da “Ucrânia” e de “Gaza”.
É sempre um exercício injusto quando num dado momento da história olhamos retrospetivamente e lemos o que décadas antes nos antecipavam. HG Wells, falhou demasiado para que o presente texto possa ser considerado minimamente seminal, mas não posso encerrar esta minha apreciação sem reconhecer o seu trabalho pioneiro na necessidade da elaboração de um documento para os direitos do homem, o que acabou por acontecer oito anos depois na Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem de 1948 pelas Nações Unidas. Este é um mérito que tem de lhe ser reconhecido e o principal motivo de importância deste texto.
É um texto interessante. Escrito no início da IIGM e publicado em 1940, contem uma visão muito romântica do que seriam as causas de uma guerra e do papel que atribuía a alguns dos seus intervenientes como José Estaline e Neville Chamberlain. Este romantismo chocou de fronte com a realidade e o momento desse confronto está retratado no livro "Churchill's First Days: The Five Days That Saved England") de Andrew Roberts, onde a história surge bem mais crua que no texto de Wells.
HG Wells era marxista, um não comunista, era, aos olhos de hoje, um social-democrata de esquerda, era, alguém com uma visão romântica da história. E, como todos os românticos vêem-na pelo lado otimista, são “panglossianos”. Para HG Wells, a grande revolução e a boa governação da humanidade resultaria do reconhecimento dos erros cometidos desde os primórdios da civilização, erros que conduziram à exploração do homem pelo homem, à ganância, ao consumo e à destruição do meio ambiente. Para Wells, o homem ao assumir o topo na hierarquia da predação tinha não só criado uma teia de compromissos que destruíam o meio ambiente, mas, fruto da “ganância” tinha criado as condições que resultaram em duas guerras mundiais – “A humanidade ao contrário das outras espécies animais não está ameaçada pela fome ou pela escassez. Não está ameaçada pela escassez mas pela abundância. A espécie humana destrói-se a si mesmo”. Para Wells, era necessário um governo mundial que liderasse a humanidade e lhe desse um rumo de felicidade e prosperidade. São tudo bons princípios, são todos bons objectivos, mas, mas falta indicar qual o caminho a trilhar, pois o sugerido estava contaminado por um romantismo que poderíamos resumir como de “Lês lendemains qui chant” - uma visão utópica e romântica dos marxistas de finais de XIX e primeira metade do século XX achavam ser possível conjugar liberdade e igualdade. Foi nesse romantismo que em grupo se opuseram à entrada na GM desse século sempre sublinhando que essas não eram guerras que interessassem ao movimento operário, ao proletariado. Nunca as viram como uma ameaça da liberdade ou resultado de equivalentes europeias e asiáticas a uma “Doutrina de Monroe” com que se justificava o alargamento de fronteiras. Foram românticos, foram utópicos e permitiram que dentro de portas se desenvolvesse o que condenavam, i.e., o ressurgimento da cultura do individual. A posição de HG Wells está alinhada com esta visão romântica, ainda que difira dos marxistas da altura que rejeitaram a contenda por acharem que esta se opunha ao movimento operário internacional e a solidariedade do proletariado mundial. HG Wells, ridicularizava a luta de classes e o movimento operariado. Wells era um coletivista, mas um coletivista romântico que acha que cada um se sentir confiança no sistema e em si, só consome o que necessita.
Se a análise que fez do período político entre guerras pecou por ser coloquial, a sua antevisão para esse bom governo mundial, pelo menos visto aos olhos de hoje, é de um romantismo sem músculo. Analisou bem a Liga das Nações e a sua inépcia na gestão das querelas mundiais, viu bem quando achou que toda a propaganda governamental é nociva e contrária à democracia. Sublinhou bem o papel de controlo dos ministérios da propaganda, está certo quando assume que as guerras partem sempre de posições de egoísmo e solipsismo, mas como todos os “visionários” tem a presunção que a sua época é a pior de todas, a de maior degredo e desrespeito pelos valores humanos. É sempre uma visão paroquial e pessimista da realidade e no fundo um desconhecimento absoluto da escala do tempo onde as grandes mudanças se operam. E no seu tempo houve outros visionários que tiveram nas suas obras de ficção uma visão da civilização e da humanidade muito mais próxima de realidade. Refiro-me à visão de Aldous Huxley em “Admirável Mundo Novo”, um visão que HG Wells não desenvolve e analisa, limitando-se apenas a considera-la ridícula.
Em 1940 estava-se ainda no início da IIGM. Muitos dos horrores de então só seriam conhecidos depois, mas muitos autores já tinham identificado os pecados originais que depois resultaram na barbárie que é hoje reconhecida a esses tempos. Estava certo quando reconhecia os mundos italiano alemão e russo como mundos onde imperava uma polícia da opinião em oposição a um outro mundo que se considerava livre mas que se apresentava limitado pela dificuldade em se ter uma opinião não ortodoxa ou ter ideias ousadas. Porém, errou quando viu Estaline como um bom governante, alguém que pugnava pela melhoria das condições individuais do seu povo. Passou-lhe completamente ao lado as pulsões de poder e império protagonizadas por uma URSS e um líder cujo objectivo era o poder e nunca o bem comum. Falhou completamente nesta análise do indivíduo e o infinito, não fez ressonância das informações que seguramente lhe foram transmitidas sobre o comportamento dos estalinistas na guerra civil espanhola, assim como não denota qualquer indignação com as purgas soviéticas que tinham ocorrido durante a década de 30. No meio de tanta angustia remeteu-se a um marxismo coletivista romântico.
Contudo se pensamos que a visão que tinha de harmonia entre nações e o marxismo coletivista romântico que denotava poderiam ser prenuncio de uma social-democracia que está na base das posições mais federalistas de uma comunidade económica europeia, HG Wells surpreende-nos por entre as suas posições de esquerda assumir que a liderança mundial, a nova ordem deveria assentar nos países de língua anglo-saxónica mais os que se lhe quisessem aderir. Para HG Wells, a boa governação britânica do império, e o poderia da marinha britânica eram factos que poderiam participar e cimentar a construção da nova mundial. Na verdade, não me espanta, que os britânicos assim pensassem, e nisso Wells era vulgar ao ter uma visão paroquial do mundo do século XX e não entender que foi o choque dessa visão com os nacionalismos que cresceram à sombra da revolução industrial que colocou a humanidade numa guerra de dois atos. Escapou-lhe este entendimento, da lutar recorrente entre poder instituído e poder desafiante. Quem não conhecer o passado, não compreende o presente e não é previdente quanto ao futuro.
Um aspecto interessante da leitura deste texto é a análise que faz da guerra e do aparecimento de uns média presunçosos quando diz “um dos aspectos mais desagradáveis de um estado de guerra é o aparecimento de um enxame de chico-espertos em posições de autoridade. Empolgados, preconceituosos, prontos a mentir, distorcer e em geral a manipular as pessoas para estados de aquiescência, resistência, indignação, vingança, dúvida e confusão, estados de espírito que se espera poderem conduzir a uma vitória militar”. O quanto revejo nestas palavras do que vou ouvindo aos “peritos” sobre a guerra da “Ucrânia” e de “Gaza”.
É sempre um exercício injusto quando num dado momento da história olhamos retrospetivamente e lemos o que décadas antes nos antecipavam. HG Wells, falhou demasiado para que o presente texto possa ser considerado minimamente seminal, mas não posso encerrar esta minha apreciação sem reconhecer o seu trabalho pioneiro na necessidade da elaboração de um documento para os direitos do homem, o que acabou por acontecer oito anos depois na Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem de 1948 pelas Nações Unidas. Este é um mérito que tem de lhe ser reconhecido e o principal motivo de importância deste texto.
April 13, 2020
H.G. Wells
This is a review of “Holy Terror” and “A New World Order”.
Rud, was a (not so attractive) baby boy, and later, grew to be a young man who had a remarkable talent of oratory: the gift of gab. He is eventually encouraged to perform public speaking, lecturing and finally, revolutionary speeches.
Through this character, Wells creates a platform for long discourses of his usual themes of social engineering.
Based on previous works, it is evident that Wells is perfectly capable of writing very entertaining tales and narratives lased with his favoured social themes and morals: “When the Sleeper Awakes” (1899), “A World Set Free” (1914), “The Dream” (1924) and so on, but in this (far too lengthy) work, it seems Wells often forgets he is telling a tale of fiction and digresses far too much (often repetitively) into detailed and technical lectures on the expedition of major global social change.
Inevitably, in this story, the struggle with the acquisition of ultimate power and what is to be done about it, becomes the primary theme of the novel.
I chose to read Well’s, rather short, non-fiction work “A New World Order” believing it might serve as a companion work to “Holy Terror” as it was published just a year later in 1940. I found it odd, that it was in this work, Well’s chose to write his thoughts on an ideal societal system in a more elegant and concise manor. He covered, naturally, the subjects of war, which was coming to a head at the time of this writing, new technologies: steam to the internal combustion engine, the rapid development of the airplane and the global wide telephone which he framed in the context of the “abolition of distance” and he also dealt with the environmental devastation that would come with the growth of mass industrialization. From there he quickly went into his favorite topic: that of the naivety of Marxism vs. that of the equally mucked up version of Capitalism that most of the so called free Western nations have chosen to subscribe to and how with both systems, it most often leads to conflict between the have and have-nots, which then leads to perpetual revolt and so on.
Perhaps much of the dryer content in “Holy Terror” could have been cut out and included into “A new World Order”.
And then again, perhaps it was.
Both books are worth a read if you want to get into the mind of a disgruntle socialist living in the mid twentieth century, longing for the simplicity of the golden age of the late nineteenth century or ready to tear down all we (humanity) has built thus far, for something completely different.
This is a review of “Holy Terror” and “A New World Order”.
Rud, was a (not so attractive) baby boy, and later, grew to be a young man who had a remarkable talent of oratory: the gift of gab. He is eventually encouraged to perform public speaking, lecturing and finally, revolutionary speeches.
Through this character, Wells creates a platform for long discourses of his usual themes of social engineering.
Based on previous works, it is evident that Wells is perfectly capable of writing very entertaining tales and narratives lased with his favoured social themes and morals: “When the Sleeper Awakes” (1899), “A World Set Free” (1914), “The Dream” (1924) and so on, but in this (far too lengthy) work, it seems Wells often forgets he is telling a tale of fiction and digresses far too much (often repetitively) into detailed and technical lectures on the expedition of major global social change.
Inevitably, in this story, the struggle with the acquisition of ultimate power and what is to be done about it, becomes the primary theme of the novel.
I chose to read Well’s, rather short, non-fiction work “A New World Order” believing it might serve as a companion work to “Holy Terror” as it was published just a year later in 1940. I found it odd, that it was in this work, Well’s chose to write his thoughts on an ideal societal system in a more elegant and concise manor. He covered, naturally, the subjects of war, which was coming to a head at the time of this writing, new technologies: steam to the internal combustion engine, the rapid development of the airplane and the global wide telephone which he framed in the context of the “abolition of distance” and he also dealt with the environmental devastation that would come with the growth of mass industrialization. From there he quickly went into his favorite topic: that of the naivety of Marxism vs. that of the equally mucked up version of Capitalism that most of the so called free Western nations have chosen to subscribe to and how with both systems, it most often leads to conflict between the have and have-nots, which then leads to perpetual revolt and so on.
Perhaps much of the dryer content in “Holy Terror” could have been cut out and included into “A new World Order”.
And then again, perhaps it was.
Both books are worth a read if you want to get into the mind of a disgruntle socialist living in the mid twentieth century, longing for the simplicity of the golden age of the late nineteenth century or ready to tear down all we (humanity) has built thus far, for something completely different.
June 28, 2016
H.G. Wells advocates in this book for nothing more then world socialism. I will give him credit for not being a marxist and for a quite good critique of it,for this he deservs my one star I gaved him.
But Wells is dishonest, he admits the advantages and the material improvments done through the liberal ideas, but creates and atributates to it some bizzar and exagerated disruptive forces that have nothing to do with liberalism, and the outcome is total anihilation, unless we go total socialism. His disruptive forces are not liberalism but socialism, statism, militarism, imperialism and totalitarianism !
He defends his socialism as beign superior from that of Hittler and the marxist gang in Russia, but as rich as he is in describing his socialism, he is poor in telling us how will his colectivist society will be implemented and will work.
He uses quite the tricks in this book, at many points in describing his socialism it feels like his socialism is the true form of liberalism, that the rule of the law, knowledge and basic human rights are all not real in the liberal world and that only his socialism will truly have those...But in the few rare moments he speacks about the implementation of this the ugly face of totalitarianism and the contradiction with the basic human rights and liberties show up. This is why he preferes to speack about the wonders of his socialism and leave the nasty problems in the hands of his party, meaning the normal people with normal sense who are all free to think as they want as long as they are all for colectivization.
But Wells is dishonest, he admits the advantages and the material improvments done through the liberal ideas, but creates and atributates to it some bizzar and exagerated disruptive forces that have nothing to do with liberalism, and the outcome is total anihilation, unless we go total socialism. His disruptive forces are not liberalism but socialism, statism, militarism, imperialism and totalitarianism !
He defends his socialism as beign superior from that of Hittler and the marxist gang in Russia, but as rich as he is in describing his socialism, he is poor in telling us how will his colectivist society will be implemented and will work.
He uses quite the tricks in this book, at many points in describing his socialism it feels like his socialism is the true form of liberalism, that the rule of the law, knowledge and basic human rights are all not real in the liberal world and that only his socialism will truly have those...But in the few rare moments he speacks about the implementation of this the ugly face of totalitarianism and the contradiction with the basic human rights and liberties show up. This is why he preferes to speack about the wonders of his socialism and leave the nasty problems in the hands of his party, meaning the normal people with normal sense who are all free to think as they want as long as they are all for colectivization.
February 8, 2021
In 2021 this reads like midwit “world socialism will make everyone happy” nonsense from somebody with zero grasp of the nature of humanity, and a faith in progress that the passage of time has made look utterly embarrassing.
However you have to bare in mind this was written during the Second World War, the bloodiest conflict in history, so it’s hardly surprising that in the wake of such a disastrous war many intellectuals theorised how best to move forward toward global peace.
“The New World Order” in question, is a movement toward global collectivisation lead by science in order to breakdown national ties and avoid total social and economic disaster. That’s the crux of it, people behind globalisation often sincerely believe in the cause, and you might too, if you happen to be a progressive. The fact we are moving toward a global government is not a matter of conspiracy, the conspiracy theory lies in the notion that it’s engineered by cackling evil occultists.
The main criticism of the proposal is the fact that human beings are flawed and corrupted by jealousy, desire for status, lust for power and so on, so the idea of creating a utopia on earth is naive and ultimately dangerous when it is inevitably co-opted by malicious people and wealth and power are centralised.
Ultimately this is an interesting piece of propaganda that does give some insight into the events of the modern world.
However you have to bare in mind this was written during the Second World War, the bloodiest conflict in history, so it’s hardly surprising that in the wake of such a disastrous war many intellectuals theorised how best to move forward toward global peace.
“The New World Order” in question, is a movement toward global collectivisation lead by science in order to breakdown national ties and avoid total social and economic disaster. That’s the crux of it, people behind globalisation often sincerely believe in the cause, and you might too, if you happen to be a progressive. The fact we are moving toward a global government is not a matter of conspiracy, the conspiracy theory lies in the notion that it’s engineered by cackling evil occultists.
The main criticism of the proposal is the fact that human beings are flawed and corrupted by jealousy, desire for status, lust for power and so on, so the idea of creating a utopia on earth is naive and ultimately dangerous when it is inevitably co-opted by malicious people and wealth and power are centralised.
Ultimately this is an interesting piece of propaganda that does give some insight into the events of the modern world.
December 29, 2017
Wells considers it an offense against all mankind if capitalists amass wealth by hoarding the Earth's resources for profits. He considers a world collectivist, socialist government the solution to these abusers. However, what he fails to realize is that it's not the underlying system that propagates evil, it is human nature that is evil. Evil people will amass exorbitant wealth through whatever system is given to them. Capitalism and socialism both end up with abusers at the top taking advantage of all social classes, because people are the problem and not the solution. The only solution to all social disorder is a change of heart and a new spirit revived by the resurrection power of the LORD Jesus Christ.
March 26, 2021
"The reorganization of the world has to at first to be mainly the work of a 'movement' or a party or a religion or cult, whatever we choose to call it" (p. 84)
"We do not deplore the Russian revolution as a revolution. We complain that it is not a good enough revolution and we want a better one" (p. 58)
Talk about the New World Order and Overlords of GoodThink will deplatform you as a conspiracy theorist and purveyor of misinformation. At the same time, ignore the fact that the same Overlords have been talking about the New World Order for literally decades. Only now it's been rebranded The Great Reset and the rallying cry is "Build Back Better." Klaus Schwab and his coterie of globalists didn't just pull this stuff out of thin air. These ideas have been incubating for years.
HG Wells will likely be remembered for War of the Worlds, The Time Machine and The Island of Dr. Moreau, but The New World Order offers a clearer window of insight into what exactly he was up to in his fiction. Published in 1940, The New World Order is an early draft of the plan for a world socialism. Of course, this one is going to be totally humane, totally benign, and won't have any of the nasty gulags, exterminations and repressions of all those other revolutions. No, this one is going to be wonderful. Really. Trust us.
Similar to the tone used by Jonas Salk in Survival of the Wisest, Wells talks about this as nothing less than a moral imperative. The human race is at stake! Only retards and uneducated religious freaks would oppose an idea that this enlightened and cosmopolitan. We'll need lots of education, but don't call it propaganda. No, we're just trying to get you braindead dumbshits to get on board.
There may be riots, food shortages, civil unrest, and mandatory vaccination programs despite the fact that Wells specifies that "no man shall be subjected to any sort of mutilation or sterilization except with his own deliberate consent". It's all for the Greater Good, you useless rubes. We need to be subject to the Law because man cannot be trusted to do the right thing. And only the people who make the Law can be trusted. The American revolution was about emancipation and the fight against the consolidation of central power, but that's already outdated. We need centralized power and global collectivism now. So take your shot, eat the cockroach burger, watch your Cardi b videos, go to the BLM protest and retweet everything Greta Thunberg posts, you miserable shitbags. You're finally free.
"We do not deplore the Russian revolution as a revolution. We complain that it is not a good enough revolution and we want a better one" (p. 58)
Talk about the New World Order and Overlords of GoodThink will deplatform you as a conspiracy theorist and purveyor of misinformation. At the same time, ignore the fact that the same Overlords have been talking about the New World Order for literally decades. Only now it's been rebranded The Great Reset and the rallying cry is "Build Back Better." Klaus Schwab and his coterie of globalists didn't just pull this stuff out of thin air. These ideas have been incubating for years.
HG Wells will likely be remembered for War of the Worlds, The Time Machine and The Island of Dr. Moreau, but The New World Order offers a clearer window of insight into what exactly he was up to in his fiction. Published in 1940, The New World Order is an early draft of the plan for a world socialism. Of course, this one is going to be totally humane, totally benign, and won't have any of the nasty gulags, exterminations and repressions of all those other revolutions. No, this one is going to be wonderful. Really. Trust us.
Similar to the tone used by Jonas Salk in Survival of the Wisest, Wells talks about this as nothing less than a moral imperative. The human race is at stake! Only retards and uneducated religious freaks would oppose an idea that this enlightened and cosmopolitan. We'll need lots of education, but don't call it propaganda. No, we're just trying to get you braindead dumbshits to get on board.
There may be riots, food shortages, civil unrest, and mandatory vaccination programs despite the fact that Wells specifies that "no man shall be subjected to any sort of mutilation or sterilization except with his own deliberate consent". It's all for the Greater Good, you useless rubes. We need to be subject to the Law because man cannot be trusted to do the right thing. And only the people who make the Law can be trusted. The American revolution was about emancipation and the fight against the consolidation of central power, but that's already outdated. We need centralized power and global collectivism now. So take your shot, eat the cockroach burger, watch your Cardi b videos, go to the BLM protest and retweet everything Greta Thunberg posts, you miserable shitbags. You're finally free.
March 26, 2009
The novel "The New World Order", written by H.G.Wells, is a great book that keeps many readers thinking until the end of the book. Throughout the whole novel there is one central theme, which can asks, "Can there be peace among all of the world's people. The entire book is based on one belief, "What if the world was under a new world order, one in which unite the everyone in the world, and at the same time cause war to war to no longer exist?"
But for peace to exist on our modern day society, it would be impossible because everyone would want more than their fair share. Someone out in the world would always want to be better then the other person, and may do anything to accomplish this goal. This is when war, fighting, and death is introduced to the world.
However, in a world without violence and death, there would be many problems that would come about. For example, if there was no death, then the death rate of the average person would highly increase, and humans would only die due to natural causes;old age, smoking, cancer,etc. Another problem to occur would be overpopulation. If no one were to die often, then the world would be congested with humans.
Additionally, death and war are a necessary "evil" to reduce population and "weed out the weak". For example, in Social Darwinism, which is the idea of survival of the fittest, people who join the army or are drafted into the army may the lower brained people. Unlike great scientists, doctors, or business men who help keep the economy stable, or just the opposite.
But for peace to exist on our modern day society, it would be impossible because everyone would want more than their fair share. Someone out in the world would always want to be better then the other person, and may do anything to accomplish this goal. This is when war, fighting, and death is introduced to the world.
However, in a world without violence and death, there would be many problems that would come about. For example, if there was no death, then the death rate of the average person would highly increase, and humans would only die due to natural causes;old age, smoking, cancer,etc. Another problem to occur would be overpopulation. If no one were to die often, then the world would be congested with humans.
Additionally, death and war are a necessary "evil" to reduce population and "weed out the weak". For example, in Social Darwinism, which is the idea of survival of the fittest, people who join the army or are drafted into the army may the lower brained people. Unlike great scientists, doctors, or business men who help keep the economy stable, or just the opposite.
November 15, 2016
A great little treatise on the why and how of a world state. It's surprising that this book isn''t better known because it is careful to differentiate between a collective society which really works for everyone and a socialist "utopia" which is stuck in class war and fails partly because it ignores humanity's baser instincts. Perhaps that is why, maybe people like their politics simple and this doesn't accept the right-left split. There is much here to agree with, whatever your political persuasion (and some to disagree with). The general thrust however is correct.
What lets this particular edition down is how many mistakes there are in it. Occasionally, the mistake changes the sense of the point, so you can work out what it's meant to say. Yet, perhaps some are not so obvious and hence, perhaps some points are relayed incorrectly here. It's a simple case of this book being checked by program and not by a person, so "ear" is accepted, when it should be "era".
What lets this particular edition down is how many mistakes there are in it. Occasionally, the mistake changes the sense of the point, so you can work out what it's meant to say. Yet, perhaps some are not so obvious and hence, perhaps some points are relayed incorrectly here. It's a simple case of this book being checked by program and not by a person, so "ear" is accepted, when it should be "era".
March 29, 2021
A Nova Ordem Mundial: Se for possível, como pode ser alcançado, e como deverá ser um mundo pacífico? escrito por Herbert George Wells. En esta versión que leí la traducción al portugués fue elaborada por George Henrique de Souza Ferra, quien en además de traducir y mostrar lado a lado el significado del escrito en original y su traducción, agregó comentarios personales sobre su análisis, pensamientos, y así como críticas a la posición socialista, y sus influencias del autor sobre los cambios culturas que se han manifestado desde su publicación en 1940.
Comentarios al leer el libro, 1ro es un libro de ciencias políticas, algo que tal vez no es tan popular entre la sociedad actual, y se considera como polémico y tema de debate de conspiración fue toda una obra que sin duda influenció e influencia hasta hoy a muchos grandes líderes políticos.
Es un libro corto en su aspecto original, tal vez unas 190 páginas, sin embargo, interesante, puede ser hasta atemporal desde el punto de vida y año que lo leas desde que tengas claridad del contexto, original del autor y sus pensamientos e inclinaciones políticas y sociales.
Como parte del contexto que el libro se publicó en 1940 durante la 2da guerra mundial, y todo el movimiento en Europa era una calamidad social y política, así mismo como el autor es brillante, ya reconocido por sus obras de literatura iniciales, fue ganador de diversos premios y reconocido en su medio y época, influyente a los oídos de diversos líderes políticos y contemporáneos de la época. Reconozco que está bien escrito, el autor es perspicaz en colocar sus ideas y dejar claro sus intenciones, nada más que forjar una nueva sociedad donde la paz sea duradera y se extienda por todo el planeta por medio de un sistema global que todas las naciones se una en una federación. En los últimos años hemos escuchado como se describe en diversos canales, libros y espectadores las creencias de conspiraciones mundiales, lo interesante de este libro es que posiblemente sea una de las fuentes más cercanas hacia los pensadores cercanos de estos movimientos, ya solo el título del libro tiende a ser llamada de conspiración, sin embargo, más allá de una conspiración es un pensamiento, y tal vez una necesidad que surgió en su momento, saber la capacidad bélica se incrementó a tal grado que el mundo podría no soportar una nueva guerra nuclear creo que este libro de cierto modo presenta valor social y transformación cultural desde su publicación en 1940.
Leer de forma objetiva es conocer los criterios del contexto histórico que se escribió y publicó el libro, así como los seguidores que aún en la actualidad deben identificarse con este tipo de ideología, el libro contiene mucho de los pensamientos, análisis y crítica del propio traductor, el cual se denomina una persona que se identifica con la la línea de pensamiento político Liberal.
Comentarios finales, al tratar temas políticos siempre entraremos en un tema sensible para sociedad, presente, pasada y futura. No es sencillo aceptar que no vivimos en una utopía, y es nuestra separación como humanidad la que influencia la dirección a seguir en pro la supervivencia, como todos somos libres pensadores, algunas personas tendrán tendencias a ser culturalmente adeptas a considerarse capitalistas, comunistas, sociales, y otros liberales, otros ignoran su posición y están enemistados con la política, de alguna forma todos somos resultado de un producto social, de la educación, lugar que vivimos, cultura que habitamos y todo un sistema que se encuentra a nuestro alrededor. Nos encontramos un sistema imperfecto, sin embargo, en nuestra consistía seguimos a líderes, y formamos este concepto distópico que podemos implementar nuestro propio sistema perfecto, y mejorar nuestra sociedad. Es parte de la naturaleza imaginativa, crítica y de algunos intelectuales cultivar la búsqueda por un mejor futuro, no sabremos cual es mejor futuro, no tendremos todos los criterios, y parte de nuestra forma de mostrarnos como humanos elegimos estudiar, o olvidar. Muchas personas han olvidado muchas lecciones del pasado, y muchos otros las ignoran como parte de un sistema que modifica nuestras creencias, cultura. Este libro tiene mucho material interesante de reflexión, más de ser un posible ejemplo de conspiración puede ser considerado de un manual sobre la cual vivimos parte del cambio en la actualidad, y eso sin duda será la variable constante, el cambio y transformación.
Algunas revelaciones del libro hacia la cultura contemporánea, fue que como parte de su publicación podemos ver como algunos pensamientos fueron adoptados por muchos líderes mundiales, bastaría saber quien prefiere la paz a la guerra, la colaboración a la disputa, por eso creo que el autor tuvo y posible aún tiene influencia en la sociedad actual, de forma directa o indirecta, muchos intelectuales pueden estar a favor otros en contra, sin embargo, son muy pocos los que realmente son conscientes de este tipo de enunciados ya publicados hace más de 80 años.
Este es un libro que no hasta leerlo, es bueno construir una base histórica, política y social para ejercer un criterio crítico por sí propio, la lectura desmintió algunas creencias populares sin embargo, también aclaró predicciones de un sistema político complejo posible.
Para recordar quisiera recordar algunos de los comentarios del traductor:
"Primeiramente: quando se fala em nova ordem mundial hoje em dia, pensamos logo em teorias da conspiração afirmando que a Terra é plana, o homem não foi à Lua, que há reuniões secretas de pessoas das famílias mais ricas do mundo visando conquistar o poder político e reduzir a população criminosamente, que praticam pedofilia, infanticídio e rituais satânicos, além dessas teorias induzirem as pessoas a deixar de tomar vacinas. Não nos enquadramos em tais teorias. Tratamos de Ciência Política."
"Mas, por que ler este livro? É necessário reconhecer manipuladores (muitas vezes psicopatas) quando nos deparamos com eles, e sua principal característica é tentar controlar nossos atos sem nos dizer sua finalidade nem a causa que os motiva, usando-nos como a robôs ingênuos, geralmente, sem deixar clara a visão panorâmica aérea da situação, em que se perceberiam todos os lados em disputa e suas propostas. E, normalmente, esses tais manipuladores tentam nos impedir de ouvir a versão do outro lado (ou sua própria!) e de organizar as ideias parte por parte, para pô-las em debate uma a uma, respeitando as regras de Lógica; eles não querem nem ouvir falar nessas regras de Lógica nem em Metodologia Científica, porque pretendem apenas entulhar falatórios e publicações sem fim, eternamente, até se amontoarem umas sobre as outras, de modo indefinido, sem que sejam organizadas e avaliadas, de maneira que não passem de lixo repetitivo de diversos autores, até criar uma aparência de unanimidade para não deixar você raciocinar, esgotando todo o seu tempo, energia e dinheiro gasto comprando livros, unicamente com materiais medíocres em que um só repete, com sua própria linguagem, o que outros já disseram."
"Wells definiu as partes principais do fabianismo: 1) globalismo, 2) nova crença (ambientalismo) e 3) desarmamentismo[151]. O socialismo já fazia parte do fabianismo antes mesmo de Wells, mas esse tripé foi introduzido por ele. Sua ideia básica era a de que só escaparíamos das guerras constantes se nos uníssemos em um só governo global, para o qual precisaríamos criar uma religião em comum, aceita por todos, além de acabar com a fabricação de armas de larga destruição para os Estados, bem como de armas comuns para as pessoas. Isso resultou em tudo o que o fabianismo é hoje: socialista, ambientalista, desarmamentista e globalista. Enfim, há uma agenda organizada em sua estratégia."
Frases que quisiera recordar del propio autor H. G. Wells.:
"Paz mundial significa uma grande revolução. Cada vez mais de nós começamos a perceber que não pode significar menos do que isso."
"Nunca tenha medo de ouvir os dois lados num debate, e desconfie sempre dos que tentam impedi-lo de ouvir a outra parte e das crenças frágeis que se sustentam na sua ignorância a respeito delas próprias."
"Na Alemanha, o pensamento popular parecia estar sob o controle do Sr. Dr. Goebbels; na Grã-Bretanha, nós, escritores, fomos convidados a nos colocar à disposição de algum ministério da informação, ou seja, à disposição de indivíduos até então sem clareza e nem representatividade, e a escrever sob seu conselho. Funcionários do Conselho Britânico e do Diretório do Partido Conservador ganham posições-chave nesse Ministério."
"Na Alemanha, o pensamento popular parecia estar sob o controle do Sr. Dr. Goebbels; na Grã-Bretanha, nós, escritores, fomos convidados a nos colocar à disposição de algum ministério da informação, ou seja, à disposição de indivíduos até então sem clareza e nem representatividade, e a escrever sob seu conselho. Funcionários do Conselho Britânico e do Diretório do Partido Conservador ganham posições-chave nesse Ministério." (from "A Nova Ordem Mundial: Se for possível, como pode ser alcançado, e como deverá ser um mundo pacífico?"
"Este grande debate mundial deve continuar, e tem que ser agora. Agora, enquanto as armas ainda estão atirando, é a vez do pensamento. É incrivelmente tolo falar, como tantas pessoas fazem, de terminar a guerra e então ter uma Conferência Mundial para inaugurar uma nova era. Tão logo a luta cesse a conferência do mundo real, a discussão ao vivo vai parar também. Os diplomatas e políticos se reunirão com um ar de profunda competência e fecharão as portas do mundo exterior e retomarão - Versalhes. Enquanto o mundo silenciado boceja e espera sobre os seus mistérios."
Comentarios al leer el libro, 1ro es un libro de ciencias políticas, algo que tal vez no es tan popular entre la sociedad actual, y se considera como polémico y tema de debate de conspiración fue toda una obra que sin duda influenció e influencia hasta hoy a muchos grandes líderes políticos.
Es un libro corto en su aspecto original, tal vez unas 190 páginas, sin embargo, interesante, puede ser hasta atemporal desde el punto de vida y año que lo leas desde que tengas claridad del contexto, original del autor y sus pensamientos e inclinaciones políticas y sociales.
Como parte del contexto que el libro se publicó en 1940 durante la 2da guerra mundial, y todo el movimiento en Europa era una calamidad social y política, así mismo como el autor es brillante, ya reconocido por sus obras de literatura iniciales, fue ganador de diversos premios y reconocido en su medio y época, influyente a los oídos de diversos líderes políticos y contemporáneos de la época. Reconozco que está bien escrito, el autor es perspicaz en colocar sus ideas y dejar claro sus intenciones, nada más que forjar una nueva sociedad donde la paz sea duradera y se extienda por todo el planeta por medio de un sistema global que todas las naciones se una en una federación. En los últimos años hemos escuchado como se describe en diversos canales, libros y espectadores las creencias de conspiraciones mundiales, lo interesante de este libro es que posiblemente sea una de las fuentes más cercanas hacia los pensadores cercanos de estos movimientos, ya solo el título del libro tiende a ser llamada de conspiración, sin embargo, más allá de una conspiración es un pensamiento, y tal vez una necesidad que surgió en su momento, saber la capacidad bélica se incrementó a tal grado que el mundo podría no soportar una nueva guerra nuclear creo que este libro de cierto modo presenta valor social y transformación cultural desde su publicación en 1940.
Leer de forma objetiva es conocer los criterios del contexto histórico que se escribió y publicó el libro, así como los seguidores que aún en la actualidad deben identificarse con este tipo de ideología, el libro contiene mucho de los pensamientos, análisis y crítica del propio traductor, el cual se denomina una persona que se identifica con la la línea de pensamiento político Liberal.
Comentarios finales, al tratar temas políticos siempre entraremos en un tema sensible para sociedad, presente, pasada y futura. No es sencillo aceptar que no vivimos en una utopía, y es nuestra separación como humanidad la que influencia la dirección a seguir en pro la supervivencia, como todos somos libres pensadores, algunas personas tendrán tendencias a ser culturalmente adeptas a considerarse capitalistas, comunistas, sociales, y otros liberales, otros ignoran su posición y están enemistados con la política, de alguna forma todos somos resultado de un producto social, de la educación, lugar que vivimos, cultura que habitamos y todo un sistema que se encuentra a nuestro alrededor. Nos encontramos un sistema imperfecto, sin embargo, en nuestra consistía seguimos a líderes, y formamos este concepto distópico que podemos implementar nuestro propio sistema perfecto, y mejorar nuestra sociedad. Es parte de la naturaleza imaginativa, crítica y de algunos intelectuales cultivar la búsqueda por un mejor futuro, no sabremos cual es mejor futuro, no tendremos todos los criterios, y parte de nuestra forma de mostrarnos como humanos elegimos estudiar, o olvidar. Muchas personas han olvidado muchas lecciones del pasado, y muchos otros las ignoran como parte de un sistema que modifica nuestras creencias, cultura. Este libro tiene mucho material interesante de reflexión, más de ser un posible ejemplo de conspiración puede ser considerado de un manual sobre la cual vivimos parte del cambio en la actualidad, y eso sin duda será la variable constante, el cambio y transformación.
Algunas revelaciones del libro hacia la cultura contemporánea, fue que como parte de su publicación podemos ver como algunos pensamientos fueron adoptados por muchos líderes mundiales, bastaría saber quien prefiere la paz a la guerra, la colaboración a la disputa, por eso creo que el autor tuvo y posible aún tiene influencia en la sociedad actual, de forma directa o indirecta, muchos intelectuales pueden estar a favor otros en contra, sin embargo, son muy pocos los que realmente son conscientes de este tipo de enunciados ya publicados hace más de 80 años.
Este es un libro que no hasta leerlo, es bueno construir una base histórica, política y social para ejercer un criterio crítico por sí propio, la lectura desmintió algunas creencias populares sin embargo, también aclaró predicciones de un sistema político complejo posible.
Para recordar quisiera recordar algunos de los comentarios del traductor:
"Primeiramente: quando se fala em nova ordem mundial hoje em dia, pensamos logo em teorias da conspiração afirmando que a Terra é plana, o homem não foi à Lua, que há reuniões secretas de pessoas das famílias mais ricas do mundo visando conquistar o poder político e reduzir a população criminosamente, que praticam pedofilia, infanticídio e rituais satânicos, além dessas teorias induzirem as pessoas a deixar de tomar vacinas. Não nos enquadramos em tais teorias. Tratamos de Ciência Política."
"Mas, por que ler este livro? É necessário reconhecer manipuladores (muitas vezes psicopatas) quando nos deparamos com eles, e sua principal característica é tentar controlar nossos atos sem nos dizer sua finalidade nem a causa que os motiva, usando-nos como a robôs ingênuos, geralmente, sem deixar clara a visão panorâmica aérea da situação, em que se perceberiam todos os lados em disputa e suas propostas. E, normalmente, esses tais manipuladores tentam nos impedir de ouvir a versão do outro lado (ou sua própria!) e de organizar as ideias parte por parte, para pô-las em debate uma a uma, respeitando as regras de Lógica; eles não querem nem ouvir falar nessas regras de Lógica nem em Metodologia Científica, porque pretendem apenas entulhar falatórios e publicações sem fim, eternamente, até se amontoarem umas sobre as outras, de modo indefinido, sem que sejam organizadas e avaliadas, de maneira que não passem de lixo repetitivo de diversos autores, até criar uma aparência de unanimidade para não deixar você raciocinar, esgotando todo o seu tempo, energia e dinheiro gasto comprando livros, unicamente com materiais medíocres em que um só repete, com sua própria linguagem, o que outros já disseram."
"Wells definiu as partes principais do fabianismo: 1) globalismo, 2) nova crença (ambientalismo) e 3) desarmamentismo[151]. O socialismo já fazia parte do fabianismo antes mesmo de Wells, mas esse tripé foi introduzido por ele. Sua ideia básica era a de que só escaparíamos das guerras constantes se nos uníssemos em um só governo global, para o qual precisaríamos criar uma religião em comum, aceita por todos, além de acabar com a fabricação de armas de larga destruição para os Estados, bem como de armas comuns para as pessoas. Isso resultou em tudo o que o fabianismo é hoje: socialista, ambientalista, desarmamentista e globalista. Enfim, há uma agenda organizada em sua estratégia."
Frases que quisiera recordar del propio autor H. G. Wells.:
"Paz mundial significa uma grande revolução. Cada vez mais de nós começamos a perceber que não pode significar menos do que isso."
"Nunca tenha medo de ouvir os dois lados num debate, e desconfie sempre dos que tentam impedi-lo de ouvir a outra parte e das crenças frágeis que se sustentam na sua ignorância a respeito delas próprias."
"Na Alemanha, o pensamento popular parecia estar sob o controle do Sr. Dr. Goebbels; na Grã-Bretanha, nós, escritores, fomos convidados a nos colocar à disposição de algum ministério da informação, ou seja, à disposição de indivíduos até então sem clareza e nem representatividade, e a escrever sob seu conselho. Funcionários do Conselho Britânico e do Diretório do Partido Conservador ganham posições-chave nesse Ministério."
"Na Alemanha, o pensamento popular parecia estar sob o controle do Sr. Dr. Goebbels; na Grã-Bretanha, nós, escritores, fomos convidados a nos colocar à disposição de algum ministério da informação, ou seja, à disposição de indivíduos até então sem clareza e nem representatividade, e a escrever sob seu conselho. Funcionários do Conselho Britânico e do Diretório do Partido Conservador ganham posições-chave nesse Ministério." (from "A Nova Ordem Mundial: Se for possível, como pode ser alcançado, e como deverá ser um mundo pacífico?"
"Este grande debate mundial deve continuar, e tem que ser agora. Agora, enquanto as armas ainda estão atirando, é a vez do pensamento. É incrivelmente tolo falar, como tantas pessoas fazem, de terminar a guerra e então ter uma Conferência Mundial para inaugurar uma nova era. Tão logo a luta cesse a conferência do mundo real, a discussão ao vivo vai parar também. Os diplomatas e políticos se reunirão com um ar de profunda competência e fecharão as portas do mundo exterior e retomarão - Versalhes. Enquanto o mundo silenciado boceja e espera sobre os seus mistérios."
March 27, 2023
"The New World Order" is a book written by H.G. Wells and published in 1940. It is a work of political theory that outlines Wells' vision for a new global order that would emerge after the Second World War.
In the book, Wells argues that the war represented a turning point in human history and that it provided an opportunity to create a new kind of world order based on principles of democracy, social justice, and international cooperation. He proposes the establishment of a world government that would be responsible for maintaining peace and promoting the common good.
Wells also calls for the creation of a global educational system that would promote scientific and technological progress and foster a sense of shared humanity among all peoples. He argues that the traditional nation-state system has become outdated and that a new kind of global community is necessary to meet the challenges of the modern world.
"The New World Order" has been criticized for its utopianism and its idealistic vision of global governance. However, it has also been praised for its prescience and for its insights into the challenges and opportunities of the postwar world. The book remains an important work of political theory and continues to be studied and debated by scholars and activists around the world.
GPT
In the book, Wells argues that the war represented a turning point in human history and that it provided an opportunity to create a new kind of world order based on principles of democracy, social justice, and international cooperation. He proposes the establishment of a world government that would be responsible for maintaining peace and promoting the common good.
Wells also calls for the creation of a global educational system that would promote scientific and technological progress and foster a sense of shared humanity among all peoples. He argues that the traditional nation-state system has become outdated and that a new kind of global community is necessary to meet the challenges of the modern world.
"The New World Order" has been criticized for its utopianism and its idealistic vision of global governance. However, it has also been praised for its prescience and for its insights into the challenges and opportunities of the postwar world. The book remains an important work of political theory and continues to be studied and debated by scholars and activists around the world.
GPT
June 4, 2007
Public domain work...lesser known. Worth the read.
June 24, 2017
This is propaganda in favor of global governance. Although I personally believe this would be a bad idea Wells is very persuasive in his arguments even though the arguments are harsh.
March 29, 2021
Phrases that I would like to remember by the author H. G. Wells .:
"World peace means a great revolution. More and more of us are beginning to realize that it cannot mean less than that."
"In Germany, popular thinking seemed to be under the control of Mr. Dr. Goebbels; in Great Britain, we writers were invited to make ourselves available to some information ministry, that is, to the availability of individuals until then without clarity or representativeness, and to write under his advice. Officials from the British Council and the Conservative Party Directorate gain key positions in that Ministry. "
"This great global debate must continue, and it must be now. Now, while the weapons are still firing, it is time for thought. It is incredibly foolish to speak, as so many people do, of ending the war and then having a World Conference to inaugurate a new era. As soon as the struggle ceases the real world conference, the live discussion will stop too. Diplomats and politicians will meet with an air of profound competence and close the doors of the outside world and resume - Versailles. silenced world yawns and waits about its mysteries. "
"The present war, for and against Hitler, Stalin and Mr. Chamberlain and so on, does not even touch on the essential problem of the abolition of distance. It can really destroy everything and still not solve anything. If anyone could eliminate all the issues of the present conflict, we should also be confronted with the essential enigma, which is the abolition of the borders of most existing sovereign states, and their merger into some greater Peace. and mutual guarantees are not enough. We have certainly learned enough about the value of treaties over the past half century to realize this. We have to, just because of the abolition of distance, bring human disputes together, under a common control of war prevention . "
"The unemployed, avid and adventurous young people are in fact the shock troops in the destruction of the old social order everywhere. They find guidance in some daring political party or in an inspired champion, who organizes them for revolutionary or counter-revolutionary purposes. It doesn't matter which one. They become communists or they become fascists, Nazis, the Irish go to the Republican Army, other members of the Ku Klux Klan and so on. The essence is the combination of energy, frustration and discontent. these movements have in common is a genuine indignation against the social institutions that have given rise to them, and then, with indifference, a quasi-military organization and the determination to take power for themselves, incorporated in their leaders. wise and powerful government would anticipate and avoid these destructive activities at any cost, providing new and interesting jobs and the necessary condition for a b successful and satisfactory for all. "
"The New Deal is clearly an attempt to achieve a functioning socialism and prevent a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive" policies "and" plans "of the Russian experiment. Americans avoid the word" socialism " , but what else can be called "socialism"? "
"But when it comes to the rate and amount of participation in building a rational world order, which we can hope for from any country or group of countries, we are in a field where there is little more than guesswork and random generalizations about" national character "to work on them. We are dealing with masses of people who can be influenced enormously by a brilliant newspaper or by an extraordinarily persuasive or convincing personality, or by almost accidental changes in the flow of events. I, for example, cannot to say how far most educated and capable people in the British Empire can now agree with our idea of accepting and spreading collectivism, or how strong their conservative resistance can be. It is my own country and I should know it better, and I don’t know enough dispassionately or deeply enough to decide that. I don’t see how anyone can predict these eddies and eddies of r answer. "
"World peace means a great revolution. More and more of us are beginning to realize that it cannot mean less than that."
"In Germany, popular thinking seemed to be under the control of Mr. Dr. Goebbels; in Great Britain, we writers were invited to make ourselves available to some information ministry, that is, to the availability of individuals until then without clarity or representativeness, and to write under his advice. Officials from the British Council and the Conservative Party Directorate gain key positions in that Ministry. "
"This great global debate must continue, and it must be now. Now, while the weapons are still firing, it is time for thought. It is incredibly foolish to speak, as so many people do, of ending the war and then having a World Conference to inaugurate a new era. As soon as the struggle ceases the real world conference, the live discussion will stop too. Diplomats and politicians will meet with an air of profound competence and close the doors of the outside world and resume - Versailles. silenced world yawns and waits about its mysteries. "
"The present war, for and against Hitler, Stalin and Mr. Chamberlain and so on, does not even touch on the essential problem of the abolition of distance. It can really destroy everything and still not solve anything. If anyone could eliminate all the issues of the present conflict, we should also be confronted with the essential enigma, which is the abolition of the borders of most existing sovereign states, and their merger into some greater Peace. and mutual guarantees are not enough. We have certainly learned enough about the value of treaties over the past half century to realize this. We have to, just because of the abolition of distance, bring human disputes together, under a common control of war prevention . "
"The unemployed, avid and adventurous young people are in fact the shock troops in the destruction of the old social order everywhere. They find guidance in some daring political party or in an inspired champion, who organizes them for revolutionary or counter-revolutionary purposes. It doesn't matter which one. They become communists or they become fascists, Nazis, the Irish go to the Republican Army, other members of the Ku Klux Klan and so on. The essence is the combination of energy, frustration and discontent. these movements have in common is a genuine indignation against the social institutions that have given rise to them, and then, with indifference, a quasi-military organization and the determination to take power for themselves, incorporated in their leaders. wise and powerful government would anticipate and avoid these destructive activities at any cost, providing new and interesting jobs and the necessary condition for a b successful and satisfactory for all. "
"The New Deal is clearly an attempt to achieve a functioning socialism and prevent a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive" policies "and" plans "of the Russian experiment. Americans avoid the word" socialism " , but what else can be called "socialism"? "
"But when it comes to the rate and amount of participation in building a rational world order, which we can hope for from any country or group of countries, we are in a field where there is little more than guesswork and random generalizations about" national character "to work on them. We are dealing with masses of people who can be influenced enormously by a brilliant newspaper or by an extraordinarily persuasive or convincing personality, or by almost accidental changes in the flow of events. I, for example, cannot to say how far most educated and capable people in the British Empire can now agree with our idea of accepting and spreading collectivism, or how strong their conservative resistance can be. It is my own country and I should know it better, and I don’t know enough dispassionately or deeply enough to decide that. I don’t see how anyone can predict these eddies and eddies of r answer. "
January 2, 2023
The Liberal playbook written in the 1940’s by a sci-fi writer.
December 18, 2024
A well-written description of a potential society of the future.
January 29, 2025
Playbook on world socialism. Spoiler alert, we're screwed.
June 30, 2025
Quite a bit of this seems still relevant
September 8, 2025
"There is nothing really novel about this book," Wells writes in the final paragraph of it. "The New World Order" is a treatise on the possible cosmopolitan future, but a quite lackluster one at that. For all his literary merit, Wells is no political philosopher.
His scathing critique of Marxism in this book stems from a confusion of its language, and seems to be borne out of resentment rather than a real objection to it as an analytic tool for the unrestrained Capitalism he himself is against.
His advocation for a world socialism is still relevant, but "The New World Order" by his estimations isn't the framework it could base itself off of.
His scathing critique of Marxism in this book stems from a confusion of its language, and seems to be borne out of resentment rather than a real objection to it as an analytic tool for the unrestrained Capitalism he himself is against.
His advocation for a world socialism is still relevant, but "The New World Order" by his estimations isn't the framework it could base itself off of.
October 21, 2022
This book felt extremely rhetorical and superfluous. Maybe it was just me, but this was an exhausting, yawn-filled read. His ideas seemed to come from a good place, and I think he may’ve had pure intentions when writing this. However, I disagree with a lot of his propositions, and the parts where he talks about suppressing our natural competitive impulse is a tad creepy. Overall this is basically a global-socialist’s wet dream.
June 14, 2020
This is propaganda and it’s both simple and convincing. A potentially dangerous book.
December 25, 2021
Quotes on the first comment:
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews