Redpill me on him. I’m very suspicious of this man. His numerous utopian novels, his relentless support for one-world government, his connections to the Fabian Society, League of Nations and the UN, the fact that he coined terms like “new world order,” his extraordinarily accurate predictions of modern technologies.
>>24835490Don’t forget that like every other intellectual ivory tower utopian shithead he shamelessly supported the Bolsheviks and performed taqiyya FOR FREE during the red terror but only jumped ship when Stalin made it too unreasonable to support communist oceans of blood. Faggots like Wells deserved a bullet through the mouth
>>24835508He has a well-known interview with Stalin where they argue and Wells says “I am more leftist than you.”
>>24835490All of those early utopians, like Wells, and Shaw, were class based eugenicists. All you need to know to draw conclusions.
>>24835490>his extraordinarily accurate predictions of modern technologies.That's because he was in on it. All this stuff has been planned for a while. Aldous Huxley was in on it, too. There's some great book about it that I forget the title of; it's called like "Discovering the Future" or something like that. About how all these guys at Oxford in the 19th Century into the 1930s and 40s and 50s were basically cooking up the world as we know it today.
>>24835490you're right to be suspicious. you can't trust any of these creeps.https://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPwh4Xaaihj
>>24835508I read his "history of the world" and he seemed like a /pol/chud in embracing aryan theories and talking about how east asians were the only cognitive equals to whites.
>>24835490It's always the most liberal ones that are in on it.
>>24835568he was just spitting facts. simple as.>>24835561/pol/tards love to go after Jews but it's actually upper-class Anglos who are behind everything.
>>24835490Orwell wrote an interesting essay on him called "Wells, Hitler and the World State." He wrote that Wells was really talented and influential (and downright "prophetic" at predicting technological advances) but had an over-optimistic belief in science and progress. Wells for example believed those things worked in tandem with moral and political progress. Orwell thought that was wishful thinking. I think Wells' outlook has been very common at times among progressive-minded people, scientific-rational "skeptics," atheists, and sci-fi writers who are influenced by that background like Isaac Asimov or Gene Roddenberry. In practically every Wells story there's a battle between the man of science who is working towards the World State and the reactionary who is trying to restore a disorderly, irrational past. Orwell didn't like the reactionaries but he was a pessimist and, obviously, Orwell is famous for writing a dystopia in which technology is used by psychotic totalitarian governments to enslave people.
Anyhow, in the article, Orwell says Wells underestimated Hitler. It's not that Wells' idea of a World State isn't sensible, it's that Hitler is a criminal lunatic with millions of men willing to sacrifice themselves. That England was still in the fight also probably owed to very different motivations from Wells' (like flag-waving patriotism and the feeling of the English that they're superior to foreigners). In part for a better future too yeah but also people can love war and killing the other guys.>Mr. Wells, like Dickens, belongs to the non-military middle class. The thunder of guns, the jingle of spurs, the catch in the throat when the old flag goes by, leave him manifestly cold. He has an invincible hatred of the fighting, hunting, swashbuckling side of life, symbolised in all his early books by a violent propaganda against horses. The principal villain of his Outline of History is the military adventurer, Napoleon. If one looks through nearly any book that he has written in the last forty years one finds the same idea constantly recurring: the supposed antithesis between the man of science who is working towards a planned World State and the reactionary who is trying to restore a disorderly past. In novels, Utopias, essays, films, pamphlets, the antithesis crops up, always more or less the same. On the one side science, order, progress, internationalism, aeroplanes, steel, concrete, hygiene: on the other side war, nationalism, religion, monarchy, peasants, Greek professors, poets, horses. History as he sees it is a series of victories won by the scientific man over the romantic man. Now, he is probably right in assuming that a ‘reasonable,’ planned form of society, with scientists rather than witch-doctors in control, will prevail sooner or later, but that is a different matter from assuming that it is just round the corner. There survives somewhere or other an interesting controversy which took place between Wells and Churchill at the time of the Russian Revolution. Wells accuses Churchill of not really believing his own propaganda about the Bolsheviks being monsters dripping with blood, etc., but of merely fearing that they were going to introduce an era of common sense and scientific control, in which flag-wavers like Churchill himself would have no place. Churchill's estimate of the Bolsheviks, however, was nearer the mark than Wells's.
>>24835490The only good scifi writer.
>>24835619>The early Bolsheviks may have been angels or demons, according as one chooses to regard them, but at any rate they were not sensible men. They were not introducing a Wellsian Utopia but a Rule of the Saints, which like the English Rule of the Saints, was a military despotism enlivened by witchcraft trials. The same misconception reappears in an inverted form in Wells's attitude to the Nazis. Hitler is all the war-lords and witch-doctors in history rolled into one. Therefore, argues Wells, he is an absurdity, a ghost from the past, a creature doomed to disappear almost immediately. But unfortunately the equation of science with common sense does not really hold good. The aeroplane, which was looked forward to as a civilising influence but in practice has hardly been used except for dropping bombs, is the symbol of that fact. Modern Germany is far more scientific than England, and far more barbarous. Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. The order, the planning, the State encouragement of science, the steel, the concrete, the aeroplanes, are all there, but all in the service of ideas appropriate to the Stone Age. Science is fighting on the side of superstition. But obviously it is impossible for Wells to accept this. It would contradict the world-view on which his own works are based. The war-lords and the witch-doctors must fail, the common-sense World State, as seen by a nineteenth-century Liberal whose heart does not leap at the sound of bugles, must triumph. Treachery and defeatism apart, Hitler cannot be a danger. That he should finally win would be an impossible reversal of history, like a Jacobite restoration ... But because he belonged to the nineteenth century and to a non-military nation and class, he could not grasp the tremendous strength of the old world which was symbolised in his mind by fox-hunting Tories. He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them. The people who have shown the best understanding of Fascism are either those who have suffered under it or those who have a Fascist streak in themselves.https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws
>>24835601>>24835619>>24835623Neat, thanks for the effort post anon
>>24835600As a WASP now I understand how black people feel considering the new found scapegoat.
>>24835619>On the one side science, order, progress, internationalism, aeroplanes, steel, concrete, hygiene: on the other side war, nationalism, religion, monarchy, peasants, Greek professors, poets, horses.Really, nothing has changed. That's the thing. At the time Orwell understood that this dichotomy was silly and that any liberal march towards progress could easily manifest into tyranny like Nazism. After WW2 however the elites just reverted to the Wellsian consensus. Hitler became nothing more than an aberration, a strange little quirk of history that we sorted out. The narrative of liberalism to this day is the same fiction about progress against barbarians. Today they are recast as Muslims, leftist, Russians, etc. But the narrative is the same.
gigamason type
>>24836506I don't know what to think about it. Because Orwell was responding to Wells writing that the Wehrmacht was out of gas in 1941 when England didn't give in, but Orwell was still, like, well yeah but they still have millions of men and a lot of weapons and on the warpath. The Holocaust hadn't even really started yet. So it was only going to get worse. But Hitler did lose in the end, and the U.N. was established, and there was much greater technological progress in the following decades. Then you look at China, it's the last place in the world where that Wellsian version of High Modernism is still the official language. If you ever watch Chinese state media, there's just an overwhelming belief in instrumental rationality:https://youtu.be/dikp8y8WcrsBut I'm partial to Arthur Koestler's "theory of relative maturity." It is the case that humans eventually make their technologies work on the side of social progress, but only after they've had them for a long enough time to master those technologies. But in fact, shortly after the adoption of new technologies, there's a lapse back in to barbarism. An article about Koestler's theory told through his character Rubashov in Darkness at Noon who was imprisoned in Stalin's gulag:>Rubashov’s theory posits that human societies do not follow a linear trajectory to political and economic emancipation, but rather swing back and forth – much like a pendulum – from dictatorship to democracy, contingent upon a given society’s inexperience and mastery over their technological environment. Dictatorships emerge from the early stages of material development, when societies are ‘immature’ and new technological capabilities are alien to them; democracies are only earned once the masses have conquered these technologies.>With every new technical development, there is a subsequent and protracted period of collective learning. Political maturity can thus never be measured against some objective standard: it can only be assessed relative to the stage of the society’s material development. Once mass-consciousness rises, and political subjects understand their new technologies, as well as the consequences thereof, often taking years, decades, and generations, democracy is ultimately and inevitably attained. This lasts until the arrival of a new technological epoch, whereupon the masses are then cast back into relative immaturity as tyranny resurfaces. https://circusbazaar.com/rubashov-koestler-and-the-theory-of-relative-maturity/
bump
>>24835490He didn't accurately predict a damn thing; all of his "technology" was effectively magic. He spent his days boning random women at a time when it completely ruined their lives; patron saint of male feminists.
>>24835513erm, BASED?
>>24839885>He didn't accurately predict a damn thing[LIE]
Ignore his political nonsense and enjoy him for his storytelling talents
>>24835600>upper-class Anglos who are behind everything.Who interbred with jews
>>24840829*apparently it all goes back to a bunch of underhanded venetian merchants
