reply to post by HiAliens
ok, i read your posts the first time you wrote them, some of the reply i made was directed at other people, not just you
Why did he write a book about 'the first man in the moon' 'the crystal ball' or super smart ants? oh, he was a science fiction author! Seems
simple enough, why did they make the film 'batmat' or 'x-men' or 'spidermen' are they all part of a conspiracy to install superheros? no,
they're talking about possible events and the result of them -i.e. fiction.
HG Wells lived in a time when flight went from being sci-fi to reality, atomic energy was being understood and science was advancing at te fastest
pace ever -he could see the world was about to change dramatically, maybe into a dynamicly new type of system - what with the upsurge of totalitarian
states shortly after his time he was proved very right indeed, Wells was denying ignorance just like we all should, he was thinking about what
When people, political types, stand up and say 'we need a new world order' they probably aren't thinking we need THE NWO, they're saying that the
world as it is needs CHANGE -in which they agree with a huge majority of the current world.
Huxley wrote a book about how well ordered and effective a totalitarian state would be, the moral of the book was that this doesn't matter because
the human spirit is actually the only thing with real value, what good is order if we no longer enjoy life or really experience it? Yes it is true a
totalitarian state would from a practical point of view offer many advantages over a more chaotic world, this has been clearly proven time and time
again, however those advantages aren't as important as being human, just ask john savage. To lie and brainwash the masses gives the state an
advantage, hence why they still try and do it, huxley was showing that these advantages are out weighed by the disadvantages.
When i was talking about violent revolution i was talking more about Alex and crews desire to relive 1775 - if you don't want to have a revolution at
all thn you must support the powers that be and are fighting to keep the queen of england as ruler of the empire. if you want a non-violent gradual
revolution then surely you want some form of 'original global system' or 'modern earth government' or you could say, a new world order as the
outcome? I think we all agree that we need a pragmatic solution to the world problems, with the advent of nukes and climate change (even if it's not
real now it is possible that with our advanced tech we ruin the planet for everyone) we can't go on like we did before.
So which is it do you support the queen of england and her elites system or a new world order?
as for post ignoring, remeber saying this?
Wells wrote a book called THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
Huxley had a brother at the U.N and he talked about getting people to "love their servitude"
Then i wrote a long essay about Julian Huxley, his brother who started the WWF? remember that happening?
Your posts are very long but you've ignored the info I've dropped twice now.
apparently not. I covered in detail how wells is seen as a enemy of the class system, very revolutionary for his day. I didn't write about new
world order because i was going to get my copy and post some quotes, only it's under my brothers bed (with the complete collection of wells) and i
didn't get round to it yet.
You seem to think that you have all the facts on these guys, i'm not so sure that you do, how much of their work have you read? -I don't think
anyone that read 'Eyeless in Gaza' or 'Doors of perception' could call huxley a NWO conspiracy Globalist, or someone that read 'history of mr
polly' or 'first man in the moon' could call wells it either. Are you just going by what infowars told you? You say you've listened to almost
every show in the last year, well that means i've heard a fair bit more of AJ, bob & co than you and i should tell you, they get carried away
sometimes and forget to clearly and honestly display the facts -i know, i know, most of what he says is true[ish] however sometimes certain things get
blown up in his mind to epic scale, he also doesn't have a english lit upbringing, he is a cowpoke hick from the south lands -this doesn't mean he
isn't every bit as smart and clever as anyone else but as 'man in the moon' shows us people are good at different things, alex isn't an authority
on english literature.
[edit on 1-3-2009 by NatureBoy]