First: My Summary of Wells near the end of his life: PHŒNIX (1942)

      Near the end of Wells's life, Jewish publishers Secker & Warburg in July 1942 published PHŒNIX: A Summary of Inescapable Conditions of World Reorganisation (Phoenix is more often spelt without the ligature to the digraph). It is the only Wells book known to me published during a major war; his Great War productions being newspaper only. In the Second World War, his services were unused. It's a saddening book, showing his bellicosity—he is pitiless against Germans, and Quislings, and Roman Catholics, and entirely of the mind that Stalin was an ally of Britain, who should therefore be honoured as an honourable ally. He is utterly innocent of propaganda untruths; I think he must never have understood them, despite having what appears to be a front-row seat during the Great War, until of course one understands that the people making the going, Jews and others, would not have included him.
      He assumed The World Revolution (capitalised) is almost upon the world, supported by the Open Conspiracy; I assume this reflected his belief that 'Russia' in 1917 had had a 'Revolution'. This was a hugely common belief; Jews were very careful not to refer to anything like a 'Jewish coup' with Jews from the USA, UK, Germany, and Russia.
      Wells includes a 'Rights of Man' declaration; and thinks it appeared spontaneously. He's emphatic that his book was sound, 'every sentence hammered out'. Yeah, sure. In fact the whole book is long and irregular. It even has a couple of pages at the end on 'ACTIVITIES', which the publisher wanted; the first thing Wells says is 'read it again'. It is very painful to read his adulation of Stalin; and painful to think of the chances wasted where Wells never spoke to Jew truthers.
      Wells says nothing on the possibilities that war could be averted, despite this being implicit in his entire nominal world-view. The story that he was a 'miserable little counter-jumper' appears in here. He thought little of the BBC's Brains Trustt:, comparing it with Bottom in 'Shakespeare'.
      Wells is keen to show hostility after Dunkirk to Gort; he thinks newspapers are only funded by adverts, without I think real evidence. He doesn't show sympathy for dead pilots; he thinks in terms of sovereign states, with no idea of Jewish Fed Reserve money or more-or-less secret funding by loans; he accepts the stories about China and Japan, and Japan & Pearl Harbor (1941); he has no idea about central Europe; he accepts what he's been told about Hitler, Goering, Hess and the rest, who of course should be executed..
      I'm inclined to think the beliefs of his youth (when he was injured, and read books very abundantly) surfaced in oldish age (about 77); he repeats things—'there will be day of judgment', Napoleon was young and brilliant, Pavlov based work on Hippocrates, and so on. Wells talks of 'genotypes' and 'phenotypes'. But nothing, anywhere, on Jews and their money and history. But Wells was aware he had gaps in his consciousness. Maybe death was a relief to him.

PHOENIX shows to the Jew-aware person the depths of Wells's his despair. Wells could not understand the Second World War, or the First—as is clearly shown in his Outline of History—his blind spot made that impossible. I have a 'war economy' copy with me, with thin boards and weak cloth and speckly paper.
      PHŒNIX must be read in a Jew-conscious way to make any sense. He says, and of course Jewish protection applauded him, such things as ‘The British miners could be laid off at any time; the Russians said: "This mine. like all the rest of Russia, is ours’ showing no knowledge of the existence of the USSR.
      In his final chapter, reviewing "foreign policies" in 1942, Wells wrote: ‘the whole world is divided up into a patchwork of sovereign governments’. The real world, where Jewish money in the USA is given to Jews in the USSR to buy weapons from the USA, made by the sad Americans pleased to be employed at last, is just one example of the truths missed by Wells. And the real world of fake revolutions influenced Wells; like Bertrand Russell he expected revolutions to 'break out' after the Second World War. And the world of getting control of money-printing under other pretexts. And the mutual secret arrangements of deaths in fighting. And the saddling of governments by huge secret debts. And the secret control of religions by money (Wells became convinced that the Roman Catholic church was an independent power during WW2).
      The Appendix (about 4 pages) approves of Beatrice & Sidney Webb's Soviet Communism, a New Civilisation. He quotes the Introduction and 11 sections of ‘The Sankey Declaration of the Rights of Man’. It's a carefully-worded mixture of appealing vague material with a Jewish wish list. Probably a test run for the post-war Jewish victory and the U.N. Rights of Man. It dislikes private property, and Wells agrees with this—not realising that Jewish property aims were far above tiny factories and small rentiers. It's a prevision of Schwab on "Owning nothing, but being happy".   Everyone has the "Right to Live", including food, water, clothing, and medical care, because 'Every man is a joint inheritor of all the natural resources and of the powers, inventions and possibilities accumulated by our forebears."   This has no right to intellectual property, as would be expected to be liked by Jews, since most modern medical science was the work of 'goyim'.   'Medical care' is undefined; do witch doctors and pastors count?—but the intention is to have Jew-controlled medicine, illustrated in the USA with monopoly pricing and types like Fauci in control.   Everyone must 'do his quota of service', but in case people question Jews, 'he is entitled to payment for calling attention to a product or conveying it to consumers....'   The section on 'Right to Knowledge' doesn't really mean what it says: ‘... equip every man with sufficient education to enable him to be as useful and interested a citizen as his capacity allows.’   Utmost freedom of worship is allowed—but nothing is said of Judaism's malicious planned sabotage and parasitical doctrines.   ‘A man may move freely about the world at his own expense’—to allow Jews to use paper money to go wherever they want   There's more; but it's clear that Wells had not thought enough about his ideals.

      The Declaration (probably drafted by the Jew Sidney Webb) makes all inventions and constructions 'joint inheritance' of 'mankind'—a natural desire of Jews, who invented and built nothing. It also includes the 'dark races', who are offered the bait of other people's work. However, if they get that, they have to work, in a strictly measured way. Jews had a lot of experience with races, and were certainly aware of their limitations, as the post-1945 events in southern Africa, dominated by Jews, show.

      I've worded this as accurately as possible. Remember this was Wells in old age, most of his previous secretive support having moved away. PHŒNIX is not at the time of writing available online, including archive.org, very probably to keep it obscure. Wells's Mind at the End of its Tether despaired of everything, including the human brain itself; he seemed to expect some new evolutionary stage. In case all this sounds very unworthy of attention, Wells has interesting things to say about the world, as deformed by the mass media. He mentions Mussolini, the Strassers, Roman Catholics, Stalin, even Tata, the Indian engineer.
–Rae West   10 October 2023, 13 July 2024

have been issued in many editions and with a variety of contents. Wells made his name with The Time Machine (1895) which was included in many collections. The stories are first-class humanistic stories redolent of Victorian and Edwardian English life, but with scientific and technological infusions which many people must have disliked.
    Wells (according to his Experiment in Autobiography) kept a card index of ideas for short stories. He'd pick a card and work up the idea into a story. He wrote at a time when magazines and journals were multiplying—they therefore needed material. I'll look at just a few of his stories:-

The Time Machine—this made Wells's name, in 1895. Incidentally the equipment is Victorian glass and brass, with bicycle power, and the whole indoor scene lit by candlelight. Perhaps worth noting: this was published just a year or two after Jews were experimenting on a large scale with control over paper money. Probably he was promoted because his works were remote from that world. Wells's story included the remote future; we find The two species that had resulted from the evolution of man were sliding down toward, or had already arrived at, an altogether new relationship. The Eloi, like the Carlovingian kings, had decayed to a mere beautiful futility. They still possessed the earth on sufferance, since the Morlocks, subterranean for innumerable generations, had come at last to find the daylit surface unendurable. Not much more than servants in cellars keeping others in comfort of the late 19th century; one might have hoped for more genetic material.
      The Stolen Bacillus is included here for several reasons. It pre-dates The Time Machine, published in the Pall Mall Budget on 21 June 1894. The story has an 'anarchist' collecting information on the (supposed) dangers of contaminating water supplies, and causing deaths—two names given are Ravachol and Vaillant. The second name is not known to me, except as a manufacturer's name for gas boilers. The plot goes wrong, when the anarchist drops and breaks his stolen tube. The general idea is of course part of the Jewish build-up to war between whites; obvious, now. It's related to the 'votes for women' movement. And hired thugs supporting the wars against Boers.
      Elsewhere, Wells refers to 'Nerchists', i.e. anarchists badly pronounced.
      The Sad Story of a Dramatic Critic—about the 'phenomenal unnaturalness of acting'. Very amusing story about a critic who ultimately can't help expressing himself in the emotional symbolism of theatrical conventions, such as "be kaynd to her."
      A Slip Under the Microscope is about cheating in examinations, and also about rivalry between social classes of students.
      Little Mother up the Morderburg is one of Wells's only two attempts as far as I know at a Munchhausen style of tale.
      The Story of the Last Trump—variation on a Biblical idea. The last trump carelessly falls to earth and is found by a Wells hero in a junk shop. He promptly blows it, and the 'Last Judgment' begins. Another very attractive story.
      I noticed this account is wrong, possibly because the original story must have been re-set in metal type, and altered. The original seems to have been Wells in modern psychology mode ('If a thing is sufficiently strange and great no one will perceive it.') showing how people forget or suppress memories. Incidentally there's a presumably-with-sex scene including a Jewish woman, a sub-theme in at least one other Wells story.
      A Vision of Judgment has a different ending, which I remembered, with 'God', naturally the Jewish version, judging his feeble creatures.
      The Grisly Folk is an attempt to write up the clash between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens—assuming this ever happened.
      The Star (1910) is Wells's fictional account of a comet approaching dangerously near the earth.
      The Truth About Pyecraft is an extraordinarily skilful story about a fat club bore who wants to lose weight. In true Wells's style, there is genuine science fiction here, based on the confusion between 'mass' and 'weight'. Wells's SF is usually based on genuine scientific principles teased out or modified by a master storyteller.
      Miss Winchelsea's Heart is a comedy of manners—the defeat of love by snobbery. Magnificent story incorporating an Italian holiday of about 1900, and the fading away of the obligatory Baedeker references which seemed appealing at the time.
      In the Modern Vein: An Unsympathetic Love Story is an account of a rather hypocritical man of letters, dabbling with the possibility of an affair with a suitably exotic young woman. Very amusing conflict with domesticity and wifedom. I would not be at all surprised if this was based on Wells's own experiences! In fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
      There are many more, of course. Note that more Wells stories were published later, as The Man with a Nose and other Uncollected Stories of H. G. Wells, I think found by the H G Wells Society in Britain, which appears to have Jewish links with South Place Ethical Society. They had been rejected for various reasons, though I'm not sure they were inferior—The Man With a Nose was a monologue on Primrose Hill by a man attributing his bad luck to his large nose. The Loyalty of Esau Common is a 1901 fragment on the British Army, the officer class, and the 'jimmies'; and probably Germany or Austria. Wayde's Essence is a placebo—not Wells's term—'Water of Success', in which an unusually successful politician is told after seventeen years by his medical friend that his supposed magical elixir was only coloured distilled water. Whereupon Wayde reverted to his previous uncertain and indecisive self, full of 'funk'. As with Wells's New Machiavelli actual ideas are replaced by factional struggles and 'smashing' oratorical triumphs. This of course is the way Jew-unaware politics is presented.
      The Queer Story of Brownlow's Newspaper involves time machination—a newspaper 40 years in the future delivered to a London address. Written as from 1931, 1971 is now further into the past, without much in the way of future mystery. Poor Wells writes ‘I have always believed that the world was destined to unify—“Parliament of Mankind and Confederation of the World” as Tennyson put it—but I have always supposed that the process would take centuries. ... I wrote in 1900 that there would be aeroplanes "in fifty years' time." And the confounded things were buzzing about everywhere and carrying passengers before 1920.’ Brownlow discusses crimes and stories: ‘... they seemed to be... more concerned with the motives and less with just finding someone out. What you might call psychological..’ Wells knew nothing of Jewish networking aiming at the next world war. And the hypothesis of genetic causation of aggression is absent. No wonder he despaired, in Mind at the End of its Tether.
      Conceivably this is a material interpretation of a new mental shock.

      Note on topics Wells did not use in his Short Stories: a good example is the type of the Webbs. In some editions of The Open Conspiracy we find: There is a detestable sort of energetic human being which preys upon human societies, delighting in procedure, by-laws, voting, stereotyping and embarrassing "resolutions", the "capture" of committees and organisations, the delegation of powers and suchlike politicians' mischief. It is a blighting and accursed type, living and multiplying in rules and precedence, as bugs gnaw at wallpaper. Unless the Open Conspiracy devotes itself to such elaborations in its gatherings, the better for its spirit, always it will be well to keep its comprehensive organisation easy and simple.

      I see a new volume is to be published soon; I don't know if it includes his unpublished stories, but I'd hope so. And I hope that material he included about Jews will not be removed.
      It's important to note that Wells was often regarded primarily as a novelist, or comic novelist. I remember the suggestion that Wells was an historian being laughed off, without supporting detail, by a Jew, in South Place. Wells's Outline of History was of course—it's obvious, now—Jew-naive. No doubt this is why it was encouraged.

Many things have been said about this book. Russell thought it good on crowd psychology. Some thought it represented modern war against people without science. There was a famous incident with an Orson Welles radio show which reveals how difficult it is to check on alarmist reports if relying on 'news' rather than police reports or traffic facts. The ending (defeat of invaders by biology and not weaponry) must have been suggested by his knowledge of biology.
      This was filmed in 2005 (with Tom Cruise as the stalwart goy) on a DVD which included production information, some of which showed descendants of Wells who of course died about 40 years earlier. I think Wells would have been distressed that his descendats seemed to have no idea whatever that Wells believed in some sort of world federation of the species Homo Sapiens.

(later rechristened 'When the Sleeper Awakes') is seeded from scientific doubts over what sleep is. His hero awakes after 203 years of sleep, not very plausibly as the inheritor of vast assets. (Wells includes compound interest as a theme; and some language change in English; and 1800s rather than 19th century). Another theme is opposition to black troops from Africa being used in Europe; he has no suggestion of black labour.
    [ Wells' novel is unfinished. It has an air battle with the hero using his plane in battering-ram mode. The main plot is a supposed leader of the people of London taking over from the capitalist Council, but turning bad. Wells had no idea about the Jewish promotion of fake 'revolutions': '... essentially an exaggeration of contemporary tendencies: higher buildings, bigger towns, wickeder capitalists and labour more down-trodden than ever and more desperate. ... more and more flying and the wildest financial speculation. ...' ]

with interesting predictions (and long dull passages) has inspired fury in (for example) Richard Dawkins, who has a long and disgracefully mangled 'quotation' on races from it.
    By 1900, Wells had written (for example) The Time Machine and The Island of Dr Moreau and The Invisible Man and The War of the Worlds and was known as a biology teacher and writer on imperialism and industrial democracy. I've seen Jewish surgical sex-change mutilators compared with Dr Moreau's grafted grotesques; Wells wrote before organ compatibility and immunology were understood; in fact, they still aren't, in the way anaesthetics are still not understood.
    Anticipations has nine chapters; it seems to be two months' worth of rather long lectures, but it seems to have been published in the Fortnightly Review. I'll give a cursory conspectus here. It doesn't say much to critics and reviewers that they struggled with Anticipations.
    A point to be made is the accuracy of the title. Wells thought in terms of mechanical progress and clearly states that Democracy and life since (say) the 18th century were both heavily influenced by the novelties of new scientific and technological inventions, for example (my examples) railways, steam engines, metal extraction, and weapons. This I think included slavery, which Wells must have thought was outdated by machines. The overall effect was 'Deliquescence' of the Body Politic, 'Deliquescence' taken from a word for substances which absorb water from the air and get wet or dissolve. He doesn't say much about science, except rather vaguely—he expected houses in future to have electric heating, lighting, cooking, and washing.
    His chapter headings are: I. LOCOMOTION IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY | II THE PROBABLE DIFFUSION OF GREAT CITIES | III. DEVELOPING SOCIAL ELEMENTS | IV. CERTAIN SOCIAL REACTIONS | V. THE LIFE-HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY | VI. WAR IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY | VII. THE CONFLICT OF LANGUAGES | VIII. THE LARGER SYNTHESIS | IX. FAITH, MORALS, AND PUBLIC POLICY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
    Chapter IV (and others) has touching commentary on marriage and the family and children. Wells likes to think people will be more serious and professional in future, and listened to by shareholders. (This period was before Jewish paper money was extended to the public). Wells looked forward to a time of more serious and targeted newspapers, with electrical typesetting spreading these better newspapers around the world. (This period was also before TV, movies and radio, though latent forms existed; l'Affaire Dreyfus was an early example of what was to come. But, please understand, Wells' writing-style is founded upon novels: he doesn't like to summarise and bullet-point, but wanders, so it's not easy to extract his messages. Anticipations is unindexed, certainly up to the cheap 1914 edition.
    Chapter V, on Democracy, considered that the idea, it it was an idea, was a product of 'Deliquescence', of new inventions shoehorned in beside earlier patters of patrimony and inheritance. I found Chapter VI, on War, interesting but agonisingly naive. Wells gives thrilling accounts of machines and organisations—for example, sniper riflemen, whom Wells thinks hard to remove or defeat. But he has no idea about the aims of war, and of course this is absolutely what is wanted, mainly by Jews, for a few thousand years. Creasy's 15 Decisive Battles (first published 1851) added to the pattern. Let me quote a comment I made by me to an online site: Wells seems to have had no idea even of possession of raw materials, let alone paper money as in 1913 and the Fed, central banks as a cheap fraud, taking over of lands from previous owners. He did not notice funding of both sides by Jews. The final two chapters, VIII and IX, deal more of less with geography before widespread immigration and emigration (Wells thinks in terms of areas with quite a lot in common) and with public beliefs. In 1900 frank religious unbelief was unpopular with respectable people; Wells for most of his life was uneasy discussing 'God' and never (I think) faced the facts of economic benefits to believers, despite the rather obvious fact that official on the Church of England were relatively well-off. He rejects 'The Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain.' He looks at Malthus ('shattering') but has no idea of the possibilities of within-group parasitism deliberately causing deaths. (Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) was only published about 40 years before).
      The modern expansion of science frauds led by Jews is entirely outside the range of Wells, who was brought up in an earlier tradition of respect for science. There are or were commentators who said Wells was astonishingly correct in his predictions. Unfortunately, they are or were wrong.

Not a 'novel'; far more complicated. Opens with a note to the reader, apologizing for failures in Anticipations, and mentioning Mankind in the Making, he explains his selection of technique: not the discussion novel (Peacock and Mallock), not the part-autobiography of Boswell. He doesn't explicitly discuss Socrates in Plato, nor for that matter the Bible, which of course is not often regarded as 'utopian' in More's sense. And A Modern Utopia ends with a portion of a paper read in 1903 which includes a good half-page on evolution, Huxley, and comparative anatomy.
    The main 11 chapters have discussions on problems—good novelistic accounts of surging crowds and horse-drawn traffic and litter and massed humanity. And crime and punishment: he has an 'Island of Incurable Cheats', for example, in his chapter 'Failure in a modern Utopia'. Wells is descriptive, but not very analytical: he has seen London and Europe from the 1890s, but doesn't guess what underlies it all. He's a bit like modern hacks who say everyone must be housed, or is entitled to full medical treatment, with no comprehension of what it might mean in terms of materials and management. One of his chapters is on Utopian economics (including Cabet's Voyage en Icarie (1848; I'm not sure I've heard of it) which takes communism seriously—not of course the Jewish version to come. There's a chapter 'Concerning Freedom', another on 'Women in a Modern Utopia', another on 'The Samurai', and one on 'Race in Utopia'. His Samurai were the 'voluntary nobility' as vaguely outlined by Plato. His chapter 'Topographical' lists speculative writers, though Bacon's 'New Atlantis' is elsewhere. (there are some Americans too).
   Wells is good on 'economics' at the time of the LSE and start of official sociology studies, mostly Jewish-funded, though Wells had little idea of that. ‘"Political Economy" has been painted out, and instead we read "Economics — under entirely new management." Modern Economics differs mainly from old Political Economy in having produced no Adam Smith. The old "Political Economy" made certain generalisations, and they were mostly wrong; new Economics evades generalisations, and seems to lack the intellectual power to make them.’ Wells comments on share holders and their outlook, something relatively new then.
    Through all this is Wells' novel-style interaction with a botanist; and part is what I take to be a dream sequence, in Switzerland or Utopia—I'm not sure. In the final chapter, the bubble bursts.
    There's quite a lot of unfamiliar detail, presented well, but (as Wells stated in his introduction) not aimed to be easy reading. He footnotes Dr W A Chappelle's book The Fertility of the Unfit. He says ‘Plato's Republic ... was to be smaller than the average English borough, [with] no distinction between the Family, the Local Government, and the State.’
    Through all this I think there's a felling of marking time and treading water; The 'Great War' awaits, once Jews got the Federal Reserve and their licence to print money. And Wells became its propagandist.

What's in this book? This is Wells at his least original, rehearsing many rather well-worn topics. We have housing, which (apart from big houses) is Wells writes often insanitary and tiny and overcrowded. And there's jerry building, following William Morris—I believe the phrase was named from a music hall song, The House that Jerry Built. Wells showed considerable interest in house-building in Anticipations. But generally he's low on detail. And looking at Victorian brick buildings, often with cellars and several stories and considerable depth, we see evidence of amazingly hard work.
    We have health, including child mortality, children being of under average weight, and lice and encrusted heads. Figures for infant mortality at least existed, and were publicised by such people as Rowntree and others, some of them being Jewish groups, where the obvious likelihood exists that they were concerned with getting money for the vast Jewish immigration starting about 20 years earlier. Wells must have been aware of Malthus, but says nothing about families numerically, though he mentions soemwhere the declining births problem.
    And there's the woman problem where Wells uses the vague arguments against which Belfort Bax, in solicitorial style, protested against. Wells must have mentioned the suffragists—the non-violent votes-for-women groups, now suppressed by the Jewish media in favour of the suffragettes. Wells mentions slavery. His Chapter XI, 'Revolutionary Socialism', discusses Marx: Wells had no very good opinion of Marx, but, knowing little of Jews, was unable to attack concisely. Wells mentions classes, the proletariat, and capital, but doesn't know about Jewish finance, or Jewish techniques such as funding Freemasons, and of weakening opponents by dividing them. And Wells does accept a lot of mythology, for example on mistreatment of Jews and the wrong idea that Russia was in chaos. Chapter XIII, 'Constructive Socialism', looks through Wells's eyes at the mental quality of people, and books and newspapers. (Film, Radio and TV were later). He failed to understand the possibilities of mass censorship. Though he had some idea of the possibilities of faked science for Jews, which mushroomed with NASA and AIDS and COVID.
What's not in this book? Wells, like every Briton with a conventional education, had no idea of the secret history of Jews. Three important aspects are: (1) The result of the 17th-century victory of Jews and the Bank 'of England', which was 18th century impoverishment of many plus absurd enrichment of a tiny minority. This secrecy extended to Oxbridge and teaching. (2) Wells had no family interest in any church, and did not address the fact that European churches were huge landowners in symbiosis with Jews. (3) Wells had no idea that Jews had a long history of pursuing hostile acts, epitomised by the Kahal system. Wells avoided the Protocols of Zion as far as I know.
    It's not unkind to say his book is mostly unhelpful. He does make observations—accounts of small shopkeepers who invested years of savings, encouraged to fail; Hyndman, a socialist (identifiable now as a Jew) fielding a question from the audience that if the trusts will inevitably take over, why do anything?

Wells's rather unfocussed philosophy aged about 40. The unity of mankind (in opposition to Herbert Spencer) stated to be an emerging possibility of awakened people. Max Beerbohm caricatured Wells's style in Perkins and Mankind. Jews loved the idea that goyim would be unaware of the possibility of parasitic strains of humanity. Wells's idea of unity could not endure in the face of the Great War.

more or less out of Wells' own desires. She was young, normally attractive, wanting to study and discover. She went to meetings, joined suffragists or suffragettes, went overseas on an affair with a biology instructor, and 'fell pregnant'.
      Just as Wells did with Amber Reeves. (I think H G Wells in Love, which had been a postscript to his Experiment in Autobiography, edited by his son G P Wells, gave this and other information in 1984, after the women had died. Some of Wells's MS remained unpublished, for example about Martha Gellhorn and Moura Budberg, the latter usually described as a 'Russian Countess').
      Wells seems to have been one of these influential non-Jews surrounded by Jewish handlers, which from their viewpoint was highly successful: Wells praised Roosevelt and Stalin and seems never to have understood Jews. And never understood their publishing, infiltration and spying arrangements, or their lies.
      Ann Veronica showed no understanding by Wells of suffragettes, funded and used as a force for the 'Great War'. Or anticipation of the part played by 'feminism' and homosexuals in the Weimar Republic and the USSR. The novel ought to be read in that light. Possibly Wells was a 'fifth columnist' all along.

I, too, was curious. The story of the siege of the Legations in China in the year 1900 [Note: this is not the same series of events as the 1859 destruction of Yuanmingyuan] and all that followed upon that, is just one of those disturbing interludes in history that refuse to join on to that general scheme of protestation by which civilisation is maintained. It is a break in the general flow of experience as disconcerting to statecraft as the robbery of my knife and the scuffle that followed it had been to me when I was a boy at Penge. It is like a tear in a curtain revealing quite unexpected backgrounds. I had never given the business a thought for years; now this talk brought back a string of pictures to my mind; how the reliefs arrived and the plundering began, how section after section of the International Army was drawn into murder and pillage, how the infection spread upward until the wives of Ministers were busy looting, and the very sentinels stripped and crawled like snakes into the Palace they were set to guard. It did not stop at robbery, men were murdered, women, being plundered, were outraged, children were butchered, strong men had found themselves with arms in a lawless, defenceless city, and this had followed. Now it was all recalled. ...

The book is Wells' account of inventing his game, which in fact was rather simple and schoolboyish. Little Wars is only concerned with battles with simple rules, not even allowing rifles. He mentions that in future "We can consider transport, supply, ammunition, and the moral effect of cavalry impact, and of uphill and downhill movements. We can also bring in the spade and entrenchment, and give scope to the Royal Engineers."
      My interpretation of Wells is as the 'useful idiot', with little ideas of war aims, funding of wars including two or more sides, debts, profit-making by the J-sector, necessary war materials, not to mention many issues introduced by the 'Great War': propaganda, 'educational' preparation of populations, starvation, atrocities, population movements. The same interpretation applies to The Outline of History with its very attractive descriptive material, and also accounts of ruling ideas, but with large chunks of propaganda and money mostly omitted. But by WW2 Wells was showing impatience of Jews, which I think is why he was kept out of most branches of propaganda.

Joad later wrote something like It is only my respect for a great man which prevents me from quoting some of the things Wells wrote during the war. Wells was unimpressed by the behaviours of the British Monarchy, and the Church of England, and the British populace, during the war, which pushed him into addressing issues of world history. However, he never achieved much understanding of the hidden rôles of finance.

“Bourgeois” — an important special note on what the word means means to Marxists.
      The Jewish rabbinical view, embodied in the Kahal system, is that what's theirs is mine, and what's yours will be mine, after the Kahal has done its work.
      A 'bourgeois' is a person or group who is non-Jewish and owns money or assets. The ownership is viewed by Jews as shocking and temporary and up for spoliation.
      When Jews in the USA talk about 'flyover States', or Lenin referred to H G Wells as 'a little bourgeois', or the Jewish 'historian' Simon Schama sneered at Suburbia, this is their hidden meaning.
      H G Wells' puzzlement at Russian intellectuals and artists kept wretched by Bolsheviks, and his puzzlement at the range of people (from aristocrats to middle-class professionals to trade union leaders with their waistcoats and pocket watches) viewed by Marx as 'bourgeois', is thus explained. Wells was never fully aware of the Jewish issue. - RW 26 6 2023

was published about two years after his Outline of History, presumably on the same principle that cheap versions follow expensive versions after a few years. I was uncertain that the publication date was correct; an edition I have is dated 1927, published by William Heinemann; and an edition by the Thinkers Library must have been later. But this may have been Wells hunting around for higher advances.
      However, 1922 it was, and it 'also had an extensive sale.' It has 67 chapters and a chronological table. 'It is not an abstract or a condensation of [The Outline of History]. Within its aim the Outline admits of no further condensation. This is a much more generalized History, planned and written afresh.'
      Because this book is shorter, it may provide ammunition for studying Jews in history. Wells includes some suggestive chapters—Sumeria, Early Egypt, and Writing; First Sea-going peoples; Priests and Prophets in Judea; Between Rome and China; The Teaching of Jesus; Muhammad and Islam; OMISSION of Cromwell; 13 or so final chapters on modern times, all omitting Jews.
      Wells switched to Penguin Books in the UK. 1946 saw a 'new and revised edition'. And 1963 'with revisions by Raymond Postgate and G P Wells'. Since then I've lost track of it. The 1963 edition's final chapter is 'The Divided World', obviously not mentioning world-wide Jewry. So there is still genuinely scholarly work to be done on Wells.

Perhaps over-precise date, given by H. B. Isherwood in The Myth of Racial Equality, first impression 1978, published by the The Racial Preservation Society. Wells is quoted: ' ... They ['race and racial differences; the natural thought forms, and dispositions and instinctive reactions'] are things greatly intensified and supplemented by differences of tradition, training and conditions, but when all such modifications are eliminated, essential differences remain. ...'   Isherwood gives no source. Possibly a newspaper article.

(published by Sheed and Ward, London; publishers of Roman Catholic material, founded 1926—Belloc may have contracted in the hope of making money: magazine publishers printed Belloc just after parts of Wells' Outline appeared) and Mr Belloc Objects to “The Outline of History” by H G Wells [both 1926] are both very disappointing books.
      Belloc says surprisingly little about history; much of his material is on evolution, about which he knows nothing. He says 'the Catholic Faith is the only thing of real importance in teaching History'. Belloc has a view of history which depends on lightweight logic on theology, justifying the dismissive view that to say the French are a 'logical race' is a mistake. It's a pity, since Belloc might have produced his own version of Catholicism in a more concise way than is usual: he doesn't accept that the various Orthodox Catholicisms such as Russian, or Greek, or any other, were Catholic: only Roman Catholic counts. This of course could not work, but one feels Wells could have tried; no surprise though that Belloc avoids this, instead producing rabbit-from-a-hat stuff such as 'The term "immaculate conception does not mean Incarnation' followed by the assertion that Wells (and others) don't understand this. Very likely this attitude comes from Jewish 'pilpul'. 'The Resurrection' is perhaps the central event of Belloc's idea of the history of the world.
      Wells was evidently infuriated by Belloc's rather absurd manner. Wells' Mr Belloc Objects ... (published by Watts, of the 'Thinker's Library', essentially a Jewish outfit) is mostly taken up by responses to Belloc which show that Wells knew more about biology and embryology and morphological similarities between living things than Belloc, and that he could read French and other languages. But he said little about his history, and made no attempt to tease out Belloc's historical errors. In fact, from our perspective, now, neither of them was sound on the Great War and its causes and effects, or the developing horrors of the 'Soviet Union'. Belloc might have helped tease out Jewish covert aggressions. But he didn't—and nor did official historians.
      It's just about possible that if Wells had taken a calmer approach he might have coaxed helpful material from Belloc on Catholicism—though I admit it's unlikely. Belloc mentions both Buddhism ('a stick with which to beat the Christian') and Islam (one chapter. 'Islam started more as a heresy than anything else') in which Belloc sees no connection between Jews and Islam. Conceivably, Wells might have incorporated new material in later editions.

This is in two parts, 'Book the First' and the larger 'Book the Second'. The first part (as the subtitle suggests) is about a lady; '... mainly the story of Cynthia Rylands and her search for intellectual fulfilment' in her Italian villa. There's a Colonel fierce on 'Red Revolution'. But Book the Second has a joint exploration, with Philip, her husband; the chapter 'Philip's first real letter', in which Philip spells government as 'goverment', has views, no doubt taken from newspapers and Churchill's British Gazette, on Baldwin and Churchill. The second part appears to me to me added to the first after the General Strike of 1926. Wells of course was journalistically bound to dated contracts. My interest was in Wells's failure to understand Jews; in his life from 1866 to 1946 he never understood the issue. His despair in Mind at the End of its Tether proves this. Wells' World of William Clissold (1926) had a similar structure, including long passages on ideas, put into the words of his characters, evading the problem of presenting his own, inadequate, ideas.
      My views on the General Strike are in my file on Jews.

Text and detailed review of this important statement of World Organization by a Briton. [1928]
      I recently noticed a passage omitted from some versions, probably (my guess) referring to Sidney Webb: There is a detestable sort of energetic human being which preys upon human societies, delighting in procedure, by-laws, voting, stereotyping and embarrassing "resolutions", the "capture" of committees and organisations, the delegation of powers and suchlike politicians' mischief. It is a blighting and accursed type, living and multiplying in rules and precedence, as bugs gnaw at wallpaper. Unless the Open Conspiracy devotes itself to such elaborations in its gatherings, the better for its spirit, always it will be well to keep its comprehensive organisation easy and simple.

• Was Wells a 'Stalinist'?
My friend Harold Hillman said he disliked Wells, who was a 'Stalinist'. I defended Wells a the time, saying something like "Wells was a theoretical writer", on something vague. I know see that Harold would not comment on Jews in the USSR or elsewhere. It's not done for people of Jewish descent.
      In Spring 1934, Wells sailed to the USA to visit F D Roosevelt; on July 21st he flew to Moscow, then in the 'Soviet Union'. His very long autobiography was published in the same year, by Victor Gollancz's Jewish propaganda publishing outfit. Chapter the Ninth, THE IDEA OF A PLANNED WORLD, has Section 9 followed only by Section 10, Envoy, and the Index.
      Section 9 'Cerebration at Large and Brains in Key Positions' is the longest section in the book and I think must have needed frantic efforts of writing, typesetting, and printing. The whole thing looks like a big publicity event, part of the point of which must have been to whitewash or ignore the Ukraine famine.
      Wells's account describes Stalin in a long but unhelpful way. And he met and shagged Martha Gellhorn. He seems to have been corralled at most times. Stalin had an easy ride; so did F D Roosevelt, handing out unimpressive generalisations about the 'New Deal'. In that sense Wells was unperceptive of Stalin.
      But it seems clear Wells had no idea about Jews worldwide. There's not the slightest suggestion he could understand any of their language or any of their methods. In any case, Gollancz must have read the MS with great care and ensured anything of that sort would be taken out, or kindly modified.

-RW   31 Dec 2022

Lovat Dickson's book on Wells, its preface dated Toronto 1969, and Michael Foot's of of 1995, mention the Supplement to the New Statesman in which the "Conversation" was published, without giving other details, such as the date. Both these authors say noting about Jews and no doubt Wells was used entirely because of his naivety. G B Shaw and Keynes both commented and hexzane527's belief that Keynes must have been a Jew seems likely.
      Critics of Wells (such as Michael Foot's wife) have been weakened enormously by their failure to address the Jewish issue.
-RW   21 Jan 2023

• H. G. Wells writing about the difficulties of co-operating I think in his Experiment in Autobiography (The faber and faber edition seems to have been censored):–
What concerns us more directly here are those meetings and movements and discussions that occurred when the idea of the League of Nations was being shaped. These deliberations brought home to me the confused divergence of historical preoccupations among those taking part in them. Their minds were full of broken scraps of history, irrational political prejudices, impossible analogies. Everyone saw the idea from a different angle and seemed prepared to realise it by the hastiest of compromises. The Outline of History was the direct outcome of the experience I gathered in these discussions. At first, in conjunction with L. S. Woolf and one or two others, I tried to organise a Research Committee, which would set itself to think out the full significance and possibilities of this great idea. We made William Archer, who was badly out of a job just then, the salaried secretary of this body. With much internal friction we compiled The Idea of a League of Nations, Prolegomena to the Study of World Organisation, and The Way to the League of Nations: A Brief Sketch of the Practical Steps needed for the Formation of a League. These booklets are still available for the collector. Then President Wilson came to Europe and we were swept aside, because he had his own ideas, and very crude ideas they were, of a League that would make the world safe for democracy. But the difficulty of producing these two reports opened my eyes to the enormous obstacles in the way of all volunteered co-operation. It seemed impossible to hold a team together. They differed upon endless points and they would not come together to hammer them out. They were all too intent upon what they considered more immediately important things. Our chief financial supporter deserted us to go off wool-gathering upon his own lines. He could not see what need there was for all this highbrow research. But we were all going off upon our own lines. We had already disintegrated before we were disregarded.

Wells looked at 'Jews' only in the 'chosen people' sense; he may not have been acquainted with Talmudic stuff, and I think had little interest in the supposed 'tribes', but regarded Isaiah as the model of Jewish fanaticism.
      The word 'gentile' is in Wells, but not 'goy' or 'goyim'. He wanted the whole thing 'swept out of the living interests of mankind'. Wells never got to grips with such writers as Belloc and Nesta Webster; Wells regarded her as staunchly Christian and avoided her other material. The article here includes the relevant quotations from Wells, plus my comments. [The books are The Fate of Homo sapiens (1939) and The New World Order (1940)]

This was a Book Club title, with Secker & Warburg, is an 'amalgamation and modernization of two books', The Fate of Homo sapiens (1939; I haven't seen this book) and The New World Order (1940; free online at archive.org) at https://archive.org/details/TheNewWorldOrder. If you're in the mood it's a fascinating sweep over the entire world, including China, and Japan and Shinto. But he thinks in maps, plus empires, mostly old order, mostly Jew-originated, most of his Jewish material being misinformation. Wells thought most ideas and movements were sui generis inventions of one person—he neglects the sheer costs of building up organisations. This is yet again a Jew-biased deficiency.
      Wells did not have an integrated view including information on Jews: at some point he talks of Jews joyfully anticipating three world wars, but I've not been able to relocate it. He describes 'Nazis' in the Jewish-approved style, and Stalin in a more-or-less Stalinist fashion. He describes Spain in the usual 'Communist' way. I don't know if we would have been allowed a more sceptical view of the world; not presumably in wartime, but the two component books were pre-war. Chapter 6, What is Democracy? is disappointing from a man much of whose life was not lived under 'democracy'. Chapter 13, Christendom, includes a comment on Eire and Roman Catholicism. Chapter 28, Open Conference, is Wells on information control. But of course he had no idea of the primacy of Jewish control. He discusses in Chapter 36 the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man' (the 'Sankey Declaration': I suspect the Jewish origins of the UN were named nationally to hide their source). Chapter 38 World Order in Being is I presume Wells' modernized version of The New World Order.
    Wells's books at this time were notably depressed and despairing. I think Jewish publishers liked this. His books accepted the notion that for tens of thousands of years mankind was exploited and crushed; exactly the view Jews like to spread. Their absurd 'tikkun olam' will put an end to all that!
      Wells looks at Magna Carta and says it 'concedes no more rights to the churls and common folk of the land than it does to cats and dogs' and 'Never once in the proud island story does the will of the common people matter a rap'—but after all the negotiations dealt with possibilities of kings and barons. It doesn't follow that cats, dogs, or common people were mistreated.
His books' despairing, end times style, must have appealed to Jews, who saw Wells had little perception of their real history. It's conceivable too that Wells might have turned to publishers like Britons Publishing or whatever they were called. I've seen no correspondence between such people, but it would certainly have been regarded as a threat by Jews.

published by—note the Jewish names—Martin Secker & Warburg, London. Chapter X, A REVIEW OF "FOREIGN POLICIES" IN 1942, makes painful reading, as Wells is made a fool by Jewish propaganda. Probably the official channels wanted Wells to write, but couldn't quite promote his faulty material, or viewed him as out-of-date compared with his 'Great War' self.
      Phœnix was published in wartime, after the 'phoney war' (see hexzane527 on the reasons for the delay in going to war).
      It is a Wellsian filter of Jewish propaganda, including for example his views on the Strasser brothers, on American flighty readership, on the USA supplying war material s to Japan for use in China. I'm not sure Wells even wrote it, as it reads like Jewish propaganda, Book 2 especially with incessant comments on the 'Sankey Declaration of Human Rights'. I've scanned in a couple of pages on 'ACTIVISM', written explicitly by the publishers, complete with war-standard paper quality, which in its coded way is aimed at Jews and fellow-travellers in Britain. It is, in accordance with Jewish policy, not to oppose the war, and hence support worldwide Jewry. If a soldier is to be shot at dawn. Messrs Secker and Warburg would be pleased.

In the preface of Mind at the End of its Tether Wells wrote:
      This little book brings to a conclusive end the series of essays, memoranda, pamphlets, through which the writer has experimented, challenged discussion, and assembled material bearing upon the fundamental nature of life and time. So far as fundamentals go, he has nothing more and never will have anything more to say.
      The greater bulk of that research material may now go down the laboratory sink. It is either superseded or dismissed. It will go out of print and be heard of no more.
      This applies particularly to a large assemblage of material published under the title of '42 to '44. This was gathered together in the course of five or six years and finally it was rushed into print; it was published at a prohibitive price, because, although the writer wanted to put certain things on record, he was acutely aware how very provisional his record still was. Now it can fall into oblivion. The quintessence is here in this small and reasonably priced volume...

I couldn't find a copy online. Probably it was poor stuff; lacking the controlling principle of understanding of Jews, it's difficult to imagine anything else.

full text of a wartime propaganda book (published by Penguin as a 'Special') by Wells, mostly on Roman Catholic history, as copied from Joseph McCabe. Not a good book, but interesting for its deflection from Jews, a common Jewish trick, but without identifying the 'Jew' basis of Catholicism. One chapter is Why Do We Not Bomb Rome?   Maybe Why Do We Not Bomb Israel? will become a catchphrase.
      Protestantism vs Catholicism is occasionally suggested as the basis for the Second World War. Dennis Wise's videos from about 2010 are a good example. The Freemason link can be used to enhance this idea, although it exists in both Catholic and Protestant countries.

• Wells' Outline of History came under attack by Florence Deeks (from Canada). I became interested in a book by McKillop on the Deeks case much later; it's an entirely unconvincing Roman Catholic attack By McKillop, published in 2000. (Wells a plagiarist? is my shortened review on Amazon of the same review of McKillop on Florence Deeks). Sorry; this was removed by Amazon's 'thought police'.
      Added 9 Nov 2021: Looking at some of the examples of influential women listed by Deeks, mostly since about 1500, the list being incomplete as her MS isn't reproduced anywhere, it occurs to me that some or all might have been Jews and might have been secretly influential for that reason. Maybe Deeks was Jewish?

---

Gissing seems to have been far more popular than I'd realised—though of course this may have been puff. Possibly he was ignored by Jews, though, if so, I don't know if he wrote anything they disliked, or if he was merely a 'goy'. Changes in fashion and appreciation are often barely noticed. The experts may be librarians.
• George Gissing's Veranilda & the fallen Roman Empire. Just a note on George Gissing's unfinished novel, which was published in 1904 after Gissing's death in 1903. Wells wrote an appreciative comment in his Experiment in Autobiography. Veranilda dealt with the fall of Rome—says Wells; I made no serious attempt to read it. However, it may have interesting information on the loss of techniques and governmental skills after the decline of Rome. I haven't checked even the era of the novel.
      Four months later: I forced myself through what there is of this novel. But I think Wells was being polite. This is in the style of a romantic novelette, Veranilda being a young attractive golden-haired woman (a 'Goth' I think) with dialogues all in English of a rather mock-antique style—not archaic—intended to suggest Latinisms, though unexpectedly there are very few. Much of the plot is set in Rome, its roads and buildings well-defined but without much feeling for long-term change. There is nothing to please the revisionist turn of mind; nothing on changes in laws, for example, as they presumably decay and fail. Nothing on reductions and shortages and decline. Nothing on once-aggressive aspects of Rome, and their outcomes.
      Nothing on the effects of money, and such things as the decline in suppliers: here's Herbert Spencer on tax burdens. I'd hoped Gissing might rise above the level of lightweight history typical of the 19th-century. But if it's there, I missed it.

---

• George Orwell (whose pen name may have been based on Wells's own name) wrote a newspaper piece 'Wells and the World State'

---

• Rudyard Kipling puzzled Wells. 'Mr Rudyard Kipling.. manifestly preaches a Mohammedan God, a modernised Allah with a taste for engineering..' (From First and Last Things). In his 'Experiment in Autobiography' Wells described Kipling as a contemporary with phases of greatness interleaved with grubbiness: Kipling's novel Stalky and Co left Wells with distaste at its bullying, which Wells regarded as the first sign of the degeneracy of any empire: in this case, the British Empire. There are similar passages in Kipling's poems,
    The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone;
    'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own;
    'E keeps 'is side-arms awful: 'e leaves 'em all about,
    An' then comes up the Regiment an' pokes the 'eathen out.
  with such scenes as revenge massacres, Loot, and sex with native women. It strikes me that Kipling may have been paid more or less covertly by Jewish interests. Certainly, like Wells and Orwell, he was far away from serious awareness of Jews.