|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Jan 27, 2005 22:16:31 GMT
Does anyone know if Wells had dabbled in the occult at anytime in his life ?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 27, 2005 22:47:36 GMT
Well he did write short stories for Isaac Asimov to plunder later and compile into a volume of short stories called tales of the occult.....spooky. www.skeptic.de/b/0214.php4
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Jan 31, 2005 12:45:59 GMT
well I know he was a member of the Fabian society.
Although I've never read it I hear that John Coleman's book One World Order - Socialist Dictatorship clearly identifies the Fabian Society as being major players in the creation of this illusive and mysterious entity referred to as 'the new world order'
I wonder if anyone who has read that book finds reference to Wells in it ?
After all his 'world brain', the shape of things to come, open conspiracy clearly reveal his 'hand' in having a deal of forsight and understanding of these matters...
So it seems as if My Wells didn't merely create the future by fiction alone..
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 31, 2005 15:07:25 GMT
Of all the things Wells involved himself in, 'the occult' would have been one of the last. Even freemasons have tried to claim him, but the truth was he eschewed secretive societies and ritual in general. The lodges the society 'corrected' the record for didn't seem too happy with their new-found reality... Wells didn't write for Asimov, Asimov merely compiled the volume, including the imaginative piece "Under the Knife." Wells was a Fabian for a few years, until a row with the Fabian "old guard" led to his rebuke and him quitting the society around 1908. Wells wrote several books on global and geopolitical reformation, including The New World Order in 1939, but I've never found any sign of 'occultism' in this or his other non-fiction works. But it hasn't stopped countless conspiracy nuts from assigning various un-Wellsian activities to HGW. Google the right words and you'll see what I mean. Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Jan 31, 2005 19:03:11 GMT
well conspiracy theorists are like any other field of human endeavor. There are the great, the mediocre, the lunatic and the criminal - and very very occasionally the odd genius.
'conspiracy theorists' is a label designed to stop members of the establishment studying, referencing or validating information that has not emerged from their own institutions. It is a phrase from the thought police.
Surely there are no ideas that exist that can threaten the purest integrity, logic, reason, compassion and empathy ?
Since I'm not a member of the establishment and I have no dogma or any precious world views to persevere I am not to afraid of what the nuts might be thinking.
Given the track record of every authoritarian institute of power in history I think we should be glad there are still a few cuckoos who's integrity or principles are not 'for sale or hire'.
Anyway, I was just making preliminary enquiries - I'd not done much searching myself. If I find anything remotely weird or crazy I'd appreciate you casting your all seeing eye over it for me...it might be a good opportunity to shut down some historical inaccuracies or just plain myths..
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Jan 31, 2005 20:04:57 GMT
Wells didn't write for Asimov, Asimov merely compiled the volume, including the imaginative piece "Under the Knife." Thank you Charles for pointing out my inacurate post though I did know Wells did not actualy write the stories for Asimov, I simply worded it wrong, I have since made my post clearer for those who would take an extra close interest in my posts.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 31, 2005 22:19:46 GMT
I think you'll agree we don’t have to be afraid of what the nuts are thinking, but we do have to beware of the things they are presenting as ‘fact’ to support, defend or forward their particular view or agenda – often at the expense or in spite of reality - and irregardless if they’re ‘establishment’ or not.
Wells falls victim to destructive revisionism more often than I care to think - from both sides of the political aisle. More and more revisions are made of him and his work every year, and unless we are careful we’re liable to find ourselves thinking he was everything from a spiritualist to a freemason to a Marxist.
At least you're asking questions!
Motile, I like your clarification. Well done. ;D
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 1, 2005 14:32:39 GMT
Why thank you charles
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Feb 2, 2005 9:34:06 GMT
well I've discovered he was a big buddy of Jung - now if that's not enough to put a man into the asylum - nothing is!!!
So nothing bad per se , so far but I'd certainly have enjoyed being a dinner guest at some of his less informal gatherings...
I already new of his depression towards the end of his life regarding the state of humanity and I doubt he would be anymore optimistic about human affairs today.
I do hope it wasn't Jung who was pulling on any of his stringsin later life however, since he has left what I would call a mysterious legacy behind him...
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 3, 2005 15:57:34 GMT
Jung got one mention in Wells’ autobiography – for his assessment of the persona. According to a couple of other Wells biographers I can recall right now, the two had dinner once, and perhaps met a few other times. By that criteria I have lots of big buddies.
“I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long.” -- Lemmy
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 3, 2005 23:37:43 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]So, what words should we google to see the worst that is unfairly attributed to our good Mr Wells? [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Feb 4, 2005 13:32:28 GMT
HG wells lucifer
and
HG wells fabian lucifer
and
HG wells New World Order
did it for me...lots of shiyat but some stuff I didn't know - some stuff kind of freaky actually...
"you look up a womens dress your going to see panties, occasionally you don't see the panties" Bev Bevan
(since were quoting members of rock bands saying wierd stuff)
|
|
TheDoctor
Junior Member
'As we learn about each other so we learn about ourselves.'
Posts: 23
|
Post by TheDoctor on Feb 6, 2005 12:29:22 GMT
I don't think he is an Occultist it doesn't seem like he would be. To against his character! Not all secret societies are occult Freemasons isn't occult and I have known many Freemasons in my time!
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 6, 2005 23:04:41 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Well... the freemasons did have some degree of occult links, or at least a reputation for them.
Unfortunatly they are shedding their mystique to attract more young members... I'd have thought that emphasising it would have worked better. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 7, 2005 16:53:49 GMT
Neither occultism nor Freemasonry were ‘Wellsian.’ In fact Wells was very much against such secret or closed societies. His grandest plan for the betterment of mankind was called “The Open Conspiracy,” after all.
Freemasonry definitely has occult links – even if these days it is only found in some of its symbolism.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Feb 7, 2005 19:25:56 GMT
I am not at all interested in the ordinary freemason - I think we all jumped that ring fence years ago. Individually its members are nothing more than social climbers and as such they have no collective brain or aims other than perhaps the pursuit of commerce and a nice place to escape from the wife and talk with other like minded fellows. If you wanted to be speculatively fantastic about it you could perhaps at most suggest that in Hegelian terms they represent a group or collective that could assist in the expansion of a western capitalist empire.
One thing for sure is that all leaders throughout history are not and have never been peaceful men - and if ideas were pennies they wouldn't have two of them to rub together and yet it seems undeniable that we are indeed heading towards this 'idea rich' New World Order - and by military and socio-political manipulation.
Wells added a fair old chunk of meat to the pot of this 'global government idea stew'. Only it would appear not to be looking as 'new' or as 'open' as Wells might have thought prudent. I guess had he been alive today he would be feeling a little like Einstein after the first bomb got dropped!
|
|
TheDoctor
Junior Member
'As we learn about each other so we learn about ourselves.'
Posts: 23
|
Post by TheDoctor on Feb 17, 2005 19:51:23 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Well... the freemasons did have some degree of occult links, or at least a reputation for them. Unfortunatly they are shedding their mystique to attract more young members... I'd have thought that emphasising it would have worked better. [/glow] I find that insulting, my Grandfather was a freemason and I know its rituals (I even have all his books and symbols) they don't have links with the occult (AKA Devil worship...etc..) they are actually Christians and against that sort of thing....They also but up a fight against the NAZIs in the Channel Islands... So you people who say they are the occult....learn your facts before insulting things you don't understand!
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 17, 2005 20:25:34 GMT
To say Freemasonry’s symbolism is occult is accurate. Occult is defined as ‘secret, abstruse, mysterious, concealed,’ etc. Check the definition and you’ll find it does not mention “devil worship…etc,” - only a secondary reference to the supernatural. Of course the post-modern knee-jerk reaction to the word ‘occult’ is to assume it means something diabolical or sinister.
However, precisely because Freemasonry is secretive and involves what the church regards as secular rituals, many Christians I know take a dim view of Freemasonry.
If any of this still seems insulting, you’ll have to take it up with Webster’s.
Cue Graham Chapman at the bus stop.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Feb 17, 2005 21:33:52 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]You beat me to it Charles TheDoctor, certainly no disrespect towards freemasonry was intended in my post, I was using the word occult by the Oxford dictionary definition which concurs with Charles' definition from Webster's[/glow]
|
|
TheDoctor
Junior Member
'As we learn about each other so we learn about ourselves.'
Posts: 23
|
Post by TheDoctor on Feb 18, 2005 0:07:23 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]You beat me to it Charles TheDoctor, certainly no disrespect towards freemasonry was intended in my post, I was using the word occult by the Oxford dictionary definition which concurs with Charles' definition from Webster's[/glow] My dictionary says it is an organisation like a satanic society....well it is over 60 years old.....I will post, it shortly.Mines the pears dictionary so it is possibly wrong as usual I still disagree however as freemasonry is secretive, but I can tell you it is not sinister....and was actually formed to help people. No offence taken by the way!
|
|