Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

But are they really “conspiracy theorists” then and not merely theorists?

Have you raed H. G. Well’s book “The New World Order”, James?

?? inaugurated as what?

And no, I never read the book.
But have seen the films. :sunglasses:

Inaugurated as one of them.


Now I have to go to in a few miles distant place to see the final football match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany - Argentina. My tip: 3 - 0.

What do you think about my tip and about those “films” you mentioned, James?


In in the next hours you can’t reach me by posting.

I will be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

I did tell you that I am from Texas, where soccer is for woe-men. :wink:

What do I think about the H.G. Wells films?
I think that he, like many, were aware of the thoughts of powerful men. But unlike the “conspiracy theorists”, he simply made fictional films exposing the concepts without naming names. That is the way to get the word out in the West.

And I still don’t know what you mean by “inaugurated him as one of them”. :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Primarly he wrote books. Did he also make films?

He was one of them.

No. I meant the films from his books.

I just don’t know what you mean by “inaugurated” as one of them. He was president and one of the founders of the RCSA, “Royal College of Science Association”, a writer, and armchair-sociologist. So in that sense, he was influential in the social trends and thus “one of them”. But his writings were warnings of impending potential disaster, turning out to be real. The problem is that with all stories, the ending has to be that the “good guys” win, whoever they happen to be. So he had to have the humans win, regardless of his actual preference in the matter. He was a globalist (yet anti-Zionist), as many were (and still very many are). And globalism is certainly responsible for the disaster, far more than merely technology. So yeah, he was “one of them”.

The word “inaugurated” means something like the word “adepted”, right?

An inauguration is a ceremony to announce a member into a group, usually as a leader.

Yeah, and that’s almost exactly what I meant.

You are right: Denying the truth can also lead to an end of history, at least to a temporary end of history (until the new history begins). And you are also right by saying: All books and records indicating anything other than the new history will be destroyed. And anyone implying anything other than “what everyone knows to be true” will be laughed at, before arrested and forcefully reprogrammed or just erased. This has been becoming the real sitaution since the beginning of the “machine age”.

Deus ex Machina, the aspiration and eschatology of Man.

To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right?

I wouldn’t put it at zero just yet, but it is really pushing it hard and fast.

But to you (and b.t.w.: not to me!) the end of history would be almost the same like the end of human beings, right?

Which one you want to refer to is arbitrary to me.

If history is lost but human development not lost, then you can see the real Eloi or the “renaissance” of the Stone Age life.

If you were there to see it. :sunglasses:

History will never be lost, only the sense of it will be lost. Keep the sense of it, You keep history.
can this be done?

Sure. Just rewrite it every few hundred years… always fresh… always a reason to fight over it… eternal fresh carnage.

No reason to let it go to waste.