Humanity's three possible future scenarios. There really is only 3 possibilities.

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
or #4, what will actually happen.. something you would never have suspected possible, because human beings cant predict the future. if they could, we would all be driving flying cars right now.

do you think any of those delusional "american dreamers" of the 50s, fresh out of WW2 would have predicted ANY of this crazy crap thats happening right now?

they didnt even see hippies coming and they were only a decade away!
they built bomb shelters with their hard earned money because they were convinced "the dirty commies" were real threats!

edit on 22-11-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)

Yes, there are specifics we can't predict. But one of these three general scenarios will play out. Huxley even mentions in the chapter that things in the long run are easy to predict compared to the short run. You can't predict the short term outcome, unless you're a psychic, or lucky

People, one of these scenarios will play out. Unless you can think of another real possibility? All of the suggestions so far have fallen within one of the three scenarios. I would be very impressed if someone came up with a legitimate long-term scenario that doesn't involve one of these three.

Originally posted by RomaMayLi
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Well....there are some other things to be considered.

Let's say your #3 arrives. One world government isn't that simple. Every human government on Earth has always had a bad habit of marginalising & disenfranchising certain people, depending on where it is. Remember in "Brave New World" where there is a specially bred elite in the cities but outside there are all the have-nots grubbing for a meager living? There are your "barbarians". Should a one-world government come to pass, nuclear war won't be necessary to give rise to savages. There are always people who don't fit in, or aren't allowed to. The movie "Children of Men" paints a fine example of what such a world would be like.

Scenario #1: Nuclear war. On the one hand, today's actual elites seem to be busily preparing for either this or a world-wide natural disaster of some sort- seeing as in places like the US there are government factions building huge underground cities, & very rich people building fortresses & private armies in remote areas. Should this war occur there won't be many other people surviving- those that do will envy the dead, & be living just like the people in the movie "the Road Warrior". No one world government will rise out of that chaos for a long, long time. The half-life of radioactivity takes thousands of years to wind down to livable levels.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine what could force a one world government upon the people of this planet at this stage. Too many countries don't get along at all- such a government would start World War Three all by itself. The so-called elite of today, the fat cats who own the biggest corporations & rule the world through the first world countries, make huge profits from pitting other countries against one another & loaning money as well as selling weapons to both sides. It's like a game to them.

I couldn't possibly tell of all of this in this thread, but I will recommend Jim Marrs' wonderful book, "Rule By Secrecy". It explains everything so much better than I could; it's well researched & all of the sources are listed. I recommend it to everyone.

Best response I've read yet. You hit on some key points. A one world government is no doubt a very difficult thing to accomplish, and one where everyone is satisfied is even harder yet.
I really appreciate this response. You really thought more about the details of the scenarios. I hope you see that one of the scenarios will inevitably play out. There's really no escaping it.

to answer about what you were wondering: Aldous Huxley lists some things that would catalyst a one world government. He recognized it wouldn't be easy. If I remember correctly, he said that in the end it would be the threat of the return to barbarism, and/or nuclear apocalypse, that would convince the nations to join together as one.

reply to post by Ghost375


I believe that centralizing power will inevitably end in the suppression of the majority by the privileged few. This is because there will always be people around who have the desire and capability to pervert any governmental system to elevate them to an elite status.
If we take a look at America we see an even more disturbing example of the lengths that some people will go to, in that one president will will make a few changes towards consolidating power and then the next president will build on those changes and extend them. So we see an organized effort, obviously by some hidden group.
The only way to really escape an oppressive version of a global government is to not have one and to decentralize power as much as possible.
It's easy to lament the existence of borders, we are all one in the end after all. But those borders are our firebreaks and if corruption arises on one side of the border it can be contained and managed from the other sire of the border.

reply to post by Recouper


I agree with you. In the movie version of "A Brave New World", Leonard Nimoy plays one of the shadowy elder/rulers who enforces the ideologies within the cities. The central couple in the story ends up by leaving the city & braving the dangers of the outside world so that they can start a family, make their own choices, & rediscover real freedom. They had had it with, amongst other things, "Promiscuity being a citizen's duty".

Since the assassination of President Kennedy, the Presidency of the US has become more a matter of the elite backing & financing the campaigns of a hand-picked few who are paraded out as a choice of representatives to that nation's people. The people don't pick this choice of candidates- if one could really call it that- any more than they actually elect the most "popular" representative President. The Electoral College elects the US President- it has been that way since the nation's beginning. Witness the rigged "elections" of George W. Bush so that he could continue his father's regime. Within days of his announcement that he was going to run for office, he had a campaign chest of 50 million dollars! A grassroots candidate from amongst the general population would never have been so fortunate. It was Bush senior who really ruled behind the scenes.

I mean no offense to Americans. I wish they would all take their country back from these dangerous elites who use their power to rape the world through the government of the US! In addition to "Rule By Secrecy", I wish they would read ALL of Jim Marrs' other books, especially "Crossfire", the best book about Kennedy's assassination ever, & "The Fourth Reich", which is a brilliant summation of what the US is headed for if its people don't start turning things around. Mr. Marrs is one of their own, after all- born & raised in Texas. Better they hear it from him than me!

I don't believe that at this point at least any one government could possibly rule all of the people in this world in the first place. Its peoples & their needs are too diverse; there are hundreds of different languages & thousands of dialects, as well as so many varying histories with accompanying scores to settle. Things have been building to an enourmous head in this world, especially over the last hundred years. It won't be long before we all see which way things will go.

reply to post by Ghost375


Thank you for your response. I agree that a one world government isn't going to be easy by any means, & though there is a possibility that things could turn out the way that Huxley envisions, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

An example of how it could turn out is the last century of China's history. China is a vast nation comprised of dozens of different peoples; its 1.5 billion citizens are not all Chinese by any means. What is now China grew out of the destruction of the Manchu empire, which was ruled by a naive & backward regime of despots who were totally oblivious to the sufferings of these various peoples at their hands & at the hands of the British & other empires, who were bleeding the country dry with the opium trade & much else. The collapse of the Manchu dynasty was inevitable, but the replacement of it with Communist ideologies & rule was hardly a fair exchange. Between regimes- Manchu & communist- was a descent into hell that was one of the worst in China's long & violent history, rife with warlords & anarchy. While many feel that the success of the Great Leap Forward is a great improvement, that has not been the case with all of China's varied peoples. The conquering & subjugation of Thibet & the Uighur uprisings are but two examples of how unfair the Communist regime has been to many, to put it mildly.

I use China as an example of what the emergence of a one world government would be like. The world's peoples would have to take a long, hard look at whether or not it would be worth it. I don't see any of this planet's governments giving up their sovereignty any time soon; the takeover by such a government could very well destroy the world as we know it.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
4. The Second Coming of Christ.

I pray for this outcome but fear that at least a limited nuclear exchange somewhere will happen before his return.I pray im wrong but a look around our world today does'nt leave me very optimistic.As for the survival threads i avoid as i would not want to live in a apocalytic world.

#4 - Perpetual business as usual, with a few peaks and valleys.
#5 - Natural mass die off...something like the movie "Children of Men"
#6 - Mass exodus to the past and start over! See the dumb TV show that I forget the name of...

Just some other options

Those are the only three possibilities from a cynical point of view. They are certainly possible without a doubt but I refuse to believe that humans cannot (even after earth shattering wars) find a system that is more in balance with nature and ourselves. People fear non hierarchal structures because they have been conditioned to believe it is the only way. They also fear the non use of certain technologies and believe that to not have access to them (or they aren’t functional) would mean that we would turn into a collective version Mr Hyde. Human's have the ability to be quite savage and barbaric especially when dealing with possessions and uncertainly, but true survival will come in the forming of communes, towns and villages with the intent of bartering, cooperation and mutual survivability. The process will most likely be ugly, but eventually I think something better will come out of it. Just my optimistic opinion of course

Posted from another thread:

by Governments who are populated with greedy, parasitic, self centred, non-empathic, conscienceless, unintelligent lacking A holes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a pretty good description of Archons! No surprise, since they have through the ages infiltrated and deviated human awareness into their own bubble world to cut us off from the source of our wisdom and connections to the natural world. The trajectory of the human race as 'smart monkeys' is of course to very soon develop A.I, Nano tech and redesign our own genome. Such a world would be complete chaos unless there were complete control of all individual units - ie a Borg like collective (NWO)

The 'option' is ascension and the shift to 5D - which is preciscley what the archonic influence seeks to avoid - this is the 'correction' to Sophia/Gaia's 'error' that the Gnostics spoke of - where somehow the archonic influence is neutralised and returned to source - which seems to have been the whole point of our becoming smart monkeys (I think) signature:

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
#4 - Perpetual business as usual, with a few peaks and valleys.
It's unsustainable. Eventually, whether 20 years from now, or 1000 years from now, one of the scenarios will occur. The way things are going now, will only lead to conflict. The longer things go without a real world government, the more likely scenario 2 is.

#5 - Natural mass die off...something like the movie "Children of Men"
Um it's not realistic that we die off without some form of nuclear explosions. Sure, eventually the sun will die out, but either #2 or #3 will have occurred by then.

#6 - Mass exodus to the past and start over! See the dumb TV show that I forget the name of...
lol completely unrealistic. it is a TV show after all.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Those are the only three possibilities from a cynical point of view.
I beg to differ. They are the only three possibilites from a realist's perspective

They are certainly possible without a doubt but I refuse to believe that humans cannot (even after earth shattering wars) find a system that is more in balance with nature and ourselves.
This system you are talking about is still a world government.

People fear non hierarchal structures because they have been conditioned to believe it is the only way.
A world government doesn't have to be hierarchal.

They also fear the non use of certain technologies and believe that to not have access to them (or they aren’t functional) would mean that we would turn into a collective version Mr Hyde. Human's have the ability to be quite savage and barbaric especially when dealing with possessions and uncertainly, but true survival will come in the forming of communes, towns and villages with the intent of bartering, cooperation and mutual survivability. The process will most likely be ugly, but eventually I think something better will come out of it. Just my optimistic opinion of course

So you think we'll break down to barbarism, and then a world government will grow out of it? is that your optimistic view? it still falls within the realist paradigm. #2 would happen first, but then #3 would happen. In your optimistic view, the end result is still #3.

As Huxley writes, the problem with #2 being followed by #3 is that we have depleted so many natural resources, that to rebuild would be extremely difficult. We would probably stay in a state of barbarism, or die off completely(all those nuke plants don't run themselves you know), before advancing to a world government.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

The 'option' is ascension and the shift to 5D - which is preciscley what the archonic influence seeks to avoid - this is the 'correction' to Sophia/Gaia's 'error' that the Gnostics spoke of - where somehow the archonic influence is neutralised and returned to source - which seems to have been the whole point of our becoming smart monkeys (I think) signature:

Without a world government, this is impossible. You can't have part of the world ascended, while the other part isn't. The non-ascended part will blow up the non-violent ascended people for their resources. And if all the people of the world "ascend", and are thinking the same, a one world government no doubt develops.

Originally posted by Sly1one
Why couldn't it be all three? The order you listed them seemed pretty linear and logical in how one would progress into a world government. First the problem "Nuclear War" then the reaction "Barbarism" then the solution "World government"....

so basically from your post

1) = the problem
2) = the reaction
3) = the solution

edit on 22-11-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

I think you misread it. Number 1 is a nuclear apocalypse(total destruction of the humanity); nothing comes after the destruction of the world hehe. A nuclear war that returns the world to barbarism falls within scenario 2.
But you're right, all 3 are closely linked.

They are the only three possibilites from a realist's perspective

No a realist perspective would be that there are infinite possibilities, if you are saying that some probabilities are more likely than others (backed with facts of course) then that is opinion and has nothing to do with realism.

A world government doesn't have to be hierarchal

Please elaborate.

So you think we'll break down to barbarism, and then a world government will grow out of it? is that your optimistic view? it still falls within the realist paradigm. #2 would happen first, but then #3 would happen. In your optimistic view, the end result is still #3.

Define "We" as in "we'll break down". Some would yes, others won't would be my guess."We" gives the impression that all will become that way and that is not true. The whole complete first sentence is inaccurate being that I didn't say that. Again define "realist paradigm"; do you define realism (as in definition) to mean your opinion? The last sentence is also inaccurate because I disagree with the statement "In your optimistic view", because it is not my view it is your assumption (and or impression) of what my view is.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

The 'option' is ascension and the shift to 5D - which is preciscley what the archonic influence seeks to avoid - this is the 'correction' to Sophia/Gaia's 'error' that the Gnostics spoke of - where somehow the archonic influence is neutralised and returned to source - which seems to have been the whole point of our becoming smart monkeys (I think) signature:

Without a world government, this is impossible. You can't have part of the world ascended, while the other part isn't. The non-ascended part will blow up the non-violent ascended people for their resources. And if all the people of the world "ascend", and are thinking the same, a one world government no doubt develops.

In an ascended state, there are no hidden agendas, no need for food or technology as such and we would no longer be quaranteened from the rest of the multiverse - in short it is a completely different ballgame, there would be no 'power struggles' etc.

On the other hand - a technological singularity leads automatically to a borg world.
Where the NWO is trying to take us seems to be a dumbed down global serf state - Islam would be an ideal vehicle for that, but a microchipped serf population led by elites with technology would also serves as well - the archons are essentially trying to insert themselves into our souls to find a way out of their dead end world..

Where is the biological option? I see that more likely than anything.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

Define "We" as in "we'll break down". Some would yes, others won't would be my guess."We" gives the impression that all will become that way and that is not true. The whole complete first sentence is inaccurate being that I didn't say that. Again define "realist paradigm"; do you define realism (as in definition) to mean your opinion? The last sentence is also inaccurate because I disagree with the statement "In your optimistic view", because it is not my view it is your assumption (and or impression) of what my view is.

We as in humanity and society. Society will potentially break down to barbarism...You clearly only quoted part of the sentence....if you quoted the whole thing it's obvious what I meant.


Are you trolling? Or just suffering from cognitive dissonance?

because I disagree with the statement "In your optimistic view", because it is not my view it is your assumption (and or impression) of what my view is.

You clearly say "just my optimistic opinion," and I responded to that.

Human's have the ability to be quite savage and barbaric especially when dealing with possessions and uncertainly, but true survival will come in the forming of communes, towns and villages with the intent of bartering, cooperation and mutual survivability. The process will most likely be ugly, but eventually I think something better will come out of it. Just my optimistic opinion of course

Barbarism followed by "something better." The only possible "something better" is a good one world government.

The realist perspective recognizes that if society breaks down, cooperation and mutual survivability won't be happening. Sure, there will be communes and small villages...but do you believe the independent villages will get along...there would be so much infighting, and outfighting. There will be villages with the sole intent of conquering other villages.

"These," he said gravely, "are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 2

We as in humanity and society. Society will potentially break down to barbarism...You clearly only quoted part of the sentence....if you quoted the whole thing it's obvious what I meant.
Are you trolling? Or just suffering from cognitive dissonance?

No I am not trolling nor am I suffering from cognitive dissonance, I just like words and definitions to be clear that way miscommunication does not happen. I know you meant we as in society, but you act as if society is driven by one mind and one direction, I disagree. Some will revert to raping and pillaging, others will resort or a form of extreme xenophobia/isolationism, others with work in a commune fashion working and sharing resources, others will become mercenaries etc.. you cannot say "society will become..." because you do not know. There are many ways of living, many ways of analyzing and many ways of living together, just because you see it turn out a certain way doesn't mean that it will. That is why I said define "we". Also if you said the world will revert to chaos (temporarily) I might have been more open to your argument because chaos implies lack of order (which I agree will happen to an extent). Chaos however is neutral, barbarity is not, hence why I disagree.

You clearly say "in my optimistic opinion," and I responded to that.

No you responded based on your own assumption on what I meant. You wrote "So in your opinion ..." and the ... what off base to what I was saying so I needed to respond. My opinion is just that, an opinion, just like it is your opinion that it will turn out differently. Calling it "realistic" doesn't change that. You can't tell me what's on my mind and what my opinion is you can only guess and your interpretation of my opinion was wrong anyway. . If you want to know what I meant by something ask for clarification. Might be a good idea to repeat what was said, give your interpretation of what was said, and ask if your interpretation was what accurate - before you say "In your view" or anything similar. Just a heads up.

Barbarism followed by "something better." The only possible "something better" is a good one world government.

Again this statement is opinion (which is fine), but don't mistake it as the only real possibility or outcome. See the problem with communication in absolutes is that it leaves no room for various factors which can change a dynamic (inflexibility), and also leads to misinterpretation and miscommunication. "IMO" "How I see it" "I think" "From what I read/saw" all of those are flexible - "It will be like this" "The only way" etc... are closed ended paths to a wall especially when dealing with something that has not happened yet (as in the future which this whole thread is about).