There's good news, and bad news here. First, the "good" news. Many "experts" with elite connections - those are the connections to the world of high finance, intelligence, and the military-industrial complex - are predicting the end to the era of American hegemonic power:

US Intelligence Analysts: American Power is in Terminal Decline

The bad news is contained in these paragraphs:

"The study offers four possible scenarios for the future. In what it calls the “most plausible worst-case scenario,” the US would withdraw inward, allowing globalization to “stall.” While many people in other countries would likely consider this scenario an optimistic one, not a “worst-case” one, given the hugely destructive role the US has played over the decades since its emergence at the end of World War II as the world’s dominant power, the report’s authors see such a move towards US isolationism as leading to increased conflict and instability in the world.

"A second scenario they postulate, which they term “fusion” and describe as the “most plausible best-case scenario,” would see an increasingly economically dominant and militarily powerful China joining in an era of cooperation with the US. Such cooperation, they say, could lead to solutions to such global challenges as climate change and to “broader global cooperation.” Again, other countries might view such a two-state collaboration between the world’s two biggest economies and militaries as less benign.

"A third scenario postulated as less likely would be a “genie-out-of-the-bottle” world in which growing inequality leads to explosions in many nations, while climate-change and population-pressure driven shortages of water, food and energy, lead to increasing international conflicts, with the US no longer able to act in the role of “international policeman.”

"Finally, a fourth scenario, which seems almost science fiction, envisions a weakening of nation states, as new technologies allow non-state actors, such as mega cities and shifting coalitions of non-state actors, to become leaders in dealing with the world’s issues like climate change, explosive population growth and international conflict over scarce resources."

Not for nothing do these prognostications come when the technologies of emulation and anamnesis (the two terms I use to designate technologies that mimic the capabilities of the gods of ancient mythology and philosophy) are conveying to the very elites sponsoring such studies the ability to jettison the host nations and societies that have sponsored their development, and the corresponding increase in elitist power on a transnational and indeed transhumanist basis. It is therefore impossible, I contend, to speak of a breakaway civilization without reference to the cultural phenomenon of transhumanism.

As will be evident in the above paragraphs, each of the postulated scenarios is based on the favorite memes of the western elites: climate change (global warming didn't work so they had to change the terms), population explosion, and the implicit idea that "resources" are a set, fixed phenomenon: think peak oil here (or as we will soon hear, peak water).

In my opinion it is the fourth scenario that is the most likely (and one that, on careful consideration, would seem on the one hand to spell the most promise, while simultaneously the most threat) to the global elites: the growth of non-nation-state actors on the world stage, where technologies act as a force multiplier for smaller groups of organized human population to have a significantly greater voice: corporations, city-states, and so on.

But what does this possibility spell for the nation-state itself? if scenario three happens, then we will not look at the immediate dissolution of the nation-state, but at its increasing pro forma role. Imagine a world in which the USA or France or Canada increasingly has the status that the old Holy Roman Empire held in much of Western European history: a pro forma affair, with its own legalities, but also with an increasing irrelevance in the affairs of Europe until it was finally simply abandoned as an anachronism in reality if not in name.

But underwriting the article's prognostications there is something else: the role of technology in spelling the end of American hegemonic power, and the persisting role of elites in each of the scenarios outlined. I suspect that the third scenario is their most favored alternative, for such a scenario would allow these elites to "manage conflicts" when they do occur, for they will be sharp, but smaller, much like the wars of the Italian city-states during the Renaissance.

The only problem for this analysis is its deep failure to account for cultural differences between actors like China and Russia, or for that matter, the Islamic world. Consider: technology might be the great unifier in a civilization like the Islamic civilization, where the nation states we have come to associate with it - Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq - were largely the post-Ottoman era creations and impositions of the West. City-states there might be in China, for it has seen such regionalism and even conflict in its past. And naturally, the west has seen such entities as well in its past. But the elites should not underestimate the power and role of culture as a unifying factor, especially when the application of technology to a more or less monolithic culture can only act as a force multiplier to that monolith.

See you on the flip side.


Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. jedi on December 17, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    you should of listen, seen heard my father.

    and his prodige….but I digress.

    I would of thought that you Dr, would of been a fanboy, admirer, of President Johnson,…good guy from a ….certain point of view.

  2. Ethan on December 17, 2012 at 4:49 am

    “new technologies” allowing “non-state actors”… hmhm.. uhu

  3. bdw000 on December 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    And I’m sure everyone here is aware that the great trick of the mainstream media has always been to get people to accept without thinking that the only options are the ones they present in an article such as this.

    Anyone here want to explore a FIFTH option?? How about a 500th option? The possibilities really are limitless in theory, even if practical issues limit us to perhaps only a few thousand major possibilities in the near future.

    • Robert Barricklow on December 17, 2012 at 9:50 am

      The Alternate Close.

  4. enki-nike on December 16, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    how about a fifth scenario: the elites get into their spaceships and leave planet Earth, leaving the rest of us to deal with a world in chaos.

    • DaphneO on December 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm

      enki-nike, I like that idea.

      Imagine a world where we ordinary humans had a chance to create our own future without interference of any kind.

      I’m sure we would stuff up, but I do believe many of us would gather together in communities and work together in harmony. I know the people in my community would.

      As for a God “up there” or “in here”, I don’t even bring that thought into the equation anymore. It would only we be we humans working together to create a better world that could bring this “better world” about.

      I’d like the chance, but at this point can’t see it happening. It seems forces much more powerful than us will not let that happen.

  5. Robert Barricklow on December 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    This bogus “Fiscal Cliff” is getting on my nerves. The 14th amendment says that congress MUST pay its bills in full & on time.
    Of course the constitution also says that Congress issues the currency of the country, not the Federal Rererve.

    Now what is the US government following?
    The International Banking cartel, aka FED;
    or the Constitution?

    • Robert Barricklow on December 16, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      Of course, their goal is to take down
      Social Security & Medicare.
      A Tobin tax would fund those fully, eliminate income tax, fund infrastructure, & get rid of the speculators causing energy & food price increases.

  6. Robert Barricklow on December 16, 2012 at 10:07 am

    No doubt a few “trial baloons” of structure will be put in motion, if not already. There have been meny forms that “civiliztion” has taken. Their’s is one looking for absolute control/power. The illusion of being free while enslaved is their “ideal” population base.
    Just as their “controlled” meme viruses seek to spread rapidly throughout the globe “capturing” cultures and redirecting(herdong/coralling) them; there is another that is its counter, freeing the cultures, individual by individual.
    An individual reveloution of critical thinkers who seek freedom of thought & action.

    One is a super colony in every sense,
    the other: it’s anthesis.

    One tightly/centrally organized.
    The other loosely/decentralized.

    One with specialized units
    the other imbued with overall balanced units.

    Dare I say it?

    • bdw000 on December 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm

      “The illusion of being free while enslaved is their “ideal” population base.”

      What? You mean we’re NOT free????????????

      • Robert Barricklow on December 16, 2012 at 9:15 pm

        There are levels to that question.
        There is the State, there is the family,
        (just to name the obvious ones); but there is
        a deeper level of consciousness, where, experimentally, up to 7 secounds lie between consciousness becomes aware of it “free will”-ed decision(s).
        The unconsious “level” supercedes
        the conscious level.
        All that, to preface, that “free will” is a relative expression. But in the context used above, some of the State’s programs have removed many from the ability to distinguish from “Free” Choice. Obviously, choosing Obama or Romney is NOT a being free. The steps/levels that proceed from there, are a matter of awareness.

        But at the very base level of survival,
        “being free” is:
        … too risky for survival’s sake of “being”.

        • Robert Barricklow on December 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm

          Of course, one could DEEP, very deep into
          how/why,what/who determines(d)
          “for survival’s sake”.

          But that’s a rabbit hole beyond/in “language”.
          (Hint: synchronicity)

      • Robert Barricklow on December 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm

  7. Gregory on December 16, 2012 at 7:17 am

    Add into the mix the chucking of object Truth, the loss of the objective moral order, the progressive deconstruction of the human form (not unrelated), and the release of infra-psychic forces (also not unrelated) and things are looking pretty bleak.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events