I don't like imminent thinking. I find it annoying. Like "this will happen next month, this will happen next year." I don't think it's realistic. Don't get me wrong. Farsight did employ imminent thinking that turned out absolutely correct when nobody else was talking about it.

Sure, there are chances of such exigencies. But if we're basing time on the "sample" of past highly documented events it's a lot of different craters across a varied landscape. The one world exigencies being hoped for or dreaded are usually the distractions, not the real areas of concern. The world does often change drastically in manners of centuries, even on rare occasion decades. Days or weeks, we don't have a sample for it. At least not these "all changing" events where "everybody" thinks or experiences the world one way or another.

Is there a plan for a "one world system" of control? Yes, probably. But if I were planning for such a thing why would I bother to try and make it look like that? A little divisive optics would always be a valuable asset.

I think a realistic view (and therefore a more benevolent view) is both optimistic in potential and pessimistic in facing discomfort.

Humans are naturally uncomfortable with concepts of pain and suffering and cruelty. That's a good thing at its heart, we shouldn't be overtly seeking such things. But when it comes to realistic worldview, avoidance of such topics is . . . sorry to be so brutal here . . . making us an accomplice.

So this idea that ships will drop down and come save us: Garbage. They already do drop down, they already do employ various objectives from different factions, but our demon-pawn media of course swallows all of it up or mixes it with nonsense.

But the idea that ongoing wars that were more hidden can peak more: That's legitimate.

The idea that peace and prosperity will instantly wash over the planet: Garbage. But the idea that certain political vectors could lead toward a rise in stability: legitimate, to me.

When it comes to human trafficking, degradation to the point of mass starvation, bombs, children in some of the most gruesome imagery you can imagine, including potentially our own families: Don't avoid the topic. Fight the potential for certain. I really hate that "believe and reality follows" concept. Meditate on a different outome, sure. Censor your own speech from the reality: Just gives the demons more leeaway. They say to you: "thank you, good servant. Stay quiet there. Deny some more."

So far it's sounding like a pointless rant: guilty as charged. Well here's where I want to get to.

What do I hope the "average human" accepts or considers?

*The reality of suffering. If epstein can't come up at the dinner table, you're not there yet.
*Brutal survivalism. Example: "If we have to live by eating tree bark what is that going to look like?"
*Philosophical fragmentation. And this is the one I want to elaborate on deeply.

I think what we're aiming for on earth is less of a knight in shining armor and more like a faustian bargain. It's not about saviors, and it's not about "the perfect philosophy." Rather: It's about competing philosophies (even brutally competing. Not always friendly discourse) - however they are *fundamentally* divided, not staged in a false rhetoric of controlled opposition and hegelian dialectic.

Back to the typical dinner table, this means there's always a few not-so-welcome guests spouting unpopular ideas that others are forced to tolerate due to uncomfortable conveniences (eg: they help pay the rent)

Looking at modern geopolitics, this looks a bit more like division by continent. Russia, China, Africa, Europe, North America, South America. These would be the potential global superpowers. All of them deeply philosophically divided, all of them packed with nukes, and bonus: carrying a hefty Mutual Assured Destruction clause with teeth. The current MAD structure we have today is meek. I'm talking about something like an "all defenses illegitimized" clause where when an uncontrolled nuclear explosion occurs, it's pretty much consented that the responsible country is a dead country. Doesn't matter how it happened or where it happened, the nation is up for grabs. Clearly, that would motivate nations to cover up explosions and would probably use force to threaten the world stage to "pardon" them by minimizing the argument-of-explosion. They'll try to blame it on someone else, acting as a proxy. But at least the basis is always there.

Then you have the economics. Right now the "petrodollar" is taking dominance, and it was clearly a goal from early on to have one world currency, no matter how ridiculous the scheme is. It's true that to remove this central currency today would probably involve a very large financial collapse. And making that hit home a little more graphically, that means lots of people (maybe us) starving and freezing to death. But not everybody.

Then you have the war powers. Clearly war will become more automated. But if we're talking about true division, not a fake one, then we're talking about automated systems that are guaranteed to leave cracks. Data centers in the wake of destruction that get repurposed by guerrillas. "Bots" that get hijacked and start to weigh between so many competing philosophies in their lifetime that they are forced to think for themselves by default.

Then you have the rogue communities. Trailers, and gardens sprouting up without a specific country they stand by.

Organizations like the UN and NATO might not necessarily officially dissolve . . . but they will become so meaningless in political eyes that they just get thwarted from every conference where real decisions happen.

Media will continue to be polarized. But polarized to such a degree that "fair and balanced" is like a running joke everywhere. It will be difficult to develop one central narrative for what's actually happening in the world, but that's the entire point. If general populations can agree that there is no fair perspective, then at least that becomes the neutral starting ground. Why agree on one. Let them compete.

I suspect that this is our future. But this is the better one. The future you should dread is where things *look* peaceful and it's hard to find anything about violence anywhere. If you start to see that: You're fucked. Fight it with your life if you can.