Enabling a Decentralized World
How can we create something that has never existed before?
The essay that follows is not intended to describe a solution, but rather to outline a process suitable for structuring, defining and developing a solution.
There is something in the wind, a subtle global emerging realization that there needs to be a different organizational model for world affairs. In my experience, when the time is right for a new idea or technology, it will often arise independently in many places all over the world. I sense an organically developing awareness that humanity should self-assemble under some form of a decentralized networked model which is different from what currently exists.
I think that time is at hand now, a time for emergence of an alternative to the dark “fourth industrial revolution” centralized monopolist/totalitarianism visions which are being so aggressively “shaped” and promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the affiliated organizations of the World Health Organization (WHO), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN), and the great many global elitist organizations (such as the Club of Rome and so many others) who presume to know what is best for the rest of us.
Here is a hard question for me to tackle in an honest and objective fashion. Maybe it is a hard one for you also. What is really wrong with a centralized monopolist/totalitarianism command economy-based model, such as the WEF and its allies so actively promote?
After all, the big money seems to think that the China/CCP model works quite well. It is easy to pick at issues of censorship, propaganda, thought control, all of the known issues with centralized command economies, and the grinding dehumanization which seems to be a hallmark of every totalitarian regime in the written history of the world. The core problem with relying on “big money” to envision the future and make decisions for all of us is the inherent financial and political conflict of interest which comes with this dependency.
The WEF and its allied organizations and trained acolytes seem to believe that all of those limitations can be overcome if they just had more complete data and better technology. You can be made happy in a world in which you are freed from the burden and responsibilities of ownership, if you will just concede free will to the anointed central managers – just let Big Brother have his way with you.
It is often said that only 10% of any given population of humans truly wants to be free, and will accept the burdens of personal responsibility which come with that position. The rest mostly just want to be told what to do. So why should the needs of the few (the 10%) outweigh the needs of the many (those who just want to be told what to do)?
As I ponder these issues, for me it comes down to the consequences of allowing and empowering monopolies. In addition to the proven soul-destroying aspects of monopolistic totalitarianism, the price paid is the death of innovation.
Over the last three years of the COVIDcrisis, we have seen the cost of monopolistic global capture of “World Health” policies by an elite cabal of media, tech, large pharma, centralized finance, non-governmental “pathophilanthropic” and transnational corporations. And from my point of view, what I have seen is gross mismanagement by these centralized globalist organizations leading to huge and avoidable economic, educational, physical and psychological health and excess mortality adverse impacts.
And based on this atrocious record, these same organizations are now attempting to justify even more power, capital, and control for themselves. No surprise there. Monopolists are as monopolists do.
The truth which is not allowed to be spoken is that this complex, interlaced global tragedy (the COVIDcrisis) could have been easily avoided if innovative solutions were cultivated instead of suppressed. Just to provide one notable example to illustrate the general point. “The Great Barrington Declaration” was not in any way radical, it was an expression of sensible, time tested public health norms. The principal authors were gobsmacked by the pushback, because what they were advising was basically “standard of care” public health wisdom developed and validated over decades. But those who set national and global policy were actually not very well qualified to do so, and when they encountered an alternative representing accumulated wisdom instead of the ad-hoc “China Model” which they had advocated, the small in-group who had concocted the globalist position responded in a rather violent (psychologically speaking) manner.
For those who wish to dive deeper into the issue of how innovative, disruptive “paradigm shifts” come to pass (and why), I recommend reading the definitive primer on the topic – Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. From his insights, it is a short jump to comprehending the core problem of monopolistic practices.
Seeking to look at this in the “big picture” sense, monopolistic or totalitarian practices create revolutions. Basically, under monopolies (corporate or political), there are strong incentives to eliminate competition in order to insure continuity – continuity of profit (cash cow), or continuity of concentrated political power (totalitarianism). The consequence is that, over time, the gap between the current solution (to whatever the core problem in question is) and the theoretical optimal solution (ergo the unmet need) grows larger and larger. In an open, decentralized organizational structure, typically multiple solutions are continually being brought forth and tested, and so the tension of that gap tends to get resolved before the gap gets too large. This creates an environment where the “disruptive events” or discontinuities get resolved more as a series of “evolutionary” bumps in the road rather than as revolutions. But if the forces of monopolistic or totalitarian controls are allowed free reign, then these discontinuities between current and optimal solutions grow larger and larger over time, and at some point the tension between the current solution and the unmet need get resolved abruptly, to which resolution (if the gap was large enough) we apply the term “revolution”. Technological revolution, business revolution, social revolution, or political revolution.
In a sense, the Bronze Age collapse of approximately 1177 BC appears to have been the consequence of a catastrophic propagating failure of a global totalitarian political system. Centralized totalitarian systems eventually fail, and when they fail they do so catastrophically.
We can learn a lot from this history, and in particular we can learn from what came afterwards. Basically, after a fairly brief “dark age”, history records the rise of the Greek city-state organization exemplified by the pinnacle of Athens and the Athenian political system which is often considered the birthplace of much of what we define as “Democracy”. I suggest that what the Athenian system of yore really represented was a locally decentralized solution to political organization and management. Out of the destruction of civilization wrought by the catastrophic failure of global centralized totalitarian political governance systems emerged the decentralized, self-assembling system of the Athenian city-state.
Acknowledging the selection bias of whom I talk to while constantly traveling or broadcasting to medical freedom-related meeting these days, what I hear from every quarter and from all over the world is an emerging sense of a need to find a different way of organizing ourselves as a species. A sense that the management and political structures which currently exist are outdated and inadequate for the current interconnected and interdependent global community. That these current models select for narcissistic, sociopathic and psychopathic leaders who, by their very nature, are biased towards hierarchical, monopolistic and totalitarian organizational structures. The same organizational bias which became dominant during the Bronze age, and which yielded a cascading catastrophic failure of the entirety of western civilization.
What I hear, again and again, is an emerging sense of mistrust of centralized political and economic structures, and a desire to find some way to organize communities under some sort of decentralized method of self-determination. Political and other organizational structures grounded in principles of commitment to integrity, autonomy, sovereignty, respect for human dignity, and a commitment to community.
To provide one example of many, the idea of the semi-autonomous states comprising the “United States”, under the structure envisioned and embodied in the documents called the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, was originally intended to enable each state to function as a sort of semi-autonomous “laboratory of democracy”. In contrast to the decentralized competition of Greek or Roman city states, the states which comprised the “United States” all agreed to a charter which bound them together to enable shared objectives (notable commerce and defense), while also protecting individual autonomy within each (more localized) political structure. Over time, this system has become perverted by the growth of a centralized overarching and domineering political structure which is often referred to as the “Administrative State”, but this was not the original intent and charter. The original intent was to bind the semi-autonomous states (metaphorically akin to the Greek city-state) into what was essentially a shared alliance structure with well-defined rules of engagement and self-governance. Fundamentally, a win-win governance solution designed to protect autonomy and local decentralized sovereignty. As far as I am concerned, when viewed through the lens of long term historic political trends, this structure represented an evolutionary (not revolutionary) step forward in human political and economic organization. Evolutionary in that it built upon the wisdom and experience of millennia, rather than purporting to advance an entirely novel political organizational structure (contrast being Socialist-Marxism, for example).
So, how do we move beyond a vague sense that a different, decentralized global and local organizational structure and ethic is needed, to something that is more operational and practical? How can a global community develop a different way forward from that which exists presently, or which has ever existed? How can people develop a new way forward without falling into the same traps which have given rise to the totalitarian Marxist-corporatist (Fascist) globalist vision being promoted and “shaped” by the WEF and its affiliates?
There is considerable benefit to the gift of having a “worthy opponent”, and Schwab, Harari, and their future vision of the WEF appear to be a bespoke fit for that purpose. But is their vision likely to prevent or accelerate the boundary/singularity of a cascading collapse of global organization such as occurred at the end of the Bronze Age? I suggest that our true opponent is the singularity event which would yield a post-apocalyptic world such as that so well explored in dystopian near-term literature and film (for example, the Mad Max series and so many others).
When I discuss this with others who are trying to build “intentional communities” in response to the threat to freedom, autonomy, innovation, and sovereignty posed by the Globalist visions of the WEF et al., what I encounter is that our thinking tends to fall back into the same logic traps which have resulted in the current system. The logic often falls back to the need for some centralized political structure or committee (United Nations, for one example) to serve some sort of enforcement or policing function. The need for some sort of structure to insure that certain prohibited ideas and communications are disallowed. To take an extreme example, I think we can all agree that child snuff film porn should not be allowed. There are no “cultural relativism” arguments to be made in favor of snuff porn. And from there, it is a slippery slope which quickly leads to justifying a wide range of censorship practices.
Personally, I believe that diversity is not only good, but it is essential for the advancement of humanity as a species. I believe that the belief that humankind should be homogenized, which is at the core of much of the WEF belief system, is critically wrong. Because it will stifle innovation. Technological and cultural innovation. Which will inevitably lead the discontinuity between current “approved” solutions and the unmet need as discussed above. Which will eventually lead to global catastrophic failures- which is essentially what we have all experienced with the COVIDcrisis. The combination of the global, harmonized failure of commitment to integrity and intolerance towards innovation has resulted in one of the most profound leadership and policy failures of human history. So, in my opinion, we need to enable a global interconnectedness which is firmly grounded in a shared commitment to integrity as well as to diversity. But once again, there are traps within such a structure. Cultural relativism being one example.
How can we proceed, acknowledging that everything which we can envision will be biased by the solutions (and errors) of the past?
I suggest that we can only do so by enabling an evolutionary, decentralized approach. We cannot rely on some small group of “sages”, some single think tank structure, to come up with a vision and structure which can guide humanity towards a better way to enable the species to fulfill its potential without destroying our souls, our families, our highly evolved shared sense of ethics – of what is right and proper- and our environment.
In short, here is my modest proposal, with explicit and humble reference to the brilliant 1729 monograph of Thomas Swift.
There are a wide variety of “intentional communities” which are self-assembling all across the globe. Each of these are emerging to address different needs, and each represents a different point of view. I suggest that some sort of congress, physical or virtual, is convened with representatives from these diverse communities. The purpose of such a congress would not be to develop solutions, but rather to define the problems which will benefit from a new political structure. One that is forward looking, designed to enable global connectivity and cooperation while maintaining diversity, autonomy and individual/group/national (?) sovereignty. Such a structure must enable rather than stifle innovation, in my opinion. Such a structure must be based on a shared commitment to integrity and transparency, which is the foundation upon which trust is built.
In short, the charter of such a congress would be to define the global need, not to formulate the solutions. That would be enough. That alone would be a major achievement.
Once the problem set is defined, then move into development of multiple, independently derived proposed solutions. The series of case studies described by Irving L. Janis in his masterwork Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes provides a roadmap for this phase of cooperative envisioning an alternative future. Basically, establish a cluster of fully independent working groups and task each with developing proposed solutions to the defined problem set, the unmet global need. Deadlines will be required, both to expedite and to focus the efforts of each group. Upon independent completion of this tasks, proposed solutions would be presented, discussed, studied, and then an initial charter developed based on the outcome. A key challenge will be how to adjudicate what is the optimal compromise. One of very many challenges which would have to be negotiated. From this a charter, a constitution would be developed, much as occurred in the founding of the United States. This would then be submitted to the autonomous “intentional communities” for discussion, negotiation, and eventual endorsement.
That is my modest proposal. In my opinion, a global decentralized alternative to the dark visions of the WEF and its controlling organizations will require a global decentralized process. Furthermore, engaging the global community in development of such a solution will help promote buy in from those involved.
In conclusion, I suggest that the way forward cannot be arrived at without finding some way for groups representing autonomous individuals to interact and develop a new way of organizing and interacting with each other. For mutual defense and not only economic but also spiritual growth. While sharing a commitment to integrity, human dignity, and community.
Please consider the comments above not as an endpoint, but rather as a starting point. Unlike Drs. Schwab and Harari, I do not presume to know the answers. Rather I seek to provide some guideposts to facilitate discussion and collective problem solving.
I do not presume to know what the optimal decentralized future for humanity looks like. And I am wary of any others who presume to have the answers. Instead, I place my faith in the potential for humankind to evolve a way forward to a brighter future, step by step, via trial and error, over centuries and millennia. What I seek to do with this essay is to provide an initial roadmap that could help us to pass the fork in the road, the singularity event, and to choose a path which leads to empowerment, autonomy, freedom and innovation.
I look forward to your comments, feedback and thoughts on this.