is not intended to describe a solution,
but rather to outline a process
suitable for structuring, defining
and developing a
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
Here is a hard question for me to tackle in an honest and objective fashion.
Maybe it is a hard one for you also...
After all, the big money seems to think that,
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.
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.
The rest mostly 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...
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
No surprise there.
Monopolists are as monopolists do...
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)
From his insights, it is a short jump to comprehending the core problem of monopolistic practices.
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".
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.
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".
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
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
Political and other
organizational structures grounded in principles of commitment to
integrity, autonomy, sovereignty, respect for human dignity, and a
commitment to community.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
ut once again, there are traps within such a structure.
Cultural relativism being one example.
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.
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,
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
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.
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.
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.