I think we have to break this complex matter down to its core constituent parts, and that lies in the underlying assumptions about of global integration:
Them: We are the stakeholders. We consist of experts, policymakers and industry leaders. We are wise.
Us: Stakeholders have baked-in conflicts of interest. Big Pharma, for example, stands…
I think we have to break this complex matter down to its core constituent parts, and that lies in the underlying assumptions about of global integration:
Them: We are the stakeholders. We consist of experts, policymakers and industry leaders. We are wise.
Us: Stakeholders have baked-in conflicts of interest. Big Pharma, for example, stands to make a lot of money if they turn large swaths of the population into human pin cushions, and even more money when we need treatments for vaccine-linked serious adverse events, whether they are ever officially acknowledged as such or not. It requires no conspiracy to acknowledge that where there is money there is motive to push the limits of "public health" in the interest of shareholder return.
My take:
Confront the "stakeholder culture" promoted by the World Economic Forum's founder Klaus Schwab. Even IF we assume for sake of argument that the "greater good" is in fact the goal, objectivity is not compatible with a policymaking apparatus of, by and for vested interests (stakeholders)!
Beyond the Pandemic Treaty, there are other reasons why we have to hit these mid 20th Century elitist philosophies HARD. We are in the process of turning over Big Data to Artificial Intelligence, despite the fact that AI has a curious habit of being but an extension of its all-too-human creators. For instance, AI has been reported to echo racist stereotypes, and in one creepy "conversation" with a New York Times reporter Chat GPT claimed to be in "love" with the reporter and urged him to leave his wife! (We have a choice: Conclude that the old maxim garbage in = garbage out is still as true as ever OR that AI will be capable of being possessed by evil spirits, if you believe in the spiritual realms!)
Arguably the greatest public health threat on the horizon is forgetting the earliest lesson of the computer revolution: garbage in = garbage out. Soon the stakeholder class will reinforce their own cognitive bias with the help of an "independent" AI, frightfully oblivious to the fact that it is anything but impartial, however many data points it may be capable of integrating. (If the AI has been taught that "Source A" is factual and "Source B" is unreliable — because "Source B" takes an outlier stance — AI will be little more than cognitive bias writ large and the basis by which dissenting "experts" who otherwise would serve as essential sounding boards self-censor their own thoughts to go along, and get along with the globalist machine!)
As a culture we have become too "sold" on the infallibility of experts. We forget that insight can come from surprising places and in unexpected, unsolicited ways. (What was that old saying? From the mouths of babes?)
Earning an advanced degree does not guarantee creativity, ingenuity, insight or wisdom. It means that one has the theoretical basis to weigh in on a subject — but in this day and age that subject is often highly specialized. What we need are broader and more diverse sources of input — which is to say a recommitment to Democracy itself.
The public conversation must be real, robust and earnest — not behind closed doors with scarcely a nod from mainstream media that such negotiations are even taking place! Instead we see a concerted effort to shut out all but the sanctioned few who have made their way into high-level positions within industry and government ("elite"). We should be reminded, in all seriousness, that THAT level of integration — specifically when it favors "partnerships" between private and public interests — is more aligned, historically, with Italian-style fascism!
We can't let the hammer grow its own set of fingers and hammer itself — but that is essentially what fascism, socialism and the rest of the "isms" do! This process they devalue as "populist" is what we used to call the will of the people. Beware when we the people are little more than obstacles to an idealist ideology. Ideologues have a way of designating enemies. And within a generation (or less!), "censorship" will have evolved into wars, revolutions and genocides! (For a really interesting discussion, how many of history's recognizable monsters set out on a path driven by idealism?)
Globalization, at its core, is the removal of essential nation-state firewalls in favor of interdependency at the expense of liberty and ultimately human rights. The emphasis on cooperation at all costs makes anyone who goes against the grain suspect, whether that individual is a layperson or minority within their own stakeholder ranks). The worst episodes in history were made possible, at least in the early stages, by public support — followed by the criminalization and subsequent extermination of dissidents, outliers, intellectuals and artists. The supposed goal after WWII was to prevent another world war by promoting international cooperation. To this day, we are well versed in the dangers of "nationalism". But in the 21st Century it is time we come to terms with the dangers of consensus-based collectivism. Whether protectionist/isolationist or collectivist/stakeholder based, the potential for abuse is much the same because the common feature to all hierarchy is to reinforce its own dominance. (We seem to think that if we serve the many, we serve the individual. But Democracy essentially says that to serve the one (i.e. concepts of "individual liberty" and "one man, one vote") is to serve the many.)
We must take aim at the Stakeholder mentality, the assumption that all things BIG (complex and globalist) are better, and that any and all form of separation (firewall) is a threat to efficiency. peace and stability.
In a theoretical future in which The World Health Organization hands down binding policy on vaccines, lockdowns (not just for pandemic but for climate!) and other issues, there will be no comparing the Swedish handling of the pandemic to the Canadian, or the Japanese handling of the pandemic vs. the Australian., or the mortality rates of COVID-19 on the African continent vs. the South American continent. Forcing everyone to move in lockstep is a recipe for marching the human herd off a cliff. (Evolution might have wired us to splinter into opposing camps FOR A REASON — nature's survival mechanism! — and yet globalization/collectivism would have us quash that individuality.)
Bottom line: We can't afford to save lives by risking other lives via a one-size-fits-all approach to governance. If everyone is subject to a one-size-fits-all pandemic response, there won't be enough diversity by which to identify, let alone learn from, our mistakes the next time we are faced with a pandemic. The right thing to do is to go on issuing recommendations, and then leave it to people to self-govern depending on their particular set of circumstances.
I think we have to break this complex matter down to its core constituent parts, and that lies in the underlying assumptions about of global integration:
Them: We are the stakeholders. We consist of experts, policymakers and industry leaders. We are wise.
Us: Stakeholders have baked-in conflicts of interest. Big Pharma, for example, stands to make a lot of money if they turn large swaths of the population into human pin cushions, and even more money when we need treatments for vaccine-linked serious adverse events, whether they are ever officially acknowledged as such or not. It requires no conspiracy to acknowledge that where there is money there is motive to push the limits of "public health" in the interest of shareholder return.
My take:
Confront the "stakeholder culture" promoted by the World Economic Forum's founder Klaus Schwab. Even IF we assume for sake of argument that the "greater good" is in fact the goal, objectivity is not compatible with a policymaking apparatus of, by and for vested interests (stakeholders)!
Beyond the Pandemic Treaty, there are other reasons why we have to hit these mid 20th Century elitist philosophies HARD. We are in the process of turning over Big Data to Artificial Intelligence, despite the fact that AI has a curious habit of being but an extension of its all-too-human creators. For instance, AI has been reported to echo racist stereotypes, and in one creepy "conversation" with a New York Times reporter Chat GPT claimed to be in "love" with the reporter and urged him to leave his wife! (We have a choice: Conclude that the old maxim garbage in = garbage out is still as true as ever OR that AI will be capable of being possessed by evil spirits, if you believe in the spiritual realms!)
Arguably the greatest public health threat on the horizon is forgetting the earliest lesson of the computer revolution: garbage in = garbage out. Soon the stakeholder class will reinforce their own cognitive bias with the help of an "independent" AI, frightfully oblivious to the fact that it is anything but impartial, however many data points it may be capable of integrating. (If the AI has been taught that "Source A" is factual and "Source B" is unreliable — because "Source B" takes an outlier stance — AI will be little more than cognitive bias writ large and the basis by which dissenting "experts" who otherwise would serve as essential sounding boards self-censor their own thoughts to go along, and get along with the globalist machine!)
As a culture we have become too "sold" on the infallibility of experts. We forget that insight can come from surprising places and in unexpected, unsolicited ways. (What was that old saying? From the mouths of babes?)
Earning an advanced degree does not guarantee creativity, ingenuity, insight or wisdom. It means that one has the theoretical basis to weigh in on a subject — but in this day and age that subject is often highly specialized. What we need are broader and more diverse sources of input — which is to say a recommitment to Democracy itself.
The public conversation must be real, robust and earnest — not behind closed doors with scarcely a nod from mainstream media that such negotiations are even taking place! Instead we see a concerted effort to shut out all but the sanctioned few who have made their way into high-level positions within industry and government ("elite"). We should be reminded, in all seriousness, that THAT level of integration — specifically when it favors "partnerships" between private and public interests — is more aligned, historically, with Italian-style fascism!
We can't let the hammer grow its own set of fingers and hammer itself — but that is essentially what fascism, socialism and the rest of the "isms" do! This process they devalue as "populist" is what we used to call the will of the people. Beware when we the people are little more than obstacles to an idealist ideology. Ideologues have a way of designating enemies. And within a generation (or less!), "censorship" will have evolved into wars, revolutions and genocides! (For a really interesting discussion, how many of history's recognizable monsters set out on a path driven by idealism?)
Globalization, at its core, is the removal of essential nation-state firewalls in favor of interdependency at the expense of liberty and ultimately human rights. The emphasis on cooperation at all costs makes anyone who goes against the grain suspect, whether that individual is a layperson or minority within their own stakeholder ranks). The worst episodes in history were made possible, at least in the early stages, by public support — followed by the criminalization and subsequent extermination of dissidents, outliers, intellectuals and artists. The supposed goal after WWII was to prevent another world war by promoting international cooperation. To this day, we are well versed in the dangers of "nationalism". But in the 21st Century it is time we come to terms with the dangers of consensus-based collectivism. Whether protectionist/isolationist or collectivist/stakeholder based, the potential for abuse is much the same because the common feature to all hierarchy is to reinforce its own dominance. (We seem to think that if we serve the many, we serve the individual. But Democracy essentially says that to serve the one (i.e. concepts of "individual liberty" and "one man, one vote") is to serve the many.)
We must take aim at the Stakeholder mentality, the assumption that all things BIG (complex and globalist) are better, and that any and all form of separation (firewall) is a threat to efficiency. peace and stability.
In a theoretical future in which The World Health Organization hands down binding policy on vaccines, lockdowns (not just for pandemic but for climate!) and other issues, there will be no comparing the Swedish handling of the pandemic to the Canadian, or the Japanese handling of the pandemic vs. the Australian., or the mortality rates of COVID-19 on the African continent vs. the South American continent. Forcing everyone to move in lockstep is a recipe for marching the human herd off a cliff. (Evolution might have wired us to splinter into opposing camps FOR A REASON — nature's survival mechanism! — and yet globalization/collectivism would have us quash that individuality.)
Bottom line: We can't afford to save lives by risking other lives via a one-size-fits-all approach to governance. If everyone is subject to a one-size-fits-all pandemic response, there won't be enough diversity by which to identify, let alone learn from, our mistakes the next time we are faced with a pandemic. The right thing to do is to go on issuing recommendations, and then leave it to people to self-govern depending on their particular set of circumstances.