There Is No Worldwide Interest

There’s a principle of the Spherical Model I don’t talk about that often, but we’ve been getting examples lately, so this seems like a good time.

 

East and West on the Sphere

In the Spherical Model, north on the sphere is toward freedom; south is toward tyranny. The further north or south you go, the more freedom or tyranny you get. But the lateral direction, east or west, isn’t necessarily good one way and bad the other. It has to do with level of interest, going from furthest west individual families (the basic unit of civilization) eastward on up to communities, towns, cities, counties, states/provinces, nations, regions, and world. The level whose interest it is handles the issue.

West on the sphere is more local, with individuals and families being furthest west;
going east on the sphere is less local, with world being the furthest east meridian.

If that always happened, we’d have no east/west (on the sphere) problems. But there is a problem when the wrong level handles the issue.

It’s very rare that a lower level takes on the role of a higher level. However, you do have an example of that right now on the southern US border. International borders are the responsibility—the interest—of the national government. But if the national government fails to do that job, the next level down, the state, will need to do it. It’s a problem for the state, especially when the national government complains, “You can’t do that; that’s our responsibility.” If they know it’s their responsibility, then their failure must be purposeful.

The Bill of Rights are the first ten
amendments to the US Constitution.

So, that’s a rare case of a lower level taking on the interest of a higher level, by necessity. Almost always our lateral problems are higher levels insisting on usurping the lower-level authority. The school district overrides the role of the parent. The federal government overrides the powers left to the states. 

Our US Constitution is designed to prevent this, limiting—even enumerating—the powers of the federal government, and spelling out in the 9^th and 10^th Amendments that anything not expressly granted to the federal government is retained by the states and the people. Nevertheless, that limitation of power gets ignored all the time, causing just about every government-related problem we have.

It seems to be a tendency of governments to try to increase their power by usurping the authority of the lower levels. Even HOAs do it, taking power over the homeowner. And every time a government does it, that is tyranny.

The Spherical Model description, then, is that east/west direction is neutral—unless a higher level takes on a lower level’s authority. In an ideal national government, there could be some debate about whose authority is appropriate for a particular issue. But most of the time it’s pretty clear that whatever issue it is, it belongs to the lower level.

With this tendency toward usurping power over lower levels, we could make a policy—as individuals and as sovereign nations—never to give power upward above the national level. Indeed, the American people have never granted the authority to the federal government to give our sovereignty to some other entity. There might be a need for international treaties and organizations, but never a need to grant authority upward beyond the nation.

I tried a thought experiment to see if I could envision an issue or situation in which the world as a whole was the appropriate interest. If we were invaded by aliens from another planet, we might have a need to protect our border—the entire planet being the border. But even then the participation would come from the individual nations making up the world. Treaties and alliances would be sufficient, without giving up sovereignty to a worldwide leader. We have no need in our world for a Star Trek Federation, because we're not negotiating with alien worlds.

 

The Globalists

So let’s state unequivocally, before even looking at their arguments and assertions, that the World Economic Forum leaders meeting in Davos this past week should never be given power. Because they are globalists, you can know, despite their rhetoric, that they are power mongers, working out how to take power away from all the lower levels, from nations on down to individuals. Whatever they say, they are not about working for our good; they are about acquiring more power for themselves.

There was a weird moment when John Kerry was speaking, when he seems to notice how out of sync their efforts are:

John Kerry speaking at WEF Forum 2023
screenshot from here

And when you stop to think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we select group of human beings, because whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet. I mean, it’s so almost extraterrestrial to think about “saving the planet.” And if you said that to most people, most people, they think you’re just a crazy tree-hugging Lefty liberal, you know, do-gooder or whatever.

“Saving the planet” would be the only level at which it would be conceivable to have a worldwide level interest. That is perhaps why these “crazy tree-hugging Lefty liberal do-gooders” have invented planet-wide dangers such as “climate change” or “sustainability” as their causes. When they say these things, put in their place the problem of “aliens invading the planet” and therefore you need to grant them power. And do not suppose they will show you evidence of the aliens invading; you must just trust them, because they know better than you down below, who are just “most people.”

Klaus Schwab, the Bond-villain-sounding head of the WEF, gives the classic wording. His welcome speech details the problems the world is facing, things like energy transmission, COVID, supply chains, high inflation, rising interest rates, growing national debt (of many nations, I’m guessing, not just the obvious US). He divides things into several categories:

Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum
screenshot from here

·        Global economic transformation.

·        Geopolitical systemic transformation: “a messy patchwork of powers.”

·        Existential problems: climate change, exploitation of nature, nuclear possible incidents, or even worse, extreme poverty and viruses.

·        Technological revolution.

These all happen to lead to what he refers to as some dreaded “fragmentation.” He says to those elites with him in Davos, “We have the ability to collaboratively build a more peaceful, resilient, inclusive, and sustainable world.” Doesn’t that sound nice? But in order to do this, they need to overcome the worst form of fragmentation of all—those who disagree and won’t follow along. There are bystanders, but there are, even worse, those who go negative and have a “critical and confrontational attitude.”

If only we would all just go along with the people who caused the economic shutdown with a planned-for pandemic, leading to the economic difficulties they are looking for in order to accomplish the “Great Reset,” their announced plan, not a conspiracy theory! If only we would not resist those who prevented us from getting cheap and effective medical treatments instead of the oft-mandated experimental “vaccines” that were neither safe nor effective—and were not even actually vaccines! If only we went along with the elites who want to shut down our energy supply, getting rid of gas-power cars even though they can’t provide reliable electric or other alternatives!

These supposed “problem solvers” are responsible for most of the world’s problems. It’s hard to know how much is for the purpose of creating chaos so people will turn to them to solve their problems—“just give us the power so we help you”; or how much is absolute incompetence.

meme posted on Facebook by Allie Duzett

 

Dispersion of Knowledge

One thing is certain: global elites have no business interfering in what I eat, what I drive, what kind of stove I cook on, what kind of lightbulb I use, what kind of toilet I have in my house, what I use to heat my home, what doctors I choose, what medical care I choose, and what I want to teach my children. They can’t know.

This is the basic dispersion of knowledge ideas expressed well in economic books such as Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics and a dozen of his other books, and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. The knowledge is dispersed. (Incidentally, Bitcoin technology is dispersed, unlike the centralized blockchain currencies being pushed by some nations and their elites.)

Schwab’s concern about “a messy patchwork of powers” shows his preference for centralized power—with him at the center.

That patchwork argument is often used by centralizers. Shouldn’t you have all the states have common laws, instead of this messy patchwork? Shouldn’t we lay down policy on healthcare, abortion, education, insurance, oil and gas regulation—you name it—from above, so every place is uniform?

The answer is no. You should not have a policy from above, where the policymakers do not have to experience the results of their imposition. The people who have to live with the consequences, who have a stake in the outcome of policies—they should be the ones to have a say. They’re the ones who have reason to care, and immediate knowledge the faraway bureaucrats and elites do not have.

The decision should always be made as locally as possible. Every time a higher level takes on decision-making for what should be done more locally, tyranny results. No matter how well-intentioned the higher-level policy makers might be (and you probably shouldn’t be so generous with them; they’re power mongers), taking authority from its proper level reduces free will, which means tyranny.

When you let those to whom problems matter do the problem solving—those to whom the problem is immediate and local—then you get relevant ideas and innovation. Then they can share that innovation with other local areas who have the same or similar issues, and the other place can adopt or adapt the innovation. Top-down solutions from afar will not solve the issues. They don’t care to solve the issues; they care to preserve and increase their power.

I’ve waited too long to recall everything I watched, but someone pointed out that Schwab’s concerns about those pesky people with confrontational attitudes actually shows he is scared: we were supposed to comply, and we didn’t do according to plan. Many did, of course, but too many for his comfort did not.

And I don’t remember if it was that same person, so, again, I don’t know who to credit. But someone pointed out that we can do something to fight these global elites even as individuals: we can say no, I will not get that shot; no, I will not allow my child to be taught those things; no, I will not stop using my gas stove. When enough of us refuse to give them power, we all find they were powerless after all.

 

Additional Resources:

·        Law vlogger Robert Gouveia commented on the WEF Forum in Davos all week. He shared the video clips I took quotes from here. He got the John Kerry clip from @drewhlive on Twitter, which he recommended.

·        RebelNews sent a crew to cover the events all week. Their coverage is here.