Supranational Agencies and the Self-Anointed Gods

Supranational agencies and the unelected bureaucrats in charge would do well to remember centralization is fragile and that “Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Black Mirror Nosedive (S3, E1) - Sort of what a social score would be like

It is not quite that the unelected bureaucrats at the supranational institutions have all but forgotten about God, it is that they think that they are God. For so long they have behaved as if they were Him – Omnipotent (they can achieve anything), Omniscient (they know everything), and Omnipresent (they are everywhere) - that they have done exactly what Dostoevsky so intently warned against, the self-lie. For so long they have told themselves that God is dead and they can replace him, that, as Dostoevsky cautioned against, they have come to believe it. They have told the lie and so repetitively listened to it, that they can no longer distinguish the truth within them, or around them. And so, while they run their utopian experiments on society, the average person must pay the costly price.

The solution to their delusion, funnily enough, is contained within the words of God. We need not be religious to understand Matthew’s teachings about the importance of addressing our own flaws before criticizing those of others. We can understand and put in practice what Matthew meant by “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye”. Or as Jordan Peterson’s simply put it – set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. Rather than “fixing” the world, and devising a new “global order”, the unelected bureaucrats at the World Economic Forum (WEF), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), amongst others, should focus first on fixing themselves, then their families, then their communities, states, nations, and, only when all of those are in absolutely perfect order, attempt to fix the world and bring about a new “global order”. Until then, these institutions need be disbanded and their members administered a heavy dose of humility.

Supranational institutions, mentioned above, are a plague of know-it-all unelected bureaucrats who forget that “Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” These institutions were founded upon Fabian principles with the goal of establishing a socialist global government where, very conveniently, they get to rule them all (if only they had the ONE ring, ha). Not only have these institutions failed to solve even ONE single issue on their all-inclusive list, but their policies are, to a great extent, their root cause. Some of their goals for 2030 include: ending poverty, ending hunger, ensuring inclusive and equitable education, achieving gender equality, granting access to affordable and reliable energy, reducing inequality within and between countries, fighting climate change, promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, amongst others. Nothing short of Pride, indeed, for a scant group of unelected, self-appointed bureaucrats to believe that they alone can devise and impose, through coercion, their selected solutions to achieve these goals.

The problem with these institutions and their heads is that they have convinced themselves of their own enlightenment, and, in their narcissism and psychopathy, have come to believe that they alone, can “save” the rest of us, and the world while they’re at it. To them, the end justifies the means and given their self-proclaimed superiority, they need not ask for permission to act, they just do. The consequences matter not. Moreover, because they have created a monstrous public-private cooperation (see a list of WEF “strategic partners” and some “leaders” - full list has been taken down), there is little the little guy can do about it. Because they have reached the pinnacle of one particular hierarchy, power or money hierarchy, they believe they are better and know better than the average citizen, thus, they have tasked themselves with the supervision and the decision making of the entire human race. Who is “them”? and what exactly are they doing? They are people like Klaus Schwab, Christine Lagarde, Ursula von der Leyen, Bill Gates, and Larry Fink (amongst many others). People who, like Narcissus, fell in love with their own image and are convinced of their superiority, thus, believe they should be in charge of devising public policy at a global scale.

The first problem with these people and institutions, is one of extreme Pride (btw it is quite curious that the LGBT movement chose a deadly sin as their identifying “value”). While no individual town, let alone country, has achieved what the UN and WEF propose at a local level, they believe they can achieve it at a global scale. Crawling before walking and walking before running is usually wiser. Wiser, it would be, for each individual “leader” to renounce the world stage and enter their respective local political stage and attempt to address the issues at stake. Wiser, it would be, for each individual “leader” to put the proposed solutions up for vote and then decide whether it should be implemented. Once their solution is implemented locally, if successful, could be promoted and implemented at a larger scale. Then, it would become obvious, once again, that centralization just does not work and global solutions are not viable. Centralized systems are fragile, hence the demise of the Soviet Union and of every society that has tried centralization (the EU is not far behind). However, these bureaucrats believe they can make it work at a global scale. The problem, as Jordan Peterson explains, is that in their Pride, they’re attempting to fix the world without first setting their homes in order.

An example of setting one’s house in order before fixing the world would be for arrogant power-mad people like Christine Lagarde and Larry Fink to fix the domestic issues locally before trying to fix them worldwide. Larry Fink, for example, could run for office in New York and propose to fix poverty following the WEF’s communist agenda. As an elected governor, he could manage and supervise the implementation of communism in the state and only after several years of its proven success, attempt to implement it nationally and then internationally. However, while the WEF, of which he is now chairman, talks about ending poverty worldwide, 25% of NYC’s population lives in it (poverty). Similarly, while Lagarde insists on a global currency at the IMF, the Euro has lost over 20% of its value since 2020. While she promoted global prosperity at the IMF, almost no country left in better condition than it was before receiving IMF funds under her governance. Thus, a wiser and more honest approach would be for Mr. Fink to prove his abilities and the soundness of his proposals by eradicating poverty in the city, state, and country in which their lives and for Ms. Lagarde to manage to return the Euro’s value and the European economies. However, they sin of Pride and believe they need not prove their abilities at a local level but insist they can manage to do so on a global scale.

The second problem, again one of Pride, is the attempt to play God with no humility to take into consideration the possibility of error and the consequences of their policies. The world is extremely complex and no human has the ability to yield complete control over it, specially over nature (which includes humans). Everything known to us today, is the result of over 4.5 billion years of evolution. It is an act of absolute conceit to think we can play with nature at will, to think we can play at being God, and foresee and prevent all possible undesired consequences. As Ian Malcolm put it in the original Jurassic Park movie: “they are so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”. In short, just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done (geoengineering or genetic engineering, for example). However, this is precisely what the WEF, WHO, UN, etc. are going for – the attempt to control nature and humans alike. Some things are better left untouched.

Examples of this Pride and conceit are psychopaths like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates who believe they can bend the world at their will to solve the problems they chose with the solutions they so please. For example, Bill Gates climate fear-mongering, his proposed solution, and Schwab’s attempt to make them global policies. Gates is now the largest private owner of farmland, which he has been buying since 2014 and intends to use for climate-related technologies and “sustainable” agriculture (experiments, really). He has funded, amongst his multiple investments, All Things Bugs – a company that produces food using insects as an alternative to meat, Oxitec – genetically modifies mosquitoes to reduce reproduction by “killing” female mosquitoes and reduce malaria and other diseases, Apeel – chemical fertilizer to delay produce decay which cannot be removed and is toxic, has backed geoengineering research that intends to release chemicals into the Earth to block the sun rays, and Beyond Meat – plant-based meat which has been reported to cause cancer (although supposedly not yet proven), amongst others. All ideas are promoted by the UN and WEF. It is an act of extreme irresponsibility and of pride to play with nature with complete disregard of the possible unforeseen consequences.

The third problem is one of hypocrisy, absolute hypocrisy to the point of mockery. While their hypocrisy may appear as a bug, it is actually a feature quite common and well documented of tyrannies. Supranational agencies are the real-life examples of Orwell’s famous phrase that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It is a feature of utopian nonhierarchical societies that those in charge of administering justice and equity are above those at the receiving end. After all, someone has to make sure, through force and coercion, that there is “equity” and whatever else. Thus, while these hypocritical psychopaths peddle their utopia and insist on a “just, equitable, sustainable, and diverse” world, they do the exact opposite of what they promote. While they promote bug eating as a sustainable means to reduce carbon and methane emissions, they dine on venison, lamb, Swiss rib-eye, and even zebra-filet. They promote 15-minute cities and car sharing, to reduce travel and thus carbon emissions, while they arrive on privates jets to the conference and use them on a recurring basis. They promote a subscription-based lifestyle where there is no ownership (official link has been removed), while they happily enjoy several private homes, yachts, planes, you name it. They tax the lower and middle classes outright, or through inflation, to reduce poverty and inequality, while they are the top 1% of the 1%. The politicians who are not part of the 1%, use federal funds to live as if they were or use their power to obtain personal riches. They preach diversity and inclusion, yet they live amongst the most exclusive neighborhoods, send their children to private and elite schools, mingle only with people at the top end of the economic and power hierarchies, and so on. Lovely, it would be, to see von der Leyen and Lagarde taking an 8-hour flight in the exit row at a Lufthansa commercial flight where upon arrival they take the public subway to arrive at their hostel to share a room with a non-binary, queer, they/them youngster. Nope, “rules for thee not for me”. Ayn Rand quite correctly said that “it stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings” and that those who “speak of sacrifices speak of masters and slaves, and intend to be the masters.” Supranational agencies and their self-appointed leaders speak such language, sacrifices to be made by everyone except them.

The fourth, and last problem I will address briefly here is one of abuse of power, of the loss of freedom. And of course, the most dangerous and pressing problem. There are no shortages of books warning about tyrannies, about dictatorships. Yet, the people in power seem to read them as manuals and the people below seem to read them as imaginary tales. Orwell, Huxley, Kafka, Rand, Arendt, Solzhenitsyn, Tolkien, Lewis, and plenty of others have warned about dictatorships, about tyrannies, about authoritarianism and the dangers of the loss of freedom. C.S. Lewis accurately said that “of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive” while Benjamin Franklin warned that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Yet, we have become so complacent and have been exchanging freedom inch by inch for the illusion of safety and certainty offered by untouchable and unreachable elites who care not about our well-being. An inch given here, an inch given there, and we find ourselves in a position where our very livelihood and lifestyle must be explained (try to buy and install and AC in the EU, good luck) and justified to unelected bureaucrats. Supranational agencies have a lot of inherent problems, none as dangerous as this.

Because supranational agencies were founded upon Fabian principles, which believe in a “new global order” where there are no individual nation-states but only one, there needs to be control of all countries and citizens. The digital era facilitates the pursuit and success of this goal. Hence the insistence and need for digital IDs, digital currencies, individual carbon trackers, biometrics, global health passports, and other digital tools of supervision and control. Think China’s social credit system, in which every action of every citizen is tracked and rated by the central government. It is Black Mirror’s Nosedive episode (S3, E1) in real life. The WEF’s idea is to, through technology, centrally track and rate every action we take – doctor’s visit, financial transaction, international travel, property purchase, social media posting, “private” online messages, etc. In this system, our ability to basically live gets determined by unelected bureaucrats according to our “social score”. On a global scale it looks like this: You criticize Larry Fink? Oops, your pension funds are frozen. You ate meat 2x a week? Oops, you get a CO2 fine directly on your door. You want to travel from London to Germany on airplane? Oops, you can’t, you already spent your 1,000 miles annual allowance. You don’t get 10th booster of a useless “vaccine”? Oops, you can’t leave your home. You might think this is a conspiracy theory, or you could just go to the WEF’s and UN’s website and read their papers, and watch their interviews and conferences. Heck! There are whole books Schwab wrote on this! Unelected bureaucratic psychopaths in and out. Such a tyrannical agenda is being sold to “protect” the people, to ensure our “safety” and achieve “transparency”, and can be implemented through force and coercion as all financial means have become digital and centralized. Hence the popularity of bitcoin. However, because their proposals have been and would surely be rejected by the population at large (hopefully), they must be implemented without our consent and if possible, without our initial knowledge, to avoid rejection or avoidance. In their self-aggrandizement, they have come to believe they are the ones who must decide the fate of the world and can do so without our consent.

The best alternative to this hubris is decentralization. Decentralized systems are, if not antifragile (beyond resilience or robustness - the resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better) per Nassim Taleb, at least stronger and more resilient. Centralization is fragile, decentralized systems are not. Hence, the best alternative to the fragility offered by the Fabians is the exact opposite. Localization. Smaller societies in which the leaders have skin in the game and decisions are made on a local rather than a global scale. Where failure does not mean “systemic risk” and threatens entire global systems. Local banks, local governments, local policies, local laws, local everything. The only alternative are smaller societies where the free markets and individual people, rather than bureaucratic institutions, make their individual decisions without coercion and with full understanding and the embracing of the responsibility of their decisions and actions. The alternative is to implement Matthew’s principle and have each person set their own house in order before attempting to fix the world.

It is a feature, not a bug, that under communist societies there is no God. Or more precisely, the State is God. This time is not different. The “leaders” at the supranational agencies believe they are God and act as such. To them, the world is their playground and because of their self-assured intellect, they believe they can and must “fix” the world. To them, humans are just an assortment of biological elements and chemical reactions that can and should be optimized. To them, the world can be governed and arranged with a single group of global entities in charge. Moreover, because they are “experts” and are convinced of their superiority and our inferiority and irrationality, they must govern without permission and approval. A dangerous proposition, as they have no skin in the game and bear no responsibility or whatsoever for their actions. We must reject globalism and instead embrace and promote decentralization.