Obviously we all want to contribute and we think we all have really great ideas and wisdom to offer.
I prefer to draw from areas where there functioning and successful principles and no partisan political issues, and I found two that are good for sharing with readers.
In agricultural crops there is experience, from small operations all the way up to tree farms and larger where the principle of the mono-crop has shown the very negative liabilities that must be confronted with these types of crops, which are precisely like the idea of a globalist administration and agenda. The uniformity of collectivism of all kinds provide these liabilities as well.
In an agricultural mono culture, the genetics and defenses of the one plant are streamlined and quite limited. The plant is expected to conform according to the wishes of the farmer, having been selected or bred to do so, conditioned and cultivated, to make the farmer’s life and work easier and less. This is also what you will get with globalist administrators, you as an individual wheat plant, then, would be considered just in this way. This is so that their needed paradigm of guarantees, which they also want you to become dependent upon, as your managers, will furnish ease for them, as you the wheat stalks are conformed and “bulked up”.
On the flip side of these ”mono crop” systems are grave dangers. The individual stalks are commoditized in a reduced system of care and management based only on mathematical odds, not individual aspects which could become very key to the benefit or failure of the crop.
When these crops are infected, the odds are very high that the whole crop is at risk, as traits like individual genetic immunity of certain problems have been cultivated out as a trade off for another primary outcome such as grain size or seed hardiness, compact size, etc. The limitations imposed on mono cultures are also including medicating these crops for pests, fungus, diseases. (Sound familiar?)
We are on this spectrum of cultivation in society already. Do you as boots on the ground, agree to be fully imposed upon in “high tech globalist collectivism” with no room for companion and complementary practices to provide balance, adaptability and more options for individuals, who want to e constructive but not conform to the mono culture? Is this conformity that is conceived of and proposed an admirable sacrifice that others should respect, follow or trust given the risk it puts the whole garden, field, region and possibly planet in-plant and human?
Isn’t it just administrative expediency gone too far where as the life options are reduced and the real security of the species goes down exponentially by a factor of at least 3 fold?
What does genetic material itself do to succeed? It variegates according to its different environments, stresses and ecosystems or cultural practices. Why is this hated or attacked by the collectivist segments? Each plant, insect, and animal is making efforts to continue, to grow, to evolve.
I suggest that if we hold to this notion that all of that natural effort and creative force is nonsense that we are dealing with proponents of stagnation, ridiculous limitations, and people who have very low frustration tolerance and want to oversimplify with what is a myopic system of governance which as demonstrated by other hive mentalities, leads to even more chaos and conflict in its pursuit of existence. It is almost always aggressive and militant toward every other community, and lowers the quality of existence of its surrounding beings by being inherently so unbalanced.
Sharing the management tasks within large population unaccountable bureaucratic classes that function like clubs and still function on tribal politics always lead to corruption, scarcity and injustice-each one failures on their own.