Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 14, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams

09:26

Why Decentralization is GOOD!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	One of the key concepts to understand to make sense of the world that is also dissociated from any kind of political theory is centralization versus decentralization.
	Now, those in power like to get us to divide our worldviews into things like left versus right, or black versus white, Christian versus Muslim, and so on.
	But really, the deeper and more important question is about centralization versus decentralization.
	And that's what I'm going to explain here.
	So thank you for joining me in this podcast.
	This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and you can hear more of my podcast at SoundCloud or Vimeo or HealthRangerReport.com for that matter.
	All right, so centralization is bad.
	Let's start with that as a rule of thumb.
	It's not always bad, but in many cases, it's bad.
	In most cases, it's bad.
	Now, Centralization can happen throughout any sector of society.
	You see it in medicine, you see it in economics, in agriculture.
	For example, in agriculture when you have small farmers being put out of business and replaced with more mechanized corporate farming practices or control over the seed supply in particular.
	That's the centralization of agriculture.
	Now, centralization has advantages, even though it's dangerous in many other ways.
	And it's these advantages that cause centralization to continue to creep forward or even take over or dominate any kind of a free market environment.
	For example, centralization is usually more efficient.
	So you can have a bunch of small-scale farmers growing food, but it is more efficient if you look only at the output tonnage.
	It's more efficient to do it with one giant megacorporation that has control over vast acreages of farms and the seed supply and the pesticide supply and all of that.
	So it has efficiencies if you're only interested in materialism.
	But this is why centralization takes over.
	We have a centralized money supply, the Federal Reserve in the United States, or central banks elsewhere, the ECB in Europe and so on.
	We have centralization over politics.
	In the United States, we've got centralized power in D.C., which has usurped power from states, mostly in violation of the Tenth Amendment, but states don't have very much left in terms of states' rights.
	We see centralization in the internet and access to knowledge.
	So there are just a few gatekeepers, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, that control the flow of information.
	And if they don't want you to have access to information that they don't like, for example, natural remedies for cancer, how to prevent cancer, or investigations that might be politically embarrassing to the The power elite in Washington, they can shut those down, and they do routinely.
	So in each one of these cases, we're looking at how centralization is bad because centralization concentrates the power into the hands of the few.
	And from there, it's only natural that that power gets, well, abused or exploited.
	This is true throughout human history.
	It's really an extension of, sadly, human nature.
	They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
	So the more centralized anything becomes in society, the more it becomes corrupted.
	Now the FDA and its monopoly over the drugs, the prescription drugs, is also a centralization of power.
	And of course it's become completely corrupt.
	The FDA is basically a front for the pharmaceutical industry to sell more prescription drugs and suppress knowledge of natural remedies and nutritional therapies.
	That's the way it functions, and it's not surprising when you look at the structure of it.
	So now let's talk about decentralization in contrast to all of that.
	What is decentralization?
	Well, if Walmart is centralization, then decentralization is a network of a large number of small mom-and-pop shops in a town somewhere that are less efficient than Walmart.
	Their prices are probably not as competitive, but they bring...
	Several key advantages.
	Number one, which is diversity.
	Each little mom and pop shop is different.
	And also redundancy.
	So if one shop goes down, the others are still left standing.
	Whereas if Walmart goes down, then, you know, that infrastructure disappears simultaneously for, I don't know, a thousand retail stores across the United States.
	So centralization brings with it a vulnerability to systemic failures, whereas decentralization brings with it redundancy and resiliency to stresses on its system.
	That's crucial to understand.
	Now we can also talk about this in an agricultural context.
	So a centralized system is one big mega farming corporation coming in, buying up a bunch of land and seeds and intellectual property and producing really cheap food that's laced with all kinds of toxic chemicals.
	Decentralized food production means smaller farmers, different techniques, more variety in crops.
	You might have some organic and some non-organic, but you're going to have more variety.
	You're going to have more families that can actually fill in the gaps if something goes wrong.
	If one farmer has a crop failure, probably not all of them will have the same failure because they're using different techniques, or they have different irrigation approaches, or they even have different genetic strains of the seeds that they're planting.
	So, once again, in terms of farming and agriculture, decentralization brings with it resiliency and redundancy.
	This is also true in the money supply, so a centralized fiat currency system, like the one under which we currently suffer, the Federal Reserve System, is vulnerable to systemic failures, even though it's been around since 1913, so it's over a century old, A creature from Jekyll Island and all that.
	It is still a vulnerable system, vulnerable to systemic failures.
	Whereas a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency system such as Bitcoin is at least decentralized.
	And so is gold and silver, by the way, just in terms of physical currency.
	It's decentralized.
	So gold can't just collapse systemically.
	Because it has inherent value and is decentralized and there's no central bank that has to give its, quote, full faith and credit to gold for gold to have value.
	Gold has an intrinsic value and so it's decentralized.
	But everywhere across society, this is what I want you to remember to look for.
	I want you to look at where is power being centralized or concentrated in the hands of the few versus where is power decentralized or distributed or even what you might call democratized.
	Centralization is almost always bad.
	You don't want monopolies and you don't want gatekeepers who control everything like Google or Facebook.
	Decentralization is less efficient, but it is more resilient.
	It's more honest.
	It preserves the culture.
	It keeps more people more free because now you have individuals making decisions about their own lives or their own small businesses.
	Instead of people just working as employees of a giant mega corporate cartel that controls everything.
	And by the way, communism is the ultimate expression of political centralization.
	And communism sucks.
	That's why it fails.
	Well, it's one of the reasons it fails.
	Whereas the ultimate decentralized political system would be anarchy.
	And you might say, well, at some extreme, anarchy could fail too.
	But then there is, then there are, along that spectrum, you can go into a democratic republic with states' rights.
	And that's what we founded in the United States.
	And it has been a very successful model for liberty and abundance and freedom for quite a long time, even though it's probably nearing its end now because of corruption and criminal collusion.
	But that is a decentralized model.
	And probably the breakup of the United States, which is likely coming, will decentralize it even further.
	So I think we're on a trend towards decentralization in some ways across our world.
	And to the extent that we have that, it's a good thing.
	Online, the trend is towards decentralization and control of knowledge and information.
	That's a dangerous thing, and we need to really combat that.
	We need to have more decentralized information sources, decentralized news, decentralized social networks, and so on.
	So support those things wherever you can, and thank you for listening.
	My name is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.
	Check out my podcast at healthrangerreport.com.
	Click subscribe to stay plugged in to the Health Ranger Report.

▲