The Left's Global Superbrain
The dominant metaphors of the modern era have shifted from the heavens to cyberspace. Human beings are no longer the fallen image of God or a microcosm of the Taoist cosmos. Our brains are now likened to computers; our bodies to machines. Hence, the woman who says “This is too much to process,” or the man who moans “The stress is killing me.”
Reversing this projection, computerized social networks are the means by which communities become collective electro-brains. Consider the rabid pro-vax Twitter swarms or the anti-trans cabals on Gab. Each network is a complex psychic web of approved propaganda or misinformation, depending on who you ask.
On an even higher plane, every AI neural network is the silicone manifestation of an alien brain sent from the future to harmonize the human nodes in each collective. Total unity was just meant to be. It’s “inevitable.”
According to this techno-religious paradigm, articulated by futurists such as Howard Bloom and Wired magazine’s Kevin Kelly, the emergence of a one-world global brain is coming any day now. Once it subsumes all collective minds under its executive function, the One Brain’s thoughts will be a symphony of 7 billion meat heads orchestrated by algorithms. You and I will become mere cells in its body.
“We live in a huge, huge colony in which each one has this tiny role to play, and we cannot survive outside the colony. And this will only increase...in the 21st century, because with the rise of brain-computer interface and biometric sensors and so forth, it is very likely that within, say, fifty years people will literally be part of a network--all the bodies, all the brains, would be connected together to a network. And you won't be able to survive if you're disconnected from the Net, because your own body parts, your own immune system, perhaps depends on being constantly connected to the colony, to the network.”
If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything, it’s that all bodies need a strong immune system--digitized or otherwise. If confronted by lab-born bioweapons or malicious computer code, you also need empowered experts to impose vaccines and erect cybersecurity fences. Otherwise, all hell breaks loose.
This biomechanical fixation was readily apparent in Klaus Schwab’s welcome address to the World Economic Forum’s Cyber Polygon event in early July. Still glowing from the triumph of his Great Reset, the WEF chairman emphasized the need for cybersecurity in a world where your cyber persona is now a de facto requirement:
“Allow me now to reflect on today's theme, which is to develop secure digital ecosystems... Digital connections are embedded in our homes, our workplaces, and through operational technology -- our critical infrastructure... Many technology leaders have noted that within a few short months we have achieved advances in digital transformation that might otherwise have taken years. But this digital dividend of the Covid pandemic is fragile... A lack of cybersecurity has become a clear and immediate danger to our society worldwide.”
Basically, because electronic connectivity is necessary for survival, even for “small business,” we need technocrats to protect us from the dangers their techno culture created:
“During the pandemic, the paradigm shift to a digital way of life has made the role of cybersecurity as a global public good even more pronounced... In many cases, this means further connecting services and data, creating completely new... and expanded digital ecosystems. ...”
Invoking the specter of biomedical mandates, Schwab’s closing words were a shot in the arm for those who would rather go their own way:
“Finally, one of the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic is also the notion of resilience. [M]asks are not sufficient. We need vaccines to immunize ourselves. The same is true for cyberattacks. Here, too, we have to move from simple protection to immunization. We need to build IT infrastructures that have digital antibodies built in inherently to protect themselves.”
Now that John McAfee is dead, only the World Economic Forum can save us from the proliferation of nasty viruses.
If you put Schwab’s biomechanical imagery aside, his proposal seems reasonable enough. No one wants their bank account drained after a ransomware attack, any more than they want terrorists to smash planes into local buildings. But as usual, the global solution for cybercrime -- sweeping security measures and tightly regulated digital currencies--is bundled with systems designed for data collection, privacy invasion, and the imposition of authority.
The scope extends far beyond eliminating ransomware. The WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety is taking up “the growing challenge to counter health misinformation, violent extremist and terrorist content [and] aims to accelerate public-private cooperation to tackle harmful content online.”
No one likes wading through schizoid posts about vax nanobots and luciferase, at least not for long. But every ecosystem has its odd birds -- especially “digital ecosystems.” Aren’t these Davos types supposed to be all about preserving biodiversity?
Besides, censors never stop at truth versus falsehood, if they start there at all. For the American left, “misinformation” already includes valid criticism of vaccine ethics, doubts about voting integrity, resistance to mass immigration, questions about a perpetrator’s race, regret over gender transitioning, or any contradiction to their hollow “deadly insurrection” narrative. It’s like they think we’re sick in the head and they’ve got the only cure.
Schwab is right about one thing, though. The “public-private partnership” model he advocates already exists. For instance, the White House recently admitted to colluding with Facebook to remove “misinformation” -- i.e., malicious memetic code -- related to COVID-19 and vaccine safety.
Last Thursday, press secretary Jen Psaki boasted about the arrangement: “This is a big issue of misinformation, especially on the pandemic... We've increased disinformation research and tracking [and] we're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Sounds a lot like contact tracing, doesn’t it?
The next day, Psaki went on to say the White House is trying “to create robust enforcement strategies that bridge [social media] properties and provide transparency about rules -- you shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation.” So if debate can’t take care of this digital infection, the algorithms will.
After days of blowback, Psaki had to circle back around on her “problematic” statements. But it was too late. “As you know, information travels quite quickly,” she said at the earlier press conference, ending her sentence with that self-satisfied smile. “If it’s up there for days and days and days, when people see it, you know, it’s hard to put that back in a box.”
It’s hard, yes, but when “public-private partnerships” take control of the flow of information, it’s hardly impossible.
What’s really hard is to imagine is being stuck in a unified superorganism with these people. They’re convinced we need them, but it’s like being an open nerve in a rotting brain. I’d rather take my chances outside, with the amoebas.
Image: Max Pixel
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.