Inside Job (2) - Quareness Series 153rd "Lecture".
A noticeable feature of the current unfolding trend in technology is how our "wars" are drifting from inter-body (between bodies) to intra-body (within bodies)...potentially creating a kind of perpetual warfare within the human biological body. Such reconfiguring of the human points to an ongoing and continuous availability of our bodies for generational control. This in turn points to the likelihood of new calibrated regimes seeking ongoing vested interest in our interior as well as our exterior spaces...full spectrum control. And any such new reign of biopower socio-political control is likely set to be concerned with continual modulation, adapting to ongoing events more like a wavelength than a fixed broadcast.
Human societies are mostly open rather than closed in nature and emerging biopower regimes thus need to gain access through these porous social-body systems. To gain control they'd need to have proprietary dominion over both the outside and inside of each individual's body. And we can readily trace how such external systems have been increasingly gaining interior ground through the rise in molecular engineering, genetic manipulations and pharmaceutical interventions.
Some of these newly minted regimes of biopower are already establishing continuous variations of "testing" under a blanket of continual iterations of our "being at risk"...which automatically means we have to be perpetually monitored, as the two concepts go hand in hand. Of course in our modern highly mobile era we can't really expect a fixed "administration of control" to trump the fluid flows of always-on surveillant tracking/tracing. And in order to undergo such testing and
tracking people need to succumb to giving up their biological data destined for the burgeoning biometric data machines of huge corporations. Seems like a world of officially sanctioned and unavoidable "immunity passports" is being prepared for more and more everyday activities.
Back during August of 2020 a "Global Digital Health Summit" was held at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia where some major players in healthcare and business came together to deliberate on what such "integrated protocols" might likely consist of. Describing itself as a "landmark forum" for highlighting the importance of digital technology, data and innovation for "fighting pandemics", its stated aim was "to bring together leaders of healthcare systems, public health, digital health, academic institutions and businesses in order to discuss the vital role of digital health in the fight against current and future pandemics". A "panel of 13 experts" articulated
7 key priorities and 9 recommendations "for data and digital health that need to be adopted by the global health community to address the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic and future pandemics". Their first listed priority is for applied health intelligence to be "used for the surveillance, monitoring and improvement of population and patient outcomes". The second relates to "interoperable digital technology" to be scaled up and sustainable. And the third is to support the adoption of artificial intelligence.
Among the recommendations are (2) to work with global stakeholders to confront propagation of misinformation or disinformation through social media platforms and mass media, (3) to implement a standard global minimum dataset for public health data reporting, (7) to ensure surveillance systems combine an effective public health response, and (9) to maintain, continue to fund and innovate surveillance systems as a core component of the connected global health system for rapid preparedness and optimal global responses.
These "aspirations" seem very much like a framework for establishing a world wide biosecurity apparatus of a biocapitalist consortium of healthcare businesses, digital health corporations and governments. And peering through such increased regulation and intrusion between and within human bodies, we might discern a coming attempted direct curtailing of human sovereignty.
Could it be that the individual human body is now being set up to be fully incorporated into a global body politique where there are no "fixed markets" for biopower...just flexible networks of exchange? And of course there's always the question of who gets to set the parameters of legal authority on such exchanges. With the erosion of biological boundaries, we could see all being targeted as potential mobile hosts for our own diseases regardless of their true potency...like
as we've seen with any who could be suspect in the War on Terror. In both cases we can see the human re-cast as a site of suspicion and risk and his/her body re-classified as a "site of weakness"...a scenario potentially facilitating a later transhumanism agenda.
Already our fundamental right to health is starting to be reconstituted as a legal obligation to biosecurity in an apparent attempt to reorganise humanity in such a way as to create maximum obedience to institutions of governance...a process quite likely eventually leading to denying each person their individual sovereignty. This rise of biosecurity amid the converging health intelligence, along with tech-based "integrated protocols" and increased reliance on wider and wider artificial intelligence applications, all seems to be pointing towards a "full spectrum dominance" over all human life. That the biopower involved here is essentially some sort of control system for human consciousness can be implied from the current rapid moves to censor any information that is critical of or contrary to consensus narratives and programming.
Our usual response to anomalous data is to try fit it into pre-existing parameters of thought, in order to maintain a sense of stability. The current biological "state of emergency", however, is forcing acceptance of previously unimagined ideas to the point of testing the human psyche to its limits. When the irrational encroaches upon consensus reality, we're forced either to accept the abnormalities as the "new normal" or to undergo critical change at a personal level. Dare I say it's obvious which is likely to be the easiest and most popular option.
Polarising events affect both the conscious and unconscious mind as we get torn between what we are told to believe and what we actually experience. And this can easily create a schism in the human psyche resulting in greater social division. Rather than fostering mental, emotional and socio-cultural dissociations, it might be far healthier to focus on what human sovereignty and empowerment means for each of us. This is a question which applies to every one of us, a basic right and necessity rather than any privilege or luxury.
Should the emerging reign of biopower continue to unfold, we are likely to experience many more instances where control-biology situates itself into our daily lives. Preying on our natural desire for good health and well-being, it could easily manage and coerce us into a state of each person having no choice in making decisions impacting on their own health. This is how such biopower could force dominion over both our external and internal realms through the rhetoric of representing the power of well-being, with the end result being more on the side of controlling the human being.
At the core of what now seems to be transpiring is the very nature of how we recognise human well-being. In the long run this is no longer a matter of whether or not we wear masks, but rather one of our humanity being masked.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
October, 2021.