Bitcoin, Terence McKenna and the Future of the Internet

We have millions of people who are warehoused in almost a larval state in their apartments, watching tv, paying for their medical plans, and glued to this mindless opera of cultural decay that’s recited day after day in front of them. I mean, it’s horrible to imagine — and this is a creation to some degree of the world corporate state, that probably has to be addressed. 

– Terence McKenna, The Internet is the Cure for TV (1994)

I know the title of this post seems strange in light of several factors. First, it’s been nearly twenty years since the dot-com bubble burst and it’s estimated that 3-4 billion people globally, or roughly 50% of the world’s population, already surf the web. Second, it’s become increasingly trendy in 2017 to highlight all the bad things about the internet, with social media typically singled out for the most intense and visceral criticism. Although I acknowledge some very real downsides of social media such as unhealthy obsession and addiction, most of the outrage we’ve seen this year has been focused on “fake news” and “Russia meddling.” In other words, most of the hysteria’s been political in nature, and would barely be registering anywhere near its current decibel level had Hillary Clinton won the election.

All of a sudden, there’s this insistence that social media is especially dangerous because it fosters the creation of echo chambers rife with tribal confirmation bias. Spaces where people with the same views simply talk to one another, and whoever’s willing to be the loudest and most aggressive at signaling to their tribe becomes the most popular. I don’t deny that this phenomenon exists, but like with anything else, you have to accept the bad with the good, and in the long-run the good far outweighs the bad. The main reason so many are having a panic attack right now is because the internet and social media allowed the public to talk to one another directly without being force-fed corporate media narratives and they decided to reject the chosen one, Hillary Clinton.

As such, the “very smart people” and “experts” have concluded the problem is with the voter, as opposed to the terrible candidates on offer or the corrupt system itself. This is the real reason for the current obsession with “fake news” and dangerous social media echo chambers. The elites are simply frustrated that their methods of propaganda no longer work as more and more people talk to each other online.

In contrast, I’m in the Masha Gessen camp when it comes to what actually happened during the 2016 election. Here’s what she said in a recent interview:

I want to really think differently than the very consistent liberal-media line of, Well if they just knew better they would vote differently. They’re under-informed, they’re under-educated. I think it really misunderstands something, which is that, just because people are not acting rationally in accordance with what you think is rational, doesn’t mean that they’re not acting rationally. And I think there’s perfectly rational voter behavior in voting for Trump. For economic reasons and social reasons. 

Life is getting worse. You are less comfortable in your own house, in your own town, in your own skin. Your outlook for the future is worse with every passing year. And you conscientiously voted for people through this entire time. So it is actually an established fact that the system did not work for you. This representative democracy thing. And so you go and lob a grenade at it, when the grenade becomes available. And that is rational.

As such, it appears Trump’s election was indeed a rational response by an electorate fed up with the way things were going and faced with an unacceptable alternative. If that’s the case, then this entire narrative that the internet and social media leads to irrational choices because the unwashed plebs are talking to one another is completely wrong. In contrast, Trump’s election was a cry for help and a form of protest from a public that’s been abused and lied to by its own government for decades. I know several Trump voters personally, and not a single one of them really likes Trump, they just wanted to throw that democratic grenade at the system, which is their right as citizens. These were not votes for Trump as much as they were votes against Hillary. Period, end of story.

If that’s right, then the conventional wisdom that the internet and social media is destructive because it perpetuates “fake news” and leads to irrational outcomes is wrong. This isn’t to say Trump’s a good choice for President, but that his election was more than anything else a response to a discredited and corrupt status quo which refuses to reform or offer decent choices. If it wasn’t Trump in 2016, it would be someone worse down the road, and yes, there’s worse. Tom Cotton would be one example. In the long run, it’s probably for the best that we take the medicine now.

In the early days of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook everyone was brimming with optimism, yet after Hillary lost they suddenly became the biggest threat to society. While I have plenty of concerns about these platforms when it comes to censorship and privacy/surveillance issues, I remain in awe of the implications of people across the world easily talking to one another in real time and forming global networks. We’ve become so accustomed to social media at this point many of us already take for granted how extraordinary and revolutionary it really is. Nothing like this has ever happened before in human history, and it’s hard for me not to be extremely optimistic about its impact on life here on earth over a longer time horizon.

At this point, I want to offer a couple of real world examples to demonstrate what I mean. In yesterday’s piece, I quoted from an excellent article penned by Caitlin Johnstone. She’s an Australian woman who most of us never heard of two years ago, yet she consistently puts out some of the best commentary about U.S. politics by anyone, anywhere. How’s this possible and what does it mean?

It’s possible because of social media and the internet, which permits the gatekeeper-free publication and distribution of opinion on a global basis. This sort of thing has never been available to humanity on this scale and with this ease before, and the implications are simply mind-blowing.

Before the internet, anyone who wanted to have a major public voice on pretty much any issue would have to “play the game,”  which basically meant rising up the ranks of some media conglomerate. We could assume that the best and brightest people with the most informed and enlightening opinions would inevitably rise to the top of these organizations, but that would be absurd. The types of people who actually reach the top of such organizations tend to be yes men and women who are really talented at kissing ass while simultaneously not offending the rich and powerful. As such, for most of humanity’s existence any “news” you heard tended to be a carefully crafted narrative that the gatekeepers wanted you to hear.

This is no longer the case. If you’re like me, and you think the smartest and most interesting thinkers out there could never find themselves anywhere near the top echelons of a major media company, then the fact such people are able to directly present their views to the public is an extremely liberating, powerful and positive development. Of course, you’ll also find plenty of terrible characters who get popular pushing degenerate ideas and philosophies, but you have to accept the bad with the good. That’s what freedom is all about. More importantly, I’m of the view that human beings talking to one another freely and on a global basis will be unimaginably positive for our species and the planet in the long-run, even though it may not look that way based on a short-term myopic viewpoint.

Then there’s Bitcoin. A creation which gives us an early indication of all the extraordinary things that can be accomplished by human beings across the world once they decide to voluntarily work together on something revolutionary and special. Although I’ve written extensively about many of Bitcoin’s positive attributes such as the fact it’s decentralized, trustless, permissionless, non-government money, I’ve neglected one of its most powerful aspects: the global community that’s been created around it.

Every single day, Bitcoiners from around the world are interacting and working with one another on a shared project that no person or institution controls. This is an experiment that never could’ve gotten off the ground and succeeded without the internet. It’s the first global project in history steered by regular people all over the world operating at a grassroots level attempting to tackle one of biggest problems humans have faced over thousands of years: money.

Whether you think Bitcoin’s great or terrible doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Bitcoin proves we don’t need bureaucrats, politicians or esteemed academic “experts” to solve our problems. Rather, we can do it by voluntarily pooling global brainpower and talking to one another. While Bitcoin itself is certainly extraordinary, the lesson it teaches us about what’s possible is even more powerful and inspiring. Moreover, it took over twenty years after the internet started gaining mainstream traction — as well as a devastating financial crisis — for this project to get going.

In other words, be patient. Don’t despair. These are still very early days and something like 50% of the planet is still offline. I’m not predicting that the global connectivity of the internet’s going to lead to utopia, but I’m saying over time, it will lead to extraordinarily positive developments the likes of which we can’t even begin to imagine. These are early days still.

Finally, I want to share an excerpt from the late, genius Terence McKenna’s musings on the internet circa 1994.

A majority of my followers on Twitter don’t even know who Terence McKenna is, which is remarkable considering the people who follow me are, generally speaking, not mainstream types.

What does this mean? It means there’s an incredible amount of mind-blowing information out there at everyone’s fingertips, we just haven’t found it yet. We’ll find the good stuff eventually.

The future’s bright, it’s just going to take some time.

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

19 thoughts on “Bitcoin, Terence McKenna and the Future of the Internet”

    • There are many threats to the interconnectivity currently enjoyed by us via the internet, especially via government leaning on companies like Facebook and Google. These are real threats and I don’t want to discount them, but I’d add two things.

      1) They are doing this from a position of weakness and fear, not strength.
      2) People won’t stand for it, and I think we’ll be way more free and connected 20 years from now, than we are today.

  1. You make a darn good case for things to get better through decentralization and honest money (bitcoin).

    I just don’t believe the oligarchy will allow it. In fact, I believe they will start a nuclear war before they will give up what they have.

    Reply
  2. The puppet masters need a wide open internet because of its value to them for surveillance. But that doesn’t mean they won’t threaten it with net neutrality as an attempt at control through discouragement.

    Keyword being “discourage”.

    Well Mike, now 59% of 308 people have heard about Terence Mckenna for the first time. That’s a good thing.

    Reply
  3. i’m usually with you Mike, but i don’t agree with the premise.

    as for Bitcoin, it is the exact opposite of a decentralizing tool – masquerading as a tool of liberty, it is a permanent record of all monetary transactions, zero anonymity, locked in the ether forever … the perfect mechanism for a one-world currency. the globalist dream, SDR proliferation and eventual permanent use, will be implemented via blockchain. right under our noses, it is being enabled by the liberty movement. there is no liberty in any digital monetary unit transacted on an open system, period. that’s why physical gold has been banned many times, and that’s why cash transactions are the enemy of the state.

    so we kneecap the banks, all here agree that is great. or do we? funny, while Jamie Dimon ridicules it, his very own bank pushes deeper into the web of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. ditto Goldman and everyone else, even Fidelity has been mining for years. they hated it at first … now it’s love at 2nd sight, as they are catching on to the plan.

    the further that blockchain perpetrates the mainstream consciousness, the easier and more seamless the transition will be.

    be more wary of the evil that you don’t know … who is Satoshi Nakamoto? i have a pretty good idea.

    Reply
    • Mr Demuth is correct about Bitcoin.

      It is folly to believe that any robust digital currency could remain insulated from state / central bank administration because it is the ultimate control mechanism.

      Digital currency is the globalist’s dream and endgame.

    • Digital currency is coming whether you like it or not.

      Now, you can have voluntary, free market, open source, decentralized crypto currencies, or you can have whatever statist garbage solution the status quo offers.

      You need to think this through more thoroughly. You know where I stand.

    • Mike,

      Regrettably, you are probably right about the adoption of digital currencies. And by itself this is a horrible prospect.

      My flimsy point is this:

      The bankers and oligarchs who presently rule the world, whether we like it or not, will not– I repeat, will not— watch helplessly while their monopoly power and control evaporates as the public starts to adopt a private currency system that circumvents theirs. That’s all.

      You can believe that the central bankers, et. al. are busy plotting. At the very least, they will introduce their own “official” digital currency while placing regulatory road blocks in the way of the private ones to assure their own success.

      But if you are correct that private digital currencies have already left the station and will be adopted worldwide thereby conveying many benefits to mankind including making commerce more efficient and removing the banker’s artificial debt burden from the people and putting the bankers out of business—- and there is nothing the bankers can do about it— then they will probably kick over the card table and set off a nuclear bomb. I believe that is how sick and horrible our rulers are. Just look at the historical evidence.

      But I certainly hope you are right and I am wrong. I love your articles. And I’ll give you the last word.

      Thank you for your patience.

  4. There are a few things about November 8, 2016, that people keep forgetting. First off, the Dow Jones futures dropped like a rock (I think 800 points) once Trump’s victory was assumed. However, once the Investor Class saw that the Republicans would hold the Seante – the second surprise of the election – futures recovered. I don’t think the Federal Governement has been this Pro-Big Business in several decades. I also don’t think the voters expected this outcome, either, as it totally screws up the balance of power.

    Your friends (and others) tried to disrupt the machine by throwing a wrench at it. Ironocally, that wrench turned out to be the Tool the Corporatocracy needed to further concentrate their power.

    I agree with your thesis (from a previous article) that this may still turn out better for the US in the long term, but it’s going to be painful in the near term, especially for Trump’s working class voters. I also agree that the Internet (as well as every form of communciation before it) has been a much more positive force than negative. Wouldn’t be reading this blog without it 😉

    Reply
    • “I don’t think the Federal Governement has been this Pro-Big Business in several decades.”

      No. Nothing can beat the Bush-Obama bailouts and non-prosecution courtesy of Paulson, Geithner, Summers, and Holder (See: Obama again) in 2008-9.

      That was the largest illegal transference (theft) of wealth in the history of mankind. It made Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great look like Cub Scouts by comparison.

    • The White Rabbit Project was canceled because it sucked massive amounts of hind tit.

      WTF, does that have to do with this topic?!

  5. Thanks Mike,
    Terrance McKenna is a fascinating character, I was introduced to his wisdom by my sister’s friend. He was speaking on his experience with DMT, it was so interesting to hear him speak of such things.

    Reply
    • McKenna’s experiences led me to experiment w/DMT, once. I have visited the place inhabited by fractal elves. No way to put words on the experience. I’ll spend the rest of my life pondering that 20 minutes.

    • Melvin- What does The White Rabbit Project (Netflix version of Mythbusters) have to do with the “future of the internet” ?

  6. Genaro,

    The bailout was necessary to save the economy: no banks, no economy. I do disagree that bank shareholders were not wiped out. The bank deals should have been more like the GM deal: wipe out sahreholder, make bond holder take cuts, clawback executive bonuses.

    The non-prosecutons were pretty bad. However, I had read that the Justice Dept’s hands were tied becuase of the Bank for International Settlements immunity clauses. If this is true, then you cannot blame Obama’s Justice Department on this, although the Treasury Deptmart would be complicit.

    Reply
  7. Now the internet is the TV, I have always wondered why it was named Tell a Vision.
    For myself, Freedom is knowing, my neighbors and I, eat until the next harvest, drink until the next rainfall, giving us the health and energy to be Mankind.

    Reply

Leave a Reply