Interview with a Human: The Freedom Club

What is The Freedom Club?

We are an organisation dedicated to bringing about personal human freedom by opposing the restrictions and order that we believe are being imposed by technology upon us as individuals, and society as a whole.

We believe it is an intrinsic, basic right of every human to have a level of privacy that does not simply mean information security, as well as the right of every biological human being to not be discriminated against because they refuse to take part in cyberization or implantation, or because they simply can’t afford it.

Furthermore, we are wholly opposed to technological progress simply for the sake of profit, which benefits a wealthy few and increases the digital divide, but rather support technological progress for the benefit of mankind, rich or poor.

Since it is the existence of technology itself that is important, and not how it is used, we believe that all scientific research should not be done under the auspices of the military-industrial complex, nor under private, corporate direction, but rather through open source and transparent mechanisms that are wholly owned by the public, because we fund a large part of this research through taxes already. In other words, we believe in a democratic form of scientific research.


Critics allege that you are nothing more than modern day Luddites, or neo-Luddites. How do you respond to that?

It is easy to pigeon-hole us with a historical term that carries connotations and baggage that have little to do with who we are, or what we represent. Those who call us Luddites are, generally speaking, similar to those who wish to stifle dissent by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, or anti-American, or an anti-Semite, not because they are those things, but because it is always easier to attack the messenger than the message.

It is not that there are no conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, or Luddites in this world; it’s just too often terms like these are clubs wielded to silence anyone that opposes the mainstream view of the world. If you can give it a label, it becomes easier to ignore.

The recent attack on Louis von Ahn has been widely criticized as an act of terrorism perpetrated by your organisation. A member of your group was found guilty of the attack, and has subsequently undergone reincarnation. Do you consider yourself a terrorist organisation? Will you continue to pursue acts of violence to spread your message?

Unfortunately, the acts of a few individuals who have no real connection to us have been used by the world’s business media as a propaganda coup in order to obscure our real goals. We are not a terrorist organisation, and we oppose the use of violence, unless in self-defence.

I would also like to point out that the police involved were also found guilty of provocation, and using unnecessary force against peaceful protesters, not to mention fabricating evidence to provide a pretext for intervention. That has not been widely reported.

So you don’t consider yourself a terrorist, or a Luddite. What would you label yourself as?

A human being.

As opposed to what?

A machine.

Can you elaborate on that?

Ernst Otto Fischer once said that “As machines become more and more efficient and perfect, so it will become clear that imperfection is the greatness of man.” It is our view that we are removing this greatness, and slowly but surely transforming ourselves into perfect machines.

Like all perfect machines, we are increasingly functioning and operating smoother than ever before, but within ever narrower and narrower constraints. We are, in other words, imprisoning ourselves within a very narrow definition of what it is to be human, a definition that is being imposed upon us by both authority and technology itself.

Some would argue that Transhumanism is ultimately liberating, and is geared towards the freedom and evolution of the human race from things like disease, and death, and also helps facilitate the spread of democracy.

That is the general view, yes. However, far from giving us freedom as most believe, this transformation – not evolution – is restricting our choices and actions in a way that can be described as an extension of Foucault’s biopower.

For example, Biotech machines and nanomedicine now operate within our minds to monitor and sustain our moods according to what is considered to be “normal” and “healthy”. Others help us live longer, stronger, and healthier lives. The iBrain network has enhanced intelligence and knowledge.

On the surface, these are wonderful achievements. Yet, if we look deeper, it is geared towards one goal: to fit us into the machinery of production and make us, essentially, the perfect worker: always happy, never sick, and always functioning. As we have seen with the computational algorithms discovered operating covertly, it is quite clear that the goal is to ensure we’re put to good use even when asleep. The goal is to use “wasted” human resources; in other words, all the time we don’t spend working.

The flip-side is, of course, to also help make us perfect consumers by ensuring continued dependence on purchasing and upgrading our bio-systems, both because of social pressures and worker insecurity. We are also constantly bombarded by advertising and business propaganda to such an extent that even our dreams are considered as fair game. Privacy has become a luxury that only the rich can afford. For everyone else, we live in the greatest panopticon that has ever existed.

This is without even mentioning the social impact of the information revolution throughout the United Allied Nations. The wealth gap within so-called technologized nations has grown ever wider, and inequality is greater today than ever before. The top one percent of the UAN now holds such a disproportionate share of wealth that they are the not simply employers, they are owners. The continuing riots that plague Britain, America, and other UAN nations are symptoms of this.

All of this has been implicitly understood by elites for over sixty years. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in the 1970’s that our scientific and technological era “involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society”, and that it would be “dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values”. As he pointed out, “the capacity to assert social and political control over the individual” would “vastly increase”, and so it has.

Ultimately, if you don’t conform or continually upgrade yourself, you risk being shunned by society as being obsolete. Our understanding of what it is to be “normal” in society is no longer based on you as a biological human being, but it is now based on your technological extensions of self. Whereas before we celebrated our differences and uniqueness, today these are liabilities and risks, and we prefer to promote uniformity as admirable.

Is is for these reasons that I and many others of the remaining middle class are determined to mobilise the masses against this slavery of mankind.

But surely you still have a choice? You are free to accept enhancements, or reject them.

As Marx pointed out, we make our own history, but not within the circumstances of our choosing. Choice as we understand it here is a false one, because you cannot choose to not be affected by the existence of the technology in the first place.

The real choices are extremely binary and are based on the effect of a technology’s existence, not on how it’s used. The ultimate choice being presented to most individuals is: “Do you choose to live?”, and this is not something many people will say no to, although interestingly some have willingly died – without major comment in the media – in order to escape from this technological slavery, another symptom of the world within which we live.

As an example, someone who is religious can die from starvation because they refused to proceed along a course of cyberization or enhancement, or they can be sent into a correctional facility to have their minds reprogrammed, all because for them it was a matter of faith. The media and society routinely describes such an individual as being lunatics or fundamentalist fanatics, yet it is our view that the fundamentalist fanatics are those who do not allow such a person – a human being – to exist in society.

And those who simply cannot afford to upgrade themselves beyond a certain level are doomed to an existence that is determined not by their abilities, but by their wealth.

You once said that corporations have now moved from owning public space to an attempt to own private space. What did you mean by that?

With biology and a host of other sciences now information technologies, the data and information of all living things, including humans, is falling under ownership. This is what we mean by the war on personal space; perhaps a better way of labelling it is to call it the inner space or, simply, life.

An example of this has been the pharmaceutical industry. Since they introduced a similar idea of an end-user license agreement for nano and cellular medicine, essential, basic functions of the human body have now been replaced by patented biological machines. In essence, we are loosing the most basic right of all: ownership of our bodies.

A recent case highlights the problem: it was discovered that a patented, modified cellular organism that helps boost the body’s bio-defences can be passed between a mother and her new born child. The company who owned the patent sued, saying that the parents had to begin payments for the child, because the enhancements were owned by them, and given under licensed use. The court upheld the decision, meaning that, from birth, individuals are already subservient to the corporate system, and have to pay for the right to live.

But surely people have benefited greatly from these advances, and others, because they now live longer, healthier lives? Most people are more than happy to pay for that opportunity.

I would argue, for example, that slavery and Stalinism both brought about some form of improvement for the slaves or the people, but it can hardly be argued by anyone to justify and reinstate these mechanisms on that basis.

Likewise, the main problem we face is that our technological progress and the so-called “good” has arisen from and been driven primarily by war, profit, power, and control, whether that is a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war against insurrection. Any benefits are a subset of this loop: there must always be war to support our progress, there must always be an enemy, even if that enemy becomes our very own selves.

The fact is that despite all these impressive advances in technology, health and medicine, more than half the world’s population are still suffering from illnesses and diseases that could surely be treated, but the reason nothing is done is because they exist in markets that are simply not profitable.

A manager at Nestle once remarked many years ago that “As soon as people step out of poverty, they become potential Nestle customers”. It is this type of thinking that has helped create the world I am describing. Any evaluation of society should be done so on the basis of how it treats all human beings across a whole spectrum of basic human rights, not just a few selected criteria that conveniently justify the elite position.

Comments

There are no comments for this fragment. Why not leave a message?

Leave a comment






Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.