﻿Gewindeberg Lecture On Handling Of Imperialism
At the Kaliningrad Conference for Post-War Coordination by the Down with Imperialism Union, Gewindeberg made a stint appearance with a lecture. No introduction necessary.
„Please follow me directly into the heart of the issue with a little bow to history. When in pre-historical time the great great Babylonian empire was nearing its demise, it brought about a lot of destruction. In one year the amount of horses in its army more than tripled and so did food confiscation, land degradation, deforestation and all the social conflicts resulting of them. At the same time the ailing king in - hence that name - Baghdad was wrapping up his presentation to be replaced with a successor. What were the oppressed people more interested in, the living conditions of their loved ones or the gambling for the throne?"
„The answer is A. For the oppressed people. Yet the answer for the heirs of the decay was B. In fact, if it mattered more to you who was going to make the race for the top seat in the palace than that this vain official nonsense did cost humanity so many precious natural resources, then you showed that you were not on the side of the oppressed people but instead under risk to be reconquered by a hopeless empire in its terminal death spasm. The line between the oppressed people and the heirs of decay is not an immobile wall, but may be shifting due to the effect that decay when handled properly may contribute to fresh growth."
„Though it may also be shifting backwards. Then there are those who refuse to participate in surrogate involvements as a matter of principle and respect for the original. But this knowledge clearly and cleanly separates good from evil, and truth from lie: Once the outcome of the election matters more to you than the dangerous condition of the unelected skeleton of the democratic state which remains even when the flesh is entirely exchanged from red to blue or the other way around, you are on the wrong side of the world war. As sovereign people who resist imperialism we can only comment on its election results on the background of a clear perception of its unelected results."
„The historical parallel is as true now as it was then. This becomes obvious from the fact that its object becomes uphill recognisable without mentioning. That is uphill in terms of organisational complexity degree. You know, downhill any recognition can be arranged by imitation. But only uphill it has a meaning. When a conspiracy is being disrupted, it only means that it is thwarted when the disruption comes from something less complex not more complex. For example we can only get rid of the evil of the military-industrial complex by political abolition and not by means of a military-digital complex. Only the recognition of this asymmetry separates improvement from bad-to-worse."
„In the painting of Babylonian times you can recognise the present conduct of current imperialism. Behind the scenes of electoral politics the military-industrial complex has expanded over its last years, at the expense of an increased dependency on cheap oil and the questionable alliances and customs it usually brings about. One election cycle ago its main tendency has been going from visible torture to torture that leaves no visible traces. Then it ceased taking prisoners in favour of political assassinations. In this election cycle that has been supplemented by going from irreversible war crimes to war crimes that are reversible in principle."
"As a result, there is a huge crowd with a legitimate interest of having it punished without becoming visible in the verdict, and one with one to find it punished with reciprocal constellations of reversibility and irreversibility dependent on its will to reverse what is possible in principle. For example, if the war crime is placing a fake contract with a fake signature imitation into your desk, the reversal is the admission of the forgery and the return of the original respectively any reference material taken. The reversible damage is the degradation of the desk to a level at which the authenticity of every document in it is questionable."
"The punishment is to be tailored to mirror an eventual irreversibility, in case the forgery cannot be completely extracted due to lack of remorse or cooperation the remainder of irreversible doubt is to be reciprocated. For example, if the target desk is a family desk, the war criminal may risk to lose selected family members, if it is merely a business desk then only random colleagues. If you mess with people's lives and it can be undone because you wanted it to be deniable but you fail to collaborate in their choice to do so then irreversibility shall be reciprocated against you accordingly. That is the only speculation-proof method to handle government activity at this stage of terminal expansion."
"This is why we prefer forcing our enemy into unconditional surrender to nuking it. The latter would be at least a partial loss because it would not allow us to liberate what it holds hostage of us and therefore only be feasible as part of a terminal scenario, but not of an hopeful one. Hence the Abolitionist movement hoards no nukes but is abstaining from them and at the same time leaves its succession to these who make their own without depriving anyone else thereof. We will see how serious the so-called anti-establishment presidency does get on disarmament. Whether its scraps the Paris pollution whitewash treaty, whether it finally closes down the Nato meeting and the Nuclear sharing, whether it truly brushes off stillborn trade pacts and detrimental social engineering schemes and so forth. Whether it gets as serious against the fraudsters clinging to these toxic assets as one can only be from early on."
"Let me shine some light on how the election played out. Apparently the Clinton clan was punished by its own paranoia. It is not known who, and the usual rumours pointing to Russia and China may not be very reliable this time, it is not officially known who called the cops without a crime report. The insider narrative in Washington is that the national security services were tipped off by unidentified foreign counterparts that there was ammunition for an attack coming up, and in their panic and despair set the FBI on blind alert for the vain ambition to quote-stay-behind-unquote whatever might be happening of it. Yet the point is that nothing happened of it and the hot tip that came in was a lure designed for the purpose to blast the media propaganda. Which it did. Which is why they are so tacit about who did it. Someone triggered and dumped the Stay Behind Policy."
"At this point it is being speculated that Islamic State operatives might have been opening an encrypted channel to Wikileaks, and once Unitedstates mercenaries concluded that they were not able to assassinate either side for either diplomatic or technical reasons they switched into stay behind mode which is pretending to be the first proponent of whatever might result of it with the purpose to crash that political idea or social movement from the inside before it might raise a head. But that is speculation at this point. The point is that someone let it roll inside the bureaucracy without getting rolled over himself. The victory of Trump over Clinton was decided not by force of arms as it could have been expected, but by force of disinformation. If Trump swallows it he will never overcome the spell of outside manipulation."
"In other words, because they received the appropriate disinformation for such a purpose, the Washington establishment in its intellectual disarray trashed the campaign of its own candidate, and brought in the other one who had said that the election would be rigged. Has it already admitted that its victory was caused by someone from the outside playing the Unitedstates establishment like a bullhorn? The consequences ought to be discussed by the Americans on their own. Are they aware that their election result is a mere measurement of mass panic influenced by foreign forces more than by themselves? Certainly at different degrees. Has any choice gone missing to such influences already? What matters immediately now is that the broken sway of the oligarchy or klan shall never be re-established."
"In order to prevent that, we ought to influence the American population from the outside that its survival depends on its capability to cause its government to overcome the shame of its crimes and immediately begin handing over the evidence necessary to undo these of their effects that can be undone. I personally have made this a non-negotiable request molten into one with the great historical words Unconditional Surrender for the self-evident reason that peace will only come from the liar exposing its own house of cards, but not from our followers burning it all down. And once the degree of asymmetry of the war crimes committed is being taken into account it is absolutely self-evident that we insist on the unconditional surrender of the military-industrial complex to the uprising of the people."
"Since it is invisible to most people now, but is going to be visible to everyone from some point onward, with no scales of grey in between, it can already be discussed from that clear perspective. What matters is the overall understanding that there is a point beyond which the appropriateness of means and ends becomes so distorted that even vaguest popular attention suffices for a boomerang effect. If you were willing to give government a permit to break into people's houses to manipulate their bookmarks as to influence their choices, would it not be way more efficient to give it a permit to achieve the same result with much, much less effort by manipulating the content of their ballot box? You see, beyond that point there is no politics any more but only dark humour."
"Beyond that, what the people of the world are expecting the Americans to do once they have survived the shock of confusion between good and evil nearly everyone not involved either as a target or a perpetrator has suffered, is to prepare these malignant elements in their so-called establishment to collaborate in future foreign efforts to extract from them the information necessary to neutralise the unsolicited influence they caused. In other words, in addition to their respective individual guilt the Americans are in a collective debt towards all people their government and its vassals occupied, exploited and left with vassal states. The more Americans realise how much it matters that they shall not struggle when power is being taken out of their government's hands the better their chances for unconditional surrender and non-violent dismantling of their military-industrial complex."
"To add up, you might have been aware all through this line of thought, or not, that I did not yet mention something with the Babylonian empire which actually is its third leg. You should know that the American Supreme Court is designed with an uneven number of board members to achieve majority decisions, but now for a while already is defunct in the sense that its lead member has died as a judgement in a war crime case. The judge read up on the case, thought about making a judgement and died. The replacement had been postponed until the replacement of the presidency. This is another major factor in the outcome as well. A defunct supreme court is also defunct with regard to lobbyist manipulation, other than a merely corrupt supreme court. The Supreme Court Death Balance is also a decisive benchmark for understanding why all political decisions made by any vassal states are entirely irrelevant due to the aforementioned corruption."
"Why do supreme court judges, whom you might expect to eat, sleep and breathe their constitution, suddenly die when asked for a decision? Is this an issue compared to which constitutions and the promises they make are scrap paper? Unconditional surrender means for the American government to fully disclose its intentions not only to its local population but to all the world, and where ever this is going to turn out a requirement for reliable change to the better surrender its culprits to international efforts without hesitation. The targets thereof are already waiting to speak after them. But it is a fundamental matter of public pedagogics that the culprits speak first, because it is theirs to introduce everyone else to the issue they both intended and did so much wrong about. After they have spoken, the word is with the targets in order to rip apart any eventual lies and disguises. There remains no doubt that this regime apparatus has to confess immense wrongdoings. We intend to force it to openly declare what it expects of us and which value it attaches to it."
"Therefore, we ought to help the American people educate their apparatchiks to learn how to separate confessions to be made to the public from returns to be made to private recipients. In case of any doubt the separation is to be delegated to leaking platforms, whose operatives can decide what is for the public to know and what is exclusively for specific spying targets to take back. Only when the American people manage to educate their politicians to behave in a way that enables themselves to develop remorse to the world and not require to be nuked one day, they have a chance to avert indiscriminate blowback. Only when they can surrender the full track records of their war crimes, forgiveness can become a possibility, because without reversal there is no such near-term tendency, as historians can tell. My job is to weigh what to do with these who have been offered forgiveness in exchange for cessation of their war crime effort and chose continuity. Offering it again after it was rejected would be like offering the potato again after it is rotten. So what?"
"In handling imperialism, time is a decisive factor. As one expert pointed out, empires like to stay for long times. Hence there is the problem of empires speculating they could defeat us by simply exceeding our time. We are going to exceed theirs, but only if we manage to speed up the proceedings of their systematic dismantling. Empires also like to come in where social developments are unfinished and things not yet perfect. In the worst case there is no social consensus beyond the family because nations are too corrupt and parallel societies are repressed. If an empire comes into these conditions, it is being seduced to speculate on time excess. Why? Because with its involvement, the building of a multi-dimensional social fabric is postponed until after its end, because it is undesirable to have an empire involved in that."
"Yet over the time the one-dimensional social structure of the family which after all is not a renewable resource erodes, and puts up a false choice between conservatism and loss. But would anyone right in their mind go into an undesirable deal with an empire merely because time is running out? No as a matter of principle, because it might be the prototype for endless unchecked fraud. Any closer look at today's totalitarian menace of a democracy in which security forces beat another head every day compared to the self-evident utopia of freedom of information in which the latter has no side-effects before it has effects reveals it already to be the case. But even the most unscrupulous totalitarianism one day runs into the person unlike everyone else who cannot directly prove being spied upon without hurting themselves with content."
"How? For example, someone has invented a computer operated tin opener in their early years, put it into a drawer and never applied for patent, because he did not believe in aggressive marketing. That person could state, they stole my invention and plagiarised it, and decide on the basis of objective evidence, rather than just the stranglehold feelings usually induced by monopolised everyday information theft. The imperialist would hardly be so developed to deliberately work around a lure of this kind. The resulting conflict would be of the steepest imaginable asymmetry, as it is the only possible constellation between an individual and a conspiracy of abstract size. But it are first of all the revolutionary masses whose interest is served by wrecking counter-revolutionary conspiracies, even if they have more suitable ways to pursue an everyday task than programming a robot engine. This is just a theoretical example of the kind of real unpredictabilities challenging digital totalitarianism."
"Hence, let me conclude. Yes, this American election was manipulated more than any before. Yes, our forces did it. Our forces put their investigation bureau on a dead end track and gave it full steam merely to create a smokescreen to disrupt the machinations of their oligarchy. It was a symbolic retaliation for manipulations they inflicted upon us which are so bad that they degraded their own constitution to junk level. Yes, we succeeded, and made the loser lose and the winner win. It was more effective than taking a gun into my hands. You can deduce this from the fact that the worst war criminals of the incumbent regime are now trying to hide behind their vassals as if roles were exchanged. By playing around with their election we made it visible to everyone that American politics is all about the pursuit of hate crimes against foreign opponents. If you do not want me to trash your constitution just avoid meddling with my intellectual property. As a result, this election has produced no winner but only weaklings of one type or another, outgoing and incoming. That is because under our influence its purpose has become to make way for someone capable of serving the world's demands for unconditional surrender."
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion