Skip to content or view screen version

Obey or Die - The Pathology of Organised Treason in Europe

Internationalist Observer | 21.02.2014 16:43 | Analysis | Anti-Nuclear | Anti-militarism | World

Is it legitimate to use weapons of mass destruction against the imperialist scourge when there are no means to reach into its national borders? This question is now gripping the world for many reasons. First, the signals of the last days have left no reasonable doubt that any attack that forces the Washington regime into unconditional surrender would be more legitimate than their own bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it was successful to end the spying against the people of the world and allow them to take back their data the loss of the entire population of Unitedstates would be completely justified. That might sound hard but should have been considered by them before their regime brought the world to that point. Second, in order to pursue its terror and destruction, that regime has a number of assets outside its borders whose loss could make a significant difference in terms of human survival. Not only would their neutralisation benefit the regions they are occupying but other places as well. E. g. an attack on a hop between Washington and Kabul somewhere halfway would benefit Afghanistan, even if several of them were necessary to bring about a significant throttle. Third, the analysis of possible targets shows that their design accepts such attacks as possible scenarios and prepares for them by taking local populations hostage by means of collaboration of local regimes, and such preparations nullify any necessity to respect any cover of neutrality that would make a difference to Unitedstates territory. And fourth, the natural feedback cycle makes it that in the middle or long term imperialism is not only producing weapons of mass destruction, it is itself such a thing and therefore any approach to stop it justified by extraordinary circumstances.

In the case of Europe, the evidence of treason is rock solid. The city whose outskirts are hosting an entity calling itself the "Africa command" and representing a threat against the integrity of the continent has begun rebuilding its central railway station into a just as nonsensical as iconic bunker. For years the construction has been in the focus of local protests, because it is obviously irrational in any terms ranging from network logistics over passenger functionality to groundwater quality, but with the recent escalation in Africa the matter has developed an entire new dimension. After the local governor desecrated the ballot box over the project, it have not been the North Americans but first of all European regimes that at an increasing pace began inserting their militaries into the African meat grinder.

That has not yet shown its gruesome effects as they did not go in head first, but the transformation of countries whose populations have taken avant-garde roles in desadministration and disassembly of government hierarchies into virtual Bantustans under the reign of colonialist thugs surely is creating a potential of blowback against which the genocides of the recent decades are a kindergarten. The social engineering of the colonial powers is at the root of Africa´s most gruesome - and for most outside observers most puzzling - genocides, which makes it suicidally foolish on the side of these militaries to expect they could get out alive from trying the same thing again, after its effects have become known. Last years attack against a soldier in the streets of London offered only a tiny glimpse what is to be expected once these triggers are being touched.

The treason of Stuttgart, which began as the abuse of the place as a virtual aircraft carrier for a toxic projection of power through local corruption and a materialised expectation of serious consequences, has metastasised into a mass suicide of the military apparatus killing itself by means of deployment into Africa whose consequence is delayed beyond the threshold. In other words, there can be no doubt that in the case their command structure was decapitated by superior force, not a single one of these colonialist occupation soldiers would survive. This is consistent with the observations that imperialism is a project of collective suicide, that its armies experience more suicides than combat death, that they can only continue by frightening the societies that carry them into even higher suicide rates, that its economy thrives on death, and its aim of domination has no other purpose than bringing about death. And on top of all that, by accepting the construction of the bunker, the locals of Stuttgart have been accepting the legitimacy of becoming the collateral damage of a devastating attack against the imperialist command site.

In fact the constellation of proxy imperialism and proxy defence, of both the projection of power against someone else through a place and the unacknowledged preparation of that place against the expected consequences thereof, has created the precondition for the current crisis of the European regimes that is at the root of their military self-mutilation. In the imperialist assault against Africa, while North America is the mass murderer that has so far only slaughtered a few here or there, Europe is the rapist which has washed its hands once too often. If there was no causal relationship to the presence of the "Africa command" there would be no bunker. So much is clear even in the most authoritative confusion. An eradication of this imperialist tool would also liberate Europe from its inferior cannon fodder role without mentioning which it cannot be explained why the North Americans would leave an entire "theatre of war" entirely to the Europeans at least for the time being.

That this could be exposed in all its lethal potential before the threshold would be passed has several implications. First, there must have been, before the North American Africa policy collapsed on its apparatus, a situation in Europe which tested these regimes whether they would betray the proverbial crown jewels among the local assets to the imperialists, and these regimes failed that test. Only a conscious measurement of inter-regime permeability in the imperialist structure could resonate in such a deep and limited preemptive collapse of ideological framework into desperate substitution efforts without immediately spiralling into mass death. Although what happens to Africa is tragic, it is only the farce repeating the tragedy of European regimes biting the lure arranged by their opponents and carrying it to their American counterparts, thereby eradicating any doubt of their total unsuitability to end the occupation.

Second, at the heart of the perpetual crisis in Europe is the failure of these regimes to excrete the treacherous elements. Under normal circumstances, if such a thing had happened, a regime would announce the identity of the traitors and how it was going to assure the discontinuity of their efforts. If these are not normal circumstances because it has to be assumed that the execution of a traitor in the inner circles of a regime would cause a chain reaction of violence since due to some reason or another that regime might not be as historically stable as others, extradition is the logical fall-back option. And it is, like with the construction of the bunker near "Africa command", a situation where these regimes have already shown that they know that there are external allies who would receive any imperialist traitor for proper treatment. Even if they cannot develop the courage to throw out the American occupiers, they can rid themselves of these in its own ranks who have committed treason. All the European politicians would have to do to survive their crisis is decide to hand over their traitors to the side recognised by these traitors themselves as representatives of the interests of these they betrayed.

On the surface level, the European regime crisis seems to be all about loose customs and petty advances. Actually the speculations about these are the pile of sand where the state birds hide their heads in order to ignore the traitors among them, and if they were honestly weak they would redesign their coat of arms that way. Yet the deeper analysis brings about the very same pattern that applies in the Stuttgart case - the included preemptive reaction to the expected consequence reveals the intention of the produced cause. Not only is the public scandal a distraction in the sense of the metaphorical smokescreen of black propaganda, it also is a bunker allowing for the distortion of a real treason - of local assets to the occupier - into an irrelevant one - the alleged leaks to the concerned. The purpose of this distortion is to allow the perpetrators to ignore that leaking treason is actually a good thing, like extinguishing arson. The result of this rhetorical bunker is that it is not sufficient just to point at the treason issue to make it obvious.

It should be reiterated that the same can be said about the ensuing change of tides. Not only does it prove the pointlessness of its substance matter in the first place, and therefore lay testimony of the intention of the staging, it also displays the described pattern of self-defeating anachronism. In the cabinet reshuffle the smokescreen is the immature propaganda lulling a farmer base frightened by the neoliberalist aberrations its own revolving-door-role has brought about, and the bunker is the graduation of military officials whose trade scam had already been exposed before the last election. Likewise it is then not enough to point at a lack of institutional purge, but the gesture must be supplemented with the analysis that the distortion stored in this rhetorical bunker is that the intransparency of the people against the terror of the state was the same as that of the terror of the state against the people, and its purpose for the perpetrators is to make them imagine they could escape the consequences of employing a weapon that can only be used against people not against other states.

The designed purpose of the rhetorical bunker story element for the imperialist state and its proxies, or more precisely those who reveal themselves as such by implementing it, is to try to make itself a part of what comes after its end. But the way how it is being inserted into every new situation that develops from its blatant failure in the last one does not only indicate that the perpetrators are lacking every leverage to achieve the intended results. What comes out of the rhetorical bunker once the smokescreen has cleared is too depraved by the collective lies that put it in there to politically sustain itself without parasitic approaches toward these who survived it outside, but instead contributing to the feedback cycle prolonging this crisis. In fact, from an evolutionary point of view, the serial application of the propagandistic bunker mentality is representing a selection enhancing negative attributes.

The scapegoating currently going on, not only of the alleged perpetrators but also of the leakers thereof, indicates that the source of the treason may be the military and its activities. That would explain why it is going into the meat grinder toes first. How crazy is it to scapegoat these who leaked that the North Americans were abusing small time scandal for large scale political blackmail? That is not a matter of if but of how. It fuels suspicion that without being funnelled some agent of internal relaxation these regimes are lost in institutional cramps due to which they fail to excrete the traitors. Yet the situation is transparent enough already to confirm the diagnosis that large scale internal treason has taken place, for otherwise the European regimes would just evade the sticky issues they are currently busying themselves with, and at least try to contribute to real solutions for real problems.

It is as said in the beginning, the traitors cannot be found by following their tracks alone but by understanding their attempts to cover their tracks. On the other hand this means that once the pressure of the scapegoating procedure is no longer sufficient to prevent the leak of the identity of the traitors the accumulated emotions might unload upon deserved targets. Because if the hysterical attitude displayed by the European regimes over the last days indicates one thing, then it is that this treason has struck from inside a national security council or similar echelon of government, where someone seems to have decided that they had noting to lose but their ego. Such a monstrous collapse of vision at that level proves that the treason does not benefit the North Americans at the extent it is hurting the European regimes. Far from a zero sum game its occurrence is the first major crack in a regime coming to realise from whatever angle it is being looked upon, not an atom of it is going to be part of the future, and in doing so different elements of it express different priorities until all of it is entirely deconstructed.

Third, since a part of the scheme goes beyond the threshold, although it applies well before it, and on the timeline also has been disrupted before crossing it in its entirety, it is already partially lethal. Its tactical transgression translates into an algorithm to determine the smallest possible number of perpetrators to be executed to end it. This number cannot be zero, because if it would then it could not have reached across the threshold in the first place. The limitation of its size mostly depends on the proper procedure to order the names according to their dosage of guilt. Since the existence of a large scale conspiracy such as government is not only an historical aberration but even more so a teleological one, an one-time solution to return the carrier society entirely below the threshold is the most desirable outcome. Every further step could only increase the number, so the development of methods for the determination of the precise dosage of guilt for every individual representing it in any aspect is the most significant contribution to reducing it.

Only when all the evildoers of the regime are identified and accordingly ranked in the calculation the number can reach its mathematical minimum. This is somehow similar to the decision which nation states need to disarm first. Although it may be disputed, there is a specific order for which the overall death toll is going to be the lowest of all imaginable scenarios. The purpose of such a lethal formula is to provide the best solution to the issue of excessive threshold speculation. Once such speculation occurs, it makes it much more likely that the threshold could be crossed by the entire situation, and in the case that danger is the motivation of such speculation it does amount to suicide. Because a deliberate tactic of making radiological catastrophe more likely in order to make dying regimes more relevant is not only that but also a nasty blot on the record of civilian quitting efforts. So the issue is not so much whether it would be allowed to attack Stuttgart for what it is harbouring and how, but that the anticipation thereof serves as the proof of guilt where further evidence cannot yet be accessed. Treason is so deeply entrenched into the everyday life of with these regimes that the expectable blowback must become stronger than a thousand storms to crumble their hierarchies once and for all.

* * *

See also:

- Why is the Nonproliferation Treaty Failing? (9.1.) -
- The Death of the Inclusion Policy in the East Asian Shelf Waters (16.1.) -
- Triple Treason in the Caucasus (23.1.) -
- NATO. Obituary to a Nukepool (27.1.) -

Internationalist Observer
- Homepage: