What we wanted to revolutionise so far?
revolution, from our earliest beginnings
up to the present day
Introduction for Columbian readers and listeners: a supportive contribution for discussion towards a breaking up and unravelling of problemsin their Multi-Focal-Expansionism-Collective. Meanwhile the collective discussion has been internationalised and keeps on being propagated in the various continents.
The radio speaker on the audiotape included in the attachments of our letter to you, and it is to her that we (Huber) had to reply in the following interview, was Consuelo Rojas. For she had demanded this as a precondition in order to present us in the Spanish radio. We had personal contact with her on a few occasions. In 2001, we learned by chance that she had died one year before of a so-called cancer.
During our first meeting with her, in 1996, and again in the following year, she was beaming with blooming beauty. She was 36 years old. According to her own sayings, when she was talking things out with us, prior to any other engagement she would prefer to "deal with scientific socialism". Other excuses were added. For example, she wanted to found and manage an esoteric institute. She also wanted to conduct a psychiatric rehabilitation group, with which she would organise excursions in the surrounding area. She wanted to organise art exhibitions, too. All that between 1996 and 1997. Precisely because she had no intention to start with the concept of illness, neither did she want to start with the SPK, and the least with collectivity, but she preferred to keep her distance instead, despite all her enthusiastic devotion towards everything at once. During the next years she also fell in love passionately for a while, as we were told later by one of her friends. By this friend, we also were informed that Consuelo had continued to reject each and every therapy until the end. We thank Consuelo Rojas for having helped us, as selflessly as generously, to spread the SPK in Spain and South-America, first in Venezuela.
In response to the questions
At all times and all over the world where parts of society have begun or begin to fight back openly, this is regarded questionable [fragwuerdig], odd, strange and unusual by all the rest, mostly by the majority, thus by the stronger ones. The stronger ones, then, very soon use to play the ‘offended’ ones [die Gekraenkten], showing incomprehension, and merely by this, soon those who are perceived as an annoyance and disturbance by the general public are the mindless [mente capti] and heal-less (corrupt, spoilt, sick, ailing, the witches, those who urgently are to be converted and to be saved). In most cases, these insurrectionaries are indeed complicit in that in so far as they simply are incapable to reply to the posed questions in a satisfactory way for their questioners and interrogators, or, as "creatures of deficiencies" ["Mangelwesen Mensch", Adolf Portmann et al], they are too weak to withstand this part of the torture of being interrogated and questioned (in the past: inquisition; today, e.g., interview). Right? Of course it is well done to ask matters concerning the SPK (Socialist Patients’ Collective) those themselves who have belonged to it and kept on with it. However, if the questions are good, that is questions about the basics and principles, why then is it always the paltry minorities who are worthy of being the ones in question, the questionables [die Fragwuerdigen], and not preferably their opponents and enemies, those in position and authority, the public dignitaries [in Amt und Wuerden], the worthy ones [die Wuerdigen]?
Yes, to get straight to the core of the first questions: Indeed, we, from the SPK, reject any kind of therapy. Those who give therapy do not know what they are doing; however, it is not them with their ignorance* who are the idiots, but the ones submitted to therapy. Each and every therapy, starting with the verbal or the non verbal expression-behavior of the dignitaries [Wuerdentraeger] in the matter of therapy, up to operations with laser and scalpel (radiology, surgery), is therapy performed by means of making stupid, poisoning, mutilation and amputation and killing ("Le trépas vient tout guérir …"; death heals everything, according to a French schoolbook poem). Everyone knows that already. But then, why do they ask us ? Is it only because we say it aloud and write it and act accordingly? Is it because they know already the answers of the truly questionable experts, or is it perhaps because they fear to make themselves unpopular with them, do they fear to fall into their hands, knowing only to well what awaits them by and in therapy. We, for our part, in the role of the questionable ones, must not be at loss for any answer. But nevertheless, there are worthier and more dignified ones who, in general, can neither be asked nor can they answer. But for the time being we are co-responsible for that, too.
Every mediocre Socratic (Hamer, for instance) can easiliy dismiss them, these dismissers [Heimschicker] and boasters, that they are.
Question about necessity, needs :
The first necessity, the first need of the patients consisted and consists in the decision they have chosen, with their feet or whatsoever, to have come to us, and just to us and to no one else. We, as patients, at any rate agree with the patients who have come to us by deepening, to the best of our abilities, the gap between them and those others, that means all the rest they have not gone to. If such patients are in emergencies of violent haemorrhage [Blutsturz], or in unbearable pains, which exist as well, and they come into therapy, then together with us for the purpose of deepening the gap; and neither are they themselves nor together with us responsible for their hospitalisation, those patients mostly being under an increased pressure of their former surroundings and family members. Killing the patient and also killing the pain – in principle everyone can do that, as well replacing body substance by foreign bodies (infusion, transfusion in the case of haemorrhage). That is to say, the being able cannot be the reason, why those consulted in each case is exclusively us. In order that in this killing no-one is carrying out therapy with impunity, we also resort to legal means. Thanks to astropathy, we know already in advance what is going to happen. Apart from giving therapy – and that is something we do not do – we do and are able to and may and need to do a whole lot of things more, things that are completely omitted in every therapy. But the superfluity lies exclusively in the said therapy-giving and in no case in the just referred by far greater "rest". Comparatively little happens to those who have already known us for a while and do not come to us for the first time, anyway. Because and not least thanks to astropathy it is possible to know already in advance, whether something may happen to someone and even when and approximately what is going to happen. Emergencies, as violent haemorrhage and unbearable pains, are the consequences of being-in-equilibrium with damaging conditions. The violent haemorrhage, the broken leg, the appendix are the corresponding compromise. There are no "conflicts" and the likes, neither here nor elsewhere, except in therapy and diagnostics. The absolute equilibrated state is death, which is, as already mentioned, the dominant form of all therapy. If these findings do shock someone, then, it’s not in our intention, but in the matter of the case. The shock, too, is the manifestation of the said prestabilised harmonies [praestabilierte Harmonie, harmonia praestabilita], though not of those prestabilised harmonies of which still then the philosopher Leibniz was enthusiastic about, even a century later acknowledged approvingly by Friedrich Nietzsche, his philosopher colleague.
As to unbearable pain, here the following annotation: No living he or she nowadays, wherever he or she goes and whatever he or she does, is verifiably entirely free yet from what, in therapy and diagnostics, they call the cancerous disease. If the raising of life expectancy – as progress in medicine so loudly praised on the one hand, as it is condemned, on the other hand, as highly alarming ("population explosion"), although, particularly where the density of doctors is highest, the mortality rate of patients in its linear or exponential correspondence is occasionally being registered as alarming as well – in brief: if everybody living today would reach the age of, let’s say, 500 years, then many a people would know better what cancer is = iatrocapitalism, and that even without scientific theories, even without further progresses, and be it even in the field of genetic medicine. To ascertain this, then, one would no longer even need astropathy anymore. It is therefore not always bad if one grows very old h, and be it always the same in the eternal recurrence of the same (Friedrich Nietzsche), and be it, one grows 500 years long old and older. Let us therefore continue with confidence to hope on the progress of medicine, and that it makes it possible, namely that with the 500 years lifespan.
It’s also an empirical fact that all those among us most easily refrain from giving any therapy who, as Frontpatients, have obtained their diplomas in healthcare disciplines – not to mention those who against their will and conviction have been studying, for instance, law, science and languages in order to be better prepared and ready for attack, instead of making a profit from the money of the others for their own sake. We don’t know whether Nietzsche meant this sort of therapy when he wrote: "Physician help yourself, thus you will also help your patient.". Even this sort of therapy (healing and self-healing) is, therefore, certainly not our thing, although we, together with Marx and Hegel, understand ourselves entirely as materialists who do not trust any thought and any word, unless, at the very least, it possesses the "authority" (Hegel) of being capable of persisting in its materialisation [verstofflicht bestehen zu koennen].
Once more: The very beginning, with respect to need and necessity, is preceded by the decision taken in virtue of illness and through illness’ strength. This decision is at the same time a political decision that reduces to zero the distance between us and the patients who come to us. In this context there is, of course, no space for any sort of therapy. Any other activity within the liberated space created by that follows the rules of the liberation by and through illness, which is first and foremost the destruction of the therapeutic. Any appearances of the contrary are deceptive. For what is called by others for example homoeopathic substances, dietary measures, astrological diagnosis, etc., we, on our part, have invented the collective name iatrocide, the name being programme at the same time. This designation serves to turn down and discard anything therapeutic. And no-one, also amongst us, becomes or remains sound or healthy as a result, as little as with any therapy or medicine. But rather in virtue of illness he and she becomes able and capable of doing many a thing, being strengthened by an illness, instead of being crippled and poisoned and once again adapted to the deathly equilibrium in a way in which the ruling medicine is admittedly performing wonderful things, and there is no doubt that it, as medicine of the pre-dated death (prestabilised harmony, see above), works wonders and could not do better, certainly!
The following question (What happened to the patients? Besides, to whom else, anyway!?) can easily be answered, just as well.
With the hunger strike of 1970, the SPK had become public for the first time; the patients withdrew themselves, that means their bodies, from any medical exertion of influence. Many medical doctors found themselves obliged to send patients who had required it to the SPK, where there was agitation, above all also against therapy, instead of therapy. According to statements of the University of Heidelberg (1995!), the hoped-for remorseful return of 500 patients from the SPK to the medical doctors simply hasn’t taken place, not to this day. Nobody has ever claimed, let alone proved, that we would have had even the mere opportunity of letting someone of us die from SPK. The question what happened to them, and whether we just let them die, this question we pass on to all those in Germany and Europe, who, as good citizens are paying their direct and indirect taxes* helping thus to build therapeutic clinics and, occasionally, also therapeutic concentration camps.
Everything one eats, drinks and excretes, occasionally even the inhaled and exhaled air (vacations, intensive care unit, etc.) is subject to taxation. This is called indirect taxes, in contrast to those directly collected by the tax office. Already known? There are no innocents (Ravachol).
As for the so-called cancer case of Manuel, with the terrible pains, it’s the existing therapy with its drugs, that has made the decision for him; and also alcohol is a drug which the existing therapy is responsible of. God is the pain of Man (Ludwig Feuerbach), and also the reverse may occur and take place, precisely that pain becomes Man’s God (God and the devil are one; August Strindberg). To know that is no therapy, but it can render the decision possible and an SPK as well. Who or what, apart from the therapy, has hindered the development of an SPK in one form or another around Manuel, what may have contributed to this? Perhaps one should ask this question first. Anyway, it is certain that there never existed any connection or any relation between the former SPK and the so-called cancer-case; and the idea of SPK, wherever he probably may have encountered it, keeps being abstract, as any idea does, as long as it remains unmaterialised [unverstofflicht], at best a tolerated secondary relation within a non-committal friendship.
Next question: But you, too, use therapy?
Yes, right, we are against heal and health, but use medicinal herbs and acupuncture. Yes, this is a contradiction that grows even more severe once we confess that we are trying and have tried even more than that, and that we do this in such an undogmatic manner that we fall between all stools and we often enough get ourselves into hot water, even with politically and ideologically well-meaning people. After all we have said before, here, too, the answer may be short: No matter how it is called, we wellcome everything that is suitable for preparing the grounds for the fundamental decision against heal and therapy and propelling it at the disadvantage of the medical doctors’ class. We call it iatrocide, if it works in that direction. Against rumours we forge gossipcides, effective and efficient (proven!). If we see that it is esteemed only as a home remedy or as cheap medicine, we understand to withdraw, and we willingly leave the mere commercial part of the issue to the therapists, the alternative therapists included. Of course here, too, we patients do not just put ourselves to death or let each other die, but rather we support them, for instance with juridical means, when they as the cheated ones, now being closer to a decision, once again turn to us for support, and such things, too, happen every now and again.
Question about the Patients’ Front’s own "neologisms":
As to our expressions diapathics and pathopractice at least that much should be roughly comprehensible that in the respective overall context, in which these expressions appear in our texts, they obviously refer to something methodical, thus to ways – because that is what method means; i.e. ways of comprehending and overcoming the objective, also the resistant. A detail within diapathics is, likewise roughly, dialectics, the materialist dialectics. We ask ourselves: In which light does a thing or an essence appear if it is comprehended from the point of view of illness? For instance, it makes a difference if someone’s clothing is comprehended as one prosthesis among many others, originating from the imperatives of the capitalist world of commodities, and his body as a product of food of the same origin ( where else is he supposed to take them from otherwise?) – or if there is psychologising, mathematising, standardising or prestige-ising, in brief: valuating and devaluating, depending on the clothing, depending on the feeding habits one is trained in. To apply instead the categories of alienation, of wage labour, of the "biological" (self-begetting, species), of the unhistorical capitalism, means to comprehend, on a trial basis, the issue from the point of view of the concept of illness. It’s illness that can condition this outfit, take it under protest, make it possible or impossible, together with all it origins from and it is related to. Something, after all, has to fight back against the fact that somebody is being attacked by others, e.g. by the so-called "political" people, just because he has dressed up, and vice versa. But what matters is the closeness to illness, the decision in favour of illness, and even the decision as such, because one together with its opposite at once are not possible in the real world (Aristotle). Diapathics is also this: to introduce illness into medicine (because that is where it’s not), into law ; to deduce mathematics from illness (2 in 1, self-begetting, the one moment of the concept of illness, the "biological", as mentioned above), instead of taking illness mathematically into account, claiming compensation for damages by juridical means, retransforming illness into money, the medium of exchange in capitalism, from which illness derives. Any interest in single disciplines of science ceases ; because: already in dialectics, and even more so in diapathics, things exist in the concepts of their opposite. To reply that diapathics is the universal theory of pathopractice, probably would be considered too general again. However, details are at times and in cumulation simply too silly, because purportedly even the devil is in the details, particularly below the belt-zone, and all the more so under the skin, where illness is present as well, as well as beyond and behind the stars, and through the stars; because the "dia" in diapathics means also: through. Pathopractice is the recognising and active and effective accomplishing on the basis of the pro-illness-decision. One specific example: instead of delivering revolutionary speeches on illness to a courtroom full of reporters, a front-patient, until his violent removal from the courtroom, only shouts the following children’s rhyme : Put the bosses in their place / All the power to the patients [Bosse in die Schranken / Alle Macht den Kranken]. This at least the public inevitably gets to know via the press and broadcasting, because this rhyme (and in German it rhymes) can hardly be distorted, all against the possibilities and quite contrary to the intentions of those of the media spectacle. Silence can kill, laughter and ridicule as well. Who inwardly laughs himself ill though, is already coming closer to pathopractice. In an entirely general way, in turn, the new-revolution through strength from illness is a pathopractice, certainly; because offenses by illness [Kraenkungen] always go along with it, though usually lacking the proper use of illness.
Incidental remark: It is easy to ask for things that are explained here and there quite differently on hundreds of pages of paper. To gather all these answers is futile, because answers are simply no answer, just like truths are not the truth. Freely adapted from Hegel: Who wants to explain and refute, has to put himself in the force of his adversary and within the radius of his strength. To hit him where he is not, does not promote the cause. Thus even explaining has its particular, highly decision-relative dialectics, especially in the matter of illness.
Question: What kind of material do the patients offer?
Answer: Apart from their preliminary decision, they come to us and complain about cancer, brain tumour, headaches, being persecuted, war damages, seizures and attacks, phantom pains, incisional hernia and what else. If it is only one example, a detail that is asked for, there is something lengthier and more extensive to be found in SPK: Turn Illness into a Weapon, topic: the so-called persecution mania.
Question about the relation between astrology and revolution:
Also the astrological belongs to the things we have tested and applied, and found very useful. Moreover, this method is generalisable among us; all of us have learned it and are able to contribute, when solutions are required. We attack at the right time, know what is going on and what is necessary and what should be avoided, and we know the outcome of the matter, at least in broad outline, and very often already for years in advance. That’s a difference between knowing nothing at all and knowing something, right? Of that even genetics is still only dreaming. But genetics will do it, fully mechanical, via defects and via the artificial setting of other damages. But astropathy is, instead of mechanical, quite applicable dialectically, even diapathically. Otherwise we would not talk of astropathy (with the stars) and pathastry (against the stars). For the rest, we don’t have to defend or reject astrology-in-general, because, as far as we are concerned, we have tried and filtered out long enough. From the pros and cons, and it’s mostly the same old hackneyed arguments, lives a meanwhile several thousand years old literature.
By the way, we, too, hold the view that everything, including today’s nature, is made alongside the history of society, more for evil than for good. Just about everything has gone wrong for several thousand years now. The stars can influence and indicate nothing but what is thrown into their throat, raw material-like, as product and matter of society as a whole. The stars are generous at this regard, they also content themselves with substitutes, as already the ancient priest-doctors with their human and animal sacrifices knew. The societal process of history alone, geared towards subjugation and looting, is relentless, and it is mechanics (iatrarchy), without any materialistic-dialectical advancement and activity against it. Of course, there is a substitute for everything, for the war and even for the alcohol, and it doesn’t always need to be the less favorable one. Which one to choose, is to capable astrologists to find out. We ourselves repeatedly have made good use of Neptune for the purpose of camouflage, when there were still borders to cross. Perhaps we should have boozed up instead, until we don’t see anything anymore and, well in booze with a shot of methyl alcohol, all the more can believe that no-one sees us, either.
Besides, to see in wars only social conflicts seems to us a bit insufficient. We have concerned ourselves quite often, also literarily, with economical matters (Karl Marx) and prestige-specific matters (Hegel, master and slave), connected in the basis of illness (to hypostatise satiety instincts and drives for recognition, as well as instincts or drives as such, to us is nonsense). We imagine, that, without the past revolutions, the questions addressed to us, if at all, came from a satellite office of the Vatican, with the interviewer as the aristocratic prioress of a nunnery with an interposed spiritual medium, we ourselves a sepulchral voice from the afterlife, hanged long ago and buried outside some churchyard wall on unhollowed ground [Schandanger], at least what the pathologists had no need for. Many thanks to you all, you failed revolutionaries, also in name and on behalf of the public broadcasting!! We do not know what it is meant to be, a revolution of personal mistakes (part of the question to be answered here). Maybe we do not understand quite the same by revolution and also by person and personal as the author of the related question does. In the further context of all these questions we state here that we simply don’t know of any failed revolution. We do know failed outsiders, early and late beneficiaries, undecided ones, thus the in our understanding reactionary ill ones, they themselves nowadays and increasingly an important if not in the end the compelling contribution to the change of the existing towards the subjectively worse. The struggle for recognition (Hegel) and the satiety instinct (Moleschott, Hobbes etc.) are not human-nature-in-its-primal-state, but as abstract moments they are atavisms from the primal state of the primitive mechanics of commodities and values. The solution into the human species begins with pro illness, as un-aimed protest (SPK – Turn Illness into a Weapon), nowadays worldwide, terrible (INVARIANTI, 1990).
Regarding the question, or the attempt of discrediting the revolutions, there is, upon a closer inspection, a rather qualified statement by a German poet named Nikolaus Lenau, who, by the way, is said to have died "in a state of mental derangement":
The Albigenses are followed by the Hussites
Who revenge bloodily what those have suffered
After Hus and Ziska come Luther, Hutten
The 30 years, the fighters of the Cevennes,
The assaulters on the Bastille, AND SO FORTH.
Den Albigensern folgen die Hussiten
und zahlen blutig heim, was jene litten
Nach Hus und Ziska kommen Luther, Hutten
die 30 Jahre, die Cevennenstreiter,
die Stuermer der Bastille, UND SO WEITER.
Next question (What have you achieved at all etc.?):
The statement on gene and genome, quoted by us, seemed to be acceptable so far, something that does surprise us not little, by the way. Because otherwise we would have had to refer to the difference between a piano key (gene) and the piano keyboard (genome) on the one hand, and the piano player on the other hand, a difference that genetics apparently does not know yet, therefore quite contrary to the supposedly less proficient public. Has the public ("the pianist") already blown away all genetics, thus, at least that fashion gimmick of the medical doctors’ class, and we just haven’t come to know yet?
But the question is going on. The question is: what have we achieved, what have we changed? What we actually wanted to have revolutionary achieved up to now? What had we achieved except going to jail and being persecuted (Counterquestion: Has anyone complained about that? Whom at all does the latter concern in the slightest? Are there amongst the questioners also in this respect ‘innocent’ bystanders?).
Furthermore, we are also asked about the way we are organised, namely:
1) umbrella organisation, hierarchy, pyramide, 2) groups:
Are we supposed to regard these questions as being closely related to what has been quoted by us (metaphors all around gene and genome), or should we regard them as a covert call to take stock and to finally give peace? As to the last part of the question, we would answer: First take stock yourselves, become aware of how the doctors have botched your life and decide yourselves whether it is simply because you, in spite of all your stress and fidgeting, to the mocking and malicious joy of the random few, though more successful ones, just have stayed too poor to even have the opportunity to buy you the means and services of the medical doctors’ class, so that they freeze you and thaw you again, once better times are coming, or to get yourselves buried right away. This answer would be to the highest degree impertinent and unobjective, polemical up to offending (and here it comes again!), in any case unobjective, because it is us who are the object, questionable objects and subjects, after all, but much in demand, certainly! Yes, to come to the point: nothing, absolutely nothing, has been achieved by us, if you deduct the past revolutions, all of them revolutions against the producing and exploiting of the satiety instinct and the drive for recognition; including the Russian and also the Stalinist revolution, yes. With us no-one, no human being, no animal, no plant, no raw-material has, recognisable to us, become more satiated; none of us has made a career, except by us elsewhere, by us, yes, certainly, and many, in fact, not few. The one who, in the existing conditions, has become 40 years old without being at least a millionaire, is an idiot, that’s what a former ’68 activist once said, when he still was a student, meanwhile he himself a leading manager in the old Reichs Capital of Berlin. No, also at this regard we have achieved nothing, have nothing to expect, because more than a few of us have aged or even, according to biological standards, pre-aged far beyond their fourties by now, and not even in 1 million years there will be coming a millionaire out of that.
But to not let them kid themselves, our ladies and gents millionaires, this quite other paltry minority, this iacapiss of iacapissers and iacapisstresses: occasionaly we have not spared the cost of amounts above the fraction line of a million in order to put the one or the other millionaire very quickly into temporal but permanent retirement, one from a clinic board for example, a patient-killer, Head of Department for so-called mentally ill lawbreakers, he himself clearly being the only highly qualified real lawbreaker, if measured by his SS- and Nazi past. No, we are not poor people, not at all, when things really are at stake. But also by that we did not sense any joy of success, or at least even malicious joy. For, what does it change anyway? Money can’t bring you happiness, and even we millionaires-by-requirement, being at the same time and for the rest habitual Franciscans, could tell you another thing or two about it. This was one of the facts, and it’s for facts we’re asked. With facts, too, less is sometimes more. The next question: What have you changed?, is thus being answered as well, namely as to its generalisable characteristics. By that we have changed nothing at all. The said Head of Department had been replaced by a more modern one, the patients got their cage gilded, on the condition to forget us. Yes, even so-called mentally ill lawbreakers are able to forget. Well, somewhere they must have learnt it. Regarding all that, however, we can not exclude, as little as the police usually can completely exclude something, that there exists an astral plane and a world memory (Akasha Chronicles). With astropathy as an aid, not to say makeshift, we can, entirely in contrast also to the police, at least metrologically exact register effects and repercussions of such a pattern of action that has been set by us. The result: there was, is and remains in many a places joy and delight. Apart from this, merely illness-certain and therefore, like illness in general, relative to every day life experience negligible restriction, we can light-heartedly and Cartesianly forearmed agree with all those who, with their question about the changes brought about by us, explicitly or implicitly insinuate that we are but a quantité négligeable, the empty set par excellence. There should be noted yet that camouflage, too, is most certainly not our first principle of success; because patients, or those who pretend to be patients, are, as well known, of no use neither for the military nor as success nerds.
What we wanted to revolutionise so far?
Answer: the revolution, from our earliest beginnings up to the present day.
What have you achieved, except jail and persecution?
Answer: At this present moment that much, for instance, that someone, thousands of miles away, while shaken to the core by the protesting illness experienced from the immediate environment, notably relieved changed the respective doing and thinking. Maybe it’s just in our imagination, but external effects of this issue materialised in form of questions we have here before our very eyes. What we have achieved apart from that, beyond jail and persecution, is that we, ill people totally unknown to each other 30 years ago – and is there anything more selfish than ill people against each other? –, have entirely and unitedly new-programmed ourselves on illness’ matters, so that we, as our shopping receipts document, are no longer exposed economically, socially and ideologically to any distraction for the benefit of the existing and dominating. We occasionally also put it that way: We have put the medical doctors’ class, the solely and really ruling class, on diet-zero. Within the limits of our spheres of influence, therefore, the dominant system has broken down, just as every system breaks down, when it is deprived of its energy supply, as just documented by the receipts. This has been proven by us also with respect to imprisonment and persecution. The "rest" of the statements to be made here we cannot prove to anybody in terms of shopping receipts. But after all it is others than we ourselves, with a global overview in publishing and media due to their profession, who certify us by documents that we have achieved with effects on the masses, especially also for the most simple-minded people, what prior to us no critic and even the most critical critic had not even thought of putting into question, and indeed practically and in no way just theoretically: the holiest of holy, the very highest value in all past societies, that is health, nine tenth of happiness of life (Schopenhauer). Also, that we have unmasked the holy couple relationship [Zweierbeziehung], even in its most modern, most libertarian and most spiritual shaping, as a doctor-patient-dyad [Arzt-Patient-Dyade], is highly appreciated, not only from that part. To have opposed the so-called malformed of nowadays as the better pre-hominids of this earth to yuppies and fitness-fanatics, has been noticed very approvingly, too; and this hasn’t kept away by far all so-called cripples and severely disabled people from being on the move day and night as SPK, limping and clumsy – let alone even being shocked. In short, because the greater rest of changes apart from jail and persecution has been recorded long since in many places and on many occasions even repeatedly in written form: in a quite unspectacular way, except for jail, persecution and such occasionally even lethal spectacles, we have learned to a certain extent to turn our ideology into flesh and blood, and to suspend the ruling one with its basic values, at least for us, and be it only temporarily. Incidentally it should be noted that, therefore, not even our own ideology is any longer sacred to us, otherwise, we’d rather be at no loss for another word in respect thereof. Even those who are affected by the effects of our ideology, be it for good, be it for evil, are certainly neither obliged to automatically believe in it nor to bite the dust [muessen nicht automatisch dran glauben].
The answer to the question, perhaps, would nevertheless be incomplete, if we did not come back again to the insinuation that by the means of jail and persecution can be achieved something, while the rest, however, would be questionable and thus give reason to be elucidated by separate questions. Indeed, for patients it is often difficult and good luck to be sent to jail, instead of being and staying exposed directly to the physicians in hospitals and asylums. In this respect, to be sent to jail was part of our strategic withdrawal, a promotion, a success, a continuation and improvement of our possibilities to put the medical doctors’ class on diet-zero. And there, even by the means of hunger strikes and under the worst forms and circumstances of forced nutrition we could confront them body against body in the surgical departments and psychiatric wards of the jails. It would thus be difficult if we sincerely wanted to deny indiscriminately the successes we have had also in this respect. However, especially at this regard helps us the fact that certainly every halfway reasonable person, when iatrocapitalistically pre-programmed, in no way considers jail and persecution as an enjoyment, and if a success, then a highly doubtful one in any case, a success, that a good iacapism-citizen not even is capable of envying anybody seriously, and even more so if this anybody is ill and a patient. It must be added that the doctors already in advance had denied that amongst the hundreds in the SPK there was only one or still one single "real" patient. Therefore nobody believed, for you simply have to believe the doctors and their publishers, that it was a success when one dozen out of the SPK then, were sent to jail as gang leaders and as supposed seduced ones. Also the journalistic signal effect of jail and persecution, of which nowadays every political opponent in any country can be sure at least to some extend and comfortingly, was totally omitted in our case. The media compared other politically persecuted groups to us, in order to publicly present them, of course under the guidance of the doctors, even better as sick and crazy people. As a result, also the political opponents were joining openly and permanently the fight at the persecutors’ and the doctors’ side, openly against us. Positively spoken the fact remains, that absolutely nothing can be achieved by illness, the least though, as we have to confine here again, any form of corruptibility by anything in the existing conditions, that is called a success or a failure. After this has been made clear once and for all, and this, too, was bitterly necessary, today nobody any longer needs to be keen on jail and persecution standing up for illness. But also such a success or failure award would then be entirely a matter of one’s own judgement, and would have nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with former or future successes on our side. Here, too, it’s not our intention to give someone a shock, let alone a salutary shock, for something of the kind, so goes the medical talk, is said to exist. At this point only the facts should count, those we are asked for.
The next question: "How are you organised?", we might as well answer, at least roughly, after all we have stated so far: not at all. Externally nobody organises with us anyway, unless in favour of illness, as it once has shown very drastically in the case of prison 25 years ago. Those outside are all already organised anyhow, are already planned with and are allocated into something as organs, means or tools, are somewhere built-in, while we constantly are dismantling all our acquired relations amongst us, which are but commodity relations, that is relations amongst commodities, evaluable and exploitable, dismantling them constantly until we can’t go any further. There were times when we, known or unknown to each other, haven’t met in years, though closely united by illness and by the grown knowledge about it. However, the question about being organised seems to be important, since it has been underlined and by this separately emphasised. Therefore, maybe another example. Already in the very moment someone is asking us, he is through illness unorganised / organised united with us in a doubtlessly new-revolutionary way. If, what is more, there is also happening quite a lot inside and outside, then we have got the expression MFE (Multi-Focal Expansionism) for it. But wherever there is a medical doctors’ class, a patients’ class is not far, too. The medical doctors’ class is organised and undoubtedly very well organised internationally; therefore it does, from the very outset, not at all come into consideration as a model for the patients’ class also with respect to organisation. Also according to experience, illness throws very immediately, very immediately and even unconsciously a wrench in being organised, a wrench in every plan. Doesn’t it? But all organisation is a system of purposes and means, each organ being the tool of the other, a system of using and being used, depending on the value ranking inside the hierarchy of the being organised. This is of profit to the things, but of damage to the single-ones. Patients in the original state – and especially in patients this becomes particularly evident – pick on each other, take advantage of each other, each to the other just means to an end, tolerated by the doctors be it welcome or unwelcome to them, or restricted by forced and single therapies. If this results in an organisation, a party, a forced association, a registered or non-registered society with forced contributions or voluntary donations, then this either has no longer anything to do with illness, or the madness of un-aimed protest is reigning (that’s how we called it in SPK – TURN ILLNESS INTO A WEAPON), the unaimed protest* of all against all. The decision pro illness is no organisation and doesn’t result in an organisation but in a shapeless body, comparable to a cloud of warmth (see, in systematic elaboration and explication: Iatroclasm, in: SPK – Dok IV ).
* the organised anti-groups: at first unisono in favour / against, then the unaimed protest, unaimed, because protest of all against all.
Ad 1, in closer specification of the organisation issue:
We have neither externally nor internally any kind of umbrella organisation. The span between heavier artillery and lighter artillery (military metaphor, for better understanding), between the more advanced and the less advanced, is however up to the point of remaining unnoticed, latent, towards the outside as within the internal relations.
Ad 2, the organisation issue concerning groups:
We ourselves here prefer most decisively the expression collective, since it is about a collection respectively an accumulation of initially fundamentally different, from case to case to each other even alien, and continuing to be alien, unities, united only in the unity illness. Groups, in contrast, are, according to the rules researched by Sartre, random products determined by the respective conditions, as e.g. the people waiting at the bus station (series), the listeners and viewers in front of radio and TV (series), who, at the best, can be scandalised for a short time, can be manipulated, in any case. Groups in fusion form, according to Sartre, when someone in the cinema or theatre, e.g., suddenly screams "Fire!", and all are united for a short time by trampling each other to death for escape and the emergency exit, or in the storming of the Bastille, when acts of terror from above are announced. Finally, there is the institutionalised group, held together as long as possible by terror, intentionally applied internally or threatening from the outside.
Apart from that, as is well known, so-called therapists form so-called therapeutic groups. Manipulating and interpreting, there is dealt with couple-relative, familial and famillionaire stuff. Also not exactly our cup of tea, as already mentioned.
We can summarise the next question as follows: How can you claim that you have broken away from the system ((we have overcome it, trample it underfoot, prefer death to it, if needs be!)), when you have to make a living somehow, work within this society and look out for strategic points in order to form your groups?
Answer: Well, aside from the insinuation "groups" (we haven’t and we aren’t), "look out for" (we don’t, because for us, in the existing reality there is nothing to look out for any longer, let alone to find), "strategic locations" (we are neither Templars nor NATO generals), it’s now a few decades that we carry right after alienation wage labour as the second moment of the concept of illness permanently in our shield. The proverbial excuse that in the end everyone would have to earn his living somehow, the standard excuse for doing nothing, or for doing the wrong thing, but in any case for doing nothing against the system, is well known to us, together with the follow-up excuses "family", "obligations", "no time" and suchlike, culminating in the statement, quite convenience-nurturing but in no way hostile to the achievement principle, that one can do nothing anyway, that the others are too bad, that the looser is always oneself and needs not provide the laugh and since one can do nothing, one could not be held responsible for anything. On another occasion within the context of the questions, we have already pointed out that materially spoken, that means money related, there are no innocent people, but only responsible ones. But who joins responsibility for everything without protesting, has no reason whatsoever to come just to us with his complaints and questions. We don’t believe in the necessity of the dominant producing and exploiting of the satiety instinct, and also not in the natural necessity to be more valuable, to be recognised and estimated more than others. We have activated the hunger-illness in us for many months under the worst conditions of torture and even overcome hunger. Not even the prison system, not even the prison society could prevail on us with half-rations and zero-diets. Illness was stronger. Does one have to excuse oneself that one, no matter under which conditions, is allowed to do wage labour, the worst form of all slavery, because one is nonetheless trampling underfoot the respective system? In our concept of illness, wage labour comes right after alienation, as already mentioned. Ever heard of unalienated wage labour? This, too, is a song we have learned to sing already many years ago: Work is rewarding / where illness is enthroned [Die Arbeit lohnt / wo Krankheit thront]. Yes, as far as we are allowed, we also work within the society, and we do that not for wages or reward but for revolution by virtue of illness. We gladly make ourselves useful even abroad, wherever we can. But who doesn’t want to, will see us further first. For reason of illness and for everything that is connected to it, problems of being a foreigner are not an issue for us, neither in the country where we live nor abroad. It’s solely the medical optics that creates foreigner problems, race problems and overpopulation problems. Therefore, what they need and consume for their living in this society (human sacrifices etc.), would also be a question excellently suited to embarrass the medical doctors’ class. Posing this question to us is a waste. We have broken away from this society, once and for ever. In thirty years of SPK we were definitely and case by case able to create for ourselves the very society we, for our part, can live in and want to live in.
Answer to the question about a piece of land located at the Monte Agrebal San Guiris, which by the locals is considered to possess miraculous powers since ancient times. About one half there nowadays is dying of "radiations" and irradiations, so-called cancer or strokes of lightning or suchlike, not to forget the relatively high density of doctors. Also in other respects, no wonder, much amorphing can be found brought about in time, hardly in primary rocks [kann man viel Amorphes in der Zeitigung, kaum noch im Urgestein finden].
There are no ties to a specific purpose or location. In 1988, we were looking for a place where we could deposit our cars appropriately. We got recommendations from a German to take over his vacant house at the east coast. We astropathically elected the corresponding locality as possible point of reference and found out that the whole east coast was inappropriate to us. Moving the coordinates kilometer for kilometer up and down the country, we then came to a place about 80 km away from the second last frontier to the Atlantic, which, in turn, had been indicated as a danger zone. There weren’t any pieces of land. Instead we’ve been told on the phone about a deserted house, where we could move in on condition that we would accept a small piece of field, remote and inaccessible for cars. Since the astropathically ascertained coordinates were correct, we got more information on the locality and people from the library. We read the name that reminded us of Erasmus and Ulrich von Hutten, in relation of whose writings during our school time we had already met similar names before. So, we learned that corresponding to our astropathically ascertained coordinates there was also such a Monte. Advising also with foreign lawyers about illness, they recommended us to take over "huerta" and "cabaña", and be it only temporarily. Without any further purpose, after a three weeks’ internal language course, we then got in physical contact with land and ground for the first time at the turn of 1988 to 1989.
Although shortly after nine of us arrived there, the neighbours remained friendly and interested, proved to be very helpful and welcomed particularly that we at once started working on the field which had lain fallow for years. They also told us that this had been a great disadvantage for their own surrounding fields. Not until years later they also whispered to us that they themselves preferred to avoid passing their nights alone in their dwellings, although that would surely be better and anyway more reassuring also for their livestock. But by that time they knew already, as they said, that they could rely on us and that we would stay. Working on the repairs, at first, we had no time at all to think about other aims and purposes.
In 1990, at a weekend, a tourist from the provincial capital for the first time asked us about doing and purpose and coming from Germany especially to this very region. At first he misunderstood us being a kind of prisoners’ aid organisation in Germany. We strongly opposed this. We happened to have carried a harmonium with us, 100 years old, and sheets of music were laying around. But he did not let himself get distracted. Thus, we explained him in a rough outline according to his wish our project in Germany, somewhat accurately and as far as we were able to with respect to the foreign language. We were not badly surprised when this gentleman urged us to take action in this way here, too, because just here and in the broader area there were more than enough reasons and occasions for that. He, too, was friendly enough not to show his disappointment, when we, by pointing to the due political abstinence, asked for understanding for our "aquí nunca". In the meantime the assistance that some of us can give is appreciated, when children, but also adults, have school problems with learning foreign languages such as English, French, etc. Also our musical performances and the explanations of the local musical composition, as well as the modern and that of German origin, are accompanied by expectancy potentials noticed again and again anew in the closer circle of the local inhabitants.
On the small piece of land we have also been trying out already for some time now recommendations from the esoteric or anthroposophic literature and we could already include quite a few things in our pathopractice. Perhaps in a few years we will be ready, so that some of us can set up there some kind of académia with courses, in which we can continue what we have begun there according to wish and will of the local inhabitants, without having to abandon the necessary here in Germany and having to abandon the by virtue of illness even more urgently required and possible liberating.
Answer to the question in which respect we are different from the rest of the political parties:
In each and everything, apart from the fact that we need not canvass voters with health programmes in order to catch their votes.
Answer to the question whether we consider all medical doctors to be making-stupids and made-stupids:
Yes, because otherwise, they would be tolerated no longer as medical doctors neither in their organisations nor on their posts. All are hereby requested to deliver the proof to the contrary. In case they "fail" to do so, they are welcome as frontpatients. By this they will admittedly loose everything, but having thus overcome once and for all the system is still not yet a gift for lifetime they have acquired once and for all.
The question is asked whether we have also taken into consideration that probably white-coated spiritual entities participate from beyond, quite within the existing system, although guiding the medical doctors’ hands in therapy, but without following their way.
Answer: Our Patients’ Front’s song says: "Illness of the earth / become joined to the illness of the cosmos! / Its tone of warmth" ["Krankheit der Erde / Kosmos ihr Werde / sein Waermeton"]. We ourselves examine astropathically our inspirations, even all our freely coming ideas appearing important to us, in order to find out where they come from and where they belong to [wess’ Geistes Kind sie sind], before we transform them, materialised in activity, in a pathopractice manner. Likewise of course also our doing, before we begin to have doubts afterwards. We have read all the literature accessible to us about spiritual healers, kahuna practitioners, psychiatrists with mediumistic practice ("30 years among the dead"), astrological therapists and iatromathematicians and even the complete works of Paracelsus more than once, in some cases, and we have discussed and explained in detail what results from it from our point of view in our book "Illness, the holistic entity with a future" ["Krankheit, die Ganzheit mit Zukunft"]. The basic attitude, thoroughly hostile to illness and to patients, in all these ideologisms, particularly in those of the pre-Nazi period with their demonisation of the coercively hospitalised patients as idle mouths to feed, they for their part astral food up to the highest Devachan for demons, vampires and the undead (Max Freedom Long), has compelled us to see in Hitler nothing but the executor and the first hangman’s assistant of an ideology that, as a therapeutic one in its rampage against all "unworthy life", was very common to the world and not only to the Germans long before the Nazi era, but that soon after 1933 as "Mein Kampf", Adolf Hitler, had become that popular, approved and honoured in the Anglo-American world language, that Hitler could afford by it his house on the Obersalzberg. Therefore: Look, whom you trust! [Trau, schau wem]. It seems better to us, after all that is happening in the world, to give first of all the physicians and therapists on earth a firm rap on the knuckles, instead of only even looking at entities from beyond. Perhaps, also the latter are being helped better by this, since even to them it seems to become increasingly difficult to embody somewhere. We, for our part, confidently refer, if we, too, are permitted, also here to a Word of Christ, or to a Christian word, to be precise: "Ye shall know them by their deeds." And since God’s ways are said to be often dark and unfathomable before the good sense becomes clear, also that of old and new patient-killings, by which, as well known, everything gets started, before then they also go for the throat of the others, e.g. the "politicals", we ourselves prefer to thoroughly examine our deeds and misdeeds, together with our inspirations and freely coming ideas, wherever necessary, in the light of the stars.
Also with respect to the following question concerning the invisible light-beings and the cosmic genii (good spirits) of medicine there doesn’t result any new viewpoint. For to us, and probably also to most citizens, when they open the newspaper or press the button, it appears that the whole existing reality including medicine at least match perfectly in this, that they appear to have taken leave of their senses as well as have been left by their good spirits already long time ago.
As to the question concerning cosmic healing powers, the Sephira Chokmah and the Christian miraculous healings we have to say that, nowadays, the Earth is mainly there for supplying the cosmos (translate: gem) and the entities and forces therein with illness, because otherwise, non-metaphorically speaking, there too it remains cold and colder. With regard to the respective relations, being at a loss for a better substitute for the natural sciences and humanities, we have introduced a pathopractice which we call thermomimetics. Conceiving of the Sephira Chokmah as the first emanation of the primordial light and therefore as specific to warmth, is there indeed included, as the third moment of the concept of illness, if you want. Miracles, so we believe, are not only possible but also highly necessary. So, it would be a miracle if it could be accomplished to evoke from the fobbed-offs and the hungry-for-recognition, nowadays erroneously called humans, the being of human species [Gattungswesen Mensch] in a material but amorph form [das Gattungswesen Mensch in grobstofflicher, aber formloser Gestalt evozieren], instead of seeing in illness, that is prevailing anyway, in the illnesses, as the preconditions for this, only the reason and the justification ideology to clear the path for the medical doctors’ class to abort the human species already before it has got even the possibility to become manifest, and be it only as slight anticipation of the necessary and liberating. We consider the miracles of ancient times, in a reality then so very different also in its material way, the flying humans without planes, the walking upon the waves, as true as hardly someone else does. For by this alone the existing reality, as an eternally unchangeable reality, becomes fundamentally and strongestly relativisable, especially towards a utopia by the strength of illness, our utopathia, which we are up to right now, goal attained.
As to the question concerning Dr Hamer, we think that all that has nothing to do with illness, but all the more with computerism and a Weizsaecker-seeping rehash of Freudian mythology. By the way, also this doctor, unlike a few others, has never, and be it only briefly, come to the SPK to inform himself, at those times being settled at Heidelberg, first hand by listening, at least for once, to the patients themselves. Also because he, as medical doctor, has paid his compulsory fees to the Medical Association without protesting, he, being represented by the chief official of the medical practitioners of the Heidelberg region at that time, named Dr Rotzler, must be counted on the side of all those who, in secret cabinet policy together with the then Chief Mayor of Heidelberg Zundel, were from the first day pressing ahead – passively or actively – with the policy of liquidation against the patients of the SPK, showing great zeal, while the *Medical Association of North-Baden at Karlsruhe, farer off the battleground, being in charge as well, had declared publicly that, from a medical point of view, there would exist no cause or reason whatsoever to take action against the SPK, or only to think of measures. But Huber, in comparison, then could so well listen to the patients that the female reporter of a major news magazine, talking with Huber and half a dozen other patients in the SPK-rooms already for more than one hour, eventually could say: "And your Huber, when will he finally show up", and – looking at the door – "Can’t someone show him to me now, get him here, why doesn’t anyone get up?"
*(more cautious and, therefore, possibly double-strategical, or perhaps better: more double-tongued – by Asclepius! –)
Also with respect to the remaining part of the questions and opinions, we hold the view, being fully in line with the philosophical tradition (Spinoza, Hegel, E. Unger), that no statement and no thought is totally wrong, unless it is considered to be the final say, devoid of any need of addition resp. completion. In our case it must be added that we are not about claiming truth, let alone rightness in our explanations. What we rather claim, and that in all resoluteness, is a useful ideology that may, according to all established standards, be thoroughly wrong from scratch. The main thing is that it helps illness to get its right, the main thing is that it is capable of tracing those forces of illness all over and everywhere [all-ueberall], that are, in continuation of the past revolutions, capable of revolutionising the revolution itself; and this not for the sake of a better future, but for the sake of direct and immediate changes here and now (revolution within one generation), sparing the future ones any detours and inconveniences if possible, as far as they seem avoidable. Besides, with our REALISATION OF CONSTRUCTS BY DEDUCTION FROM THE UNIVERSALS [universaliendeduktionistische Konstruktrealisierung] we put ourselves within the contextual radius and the demands to turn, what otherwise is called fantasy, into indeed totally free fantasy, released from all existing reality, connecting seemingly totally heterogeneous concepts, to generate creations of fantasy, in order to bring them then again, in a second step, examining and adjusting them, closer to a changed and to be changed reality. In brief: we put illness before each matter to be tackled, compose the corresponding apparatus, assemble it for example from herbal substances, so-called high potencies, low frequencies (G sharp and stuff, but lowest tech) and the likes, transform thus (and transsubstantialise!) in the real, in the material, however not primarily in the consciousness. Who, after a serious injury, spends several weeks unconsciously at the so-called resuscitation department has got no consciousness, let alone a transformable one, but truly has got strength of illness to be awakened, to get its trail blazed and to be fortified. The ideological and conscious means have to be materialised in advance, have to be present and prepared [parat], even in form of an ap-paratus [Ap-parat], also beyond intellect, reason, sense and consciousness.
Having said all that in advance, our pro-illness, as already mentioned, is also absolutely about no longer playing along with the system. Yet, there is by far more to it than that. Moreover, just by not going to see a doctor anymore (Hamer), of course nothing has been accomplished yet, nothing has been changed yet. With respect to revolutionary transformation, we cannot give any priority neither to the consciousness nor to the so-called individual, simply because the illness-specific decision pro-illness plain but rightly belies any other priorities, hierarchies, value rankings and urgencies.
Also so-called conflicts and so-called responsibilities, we would rather take far too seriously, that means to take them up first of all in their material and materialised form. How then, for example, the expression responsibility can turn quite in a different way into the responsibility of all and without distinction, we have explained already. The same also applies to the question of errors and mating relations, ideas that we consider as in need of revision, just as for example the handed down ancient Indian view that with each drop seminal fluid, a man would loose 1 year of his life expectancy, though we cannot guarantee the correct reproduction of the numerical proportions, here at short notice.
Whether in our work we wear ourselves out prematurely or whether we regenerate, we probably are least able to judge ourselves. Either way, an older woman of the region has assured one of us that from the beginning she had considered him just as old as he, according to his own statement, really counted years of age. We, too, do not know exactly what the Creation actually is. On the whole, it’s probably rather recreation than regeneration. Perhaps illness is the Creation, perhaps one among many creations, a progress in the overcoming of the existing, in any case. Because death has nothing to do with illness, as already said, unless in therapist and therapy. It is easy to prefer death. Illness also helps consciousness to take dialectical leaps, if anything else at all. At this regard it also has to be thought of the temporarily unconscious ones, or of those who always have to stay like that in some way, perhaps the majority of the currently living world population. To all of them, too, at least illness is remaining, as long as the species is lacking, which never will come about by itself. The contrary would be development assistance, truly, namely maieutics (birth assistance) of the human species, though still in an entirely different way than Socrates ever imagined.