The nature of the task

 We are humanity, a species divided by those who would subjugate us into atomised consumers hungry for whatever they are selling, atomise us into semi-living machine parts in their all-encompassing system, engineer us into 24/7 on-call guinea pigs for their endless experiments, into creatures free enough to obey their orders precisely. We are to become farm produce, fodder for our rulers’ revulsion and pleasure – as their momentary whims dictate.

That portion of humanity choosing love, truth and free will in defiance of their wannabe overlords are a loose group faced with the seemingly impossible task of becoming an army of love, truth and free will. They are separated from each other by any number of boundaries. They attempt the unprecedented, informed daily that they are domestic terrorists, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, selfish idiots, right-wing extremists.

That portion of humanity believing such information sees no value in what the army of love are selling. Those that army would liberate into the terrible beauty of their free will do not yearn for victory. Safety is their dream. Defiance is risky, selfish. The anti-socials should listen to the experts, think about other people, follow the science, trust what governments the world over are saying.

The defiant are thus pitched against the very people for whom they fight. Those for whom they fight reject what they are. And yet that army believes the compliant are deceived. But what right do they have to act on that belief? 

This is the nature of the task.

We, all of humanity, built history into today. Today is farce run riot. Today is Clown World, fear frenzy, righteous anger held at fever pitch by rulers hell bent on final dominion, hell bent on perfection, on faultless systems they expertly control. Soon, they sing, soon tragedy and suffering will be phenomena dimly understood from the pages of dull history books. Soon we will be happier than ever. Who can resist such an emancipating programme?

I understand this programme as a satanic process: the ego’s urgent ascent, a usurpation of God by Ego forever foretold by the way things are. It happens always in fitfully expanding spirals. Today it is happening globally, intensely, completely. 

Are we becoming one healthy diversity through this fiery crucible?

Yes, “army” is the wrong word. So are “struggle”, “defiance”, “resistance”, etc. But they are perfect, too. They bring us face to face with each other in exactly the right context to learn that the context itself is the problem. My sense is that we are individually processing – or being processed through – a series of experiences tailor-made – by Self and Other in fractious collaboration – to unearth old wisdoms as new. This process is a struggle because we resist each other. Because we resist, because we form sides to defend and fight for what we love, we co-create the struggle, the difficult lesson that it is precisely this oppositional tension we are here to transcend. It is an intense immersion-therapy session at global-collective scale, experienced uniquely by each of us, one by one. These things takes time.

This is the nature of the task before us. We are the nature of the task before us. I, you, everyone, all of us constitute Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists … we constitute everyone and everything. We built history into today. Today is our inheritance, now and always. We struggle to feel, to own, our co-responsibility, our power, our beauty. We struggle to learn how to stop struggling, to abandon habits of ideology and belief that blind us to The Now. In clinging to the familiar in blank defiance of history’s corrective lesson, we are taught, painfully, that clinging is the problem. The fuel powering our desperate struggle is fear. When we see that, and learn to let go into what needs to be, everything will change. 

When we love, everything changes. This is the nature of the task before us. It is as simple, intricate and intimate as that.

Ernst Wolff talk at (fringes of) Davos

[My translation]

US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “In politics, nothing happens by chance. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” When we look back over what has transpired in the last year and a half, this quote becomes particularly alarming. Can it really be true that everything we’ve seen really was planned? 

I want to state this clearly right at the start: I cannot produce any definitive proof of a plan, for example in the form of verified documents. But after having intensively followed the events of the last 18 months, I am compelled to say that there is an overwhelming number of signs and clues pointing in precisely this direction. Today, I would like to talk about them and their ramifications.

The situation we currently find ourselves in is unique in history. Never before has such a large percentage of humanity been subjected to such a coercive global regime as now. And never before have so many measures been enacted that appear – at first glance – so confusing, at times so nonsensical, and just as often contradictory. 

Officially, we are confronted with the most serious health crisis there ever was. But the measures enacted in response have not improved the situation. Rather, they have continually made it worse. Every doctor could confirm today that the health of the majority of humanity is worse than before the crisis. And even from the perspective of those who enacted the measures, the results are shambolic. The allegedly threatening “fourth wave” and pronouncements demanding third, fourth and fifth injections reveal that all previous measures have failed utterly in their objective. 

And this is far from the whole story.

We are also confronted, as a direct consequence of the lockdowns, with a severe global economic crisis. Production is slowing in every corner of the world, the logistics industry is on its knees, supply chains are broken, harvests are failing, and we face food and – critically important to a number of industries – semiconductor shortages. 

But here too we see these problems not being addressed and solved. Instead, we see their exacerbation and proliferation via further measures and the threat of yet more restrictions. A recent example: In China, the world’s third largest port was closed because of a single port worker who tested positive. Or in New Zealand: Last week, five million people we placed under lockdown because one single 58 year old tested positive.

Another crisis impacts the middle classes, who are by a large margin responsible for most employment world wide, as well as the source of most government tax revenue. The middle classes, thanks to ceaselessly fomented uncertainty and the continuous introduction of new regulations, are having their backs pressed ever harder against the wall, week by week. This is the deepest crisis they have ever faced.

But all this is still far from the whole story.

We are also in the midst of a rapid increase in global inflation, particularly in raw materials, production prices, and food. And here too we see no corrective responses; the opposite is true. The money faucet is kept open, indeed, the flow is accelerating. States and central banks have poured almost $20 trillion into global money circuits, and there appears to be no end in sight. The IMF – the most powerful financial organisation in the world – is printing $650 billion dollars this coming Monday in SDRs (special drawing rights), the most it has ever generated.

The social situation is no better. Just one example: In the US – the world’s largest economy – four million people are threatened with forced eviction because they cannot pay their rent or mortgage. More than ten times that number – remember, we’re talking about the wealthiest economy in the world – cannot feed themselves from their income. And that which the deliberate destruction of the economy and accelerating inflation have not achieved has been left to our politicians: dividing the people at an unprecedented scale.

And now, perhaps as the cherry on the top of this heaped cake, we witness the USA deliberately abscond from Afghanistan. The Taliban have been allowed to inherit military equipment worth $20 billion: one complete air force and 11 air-force support stations, which will with absolute certainty trigger the next massive refugee crisis.

Why? That’s the question on everyone’s lips. Why have measures been taken across the planet that bring in their wake one disaster after the other, sinking humanity ever deeper into crisis, rather than lifting it from its suffering?

To answer this question, we have to ask two additional questions: Whose vested interests are served by this global agenda? Who profits from it?

The answer to both questions is clear. The largest beneficiary of the current crisis and the most important power player behind the scenes is the digital-financial complex: a sort of interest group headed by the largest IT companies and financial concerns of our time. Among those largest IT companies are Apple, Alphabet (Google’s holding company), Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook. The market value of these five companies alone currently stands at an unimaginable $9.1 trillion. By way of comparison, the combined GDP of France, Germany and Italy totals $8.6 trillion. In addition to these large financial companies, we have the financial giants: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity. They are all significantly involved in all major IT players, and not only that. These four alone currently manage funds totalling $22.6 trillion. By way of comparison, the combined 2020 GDP of the EU’s 28 member countries was $15.7 trillion.

But it isn’t just the monstrous financial might of the digital-financial complex that gives it so much power. Let’s first take a look at the IT companies. They don’t only have great market power themselves, they also control hundreds of thousands of other companies by controlling how they digitise. This means they have continual access to those companies’ data flows. The IT industry is nothing other than a tumour that, over the course of recent years, has metastasised in all branches of the economy and made them dependent upon it. It now controls them completely.

The financial powers look no different. They control stakes in all large companies worldwide and can move any market anywhere in any direction they choose. The largest of their number, BlackRock, possesses a data-analysis system (“Aladdin”), now more than 40 years old, which represents the largest source of financial data the world has ever seen. With this data, BlockRock advises the world’s largest central banks from behind the scenes: the Federal Reserve and the ECB. It should be clear from the enormous advantage “Aladdin” gives BlackRock, who depends on whom. 

We are thus looking at an historically unique mixture of accumulated financial power connected to discretionary power over an unimaginably comprehensive data pool. From the beginning of the crisis, this combination has helped these companies to grow as never before. And not only that, the rate of growth continues to accelerate. In the last quarter alone – April, May and June 2021 – these companies have recorded the largest profits in their histories. 

In view of these facts, we don’t need much imagination to conclude that the digital-financial complex is the centre of power around which everything else revolves. The digital-financial complex stands far above all governments and can, at any time it chooses, force any cabinet on earth to its knees, and make it compliant. 

But we must now examine the methods used by the digital-financial complex since the crisis began, for it looks at first glance as if it is destroying the very ground beneath it, and from which it profits. A couple of examples: Should the digital-financial complex destroy the middle class, it would destroy its own life source; the middles classes pay the most taxes and create the most jobs. And if, additionally, it drives inflation ever higher, it would then be damaging itself too. And if it causes increasing social unrest through extremes of inequality, it poisons the soil that sustains its business. 

These are reasonable objections. But they fail to account for reality as it is.

Reality looks much more like this: The digital-financial complex has no other option than to do precisely what it is currently doing. What we are witness to is not some agenda typed out at someone’s desk that details how to accumulate yet more money and power, and then, finally, to lean back and enjoy its pleasures in peace. What we are witnessing is a terrible act of desperation, likely the largest in human history. Its roots lie in the harsh fact that the system on which the digital-financial complex depends can no longer be sustained with methods that were successful the past. In fact, this complex had been face to face with its own demise as long ago as the 2007-8 financial crisis. Had governments at that time not mobilised enormous sums of money, had they not instructed central banks to create even greater amounts out of thin air, the system would have collapsed. And yet the rescue was short lived. The amount of money needed grew and grew over the course of the next 12 years, interest rates had to be lowered again and again. In other words, the system had to be made more and more unstable. This vector cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Last year, its time was up.

In March 2020, the next collapse was imminent. It was postponed again, though for the last possible time, by a power move involving lowering rates to zero and injecting trillions – not billions – of dollars. However, the act brought into being a wholly new situation, qualitatively speaking. Kicking the can down the road again would require driving interest rates into negative territory; a move that would destroy the current banking system. Banks cannot survive over the long term on negative interest rates. In other words, another kick of the can using the same strategy will not happen. One might, at most, inject trillions upon trillions of dollars more, but with the result that inflation – already alarmingly overheated – would accelerate into hyperinflation.

The situation in which the digital-financial system finds itself, then, is a choice between financial collapse, or hyperinflation. In other words, the total devaluation of money. That means we find ourselves in an historical moment where the digital-financial complex, [trapped] in the framework of the current system, can only choose between two different modes of collapse. 

What to do?

Obviously, the digital-financial complex opted for a new system and installation thereof as a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand, the complex is constructing a new system behind the scenes, out of public sight. On the other and simultaneously, it is using the system’s demise to plunder what remains by any and all means possible. This is exactly what we have been witnessing since March 2020; the deliberate and knowingly initiated destruction of the world economy with the sole objective of self enrichment, while installing a new system with central-bank assistance and in cooperation with the IT giants.

We already know what this new system is going to look like. It involves the complete removal of cash and banks in their current form, and the introduction of digital central-bank money. The final goal appears to be that each one of us will have but one single account over which all transactions will be registered. And this account will no longer be hosted at a commercial bank, but at the central bank.

The background of this plan is as follows. Digital central-bank money is programmable. Because central banks can create unlimited amounts of money out of nothing, one could in fact introduce negative interest rates without destroying the system. But this is not the only property of digital central-bank money. It would enable the state to monitor all transactions, to assign each of us different tax rates, as well as charge us with customised penalties. The state could, in certain circumstances, hand out money with different expiry dates and force us to spend certain amounts of it within certain timeframes. It could also hand out money for specific purposes, command us to spend particular amounts for specific ends in specific regions. But above all, the state would be able to disconnect every one of us from all payment streams with simple mouse click. In other words, financially deactivate us.

Digital central-bank money would be the most effective tool of social control ever to have existed in human history, and thus no more or less than the installation of an all-encompassing dictatorship brought into being by means of a new money system. 

But the whole enterprise has an enormous problem: the foreseeable resistance of the people. We can be certain that a large percentage of humanity will simply not accept such disempowerment; introduction of digital central-bank money would lead to massive disruption and unrest. And it is exactly this factor that led the digital-financial complex to not choose the gradual, incremental introduction of digital central-bank money. They opted for the exact opposite: to cause unrest themselves by throwing societies into chaos, and then presenting digital central-bank money as the great solution, the means by which we can afford a universal basic income.

If you think this is some wild conspiracy theory conjured out of thin air, please recall precisely what we have experienced over the last 18 months. Under the pretext of going to war against a sickness, terrible, irreparable damage to health and economy has been wrought whose full consequences we have only just begun to feel. Meanwhile, the digital-financial complex works 24/7 to exacerbate the damage done. In parallel, social divisions are systematically deepened by driving new wedges between societies over and over again. All this leads us, purposefully, in one single direction: social unrest, followed by civil war … across the planet.

And all of it, according to all the information I have analysed, is so desired.

We are currently subjected to measures of every conceivable form, each designed to cause the greatest possible social chaos, so that, at the pinnacle of this chaos, we are to be presented with the panacea called universal basic income, which will transform maximal chaos into maximal control.

There is, it should also be pointed out, a second reason – as understood by the powerful – why a universal basic income must be installed. We find ourselves in the middle of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The coming years will bring the destruction of millions upon millions of jobs, all replaced by artificial intelligence; millions of consumers will no longer be able to consume as before. Demand for consumer products will collapse at an accelerating rate. And because the system is driven by consumption, the powerful must, to keep it going, arrest this downward spiral. This can only be accomplished by handing out money to the jobless. 

We can see that what we have experienced over the past 18 months, and continue to experience, is following a plan. This plan is essentially the deconstruction of the current system to the benefit of the elites, the creation of maximal economic and social chaos and the installation of a new system under the pretext of wanting to provide humanitarian aid.

By the way, you can read about this plan in two books – The Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Great Reset – by Klaus Schwab, whose World Economic Forum plays a pivotal role in this agenda. In the last 50 years, the WEF has succeeded in becoming the most important control centre of the digital-financial complex, initially by connecting business leaders, later politicians, and later still media creators and royal families, and also, in the 90s, defining their direction and focus.

We know today that, since 1992, the Global Leaders of Tomorrow, and since 2005 the Young Global Leaders, have been given a systematic and increasingly detailed education, and that it is precisely people from their number who operate the levers of power through this period. Whether that be Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Jack Marr from IT; whether BlackRock boss Larry Fink, IMF boss Kristalina Georgieva, or ex-Bank of England governor Mark Carney from the financial world; or whether Emanuel Macron, Sebastian Kurz, or Angela Merkel from politics, they were all either educated by the WEF, or sit on its steering committees. And it’s not only the 1,300 members of this group of tightly interconnected elites operating levers the world over; since 2012, over 10,000 under 30s – so-called Global Shapers – have been added, brought together by the WEF, and who now exercise their influence on world affairs in keeping with WEF objectives.

If you want to know what this plan looks like, I recommend taking a close look at Klaus Schwab’s works. And for those who still do not believe that everything we have experienced and continue to experience is following a plan, they should note the publication date of Schwab’s The Great Reset: the book appeared on 19 July 2020, and thus not quite four months after the start of the global lockdown. It contains precise instructions on how covid19 should be used to “creatively destroy” – Schwab’s words – and a build a new world. It should be noted that the human image he describes is reminiscent of the darkest aspects of national socialism.

I know all this sounds shocking, like a carefully prepared apocalypse. And indeed, the agenda being pursued here is obviously not only planned, but also almost unequalled in malice and insidiousness. Who could ever have guessed that the world would be brought to the edge of collapse under the pretext of protecting people from a disease? That people’s freedom of travel, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of opinion would be withdrawn, that 100,000,000 people would be condemned to starvation, and all of it in the name of their alleged protection.

Who could have guessed that a blatant eugenicist by the name of Klaus Schwab would amass sufficient power not only to propagate his horrific vision for the fusion of humanity with artificial intelligence across the planet, but also to drive it forward with the help of tens of thousands? All of this is a profoundly disturbing development we currently live with, under which we all must suffer, and which must surely freeze the blood of every normal thinking and feeling person on earth.

But I come now to the most important message I have today. This historical moment has another dimension, a wholly different aspect, one that should, above all, give us great drive and energy for the demands the future will place on us. The elite plan and Klaus Schwab’s vision are doomed to fail … for several reasons.

The most important of these is that the narrative of the deadly virus that is an existential threat to humanity cannot be sustained indefinitely. We are already seeing how this house of lies is imploding all around us, and how, to keep it upright, ever more absurd arguments and ever more violent defamations are necessary. It is important to note on this point that the severity with which the media go about their daily business is testimony to its weakness, not its strength. Those who must resort to applying ever more pressure, to disseminating ever more grotesque lies – such as the pandemic of the unvaccinated –, who declare healthy people society’s number one danger, or who shut down whole countries due to a single positive test result, do so for the simple reason that they have no arguments left, and in their desperation throw punches blindly in every direction.

It is claimed Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.” Those words are being proven true today. This has immense significance for us; ironically, it opens what Klaus Schwab calls the window of opportunity, albeit with exactly the opposite dynamic. As a result of their collapsing narrative, the credibility of those who led us into this situation is being buried more deeply day by day. This opens, for all of us, a unique window to initiate a thoroughgoing and comprehensive campaign to expose all lies propagated thus far.

The objective conditions for explaining to people the true background of the alleged pandemic, the world’s real power networks, and the actual dangers we face, were never as positive as now. And these conditions improve by the day; our opponents are forced to tie themselves up in increasingly ineffective lies. And even if the digital-financial complex succeeds in introducing their planned money system, that would not be the end of the world. Their plan requires a comprehensive system of enforcement. Its advocates will have to establish ever stricter price controls, raise the universal basic income again and again, and will be repeatedly forced into increasing inflation, which must in consequence lead to the growing impoverishment of the world’s people. And all this will bring the people into endless conflict with the state and its controllers.

We must be honest with ourselves. We face without doubt very turbulent and dangerous times, but we do hold an historical trump card. Its power lies in the fact that our opponents cannot act on reason; they are mad with greed and lust for power. They are thus compelled to lead themselves into ever more intractable difficulties. This is exactly what we should exploit, and never forget. Our opponents may well possess far more money and property, and on top of that all the world’s weaponry, but their power is based neither on their money, nor on their property, nor on their weaponry. Their power rests entirely on one single factor: ignorance. In other words, it exists only while the majority fails to see through the games the minority plays with them.

As shocking as everything the digital-financial complex and its followers have done in the past 18 months – and continue to do – is, they have manoeuvred themselves into a situation from which they can no longer escape, and because of which they are forced to cross more and more red lines. What that means for all of us is this: All we need to do in this exceptional moment is stay calm, expose their lies, and explain to others little by little why and by whom they’ve had the wool pulled over their eyes. If we succeed in that, and in doing so calmly remember the strength of our arguments, we will not only solve the world’s current problems, we will also accomplish much more than that. We will use humanity’s deepest crisis to take control of history’s reins and guide it towards a truly different future.

Words fail us

(Intimacy is a virus.)

It is a cliche that words are not enough. When the task is to communicate across a bitter divide in the midst of the fiercest and most unrelenting propaganda campaign in human history, as globalist tyrants bet their mightily deranged farm against the rest of humanity in dogged pursuit of a pristine, ordered global system that does away, once and for all, with all that is ugly, uncouth and untamed in homo sapiens, words can only fail us. Words have become our enemy as  surely as we are our own worst enemies. This moment is truly civilisation’s bitter harvest.

I am being provocative because words fail us.

I am trying not to shout because words fail us.

Always: I fumble my righteous anger, misguide my noble efforts to let right be done; words are not enough. The way out of this predictable collective breakdown begins within, in silence. (Another cliche.)

Michael Jackson sang, “If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change!” It, too, is a cliche because words have been abused almost beyond repair.

Where is honesty? What is honesty? A commodity? Something talented actors and politicians sell? Will you be buying the Left or Right today? Which half of reality would you like to condemn?

What hasn’t been said. Yes, there are endless ways of saying the same thing, but it has all been said. 

We are children sat sulking in a boundless playroom, surrounded by an infinity of toys, malcontents forevermore, inconsolable in our cornucopias of individualised fun.

I am being provocative because words fail us. Words betray us. It is their retribution, payback for the abuse.

For a while, a few years ago, I admired academic rigour. Now, mostly, I see it as self-preening noise splintering itself out into vacuity, oddly out of options in its endlessly divisible rubric. 

Is there anything that can’t be proved? 

Casuistry is a deadly skill. Who trusts lawyers? Who trusts politicians? Sorry, The Science. Who trusts salesmen? Sorry, saleswomen. Er, salesfolk? And yet the entities pushing drugs for profit are orchestrating us to believe that infection and contagion are now morally reprehensible. How dare you risk someone somewhere dying! You unhuman! You animal! 

Each one of us is either an actual or potential domestic terrorist because we are alive. Better put your unthinking obedience brightly on display! Only then will you be safe.

The insanity is so absolute it is beyond comprehension. It is a dumb scream collapsed to white noise.

But the tyrant lives symbiotically within and without. The outer signals to the inner and we respond, darkly beguiled by what we refuse to know we have become. We are tended neuroses grown obsessional with our unique preferences. Double-de-caff latte with thrice-blended goat’s milk boiled then cooled to 72 degrees celsius and served in a pig-pink recycled-recyclable cup, NOW!

A narcissistic system spawns narcissism, and narcissists are insatiable. Emptiness is the fuel. And of course this too is a platitude; it’s all been said before.

Become too afraid to know our divinity, we choose to deny there is only god. Too afraid of opprobrium, of jeers, of being a conspiracy theorist, of being the fool, the odd one out exposed in our secret atom-loneliness, we choose ordered mechanics.

Spiritually bankrupt, desperate for safety, we are skilfully nudged through swirls of words away from all memory of love.

How much longer can we bear life this way? How far too late?

Broken open

Systems prepare for their overthrow with a preliminary period of petrification. 

R. H. Tawney

In the empires of usury, the sentimentality of the man with the soft heart calls to us because it speaks of what has been lost. 

Lewis Hyde

For whatever reason, I’ve always been allergic to group-think. One consequence of this – or perhaps cause – is being an outsider observing others, in judgment more often than I’d like, but less and less as I grow older and hopefully wiser. And if I have indeed grown in wisdom over the last decade or so, it is primarily because I was broken open.

This article will not pick over the details of how that break happened. It looks at the different consequences that flow from open and closed hearts, and the states of being that give rise to those emotional postures. A poem I wrote at possibly the nadir – or zenith – of that period some seven years ago begins the exploration. I think it captures the richness and pain stemming from that particular vulnerability we need to sustain somehow if we are to communicate effectively with each other during this civilisational turning point.

Rid me of me

Hello new day.

Hello today’s me.

Hello scattered birdsong and sunlight on the floor.

Welcome to my shifting landscape. Please

penetrate my self-indulgence, cut through

the rictus of my looping thoughts.

Raise me up to cast me down across my iron throne.
Please 
    break my back.

Please snap my resistance

    to your splendid offerings.

From a naked beginning,

let me go innocent and unready

into the kaleidoscope of your moments.

Help me let the pain,

    the unsummoned aftershocks,

    the horrid fantasies 
flowing from my fool’s error

flow through and on
through and on 

like wind through my hair,

like trains rattling through a station.

Can Love and pain be one?

Can I be that open?

I talk it alive around 

yet not inside me.

If this has power to change,

then I say: I invite you in.

Nothing is where I’d like to be: 

denuded, faithful, God-serving.

Pregnant with unexpected generosity. 

Deep in pain. Deep in Love. Anonymous.

But I want. I desire

beauty in my hands        beauty a blackbird honest and immediate

a song for my eyes

for my embrace    trapped to me alone

 understood   contained   made mine.

Must I know

I will never be worthy?

Is this what I first must learn?

I’ve shared this poem more for what it evokes at the individual level than for any pride or shame I might have about its quality. People tend not to risk profound change, or let go into themselves, unless backed into a corner. When it comes to entire cultures, this is far more than doubly so. We evolve slowly at best. When an evolutionary leap is required – because we’ve been kicking that can down the road –, we don’t submit without a fight. We cling as fast as we can to what we know, to comfort, to familiarity.

Totalitarianism is in some sense a mass-psychotic product of the fear of needed radical change in a modern civilisational context. It has a decent chance to install itself only when certain generalised conditions are met: free-floating anxieties, free-floating discontent, social isolation, meaningless lives, and a controllable mass media. 

(“Free-floating” refers to conditions that cannot be explained: we are afraid and discontented but cannot fathom what the causes might be. As such, they seem stubbornly insoluble.)

With a mass media at their disposal, those who would exploit this set of circumstances do so by identifying a cause or scapegoat into which the fears and uncertainties can hook themselves. The totalitarian aspirants then present a structured path by which to defeat that identified cause. In this iteration of the phenomenon, an invisible microbe labelled SARS-CoV-2 is the cause, while lockdowns and ‘vaccines’ are the path to safety and clarity. And this iteration is global. It is nation states everywhere against their people.

Totalitarianism turns societies of individuals into a hypnotised mass that clings fiercely to the solution offered. Anything that threatens to break the hypnosis threatens to cast the mass back into the pit of its old fear and uncertainties. Facts and figures that contradict the narrative must be ignored or dispelled as a matter of life or death. Rather than examine their contribution to the decay and rot that defined their old normal, the hypnotised relinquish their free will to a tyrant or tyrannical group(s) offering them a shiny New Normal.

Which of us chooses the pain of humility over the comfort of pre-packaged certainties when afraid and apparently powerless in the face of what’s coming next? Who wants to be fundamentally wrong and culpable when the stakes are so high that one’s very life seems to be on the line?

Interestingly, the proportion of a people that submits fully to the hypnosis is said to be 30-35%. A further 40% or so don’t really buy into the spell cast but prefer not to voice their doubts for various reasons. The remainder is prepared to express their views and take action to some degree. To prevent totalitarianism from really taking hold and destroying most of society (totalitarianism can only fail; it is entirely dysfunctional), those who are prepared to speak out, who are willing to take action, must hit upon the most effective strategies. This is where love comes in.

The group to reach is the silent majority; those fully committed are now lost to fate. Those individuals who constitute that silent majority must be invited to engage their courage and sense of human dignity. But grass does not grow faster if you shout at it. People can feel when they are being addressed lovingly, i.e. with respect and humility. This can be in the form of conversation, in humour, and in all art forms, whether one-to-one or one-to-many.

Seven years ago, I was in a battle with my fears and self-loathing. Love, which is in fact unconditional, was the way out. The appeal I made to myself, voiced in the poem above, was a call to be totally open to reality as it is. This is the state of being we need to adopt if we are to reach those silent millions and encourage love of life to rise up in their hearts. The rhetoric on display in this article is my medium of choice but when it comes to face-to-face encounters, it is open authenticity that proves most effective. In essence, this means being prepared to be wrong, that one sees every conversation – or heated argument – as an opportunity to learn.

As society is crassly divided into bitterly opposed camps, what we need to accomplish in response is the shattering of our own fears and tensions directly and bravely into a state of open-hearted receptivity and courage. This state of being calls deeply to those ready to hear. The old cliche that we all want the same basic things is true: healthy food, healthy environment, the opportunity to develop our potential, mutual respect, freedom of movement, an effective education, trustworthy institutions, etc. The devil is always in the detail, but compromise functions best when we remember what unites us above what divides us. Diversity is the stuff of life and love, but without our awareness rooted in the unity from which diversity flows, we risk the arbitrary mob rule of scattered multitudes and its consequent pervasive fear and meaninglessness.

Reject the old normal, reject their New Normal, and commit to strong, humble openness and the beautiful creativity it brings. We will be amazed at what we can accomplish. 

Let all that is not rooted in truth and love wither and fall away.

Today, a little optimism: Corona – a dogma exposed

[Beneath the uploaded image is my translation of a German article I feel well represents a contagion corroding the edges of that country’s mainstream with the arguments and criticisms long voiced by the German “Querdenker” protest movement, not to mention countless others internationally. The article does not go as far as it might, but the panicked majority are still far beyond reach when it comes to any suggestion of deliberate, planned wrongdoing by those who rule over us. My sense is of a cult-like Stockholm Syndrome that desperately, existentially needs to be right. There has been a profound emotional-psychological investment in the narrative that operates on a number of levels, not least of which is the meaning and importance the official c19 narrative affords those who so fervently believe it. At the same time, lawyers fighting this global tyrannical takeover, internationally, on multiple legal fronts, are making slow but steady headway against a rotten system hell bent on preventing, by all means available, every attempt to bring it to justice. The corruption is deep and broad, the system fearfully hateful of the sunlight these brave lawyers, and others, are shining upon it.

Of course, those of us fighting the wrongdoing are also emotionally invested in our cause. This makes effective communication between the two halves of a deliberately divided humanity extremely difficult, if not at times downright impossible. For my part, I want to see an open discussion of the facts and logic. If lockdowns work, if viruses are pathogenic, if the medical industry is not thoroughly corrupted, if science is not for sale, if ethical compassion and impartiality rule our global systems, I want to see that demonstrated. From the evidence I have seen, it is clear the opposite is true. The way this ‘pandemic’ has been handled, from the start, is as clear an attempt to stymie impartial discussion as one could possibly hope to see. Below the article, I link to an interview of a patent lawyer of the highest international standing, who brings to light clear evidence of a global conspiracy that is, in my opinion, beyond reasonable doubt. It should be watched by everyone.]

A character in the series finds out he's been fooled.

By Wolfgang Herles

Human lives still count. Caution is not pointless. But more and more of us are losing faith in the logic of the dogmatists. No, the virus cannot be defeated. But we can live with it.

We – whether we realise it or not – were handicapped for one and a half years, physically and, increasingly, mentally. In trying to lock out the virus, the mental walls were built higher and higher. The attempt has locked out life. If you thought differently from the masterminds and their adherents, you were out of your mind or an inhuman being. But unless I am wholly mistaken, the “case-incidence Stalinists” are losing their domination of the skies.

I

Human lives count. Nothing else does. Caution is the only wisdom. Fear is not only allowed, it is required: This is the composition of the C-politics paradigm. Paradigms undergird decisions that may never be questioned. That is why they quickly become dogma, articles of faith. Those who call for paradigm shifts usually only want to replace one dogma with another. What is happening now is not a paradigm shift. Human lives still count. Caution is not pointless. But more and more people are losing faith in the logic of the dogmatists. No, the virus cannot be defeated. But we can live with it.

II

They claimed from the start that they only followed “the science”. There was no bigger lie. Worse, this paradigm harmed both politics and science. Virologists and mathematicians basked in their importance. That is why they allowed themselves to be corrupted by the politics that gave them so much power. They insisted on being right and thus kissed their futures as serious researchers goodbye. Scientists falsify their own claims. They invite divergent opinions. Politics popped its clogs and buried itself behind supposedly objective science.

III

For a year and a half, there was practically nothing but talk about how to avoid infection, at any price. Not about how best to treat the disease. In this way, medicine also cost lives. Today we know that too many sick people were put into intensive care units too quickly, that a large percentage of severe cases died from the side effects of tortuous intubation, not from the virus. Asthma sprays would often have been more effective. Instead, the weak, the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities were subjected to inhuman treatment. Medicine was also infected by the panic. Medicine and politics should and could have learned faster how to live with the virus. They were fixated on the burden on the health system, not the burden on society. Scientists who played it straight early on were not taken seriously, countries that deviated were berated. What remains is the certainty that the world has failed in the face of a foreseeable danger.

IV

Now the signs of the times are unmistakable. Britain's Prime Minister Johnson wants to end all the measures he himself imposed – despite rising incidence figures. He will set an example. Germany's future chancellor Laschet is moving away from his predecessor's policy, easing up in NRW just as Manu Dreyer did in Rhineland-Palatinate. Söder refuses to read the writing on the wall and will be handed the bill in Bavaria. Obsessive-compulsives and corona populists no longer dominate the debate. We would be well advised not to let the next wave drive us crazy. Although it will come. Because the deprivation of liberty has not helped. Because the chaotic measures cannot be justified. Because the failure of politics is clear. Because fear-culture is not culture; it destroys culture. Because patience has run out. Because “stay home” must not become the norm. Because life is intimate, not remote. Because showing your face is normal, covering it is not.

V

Am I overly optimistic? Surveys show how deep-seated the fear, which most media outlets have driven into the minds of citizens, has become. Surveys tell us most still dare not return to society, still disinfect hand and heart. Corona-spook Lauterbach still haunts talk shows and rants publicly about how he would like to be health minister. His intent rings like a threat. The ruling obsessives and their media troops still command attention. In this respect, too, the country is more divided than ever. What drags on and on is the true disaster.

Dr David Martin in conversation (82 minutes) with lawyers Dr Reiner Füllmich, Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer, Professor Martin Schwaab, and lung specialist Dr Wolfgang Wodarg

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

We are witnessing in real time the impossibility of totalitarian control.

Governments want us to believe they follow “the science”. They imply this makes their rulings valid and wise and thus beyond dispute. But there is not now, nor has there ever been, only one ‘science’. Such is an immature fantasy. Science is never in total consensus about anything; even the most rigorously produced and unambiguous data can be interpreted in multiple ways. 

But even allowing that One Science is real, there follows the problem of developing wise or clear policy from its decrees. For example, what if science were to definitively prove that TV is bad for humans? What is the scientifically correct policy response to that truth? And how easy would it be to address the finding that the profit motive is primarily destructive to the environment? More generally, what if science were to prove the opposite of what governments need to be true? This simple thought exercise tells us all we need to know: governments cannot follow objective science; they wield The Science in a way that suits their purposes, that delivers only those interpretations of the data that support their ambitions and requirements.

In “following” (whatever that means) “the science” (whatever that means), governments forcefully imply there can be no disagreement with their rulings and guidelines. Even accepting the idea that government should issue laws that cannot ever be disputed, how could such total power be practically implemented? How can all argument be halted? Can totalitarianism accomplish this eery ambition? Can government, or science, or the greatest genius communicator alive, issue constant instructions about how all 7.x billion of us are to behave from moment to moment such that there is no room for confusion or interpretation? And how healthy or desirable would machine humans in a machine system be? No matter how much we might want it to be so, humans are not programmable machines. (And even programmable machines behave like wilful children much of the time!) Life is not a programmable machine.

The more we reach for control, the more we create its opposite. The genie the Powers That Be have released – in their ivory-tower wisdom – is inadvertently exposing the impossibility of top-down rule. Lockdown and relentless fear mongering have set people against each other so profoundly that there is now no possible way of agreeing on the best way forward. Each side has scientists. Each side has authorities and data to support their position. How can the ever-growing mountain of that data be correctly interpreted? We’re assessing effects and ramifications of an invisible particle – SARS-CoV-2 – that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. And on top of that, even if we could agree on how deadly it is (if it is deadly), how can we agree on what best to do about it? If Sweden or Texas or Florida or South Dakota or wherever achieves herd immunity in the next few days or weeks – if we can even ‘prove’ to everyone’s satisfaction this has occurred – comparing one country to another is deemed unscientific by many. In the absence of comparisons, there can be no healthy scientific debate. We’re thus left with The Science that produces what each government needs it to ‘prove’. 

Which brings us back to totalitarian control. Which is impossible.

Can top-down rule work at all now that debate and discussion can happen between billions of people 24/7? How is that policeable? How can all that chatter be effectively censored? How can humanity’s endless talking be orchestrated such that its outcomes are invariably favourable to The Powers That Be? With AI? But how would the AI instructions be implemented, interpreted? By a separate AI system? By robot armies? How would they be controlled? And so on.

All this seems to beg these final questions: Are we being directed towards direct democracy even though we’re not ready for it? Are our amazing communication technologies inexorably herding us towards a challenge most don’t want to face?

And doesn’t history always do this to us?

No going back

There’s no going back any more.

The survival of all political and media actors depends on the existence of this pandemic. Without a pandemic, the entire state apparatus would have but one option: resignation.

If there were no pandemic, there would be no trust left in any state institution. A total societal catastrophe!

And that’s why we have this pandemic; it’s needed to justify the immense damage caused by the measures taken against it. Retreat is impossible. And it really doesn’t matter how serious further damage caused by sustaining the pandemic will be.

The people are not being protected from a sickness. The government is protecting itself from the consequences of its own error – at the cost of the people.

Adrian Bauer, business leader, lecturer at the University of St Gallen

The above analysis closely matches my own, but I’d add two things. First, somewhere behind the “error” is some kind of coordinating conspiracy. Only this addition can explain facts such as the continuing assertion that a “second wave” was coming – corona and influenza viruses are seasonal; there are endless ‘waves’ – and that only global vaccination can get us out of this ‘pandemic’, both repeatedly asserted with calm conviction before there was any clarity on the matter. The monies raised for and indemnity from liability guaranteed to the pharmaceutical industry speak volumes. Second, we’re not just talking about institutional state apparatus. Large portions of national populations across the world are locked in to this insanity as well. But the mirage generated by propaganda and public-relations machinery, working 24/7 to sustain the fearful, wide-eyed delirium, hovers seductively above a cliff edge. Only the insane, hypnotised and terrified want this evil to go on.

Back in March, when I first came across independent-media opinion that the corona-virus pandemic was some sort of conspiracy, my initial reaction was “impossible!”; the risks are too high, the fallout if the gambit fails too massive. Then I saw the contents of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and similar laws being enacted across Europe, and agreed that a conspiracy was underway. It has taken me a long time to process the enormity of it all but I could and can still see no better explanation. 

I am thus a “conspiracy theorist”: I’ve analysed the facts from official bodies, watched the actions of media and politics, and can only fully explain the situation as a conspiracy. That said, much of what is unfolding in medicine, politics, media and business can indeed be explained by uncritical loyalty born of unwitting fear, but somewhere this extraordinary event, unprecedented in human history, is being deliberately coordinated to some end. One component of that end is The Great Reset, but there is likely more to it than that alone. The roots of the Why behind all this are to be found in rapidly advancing automation/robotics technologies, the threat presented to the current global power structure by the internet, the demise of the global fiat money system, the end of growth, and perhaps that old devil eugenics, a variant of a civilisational peculiarity I like to call “patrician disdain”. 

We stand at a critical historical juncture that could head towards far flatter and more peace-loving power structures. The beneficiaries and thus guardians of the current order want instead to steer history a direction favourable to their interests. 

I am aware most people disagree with this view. Be that as it may, the truth of this conspiracy will likely emerge soon and become impossible to ignore. If history indeed takes this course – I strongly suspect it will – the consequences are going to shock peoples and cultures across the planet to their core. The societal damage that would follow exposure of this crime against humanity is unimaginable. 

As I write, hundreds if not thousands of lawyers are bringing various legal cases to court in several countries. Firstly, the PCR test is not and cannot be suitable for diagnosis. Positive test results are NOT “cases”, they are simply positive test results of little to no clinical value. Without positive-PCR “cases”, there is no pandemic. Its unsuitability to diagnosis and unreliability through its adjustable ct (cycle-threshold) value also mean we cannot know if anyone has died of covid-19, an alleged ‘disease’ with no basis in medical fact. 

Secondly, asymptomatic infectivity is a contradiction in terms (pre-symptomatic a possible outlier). The ‘science’ behind this novel notion is Germany’s Patient 1, a Chinese national said to have infected several Germans while asymptomatic. This claim was made by ‘Professor’ Christian Drosten, Germany’s chief virologist and creator of the first rapidly approved PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, now a highly controversial figure and himself the subject of various legal proceedings and academic scrutiny. It turns out Patient 1 did in fact have symptoms and was taking paracetamol to suppress them. And it is also emerging that Drosten has no PhD and is not a professor. The mainstream press in the German-speaking world are beginning to refer to him as “virologist Drosten”. 

If we add to these facts the absence of excess mortality worldwide and the statistical disappearance of influenza deaths globally in 2020, we must at the very least conclude that the pandemic is over, and likely that there never really was one. This shocking logical conclusion has precedent. In June 2009, the WHO declared the swine-flu a pandemic, shortly after changing their criteria defining a pandemic to no longer include large numbers of deaths and sicknesses. After investigating the matter in 2009/10, the Council of Europe ruled the swine-flu a “fake pandemic”. 

Mandated vaccines and immunity passports, still derided as conspiracy-theory nonsense by many, now stand before us, beckoning us away from meaningful freedom into the allure of safety, safely waged slavery, caged life. What makes this totalitarian control so alluring, what fears drive us into its embrace? Fear of death? Uncertainty? Risk? What would life be without them? Is a life of submissive cowardice something to strive for?

The media’s involvement in all this is pivotal. Extending Bauer’s reasoning, the human race is now systemically tied to the ‘pandemic’, to a monstrous lie. This orchestrated lockstep has been aided and abetted by a media that has failed to do its proper job: skeptically assess what is presented as the truth. Instead, media outlets have been repurposed as state-corporate stenographers. There have been expert critical voices from the beginning of this ‘pandemic’ but each has been doggedly suppressed and defamed. The price we will all pay for this coordinated censorship is incalculable. Hopefully we will relearn how important it is to remain vigilant, to have a genuinely free press: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Tyranny, totalitarianism, dictatorship are abhorred by patriots and democrats for very good reason. As the saying goes: if we sacrifice liberty in pursuit of security, we lose both. But in a state of long-lasting and profound fear, we look to authority figures who skilfully sell us their solution, and tyranny seems shiny, safe and good. A con as old as the hills. The devil does not seduce us by fully revealing his spiritual emptiness and bottomless hatred.

One way or another, humanity will need level heads to steady its ship as the consequences of global economic lockdown flood over us. I fear there won’t be enough; we have been dumbed down and kept infantile too long. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to at least be one of the many voices calling attention to this looming catastrophe in as clear terms as I can manage. With luck, the shock of what is coming will bring sufficient numbers of us to our senses, and we will weather the storm.

On thinnest ice

By Matthias Müller for Rubikon [Translation by Toby Russell]

The pandemic narrative has feet of clay in terms of its scientific foundations. Critics of the fear mongers do not take sufficient account of this pivotal fact.

The “Corona Witnesses” appear to have accomplished what science has long considered unacceptable: a reversal of the burden of proof when assessing scientific theories. Scientific theories have always been subject to the merciless dictates of empiricism: If even one single observation fails to support a theory, it was deemed falsified, even if ten thousand others apparently supported it. So say goodbye to the good old days of science. The promised “New Normal”, it seems, also promises rigorous fact avoidance – especially when those facts contradict the narrative of a few protagonists. Since Corona, we have seen how thousands of facts, studies and well-documented observations refute the pandemic theory, yet fail to change any part of its dogged propagation. This is profoundly heinous. It is time the gloves came off when dealing with fear mongers.

In recent months, countless independent researchers, doctors, scientific experts, but also accomplished independent journalists and observant thinkers have spoken out, whether through videos on social networks, through short or voluminous articles, or through compelling research. And in our private lives, too, we are often engaged in discussions [on this hottest of topics]. However, as the merciless hunting down by the mainstream media of the narrative’s critics proceeds apace, so the barrage of denunciation, denigration and defamation have turned everyday conversation into a highly explosive minefield.

Fearing that at the first sign of criticism they will be immediately insulted and branded as corona deniers, covidiots or right-wing conspiracy theorists, most knowingly compromise, even if minimally, in their argumentation. The opener “I am no corona denier / conspiracy theorist / belittler of its seriousness; we know the virus exists. But …” has become standard. Almost like an offering, a dinner-party gift, it is presented almost submissively to encourage a little mercy at the outset.

This is not only dishonourable, it is also nauseating. There is not even the slightest reason to bow before the fascistic dictates of opinion propagated by some elitist mouthpieces. Truth is not a matter of negotiation. It is time to put on our grown-up clothes when engaged in the close-quarter combat of evidence-based dispute and finally put the Corona Witnesses in their place. They like to call the critics of the panic narrative, self-righteously, “corona deniers”, yet it is they who deny: they deny the facts. Obviously, this is part of the ugly irony the “New Normal” brings in its wake; precisely those whose narrative is so conspicuously anaemic in evidential terms are the ones to aggressively demand “sources” and “evidence”. Fair enough. Let us talk theories and facts.

Theory 1: Sars-CoV-2

Let’s start with the initial hypothesis, the legendary “2019 novel coronavirus”, which – according to legend – leapt from a bat, landed somehow in a fish market in Wuhan and from there attacked its first human prey. This phenomenon is called a zoonosis; an animal virus suddenly develops a taste for human cells.

What are the facts of this story? Sources such as Wikipedia provide insufficiently accurate information, so we examined the original virus-identification paper. We learned that samples of respiratory secretions were taken from a total of nine patients in Wuhan in early January 2020. All samples were cleaned using the same procedure. In none of the samples was an intact, reproducible virus found. What was found were artefacts from different genetic material, which tested negative against only five to 18 known viruses and three to five types of bacteria to exclude these as possible triggers of the pneumonia observed in the patients.

Curiously, the paper’s authors were satisfied with the scope of these random exclusion tests. There are, however, at least 10 different bacteria strains, each with various subspecies, among them highly dangerous hospital germs all known to cause pneumonia, not to mention fungal diseases and toxins of chemical or biological origin, smog and exposure to radiation as alternative potential causes.

The city of Wuhan is among those with the worst air pollution in the world. Yet none of these obvious possibilities was considered as a possible cause of the lung diseases presenting in these nine patients. Instead, and remarkably, the team began a search for a “new” virus. The sampled material was replicated in cell culture and reconstructed by means of complicated genetic-engineering procedures using models and comparisons from gene databases. Missing pieces were added by means of genetic engineering – like completing a puzzle in which not all pieces are present.

The researchers were able to reconstruct a “complete” genome from seven of the nine samples. Sars-CoV-2 – to put it precisely – was not “discovered” but reconstructed; assembled from fragments of found RNA (ribonucleic acid), with the gaps filled in using computer modelling. To date, no complete, intact and replication-capable (i.e. “living” virus – this term is misleading because viruses are technically not “alive”) Sars-CoV-2 has been discovered, isolated and analysed anywhere in the world. Correctly speaking, the entire corona “discovery” should not therefore be referred to as “discovery”, but as reconstruction.

The reconstruction did not match any image of currently known corona-family members, so a new discovery was assumed. However, whether this virus actually exists, let alone whether it is new, cannot be validated in this way; the reconstruction process mentioned is not proof in the true sense of the word. An analogy may help by way of explanation. Suppose you buy a bag of Lego bricks for your son on Ebay, used, unsorted. Young Phileas later surprises you with a splendid red fire engine built from this material. Does this prove that an original Lego fire engine existed in the collection you bought? Or is its appearance the result of your son’s creativity and the availability of suitable individual parts from which this fire engine could be constructed? We cannot not know for certain.

Virologists have agreed to not embarrass each other with such uncomfortable questions. There is a “scientific consensus” to accept genetic reconstruction as “proof”. However, despite all virologists assuring each other that a reconstruction is a proof, it does not become a proof. A discovery is the first observation of something that exists [independent of human intervention] as a whole. A reconstruction, on the other hand, is the fabrication of a whole from individual parts – as per the theoretical assertion of a fictitious whole.

Even in the very early days of research into pathogens, people were aware of “discoveries” where nothing was actually discovered. Consequently, the four “Koch's postulates” were set as the gold standard for pathogen detection. These postulates, established by Robert Koch, ensure that the woods can still be made out through the sawdust clouds generated by the scientific zeal for new discoveries. They must be met for a proof to be “real”, otherwise it is considered that no proof was provided. Here are Koch’s postulates in brief:

1. The first postulate states that the suspected pathogen must always be associated with the disease it is supposed to cause. This means that the pathogen must be present in every case of the disease, whereas in healthy individuals the pathogen may not be present.
2. The second postulate focuses on the isolated, pure form. The suspected pathogen must be cultivated in pure culture. If it is not possible to culture the pathogen under laboratory conditions equivalent to those in its preferred host organ and to isolate it completely from other organisms, the pathogen shall be considered not to have been detected.
3. The third postulate demands that the pathogen, which has been bred in pure culture and completely isolated, must again trigger exactly the disease attributed to it in a healthy host organism. If this is not successful, the proof is not provided.
4. Finally, the fourth postulate is the crosscheck. After the cultured pathogen has again caused the disease in question in the healthy host organism, it must be possible to isolate it again and it must be identical to the original pathogen.

Only when all conditions are met is a pathogen considered to have been detected. In Wuhan’s first proof of Sars-CoV-2, none of Koch’s postulates were fulfilled; it was a pure reconstruction. In addition to the first pseudo detection in Wuhan in January 2020, further detection experiments for Sars-CoV-2 were conducted. There are a total of four other studies that claim to have performed an alleged detection. All of these alleged detection studies were genetic-reconstruction studies (1 to 4 below).

In response to an inquiry from Torsten Engelbrecht, an award-winning journalist, and the independent researcher Konstantin Demeter, all authors of the above-mentioned studies have confirmed in writing that Koch’s postulates were not fulfilled in their research. Moreover, they admitted that they had no proof that the RNA material used to reconstruct the Sars-CoV-2 genome was virus-like particles or cell debris, pure or impure, or viral particles of any kind. In other words, they all built red fire engines from a pile of colourful Lego bricks.

The experienced virologist Charles Calisher has also examined all studies ever published worldwide to determine whether Sars-CoV-2 has ever been isolated in pure form and proven to be a replication-capable wild virus. The result to his efforts is: No. From the first day of the “pandemic”, not a single true proof of Sars-CoV-2 has been provided anywhere on earth. So far, Sars-Cov-2 is merely a theory, a phantom image of an alleged pathogen, nothing more. All previous “proofs” were not proofs, but genetic reconstructions. In no case was even Koch’s first postulate satisfied, let alone all four. Worldwide, there is no experiment or study that, in compliance with the scientific principles of pathogen detection, demonstrates a causal relationship between Sars-CoV-2 and the disease – covid-19 – allegedly triggered by it.

These are the facts. Until proper proof is provided in accordance with genuine scientific rules, Sars-CoV-2 is nothing more than a vague claim that is nevertheless spread by the media with incredible aggression. Presumably this aggression is due to the alarmingly weak evidence; those without sound arguments usually make a lot of noise. However, aggression and noise cannot replace scientific evidence, nor can they suspend the obligation to provide it. But even though the new corona virus is a theory that has yet to be proven, it may still be true.

This cannot just be brushed aside. However, we would like to strongly disagree that so-called experts can make well-founded statements about the alleged properties and effects of this phantom. Statements that begin with words like “What we know about the virus is …” are nothing more than pseudo-scientific gibberish, vain posturing, boastful chatter.

These impostors know absolutely nothing about this virus, because no one on this planet, no doctor and no virologist has ever seen it. These are the facts. And if a discussion is held on the basis of the scientific evidence available so far, it should proceed from this fact: Sars-CoV-2 is still an unproven theory; everything we know about it is based on the genetically reconstructed model of an asserted new virus. The question of how to develop a working vaccine against a virus of which only a theoretical model exists so far can probably only be answered with a lot of imagination and a portly heap of business acumen.

Theory 2: Covid-19

"Covid-19" is the dramatic name for the disease that the Sars-CoV-2 is said to cause. This vague formulation is appropriate; the disease “covid-19” is not clinically detectable.

What does that mean? When a disease is clinically undetectable, it means there is neither a specific symptom nor a typical clinical progression that is sufficiently significant to allow the disease to be accurately diagnosed, i.e. “proven”. According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), covid-19 is clinically defined by “respiratory symptoms of any severity”. This is a common definition but is in no way sufficient to accurately characterise a disease clinically. So what are “respiratory symptoms of any severity”? Mild rhinitis? Absolutely. Sneezing? Check! Coughing? You bet. Fever? Not usually, but in this case... yep. Pneumonia? Ding ding ding! Slightly sore throat? Yup. Itchy nose? Right again!

“Respiratory symptoms of any severity” is any state any distance from completely healthy, somewhere in the area of the respiratory tract. Thus, without exception, every flu infection, every cough, every hay fever, every pneumonia and even banal cold is by definition possibly “covid-19”, but none of these can actually be “covid-19”. “Covid-19” has no specific symptom and no typical clinical progression.

There is nothing to clinically identify this ominous disease and nothing to rule it out. If there is anything at all that could be said with sufficient statistical significance to be typical of an “infection” from Sars-CoV-2, it is that the “infected” person is and remains completely healthy, as is recently the case in over 90 percent of those who test positive. This is remarkable for a global killer virus on whose account constitutional basic rights have been suspended and the world economy has been put into an artificial coma.

In eight out of ten “infected” people, the “killer virus” causes nothing at all, while the rest show symptoms similar to the flu. In only a tiny fraction is the (flu-like) symptomatology difficult, which also coincides with the seasonal flu, whereas flu viruses are much more effective in terms of their pathogenic potential. Sometimes months of exhaustion follow even after the illness has subsided, pain in the limbs, temporary loss of smell and taste, formation of blood clots, damage to the immune system, organ damage, brain damage, heart damage – all this is also caused by the influenza virus, for example, and is not an exclusive property of Sars-CoV-2. The question of differential diagnoses to clarify what exactly Sars-CoV-2 does and does not cause remains open.

However, some overzealous doctors and medical professionals have attracted considerable media attention by claiming to have seen particularly mysterious cases of this phenomenon. The Reinhold Messners of the Medical Society, those who have seen the incarnate epidemiological yeti in the form of an evil “covid-19”, report gruesome organ damage as well as destroyed lung tissue and vascular damage. These anecdotes would actually require a more detailed scientific evaluation, but strangely enough, in these cases – from a medical point of view highly interesting –, scientific examinations, autopsies and research are largely absent.

As lurid headlines, these boulevardesque individual case histories are good enough, but apparently not sufficiently motivating for the investigation of a global killer. The fact is, in many of these individual cases, either other causes for the unusual symptoms were subsequently discovered or possibly uncomfortable investigations were deliberately avoided. Could certain lung damage not also have been caused by contraindicated invasive ventilation? What does the documentation look like? Were experimental, inappropriate or unsuitable therapies carried out? Countries such as Italy, Spain or the USA have reported massive, hair-raising treatment errors.

However one may wish to categorise the descriptions from the aforementioned, media-oriented physicians, the fact is that they remain a statistically irrelevant marginal phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of the “infected” remain entirely free of these unexplained phenomena.

The difficult courses of events alone constitute sufficient reason to be critical. It is at least very evident that none of them has been diagnosed via differential diagnosis. A positive corona test is invariably enough; further examinations were not carried out on any of the patients worldwide, at least not systematically. But that would be the dictates of science. On its own, the natural desire to inquire more deeply should surely prompt every physician to take a closer look at a new, global killer disease. Why were no additional tests carried out to rule out infection by another virus – an influenza virus for example, or by various bacteria?

How do we know whether the “severe progressions” were not the result of an influenza virus or other pathogens in addition to Sars-CoV-2? There is not a single study worldwide that shows Sars-CoV-2 causes any disease at all. There is only one questionable “test”, which in some cases is associated with a more or less severe influenza infection, but in the vast majority of cases not even that. To speak of “evidence” here makes a mockery of medical and scientific work. The highly conspicuous, almost complete absence of typical annual flu cases this year should at least give food for thought. A statistically completely normal number of respiratory diseases in 2020 - but the annual flu is not part of that number? Did covid-19 defeat the flu?

In Germany alone, around 40,000 people die annually from outpatient-acquired pneumonia. Hospital germs are a huge issue worldwide and occupy top position among deadly infectious diseases. No other infection phenomenon kills more people in Europe. Could it not be that a large proportion of the alleged deaths caused by covid-19 are actually due to these extremely dangerous, but politically extremely uncomfortable pathogens? In Italy alone, there is much to support this theory, because over 80 percent of all covid-19 patients there were treated with antibiotics, which indicates a bacterial superinfection. Of all European countries, Italy has the biggest problem with multi-resistant germs.

In Italy, more than 50,000 people die every year from hospital germs, but strangely enough not in spring 2020. Amazing, isn’t it? It would be a matter of course to rule out this potential cause of a “severe progression” before assigning the cause of death to something that had not even been scientifically correctly researched at that time – actually until today. Or did they not want to do without certain financial “incentives” in connection with “case numbers” in pandemic practices and hospitals? After all, covid-19 patients trigger attractive bonus payments from health insurance companies, which can quickly amount to twice the normal billing rates …

Basically, these outlier cases collide grievously with Koch’s postulates and thus plunge the entire covid-19 myth into doubt: Koch’s postulates demand that a pathogen trigger a specific disease that essentially progresses along the same course, i.e. typically. Healthy individuals may not have the pathogen, sick individuals must have it – otherwise the alleged pathogen cannot be pathogenic. But now, with Sars-CoV-2, we face a particularly strange creature from the outset. As a rule – recently in 90 percent of “cases” – it does not make people ill and yet is “detectable” in them. This violates Koch’s first postulate.

The remaining 10 percent have symptoms, sometimes severe, but typically not. To make matters worse, there are an extremely large number of people who show the symptoms of “covid-19” – i.e. “any” respiratory symptoms – but in whom Sars-CoV-2 is not detectable. This is yet another violation of the postulates set down by Robert Koch, the pioneer of germ theory. So which is it? Does Sars-CoV-2 trigger a real, identifiable disease that deserves the name “covid-19”, or not?

The answer is sobering. After millions of tests, the answer is blindingly clear: No. In the vast majority of cases – well over 80 percent – the alleged virus does not cause anything at all and the rest of the cases lead to illnesses that essentially correspond to a normal flu-like infection in terms of symptoms and mortality. Covid-19 cannot be distinguished from a normal flu infection by any specific symptom or typical progression.

So when we talk about the global killer disease, the “pandemic”, our conversations rest on exactly this simple truth: “Covid-19” is clinically undetectable as a distinct disease. There is not even sufficient medical evidence for the claim that “Sars-CoV-2” would cause a disease in the first place, since it has not even been investigated, let alone proven, whether the diseases associated with a positive PCR test are merely a correlation or actually a causal consequence. The difference is huge: Every time Big Ben chimes in London, someone dies in Europe. Does this make its chiming fatal?

Theory 3: The RT-PCR test

The assertion “The virus is in circulation” is, strictly and factually speaking, not empirically verifiable. What is “in circulation” is, in fact, the RT-PCR test. If it is “positive”, it is deemed an “infection”. This interpretation is, however, scientifically inadmissible, as we will explain in detail below. The entire pandemic story is based solely on this test procedure. Without the RT-PCR test, the “pandemic” would never have got underway and would probably not even have been noticed.

The majority of the population knows nothing at all about the current “coronatest”. Maintaining this ignorance may indeed be the intention, but it is accepted, at least, by politics and the media. Although explaining the procedure to the people at least somewhat understandably is strenuously avoided. If the population were to understand this test, the “pandemic” would be over within the hour, so education is sorely needed. But even though many physicians, journalists with professional ethics and real scientists have attempted to do just that – sadly their efforts have still not been sufficiently effective.

The PCR test is a genetic-engineering procedure developed in 1983 by biochemist Kary Mullis. Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for the procedure in 1993. PCR stands for “Polymerase Chain Reaction”, “RT” stands for “Reverse Transcript”. To understand the procedure, you don’t have to dive into the depths of genetic engineering. Basically, the test uses a genetic “template” consisting of two “primers”. The template represents a very short gene sequence from the subject virus’ genome. It is important to note that it is not the virus’ complete genome that is being searched for, only that short snippet.

If the template finds its corresponding counterpart, i.e. the short gene sequence to which it is calibrated, it docks to it and makes copies of it. The copying process is controlled by enzymes and temperature cycles. Each cycle causes a doubling of the material found. An exponential multiplication takes place. After 30 cycles, for example, the amount of 2 + 2 to 29th power gene snippets is produced from one gene snippet. At some point, after 30, 35, 40 or even more cycles, there is enough duplicated material available that it can be made visible by a staining test.

This test procedure is extremely problematic if it is to be used for determining a virus infection, because it is not suitable for this purpose. Describing the method he developed, Kary Mullis stated that detecting virus quantity [load] using this method would be a contradiction in terms. In fact, manufacturers of PCR test kits explicitly point out in their product inserts that the method is not suitable for diagnostic purposes. This is not just a simple problem, it is a whole chain of problems:

• The RT-PCR test only searches for a tiny gene sequence of the suspected target virus. [Translator’s note: My understanding is that the test searches for two sequences.] For this to work, however, this small gene sequence would have to be absolutely unique and typical for the virus being searched for. No other virus would have the same gene sequence anywhere in its genome. However, this cannot be ruled out, since we do not know all the individual variants of, for example, the very extensive and largely harmless corona family. The prototype of all RT-PCR tests on the market [for covid-19] was developed by Christian Drosten in Berlin. He started test development as early as 1 January 2020. At that time there was just one unconfirmed rumour in social media about an alleged occurrence of seven Sars-infections in Wuhan, less than 48 hours earlier. As his own documentation shows, the test was calibrated to the gene sequences of various old viruses from the corona family (5). This means that the test cannot be used exclusively for the allegedly new Sars-CoV-2, but rather that it is positive for all strains that have this arbitrarily selected gene sequence. This fact was proven by the INSTAND ring study. All tests available on the market indicate cross-positive reactions with other viruses, in part also with animal viruses and flu pathogens, as Drosten himself confirms. Consequently, where this happens there is no infection with Sars-CoV-2.
• A positive RT-PCR test detects only the presence of this one gene snippet, not the complete virus genome. Viruses that come into contact with our body are regularly recognised and destroyed by our immune system. Viruses that are found in aerosols in the air or on surfaces are destroyed by UV light, chemicals (disinfectants), temperature and oxidation. Most of the foreign genetic material in, on or around our body consists of the remains of destroyed foreign organisms and viruses. Of the many millions of viruses that are released around us every second, only a handful survive long enough to find a new host. If a positive RT-PCR test is performed, it cannot be ruled out that it has only found an artefact of a virus that has already been destroyed. Consequently, in such cases there is no infection from Sars-CoV-2.
• Even if an RT-PCR test turns out positive because it detected the complete genome of Sars-CoV-2, this does not indicate an actual infection. It does not even say anything about the actual presence of the whole virus. If a person’s whole genome is detectable in a glass of water, it does not mean that the person is actually in that glass. An active virus consists of genome and envelope; both must be intact, by the way. For an infection to occur, millions of active viruses must be multiplying in the body. However, since the RT-PCR test is ultra-sensitive and detects even absurdly low amounts of genetic material that are completely insufficient to trigger an infection, a positive test is still not conclusive with regard to a possible infection, even if the material found does indeed originate from the active target virus. Consequently, in such cases there is still no [clear] infection from Sars-Cov-2.
• The RT-PCR method is not a binary test; it does not have a clear positive or negative result. The test procedure is a threshold test, the threshold value is given as its Ct value (cycle threshold). This value indicates how many doubling cycles should be carried out until the colouring test can be considered positive or negative. There is no scientific basis for the Ct-value and there is no specification; it is arbitrary. Every manufacturer and every laboratory determines the Ct value as they wish. Drosten recommends a Ct-value of 45 for his test. 17,592,186,186,044,416 copies are made from one gene snippet in 45 doubling cycles. In other words, only after the genetic material found is multiplied by the insane factor of 17.6 trillion is it detectable. In addition, with each doubling cycle the risk increases that even the tiniest errors or impurities are amplified absurdly and then produce a false positive result. Even absolutely virus-free samples tested positive in the "Instand" ring study in up to 1.4 percent of tests. With the standard tests, a rate of 0.5 to 2 percent of false positive results is assumed even by manufacturers. With more than one million tests per week, this leads to a huge amount of false positives. There is also evidence that the Ct value of 45 is far too high. From a Ct value of around 30, it was no longer possible to successfully cultivate virus strains in cell cultures. This means that with such small quantities of genetic material found, it must be assumed that no viruses capable of reproduction are present. An American study found that up to 90 percent of positive tests are highly unlikely to be infectious due to the much-too-high Ct values.
• The RT-PCR test is ultra-sensitive. Because it is able to detect even small concentrations of nucleic acids, strict demands are placed on implementation of the procedure. Even microscopically small contaminations make the patient’s sample unusable, and even the slightest mistake during sampling, packaging, transport or in the laboratory will invalidate the test. Basically, all samples must be taken under sterile conditions by medical professionals, sealed, packed, stored and transported under the strictest conditions. Laboratories must be certified and each test must be double-checked. Of course this does not happen in the current orgy of testing. The very idea of setting up multiple test stations along motorways is grotesque and testifies to crude political posturing. From a scientific point of view, it is utter nonsense. Not a single one of these tests is permissible by current standards; the medical significance of these tests is zero.

The PCR process is originally a genetic-engineering manufacturing process. It is not suitable for the detection of an intact, replication-capable virus, since no conclusions about pathogenic potential can be derived from the test result. In principle, the test cannot diagnose an infection, since an infection requires not only the detection of an intact virus, but also its active replication in the host. The PCR method cannot make any statement about possible transmission either, because the prerequisite for transmission is a significant occurrence of infection.

The RT-PCR test is a diabolical tool; it claims to be diagnostic, contrary to the facts. The test is also incapable of making a valid statement about the presence of the allegedly new coronavirus, and it certainly cannot diagnose infection with “covid-19”. “Covid-19” only exists because of the RT-PCR test, which assigns an entirely fuzzily defined, clinically almost arbitrary symptom matrix to an alleged virus. There are no studies worldwide that prove causality between a positive [corona] test and any specific disease.

“Covid-19” could be assigned to a patient’s eye colour with the same scientific validity. If she has blue eyes and coughs, it is “covid-19”, if her eyes are brown, grey or green, then not. It sounds absurd, and it is, disturbingly so: Statistically, the available data even argue against causality, because the great majority of the alleged “positives” have not lead to any illness, while the actual sick people show symptoms that are not uniform and are regularly triggered by all kinds of other pathogens and co-morbidities. The attribution of a disease to a positive RT-PCR test is therefore not scientifically tenable.

It should also be clearly emphasised that “the” PCR test does not exist. Instead, there are a large number of different tests; currently there are well over one hundred in use worldwide.

Some RT-PCR kits test two gene sequences simultaneously, some only test one, and this is not the same for all tests. France uses different tests than Germany, the USA uses still other tests and so on. None of the tests used worldwide have been validated – that is to say, it has never been independently verified that the test actually does what it is supposed to do. Depending on which gene sequence of the suspected Sars-CoV-2 is tested, the test is more or less susceptible to cross-positives and therefore false results for other pathogens. According to manufacturers, some tests react positively to influenza viruses, which of course makes the whole thing a complete farce.

This is the actual state of affairs. From an empirical and strictly scientific point of view, the “pandemic” stands on very thin ice. We have an extremely fragile virus theory. In addition, we have a provocatively vaguely defined theory of a supposedly new disease, the symptoms of which cannot be distinguished from normal flu infections and various other well-known syndromes. The connection between the two theories is arbitrarily constructed by a highly elastic test, which, however, is neither suitable nor approved nor validated for this purpose and is known to be very prone to error.

The right thing to do is to point out this weak foundation to the propagators of this destructive narrative. They have been able to frighten us long enough with creative number games and genetic-engineering sleight of hand. It is high time to put an end to it.

Sources and notes

(1) Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris, “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health”, Nature Medicine, March 2020.

(2) Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al; “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with Covid-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020.

(3) Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al, “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with Sars-Cov-2in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020.

(4) Study 4: Na Zhu et al, “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020.

(5) See results.

[Translator’s comment: As with the previous article I translated, my interest here is in uncovering the truth. Considering what's at stake, there is easily enough smoke here, and more besides, to demand that virology explain what it means by viral “isolation” when Koch’s postulates are not met, and why Koch’s postulates might be ignored or replaced by some updated set (e.g., River’s postulates) that are non-controversial and scientifically rigorous/valid. For the record, I have no dog in this fight. I am simply a concerned citizen looking for answers regarding what strongly looks to me like a global conspiracy to cajole and trick most of humanity into a new, very authoritarian planetary system of rule.]