Anton Chaitkin has been instrumental in helping me understand that Classical Culture, Art and the concept of Beauty is a prerequisite of any civilized society. At the same time, Anton has impressed me with his work, educating all of us about the dangers of neglect and disregard of human dignity as a general principle. Anton follows his father’s footsteps in this, who in the 1930s campaigned against the Nazis (and was subverted by most of the leadership of Jewish organizations in America). Anton has lived his life dedicated to the Benefit of All of Us.

Anton Chaitkin now needs our support!

Which is why I would like to second Matthew Ehret’s request that everyone who has been positively affected by Anton Chaitkin’s work over the years consider making a contribution a fundraiser set up to both lighten his and Antons wife’s burdens while also helping to free Anton up to do the sort of original research that our world desperately needs at this moment of crisis in history.

In order to help those who may not be familiar with Anton Chaitkin I would like to remind all of us of some of Anton’s most prominent contributions of research in the 1980, some of which have been featured in a documentary on the Skull & Bones (and Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, and other) networks of satanic oligarchical dynasties [see clip above]. Anton’s present work about the true idea of the American Republic (which the oligarchical networks have tried to destroy.

Please consider helping out and support Anton and his wife!

Donate

The reason for this article is the fact that David Hughes has revealed in an Interview with Chuck Fall on March 9, 2026, how his colleague from the „Study Group on Technology and Power“, Patrick Wood, had resigned from the group and refused to participate in any further „Omniwar“ symposia. As Hughes states in the interview, Patrick Wood is said to have taken offence with Hughes’ reporting on Reiner Fuellmich, whom Wood called a „bright and gentle soul“, according to Hughes.

What seems important here is the issue of critical thinking as an essential capacity for sovereign individuals. Being able to think critically is even more important than being able to speak freely.

“Liberae sunt […] nostrae cogitationes” is a quote by Cicero which centuries later was turned into the German song “Die Gedanken sind frei [Thoughts are free]”. It became popular in the follow-up of the Karlsbad decrees, which the Un-Holy Alliance issued upon republican Europe in 1819. German students protested at the castle of Hambach in 1832.

If one is unable to think critically, spoken word will become meaningless, as ideas will not be able to mature. If you are not allowed to express unorthodox ideas, or present evidence that runs counter to the prevailing narrative even within a “freedom / truth movement”, such a movement is immediately trapped in self-delusion.

What Hughes points out in the interview is the fact that “cognitive infiltration” of dissident groups has been targeted by governments in the “free west” since Cas Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule published their article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures” in 2009.

Given this fact, any sovereign mind should understand, that raising questions may be uncomfortable, but necessary. If the establishment you know to be waging a war against you is at the same time engaged in infiltration of dissident groups, then you should be welcoming questions addressed towards such group’s leaders while paying utmost attention to answers one would expect to be coming forth from them readily and comprehensively. If, on the contrary, the “leadership” - which nobody voted into any office - is considered beyond any doubt it should give you reason to pause and think critically.

Yet, she does essentially the same. Guérot applies geography as a defining term for geopolitics by calling out ‘America’ as imperialist. That is why she might be well advised to pause and read Friedrich Schiller on Universal History, first, before reconsidering her assessment of the causes of, and solutions to, present day geopolitical problems. Equating ‘America‘ with ‘Imperialism’, with which Europe can only deal by establishing a European Republic, is especially shortsighted in the year 2026, which on July 4th will have the 250th anniversary of the declaration of American Independence against British Imperialism. Therefore, the predominant question should be: what happened in those 250 years that it may seem as though America was the predominant and, according to Guérot, archetypical Imperialist Nation? Following Schiller’s method will lead to insightful discoveries.

Schiller - What Is, and to What End - Universal History

437KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ms. Guérot has gained a huge following among that considerable and growing proportion of the population in Germany who sense that ‘something is not right’. These people look for orientation, and take hope in those whom they consider ‘experts’, such as Guérot. Surely, Ms. Guérot will not want to let down those who trust her?

In calling out the scandalous wars and corruption in spite of personal disadvantages such as job-loss lies Guérots foundation as a “leader” for the people. But that is not enough. A true leader must understand that solutions need to be reasonable and well researched.

So far, Guérot’s are not.

In her book “On Halford J. Mackinder’s Heartland Theory, The Geographical Pivot of History” Ulrike Guérot touches but very briefly, and quite superficially, on Mackinder as a person of historical significance. Equally short are her remarks about British Imperial politics, and the significant role which Mackinder played as an integral part of a very influential group of ‘movers and shakers’ within the British Empire. No mention is made about either the Rhodes Trust, Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Fabian Society, or even the London School of Economics, let a lone of the Coefficient’s, an influential group in which Imperialists from ‘both sides of the political aisle’ met.

Ulrike Guérot has been calling for European unification since she left the infamous ‘European Council on Foreign Relations’ in 2013. A ‘European Republic’ is what Guérot continues to stand for. Then as well as now. European unity, she argues, is necessary to counter, and end, the “transatlantic” imperialist aggression which she sees at work in Ukraine/Russia as well as in Gaza, or the wider Middle East. More precisely, it is the “American” element which Guérot sees at work. Her text spans across 67 pages, on which she refers 61 times to “America”, the “U.S.”, or “Washington”, as opposed to 16 references to “British”, “London”, or even “anglo-”. The ‘British East India Company’, ‘Free Trade’, ‘Rhodes Trust’, or ‘Fabian Society’ are never mentioned at all.

By the way: There is nothing wrong with aspiring to a true Republic. But addressing the problem by lamenting “American” hegemony means going the same route as Mackinder: assuming a “Geographical Pivot of History”. Guérot herself rightly stated with regard to Mackinder, geography does not cause “fateful” (p. 43) history. It is people and, more so, the ideas that people develop and views they hold, which cause history to unfold in one way or another. This article is designed to address people, their organizations and their ideas, and it will show how the United States of America, as they were conceived in 1776, are very likely much more part of any solution, and certainly much less of the problem, than Guérot seems to be aware of.

’Universal History‘ instead of ‘Geographical Pivot of History‘

Ulrike Guérot should do at least two things: She should investigate, and refer to her sources, what ideas caused America to „go abroad in search of monsters to destroy“. And in a like fashion, she should investigate and show the causes of that idea of sovereignty, for which she apparently takes Europe, when in her book on Mackinder she advises her audience how Europe has been depicted as Sovereign (“Queen”) in old maps, and that “Europe can only do peace…, the art of (peace) diplomacy as the greatest of all political arts in Europe. … Europe IS peace” (p. 34 f).

Investigation into these hypotheses will lead to important findings, and it is very remarkable that Guérot, so far, has made no mention of any. Not in her book on Mackinder, nor in any of her public speeches and statements which are most readily suggested by Google searches.

Ulrike Guérot frequently refers to historical precedence, but hardly ever mentions any of such kind with regard to the developments which led to the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence. Why is that? When she refers to the origins of modern Republicanism, the events she quotes from history are not the Declaration from 1776, not the Constitution from 1787, nor the Bill of Rights from 1789, but the Republic of Letters (Republique de lettres, pp. 38, 57) which in itself is, at best, incomplete without the inclusion of American republican networks from Increase and Cotton Mather, or Benjamin Franklin to even Gottfried Leibniz into these scholarly literary exchanges, which did exert enormous political influence.

Ms. Guérot would definitely benefit from Schiller who, in 1789, before the Jacobin Terror in France began, wrote:

“Even that we found ourselves together here at this moment, found ourselves together with this degree of national culture, with this language, these manners, these civil benefits, this degree of freedom of conscience, is the result perhaps of all previous events in the world: The entirety of world history, at least, were necessary to explain this single moment. (…) How many inventions, discoveries, state and church revolutions had to conspire to lend growth and dissemination to these new, still tender sprouts of science and art! How many wars had to be waged, how many alliances concluded, sundered, and become newly concluded to finally bring Europe to the principle of peace, which alone grants nations, as well as their citizens, to direct their attention to themselves, and to join their energies to a reasonable purpose!”

Schiller died young, in 1805, but he lived long enough to witness start of the Napoleonic Wars sweeping across Europe. He even is said to have predicted some “strong man” to come and take over “not just France, but possibly large parts of Europe” after the horrific Terror that decapitated France.1 These events led him to another round of questioning and applying the principle of Universal History. Had he lived longer, he may have come to the same conclusions about the forces of Empire fanning terror and war against true republican progress.

Ms. Guérot seems not to be aware of Schiller‘s principle of going back in history every time an old paradigm breaks apart. Or, at least, not far enough. She lauds Metternich and Talleyrand for examples of “the European Art of Diplomacy” (p. 35), and seems to ignore that American geostrategist and pusher of war in Vietnam and elsewhere, Henry Kissinger, shared in the same role-models and revered the Congress of Vienna just as much as she. One should assume she’d be surprised in finding herself in his camp, enough to go back in history a little further, practise the art of Schillerian Universal History, but that is obviously not the case.

What was the nature of that Congressional Diplomacy a la Viennese which she praises so highly? Ulrike Guérot would find that this diplomacy, first of all, was not conducted and directed so much by Metternich and Talleyrand than by Castlereagh and British Imperial Interests. And that not peace was the object which was pursued at the Congress of Vienna, but stability, meaning the aquiesance of all powers into the ‘legitimacy of the existing order’. For Kissinger, as is evident from the title of his doctoral dissertation on “A World Restored Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problem of Peace, 1812-1822” in 1954, peace is a ‘Problem’. He specified that “‘Legitimacy’ as here used should not be confused with justice. It means no more than an international agreement about the nature of workable arrangements and the permissible aims and methods of foreign policy. It implies the acceptance of the framework of the international order by all major powers …”.

It should be noted that Kissinger’s doctoral mentor at Harvard was none other than William Yandell Elliott, a Rhodes Scholar, who can hardly be considered anything other than an “anglophile”, who called for a “New British Empire” and for the reform of the (strongly anti-imperialist) U.S. constitution. Elliott’s disciple Kissinger, whom he introduced to CIA Director Allen W. Dulles, went on to receive an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II in “recognition of his contributions to anglo-american relations”. Hmm? What may this mean in the context of Universal History?

From a speech which the later Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, Henry Kissinger, gave in 1982, a lot can be learned which may shed light on the nature of the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States of America. U.S.-Interventions of the kind seen during Korean and Vietnam Wars, were “decisively influenced” by Britain, as Kissinger revealed to anyone listening:

“Fortunately, Britain had a decisive influence over America’s rapid awakening to maturity in the years following [the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt]. In the 1940s and 50s our two countries responded together to the geopolitical challenge of the Soviet Union and took the lead in creating the structures of Western cooperation for the postwar era which brought a generation of security and prosperity. In the process a rather ironic reversal of positions took place.”

In other words: It has been Britain which, after FDR was out of the way, ‘decisively’ shaped the course of American ‘maturity’ to assume the Cold Warrior’s role.

Kissinger continued:

“Where Americans have tended to believe that wars were caused by the moral failure of leaders, the British view is that aggression has thrived on opportunity as much as on moral propensity, and must be restrained by some kind of balance of power. Where Americans treated diplomacy as episodic--a series of isolated problems to be solved on their merits--the British have always understood it as an organic historical process requiring constant manipulation to keep it moving in the right direction.”

Balance of Power, of course, is another word for “stability”. As we had learned earlier from Kissinger, stability must be seen as the superior goal to peace, which at least in certain situations was ‘problematic’, for which reason it was going to have to be on the altar of ‘constant manipulation’ which, according to Kissinger, is required to keep ‘moving in the right direction’.

Should anyone wonder what Kissinger would have been considering as ‘the right direction’, his mentor “Bill“ (Elliott as Allen Dulles referred to him fondly) should come to mind. Elliott in the early 1920s had been trained at Oxford to work towards the direction set out by Cecil Rhodes for all Rhodes Scholars: Unity of all English speaking countries, including the United States of America, under the retention of the British Empire.2

Contrary to what, according to her Mackinder book, Ms. Guérot believes to be a constant American objective of unilateralism and hegemony, it is even Kissinger, who in his 1982 speech at Chatham House put it on the record:

“Franklin Roosevelt, on his return from the Crimean Conference in 1945, told the Congress of his hope that the postwar era would »spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries--and have always failed.« (…) If there were doubts about the peace-loving virtue of our wartime allies, they seemed to many American leaders to apply as much to Britain as to the USSR: Roosevelt toyed with the idea of nonalignment between a balance-of-power-oriented, colonialist Britain and an ideologically obstreperous Soviet Union. Even Truman took care not to meet with Churchill in advance of the Potsdam conference; he did not want to appear to be ‘lining up’ with Britain against the USSR. (…) American attitudes until quite literally the recent decade have embodied a faith that historical experience can be transcended, that problems can be solved permanently, that harmony can be the natural state of mankind.”

What Kissinger describes here is strikingliy consistent with the spirit of the young American Republic that resulted from the struggle of 13 British Colonies for political as well as economic independence. An independence which the British Kingdom was not willing to allow, and which to reverse it resorted to securing cannon fodder from several European countries, such as the Hessians. Incidentally, Friedrich Schiller took issue with such practise, which resulted in including unambiguous literary prose into his ‘Cabals and Love’. Whilst this may have been a moral imperative, Schiller, indeed was very sympathetic to ‘the American Cause’, so much so that he did even plan to emigrate to the United States at some point.3

The year 2026 will see the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and it should give everybody plenty of good reasons to study what the quest for independence was really all about. A point to start could be to compare Kissinger’s admission from above with what John Quincy Adams, 6th U.S. President, said on the occaison of the 45th anniversary in 1826:

“America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful cars, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

Is it not striking, how much this quote from a much longer speech matches the essence of what Kissinger said was the American attitude before Britain exerted its decisive influence following Roosevelt’s death?

Ms. Guérot observes in her book on Mackinder that Europe in the 21st century must come to terms with the fact that the USA no longer are the country they might have been in the 20th century (p. 51). Will she then be ready to come to terms with the undeniable fact, documented by none other than Henry Kissinger KCMG himself, that the U.S. did undergo an even greater change before that? Would it not be warranted to investigate how that change did occur, and whether — possibly — Britain played a “decisive” role in that change, as well? At least that is the opinion of Scholars Nancy and Edward Spannaus, who in the year of Kissinger’s speech at Chatham House wrote a paper for the Executive Intelligence Review on how “the Monroe Doctrine Was Aimed At Britain.”

How The Monroe Doctrine Was Aimed At Britain - EIR 1982

206KB ∙ PDF file

Download

By Edward and Nancy Spannaus

Download

This may be worthwhile for Americans, one might object, but for Europe it is not so much of relevance as the need to press on with their own process of unification. That is, more or less, what Ulrike Guérot keeps urging, again and again.

Well, this is where Schiller would be a good teacher, once more. Go back in history, assess emerging evidence. Given the surprising discoveries from reading Kissinger and John Quincy Adams, and with the well documented Rhodes-plan for British dominance in mind, might it not be possible that even the European movement might have been something designed to serve Britain more than Europe?

After all, the ideas with which “the Empire” was tried to be upheld include concepts of Federalims, both Imperial as well as global. European Federalism was one element within this variety. Ms. Guérot will be finding, that Sir Halford Mackinder played a part in the development and application of such ideas, as did friends of his, such as Leo Amery and Lord Milner, who in turn, were closely affiliated with the Rhodes Trust.

It is a fact that “Europe as a peace project” was quite a tempting idea in the wake of two devastating world wars. But at the same time, it might be a good reason to pause and reconsider the implications of the fact that two of the most prominent ‘fathers of the idea of Pan-Europe’ were, in fact, not just aristocrats, but oligarchical royalists, Otto von Habsburg and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (a friend of Imperial Federalist Leo Amery). Whether or not these figureheads could possibly be authentic European democrats, or pursuing their own or some other power’s hidden agendas is relevant, given the dynamics they created for accelerated and deeper integration of Europe. Was it just a coincidence, or may it have been by intentional design having a dynamic European integration that was more concerned with “creating Europe” than with creating something of true republican value for the peoples of Europe. For, clearly, the EU has a lot of in-built flaws that run counter to any legitimate interests of its citizens. Who can hold the European commission to account? Who can hold the council of ministers to account, let alone the Eurogroup?

Therefore, it should be obvious, that more dynamics towards a European Republic is a sensitive issue at a time when national sovereignty of EU member states has been diluted and reduced to a staggering degree. This has only been possible because of lack of leadership among those nation’s political class. What, then, should be the top priority for Europeans now? Accelerate the drive for a European Republic, or take back sovereignty first, get your political class sorted out for true leadership before pressing ahead into the fog in search for the Republic of Europe? Let’s not forget that all major flaws within the EU are primarily due to acceleration and a perceived need to get integration first, and sort out flaws later. This was only possible because Europe was sold as a “peace project”. Today, everyone should be wiser, especially since it is precisely the EU which keeps beating the war-with-Russia-drums.

In any case will a successful drive for a European Republic depend on a thorough and proper investigation of the history of republics past, of the general idea of statecraft, and of Universal History in the Schillerian sense. To embark on a project of creation a sovereign republic from amongst the peoples of Europe will have to establish the true essence of sovereignty.

It is very obvious, that the United States of America was founded on the idea of national sovereignty flowing from individual sovereignty of each citizen.4 Therefore it is important to understand the fundamental differences between the United States and Great Britain with regards to sovereignty and independence of other nations, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Americas. As John Quincy Adams put it in his reasons to refuse signing a joint Anglo-American declaration on South America, which then led to the Monroe Doctrine in its pure, anti-imperialist essence:

“The emancipation of the South American continent opens to the whole race of man prospects of futurity in which this Union will be called in the discharge of its duties to itself and to unnumbered ages of posterity to take a conspicuous and leading role ... . That the fabric of our social connections with our southern neighbors may rise in the lapse of years with a grandeur and harmony of proportions corresponding with the magnificance of the means placed by Providence in our power and that of our descendants; its foundations must be laid in principles of politics and of morals, new and distasteful to the thrones and dominations of the elder world ....”

John Quincy Adams, who at the time was serving president Monroe, but was elected president himself shortly afterwards, continues to hone the point:

“So long as Great Britain withholds the recognition of that [independence], we may, as we certainly do, concur with her in the aversion to the transfer to any other power of any of the Colonies in this Hemisphere, heretofore or yet, belonging to Spain; but the principles of that aversion, so far as they are common to both parties, resting only upon a casual coincidence of interests, in a national point of view selfish on both sides, would be liable to dissolution by every change of phase in the aspect of European politics .... Britain and America ... would not be bound by ‘any permanent community of principle.’

As the Spannaus-paper very precisely finds:

“Adams’s concept of a community of principle was well-known among the proponents of the American System at the time, including the Marquis de Lafayette. It meant relations between states were to be based on mutual respect for national sovereignty, that sovereignty itself being defined not by mere brute exercise of power, but by the commitment to the betterment of its population morally and materially. Such a commitment to the principle of sovereignty demanded peaceful relations among states and stood in total contrast to the maneuverings for looting arrangements that characterized the relations among the European powers.”

Therefore John Quincy Adams concludes with regard to anglo-american relations:

“It affords a very suitable and convenient opportunity for us to take our stand against the Holy Alliance and at the same time to decline the overture of Great Britain. It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war.“

It should have become obvious by now that Americanism emerged as a decidely anti-colonial, anti-imperialist fashion of statecraft. Just how great the danger might be for all those who today oppose imperialism and war, to fall into a trap, laid out to the world by oligarchical globalists, which is designed to equate ‘America’ — the one great defeat which ‘Empire’ had to suffer in modern times — quite geographically, but completely a-historically, with imperialism is underscored by another quote from that 1982 speech of Kissinger’s:

“It was therefore a rude awakening when in the 1960s and 70s the United States became conscious of the limits of even its resources.”

Limits to growth! Prior to the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, America was not educated in, nor did it subscribe to British Malthusian fatalism of purported carrying capacities of the world, from which ideology the oligarchical Club of Rome, once the Kennedy brothers and their optimism were gunned down, implanted their “Limits to Growth” ideology.

For this to work out successfully, British controlled psychological operations against the American nation and the youth of the world were designed and carried out by the Tavistock-Institute, including a subversion of the counter culture movement (MK-ULTRA). One of the counter culture’s main protagonists until this day is Stewart Brand, who was part of, or close to the Merry Pranksters Hippy caravan, and who came up with the Whole Earth Movement, for which he was able to obtain the first NASA satellite shots of planet earth, despite apparent aversion that was supposed to be existing between the Hippies and the establishment.

Brand was recruited into the counter culture movement by British anthropologist and CIA operative in the MK-Ultra program Gregory Bateson, who together with his wife Margaret Mead was involved in the front organization for MK-Ultra experiments, the Macy-Foundation. Mead was closely involved in the setting up of the World Federation for Mental Health under the guidance of Hitler-Financier and handler of Nazi-Minister Hjalmar Schacht, Sir Montagu Norman.

Sisyphus

The heavy rock he rolls
up the slope, again, again and again.
Without any help, he is on his own,
but never does he relent,

even though whenever he’s close to his goal
the rock will fall back down the hill.
He plays this seemingly pointless game
as though it was the most natural thing.

Once, when the rock rolled down yet again,
slipping away from his sore hands,
out of pity I advised Sisyphus
that he now should end his torment.

“Not can I stop”, says he, “that is the meaning
that fate has prepared for me.
Suffer gracefully I must, for in this way
a role model for all in pain I will be.

It is not what you expect from life that counts,
it is what life expects of thee.
And this is, though it be painful,
the purpose of existence for me.”

As though ‘t were the most natural thing,
the stone he then took in his hand.
In tears I watched, but full of joy,
what Dignity is did comprehend.

© Ralf Schauerhammer, 2026
Translation: Uwe Alschner

Ralf Schauerhammer, born in 1949, is a German IT engineer and consultant, and with his twin-brother Lutz the co-founder of the poet‘s association „Dichterpflänzchen“ (Little Sprouts of Poetry). He has published a series of poems and essays in a number of books.

Ralf Schauerhammer, a native of Jena, Germany, was chairman of the Fusion Energy Forum and editor of its German-language journal, Fusion-Technology and Science for the 21st Century. He has authored numerous articles on science and environ-mentalism, and his 1991 book ‘Sackgasse Oekostaat, kein Platz fuer Menschen’ (Dead end-The environmental state: No room for human beings), was a best-seller in Germany.

Schauerhammer studied mathematics and physics at the University of Mainz. Since 1979, he has worked with an international task force on the simulation of economic development according to the LaRouche-Riemann model. In 1980, he coauthored the book “Industrialization of Africa”. In 1992 he was coauthor of the book “The Holes in the Ozone Scare - The Scientific Evidence that the Sky isn’t Falling” and its German edition.

The poem „Sisyphos“ has been inspired by a quote from Viktor E. Frankl.

“In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.” — Viktor E. Frankl

Just how important this event had been, I did not understand until very recently. Important as the Concept of National Sovereignty may be, it was not the most valuable principle which the Peace of Westphalia codified. In fact, the violation of National Sovereignty is only possible if another, and first principle of the Westphalian Peace treaty is forgotten. That of the benefit of the other, which of course is tied to “the pursuit of happiness” as a human right!

The Pursuit of the Meaning of Happiness

Long before the operation against Venezuela had I become interested in the question of why, in my ‘modern’ German today, do we almost exclusively talk about ‘good luck’ [Glück] rather than ‘happiness’ [Glückseligkeit] in its original sense. Even in the English, the word “happiness” has lost its transcending objectivity and has morphed into an equivalent of mere materialistic, subjective “wellbeing”, as the UN’s “World Happiness Report” exemplifies. Is this just a linguistic ‘fad’, or is there more to it than that, I wondered. Below, I would like to report on the results of my research. The turn of the year is of course particularly suitable for this, because on this occasion we wish each other (or for ourselves) ‘happiness’. But the topic is ‘classic’, i.e. timelessly relevant, so I will continue to be available to anyone interested in discussing this.

This much I can reveal here: ‘Happiness’ is a principle of great significance, which the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (like others before him) reflected on more than 300 years ago.

Leibniz was deeply affected by the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War. He himself was born in 1646, two years before the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück on the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

This peace was truly “a Shift in Universal History”. Not only did it end a long and destructive war, which was ostensibly fought over questions of faith and differences between Catholic and Protestant Christians, but the Peace of Westphalia also laid the foundation for the coexistence of people as a whole. In Article One it laid the foundation of international law:

‘This [peace] shall be sincerely and earnestly observed and respected, so that each party may promote the benefit, honour and advantage of the other (ut utraque pars alterius utilitatem, honorem ac commodum promoveat)’.

Leibniz made this principle the guiding principle of his actions throughout his life: to promote the benefit and advantage of others! And he derived the concept of happiness (as a logical consequence) from this: if everyone strives to promote the advantage of their opponent, or neighbor, then happiness will inevitably be pursued. Indirectly, this improves the quality of life of all people, also in material terms, but above all, it makes our interactions with one another truly human. Why?

Objectifying the Situation

Well, in order to promote the benefit of others, it is a basic requirement to understand them! When I put myself in my opponent’s shoes and try to understand him (or her), I become much more quickly aware of how my actions (or inactions) must affect him. This means that I am not only interested in his benefit, but also will become more self-aware. Not only do I have a moral duty to behave in the interests of my counterpart, but I also understand emotionally (or empathically, because I have put myself ‘in their shoes’) why this is the right thing to do.

Or to put it another way: it is about objectifying one’s own position. I am the active (or inactive) subject . And the other person is the object to which I must relate through my actions or inactions. This is where the almost forgotten meaning of the term ‘objective’ is rooted. Objectively means: from the perspective of the person affected by my actions. Or from the perspective of the object of my (subjective) thoughts.

The result is initially a paradox, because different interests arise. Freedom and necessity are paradoxically opposed to each other. The freedom to act as I wish and the necessity to consider the interests of my fellow human beings (or competitors, or neighbouring countries). For, as a human being, I cannot sustain living on my own. Human beings are relational beings and necessarily depend on shaping their relationships with each other in a prosperous (and fair) manner.

Pierre Beaudry, to whom I owe the translation of Leibniz’s text on happiness from the original French, sees this — quite rightly, in my opinion — as the basis of a republican social order (as opposed to a feudal one, in which there are different classes). Referring to Beethoven and Schiller, he writes:

‘In his “Ode to Joy”, Beethoven celebrated the same idea of internalising the position of the other that Schiller had originally identified in his “Ode to Freedom”, for in the political geometry in which “beggars are a princes brother ”, joy is the name of freedom.’

It is the highest form of freedom, which depends on art, as the ideal of beauty, goodness and truth, to be achieved. This is precisely what Schiller’s ‘Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man’ are about.

What Schiller means when he writes that freedom can only be achieved ‘through beauty’ becomes clearer: it is about the potential conflict between the two basic human characteristics, sensitivity and intellect, emotion and rationality. What is special about human beings is their intellect. It distinguishes them from animals, with which humans share sensitivity.

As beings, humans are capable of rationally understanding that peace (or peaceful coexistence) is only possible in the long term if we internalise the position and interests of others (our neighbours, our opponents) and strive for their benefit. Wars and conflicts arise when we seek our own advantage first and do not care about what benefits others.

Emotionally, however, humans are driven by fears, anger or greed, which cause them to put their own advantage above all else and see others as competitors or even an existential threat.

Schiller recognises this paradox when, around 1790, he observes how the French Revolution, which began with the ideal of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’, descends into an orgy of violence. Says his biographer and sister-in-law, Caroline von Wolzogen:

“‘[The poet Salis’] accounts [of the scenes of horror] and Wilhelm's letter dampened our joy at the storming of the Bastille terribly,’ says Karoline von Wolzogen (p. 185), ‘and we became anxious about the safety of our friend [Wilhelm von Wolzogen] in that volcano of rebellious passions. Schiller had already taken these events seriously and with foreboding when they first arose; he did not consider the French to be a people capable of genuine republican sentiments.’”

This prompts Schiller to write his Aesthetic Letters, which he publishes in 1795. It is his contribution to peace and brotherhood among people. Throughout his life (and through his work even beyond his death), Schiller remains a great philanthropist and ‘poet of freedom’.

In order for the ideal of true freedom to be realised, the paradoxical, seemingly opposing tendencies of human emotionality and human rationality must be resolved. He writes in the 13th letter:

“At first glance, nothing seems to be more opposed to each other than the tendencies of these two drives (...). It is true that their tendencies contradict each other, but, it should be noted, not in the same objects, and what does not meet cannot clash with each other. (...) They are therefore not naturally opposed to each other, and if they appear to be so, it is only because they have freely transgressed nature by misunderstanding themselves and confusing their spheres.”

In other words, Schiller does not deny the weaknesses of human nature that lead to war or terror. But he understands where they come from. He takes the position of the other! Conflicts are the result of a ‘confusion of spheres’. People who fear for their lives cannot be appeased by arguments or laws. Greed and anger cannot be curbed by reason either. On the other hand, cold-bloodedness is a ‘confusion’ of reason. The cold-blooded person lacks compassion, but no emotional reaction can free him from his delusion of doing ‘the reasonable thing’. It is regrettable and bad, but it must first be understood ‘from the position of the other’.

Schiller describes the dilemma vividly:

‘It is just as difficult to determine whether our practical philanthropy is disturbed and cooled more by the vehemence of our desires or by the rigidity of our principles, more by the egoism of our senses or by the egoism of our reason.’

So it does not matter what principles one professes to uphold; if one is not able or willing to take the position of the other and understand them, no prosperous coexistence, no freedom is possible in the long run. Says Schiller:

“However praiseworthy our maxims may be, how can we be fair, kind and humane towards others if we lack the ability to take in foreign nature faithfully and truthfully, to appropriate foreign situations, to make foreign feelings our own? But this ability is suppressed both in the education we receive and in the education we give ourselves, to the same extent that one seeks to break the power of desires and strengthen character through principles.”

How to muster Hope for the Future

According to Schiller, the solution to this conflict is offered by beauty:

“It is the task of culture to secure the limits of each of these two drives, which is therefore indebted to both in equal measure and must assert not only the rational drive against the sensual, but also the sensual against the rational. Its task is therefore twofold: firstly, to protect sensuality against the encroachments of freedom; secondly, to secure personality against the power of emotions. It achieves the former by training the faculty of feeling, the latter by training the faculty of reason.”

Education is therefore enormously important, and it must be an education that deals with classical ideals, that shapes character by taking both sides of humanity seriously and developing them to their full potential:

“This operation then also constitutes for the most part what is called forming a human being, in the best sense of the word, where it means working on the inner, not just the outer, human being. A person formed in this way will, of course, be protected from being and appearing to be raw nature; but at the same time, they will be armoured against all feelings of nature by principles, and humanity from outside will be just as unable to affect them as humanity from within.‘

The pursuit of happiness, as developed by Leibniz, is primarily about the ’benefit of the other”. Being able to recognise this in our mind and relate it to one’s own interests leads to a convergence of opposites, which are only superficial opposites, but on a higher level are common prerequisites. For example, the need to be considerate of one another in social or family life.

Being fully human, consequently, requires a willingness to seek the advantage of others. To practise charity. Agapē, devoted, self-sacrificial love. Passion, like happiness, is a term that is hardly understood anymore. To love passionately means to seek the advantage of others. Because that is the way in which everyone ‘wins’, because that is the only way the ‘infinite game’ can continue.

Socrates was Plato's teacher. He lived in Athens in the fifth century BC and was sentenced to death in 399 BC because he encouraged young people to think for themselves through education, enabling them to recognize the inadequacy of the political decisions of the time and the prudence, or stupidity, of economic strategies.

No written records of Socrates himself have survived. Everything we know today was passed down by his student Plato. However, both Socrates and Plato were educated in Athens on the basis of Solon the Wise, who had consolidated the idea of the Attic Republic through the laws and courts he introduced. This idea had its origins in Greek tragedy, a cultural development that spanned from Homer to Aeschylus to Sophocles and represented the civilizational transition from an archaic clan- and blood-rule to a social selfperception based on moral principles and values.

Although Athens existed as a place long before, “the Athens of Greek classical antiquity” was developed and created as a cultural idea primarily through poetry, especially through tragedy.* To recognize this, it is necessary to consider the core aspects of the poetry of Homer, Aeschylus, and Sophocles: The epic poem1 Illiad describes the misfortune that befell Greece after its victory in the Trojan War. Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Achilles were responsible for this. The Trojan War, which arose from the abduction of Helen, wife of Menelaus, by Paris, had no winners, only losers, as almost all those involved lost their lives in connection with this war. Even the seemingly invulnerable Achilles is ultimately killed by the oligarchical god Apollo at the Scaean Gate (by which he also plays a role in Friedrich Schiller's classic poem “Nänie,” that was masterfully set to music by Johannes Brahms).

Aeschylus then brings the Trojan tragedy to the stage in classical poetry in his trilogy, the Oresteia. In the first play, Agamemnon is murdered by his wife Clytemnestra after his return from Troy — because, in order to go to war against Troy, he had sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia. In the second play, Agamemnon's son Orestes avenges his father's death because the oligarchic god Apollo reminded him of the Hellenes' duty to atone for patricide. Orestes kills his mother. In the third play, Orestes is pursued by the goddesses of vengeance (the Erinyes). In Athens, a court must finally decide on the case of revenge and counter-revenge. The city itself becomes part of the dispute because the Furies threaten retribution if Orestes is not handed over. The court is undecided, and instead of the cowardly Apollo, who also fears the goddesses of vengeance, Pallas Athena, goddess of wisdom, casts the decisive vote: Orestes may live if the Athenians erect a pillar to the Furies that reminds them daily of how terrible the Furies' revenge would be if they ever again acted on the basis of archaic, unreasonable traditions or rites and wisdom was left out.

Finally, Sophocles follows up with the Oedipus trilogy in the plays Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone to complete the civilizational idea of the nation of Athens. Once again, the theme of senseless death is addressed, here using the example of the city of Thebes. While the main characters Oedipus, his parents Laius and Jocasta, their brother Creon, and Oedipus' children kill themselves in apparent accordance with archaic customs and oracular sayings, it is King Theseus of Athens who offers refuge and protection to Oedipus, who has committed patricide and incest and is now wandering around insane and blind, from persecution by his brother-in-law Creon. Ironically, it is in the grove of the Eumenides, the former goddesses of vengeance who, following the wise advice of Pallas Athena, were transformed into ‘well-meaning’ spirits, that Oedipus finds peace in Athens, even though Creon wants to send him back to Thebes to die, without giving him an honorable burial.

Homer, Aeschylus, and Sophocles have thus each found in their tragedies the “heart of the matter” for the artistic refinement of the idea: it is not the cultural-ritual practices described that are essential (nor is it the para-psychological reinterpretation into supposed erotic desires, as Freud claims to have diagnosed in Oedipus), but rather the moral and civilizational dimension (made very clear by its recurring treatment over time) of liberating a society from irrational and unreasonable fixations on emotional impulses or conventions such as revenge and oracles. Athens, and with it Socratic-Platonic classical Greece, had become the cradle of civilization through its poetry. The creative thinking of poets (ποίησις, poiesis means to create something new, to achieve progress) developed a higher quality of civilization from its lower stages through art. It is in this sense that Percy Bysshe Shelley speaks of poets as the “unacknowledged legislators of the world.”2 They shape civilization.

Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a polymath of the period following the devastating Thirty Years' War. This means that he had an extraordinarily broad and equally profound education. What's more, Leibniz was an advocate of Plato's Socratic method of using education to achieve reconstruction through technical progress for the benefit of all and for the glory of God. In his “Discourse on Metaphysics,” Leibniz even quotes Plato extensively on the necessity of exploring the laws of the cosmos. Leibniz agrees with Plato in his rejection of a materialistic philosophy:

Leonard Bernstein and his attack on Leibniz

Leonard Bernstein is considered an educated and sophisticated man. However, the composer and conductor, who died in 1990, did not shy away from discrediting Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (and with him the Socratic method of finding truth beyond the material world) in the most vulgar manner.

During a performance of his musical “Candide” in 1989 at London's Barbican, Bernstein, who had already begun conducting the overture, turned around seemingly out of the blue and gave the “spontaneous” speech heard in the original in the video clip above and transcribed here:

Surprise. My dear friends,

I hear you thinking. Here comes the old professor to lecture us again. But I promise to be brief and only by way of introduction. The reason I feel I should say a few words, … if you'll pardon my croaky voice, I too have the English disease, like so many of you, the royal flu.

The reason I feel I ought to say something is that for more than 30 years, 35 years to be exact, people have asked me, why Candide? Whither and whence Candide? I thought I might answer a bit more clearly by speaking not only as a composer of this work, but as an everyday observer of history, like anyone here, but particularly of that period of history known as the Age of Enlightenment, roughly the 18th century. And that was the century in which Voltaire lived, wrote, and had extraordinary influence. His masterpiece was a tough, skinny little novella called Candide, which inspired the playwright Lillian Hellman and me to have a bash at it musically.

Voltaire's book was actually entitled Candide or Optimism, it being a viciously satirical attack on a prevalent philosophical system known as optimism, which is based on the rather indigestible writings of a certain Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and popularized by our own beloved Alexander Pope. For example, in this great line from his essay on man, one truth is clear, whatever is, is right.

Now, according to Leibniz, whose ideas Pope was lyricizing, if we believe in a creator, then he must be a good creator, and the greatest of all possible creators, and therefore could have created only the best of all possible worlds. In other words, everything that is, is right.

Granted that in this world the innocent are mindlessly slaughtered and that crime mostly goes unpunished, that there is disease and death and poverty, “but if we could only see the whole picture, the divine universal plan, then we would understand that whatever happens is for the best”, thus spake Leibniz.

Naturally, Voltaire found this idea absurd every day of his life, but particularly on that day in 1755 when all of Lisbon, Portugal, exploded in an earthquake and uncountable numbers of people were drowned, crushed, buried alive, exterminated. Now if Leibniz was right, said Voltaire, then God is just playfully spraying his flit gun and down go a million mosquitoes at random, haphazardly. Well, the Lisbon disaster was the last straw for Voltaire and provoked him to write Candide in which he lashed out against all established authority. Royal, military, or mercantile, but most of all at the power of the church, which actually was burning heretics at the time, burning them alive to prevent earthquakes.

In other words, says Voltaire, sectarian religion is always an incitement to conflict. And optimism, as a strict belief, therefore breeds complacency, induces lethargy, inhibits the human power to change, to progress, to rise against injustice, or to create anything that might contribute to a genuinely better world.

During my incredibly extensive researches for this lecture, which you are now suffering, I came across the following quite succinct summing up of the whole Voltaireism. Quote, “Voltaire was acting as an eclectic who had synthesized the ideas of the Stoics, the Epicureans, the skeptics.” Oh, the hell with it. Let's play the overture. (…)

Bernstein is, as can be easily seen in the complete video, completely full of himself and showcases himself by celebrating his own composition (“Surprise...”). This deals with a work of philosophical materialism — Voltaire's Candide. In doing so, Bernstein uses Voltaire. It's all about Bernstein, not Voltaire; it's about the composition and the performance (“Oh, the hell [with the quote about Voltaire]. Let's play the overture!”). It's about Bernstein, the — in his own opinion — brilliant composer who reduces the meaning of life to physical existence (just like Voltaire), and who, in doing so, portrays a polymath, scientist, and philosopher who is as concerned with perfecting creation as he is with glorifying the creator (unlike Bernstein, who obviously does not believe in a creator and therefore cynically mocks Leibniz).

But perhaps Bernstein secretly fears Leibniz? Perhaps he fears that Leibniz could be right with his metaphysics and philosophy. Therefore, he must turn Leibniz's teachings into their opposite and portray him as a cynical Nazi (Bernstein is the son of Jewish immigrants to America) who takes pleasure in the suffering of others (which is why he shouts out the name in a militaristic-sadistic manner).

Bernstein claims that Leibniz created a system of optimism. This is not true, as the term was first coined in 1737 by an opponent, the Jesuit Louis Betrand Castel. Leibniz did not use it in this way.

Leibniz and metaphysics

Instead, in his Metaphysical Treatises of 1686, Leibniz spoke primarily and repeatedly of the task of attaining happiness (Felicité in the original French text Discours de Metaphysique by Leibniz). According to Leibniz, God created the best of all possible worlds in order to enable the happiness of all human beings through a life oriented toward spiritual union with God (“la félicité de cette cité de Dieu est son principal dessein”). This happiness presupposes freedom of will, which also includes the possibility of morally wrong decisions by human beings in this world. Furthermore, every human action has a direct effect on the entire universe. Beyond all physical reality, there is a reality that transcends physics (metaphysics = beyond physics), which is of a spiritual nature and in which human souls exist eternally as existing spirits. According to Leibniz, God is the most perfect spirit (le plus accompli de tous les Esprits) and the most outstanding being (le plus grand de tous les estres).

Leibniz, who would go on to publish his Theodicy in 1710, which is based on his metaphysical dialogues, thought primarily in logical terms—far beyond the narrow mathematical use of the word logic, which Bernstein deliberately omits. Showing the connection between the creator God and creation was dear to Leibniz's heart. This connection logically leads to the conclusion that God created the best of all possible worlds because it represents the physical reality of a spiritual creation in which, through human beings who are spiritually connected to God (the core of Leibniz's Monadology is this connection of souls with God and with each other), the increasing (i.e., not yet absolutely achieved!) perfection of a material world is at stake. To this end, humans must become aware of their connection to God—and it is this awareness that Bernstein (like the members of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences before him with their “competition” on the alleged similarity of the views of the poet Alexander Pope, quoted by Bernstein, to the metaphysics and philosophy of Leibniz) attempts to thwart.

Bernhard Mandeville as Leibniz's opponent

Leibniz held a view that not everyone liked. Anyone who considers themselves “more worthy than others,” or at least finds themselves in a position of power over others and wants to maintain this position, cannot like the idea that there is a creative soul at work in every human being that is capable of making new discoveries that could fundamentally turn the existing situation upside down. Since in archaic and ancient societies, a few (Greek: ὀλίγοι oligoi “few”) ruled over many people (ἀρχή archē “rule, leadership”), this explains why oligarchs have no interest in a worldview based on the idea that humans are created in the image of God. Such circles are characterized above all by their efforts to regard humans as just another animal species that must be led and managed in principle like a herd or a bee colony—by those few who claim to have special gifts in their blood (or genes) that elevate them from the masses to quasi-divine status.

The Greek gods of Olympus were essentially oligarchs who lived among “ordinary mortals” but were intent on maintaining strict segregation. Zeus was, in this sense, a quasi-immortal supreme oligarch who never forgave his fellow god Prometheus for giving (mortal) humans fire (the ability to learn) and a soul.

In oligarchical England, starting in the 16th century, Henry VIII (who himself had been educated by humanists such as Thomas More and Erasmus of Rotterdam in the spirit of contemporary piety (devotio moderna)) as a response to the Renaissance, a decidedly oligarchic and exclusive understanding of society prevailed, which regarded the masses as animal-like, destined like the world as a whole to subservience, and in need of domination and exploitation. It is therefore no coincidence that the prevailing view of economics today originates from oligarchic England and can be traced back to Bernard Mandeville (the philosophical liberalism with which Leibniz struggled throughout his life also originated in England).

Bernard Mandeville is considered the founder of the free market economy and the spiritual father of Adam Smith as well as the later “Austrian School” of economics founded by Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. Mandeville was a contemporary of Leibniz, who was born in Holland in 1670 and worked in England after his education. Mandeville was a staunch opponent of the contemporary doctrine of piety and the equal dignity of every human life as advocated by the devotio moderna, but also explicitly by Gottfried Leibniz and August Hermann Francke, which aimed, for example, to establish orphanages and educate the general population.

Mandeville criticized this objective, which focused in particular on scientific and technological progress in the interest of the common good, in his work “The Fable of the Bees.” Mandeville emphasized that (oligarchic) humans must be free to pursue their selfish goals “in the small,” and that the combination of individual, selfish, even criminal actions inevitably leads to the greatest possible good “in the large.”

The lasting influence of Mandeville is evident in the fact that in 1966, the later Nobel Prize winner for economics, Friedrich von Hayek, referred to Mandeville as his “mastermind.”

Leonard Bernstein's attack on Leibniz must be seen in the light of today's prevailing globalist-oligarchic worldview of “free trade”.

Gottfried Leibniz, who would in all likelihood have become Prime Minister of England had his patron, Electress Sophie of Hanover, the granddaughter of King James I, not died suddenly in 1714, just two months before the last Stuart queen, Anne, had not died suddenly in 1714, just two months before the last Stuart queen, she would have recognized, on the basis of his philosophically rational piety (monadology), a particular obligation to respect and promote the potential of every human being.

For Leibniz, this promotion should have been achieved, as a matter of course, through a classical Socratic education.

Mendelssohn and Lessing alongside Leibniz

Lessing had eloquent advocates, including Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn. Neither of them knew Leibniz personally, but they were greatly impressed by his scholarship. When Leibniz's system of organizing society based on Christian charity as a commandment of reason (and thus a republican self-government in the spirit of Plato, which did not seek the overthrow of a king, but rather the education of philosopher-kings whose government pursued the common good according to principles of rational necessity) increasingly found support even among the upper middle class and the nobility after his death, the struggle against Leibniz intensified.

In this context, Leibniz's highly sophisticated and differentiated philosophy was oversimplified and distorted as a “system of optimism” in order to blame it, as Voltaire did, for consequences that had nothing to do with the system. Leibniz was thus made a scapegoat for the catastrophes and imperfections of a world that he would never have allowed to be attributed to him during his lifetime, but against which he was unable to defend himself.

In response, Mendelssohn and Lessing—initially anonymously—stepped into the breach in a competition organized by the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (an institution that owed its existence solely to Leibniz).

Even before the Lisbon earthquake mentioned by Bernstein in his speech in London, a competition was announced in Berlin in 1753, which only superficially dealt with the question of the agreement between the views of the British poet Alexander Pope and Leibniz's philosophical system of thought, but which essentially compared Leibniz to a poet and thus discredited the system of optimism attributed to him as fiction or baseless invention, rather than subjecting it to serious philosophical examination.

Lessing and Mendelssohn prominently exposed this malicious tendency in their satirical and scathing response, published in book form in 1755. They mercilessly expose the paucity of the royal scholarly society's call for papers, which should have known better:

"God willed it so, and because he willed it so, it must be good: this is truly a very easy answer, with which one never gets stuck. It dismisses you, but it does not enlighten you. It is the most remarkable piece of worldly wisdom of the lazy; for what is lazier than to invoke the will of God in every natural event without considering whether the intended event could also have been an object of divine will?" — Mendelssohn and Lessing, Aufgabe

In terms of content, both not only expose the paucity of the competition (and thus Leibniz's intention to disparage it), but also correctly point out essential aspects of how the system is to be understood, which Leibniz himself never called “optimism,” but which the Jesuit Castel in 1737, more than twenty years after his death in an obviously commissioned review of the long-published text. Mendelssohn and Lessing write:

"Leibniz says: where different rules of perfection are to be combined to form a whole, some of them must necessarily clash with each other, and this clash must either give rise to contradictions or to exceptions on one side. According to him, the best world is therefore the one in which there are the fewest exceptions, and these few exceptions occur in the least important rules. This is why the moral and natural imperfections about which we complain in the world arise; but they arise by virtue of a higher order that has made these exceptions inevitable. If God had allowed less evil to arise in the world, he would have acted contrary to a higher order, a more important rule of perfection, from which no exception should occur at all." (...)

Nevertheless, Leibniz asserts in a much stricter sense than Pope that the slightest change in the world has an influence on the whole, because every being is a mirror of all other beings, and every state is the sum of all states. If, therefore, the smallest part of creation is changed or placed in a different state, this change must manifest itself in all beings, just as in a clock everything, both in space and in time, changes as soon as the smallest part of a cogwheel is filed away." (...)

"According to Leibniz, on the other hand, all imperfections in the world must necessarily serve the perfection of the whole, or else their exclusion would certainly have resulted from the general laws. He asserts that God did not adopt the general laws arbitrarily, but as they must arise from the wise connection of his particular intentions or the simple rules of perfection. Where there is an imperfection, there must inevitably have been an exception. But no exception can occur where the simple rules of perfection conflict with each other; and every exception must therefore have occurred by virtue of a higher order, that is, it must serve the perfection of the whole." (...)

Incidentally, Friedrich Schiller dealt indirectly and artistically with Voltaire in a similar constellation. In addition to his criticism of Leibniz, Voltaire had also dragged the historical figure of Joan of Arc (Die Jungfrau von Orleans, as the title of Schiller's romantic tragedy reads) through the mud with an even more salacious “poem” entitled La Pucelle (The Virgin). The “poem,” which was even more obscene in its original version, also contained numerous salacious allusions in its later “official” version. Schiller dealt with the scandal in a poem—without mentioning Voltaire—in which he wrote, among other things:

(...)

The world loves to blacken what is radiant

And drag the sublime into the dust,

But fear not! There are still beautiful hearts

That glow for the high and glorious, (...)

— Friedrich Schiller, The Maid of Orleans

Such a beautiful heart clearly beat in the chest of Kurt Huber.

Kurt Huber, Leibniz, and humanism

How perfidious (if indeed intentional) or at least foolish (if merely due to the narcissism of the maestro) Bernstein's attempt to discredit the great humanist polymath Leibniz was, is clear from the fact that Leibniz research in the 20th century was only Professor Kurt Huber, mentor of the members of the resistance group “The White Rose” around the Scholl siblings, Alexander Schmorell, Christoph Probst, and Wilhelm Graf. Significantly, however, this only happened after Huber was executed as a co-conspirator in the summer of 1944.

Kurt Huber - Leibniz und Wir

"Kurt Huber was not granted the opportunity to complete this biography and, in accordance with the book's subtitle, to present Leibniz's ‘portrait of a German man’ to a Germany in ruins. But through his death, he fulfilled this in another way for Germany and the world. The intention of his work to lead to Leibniz has been achieved, as far as this is possible in the book itself; it will only be realized when this biography is accessible to all and contributes its part to leading our time to the philosopher whose year we are celebrating this year." — Inge Köck, Kurt Huber as a Leibniz researcher, in: Kurt Huber zum Gedächtnis. Bildnis eines Menschen, Denkers und Forschers, Regensburg 1947, p. 157

“Huber builds a bridge between love of God and logic. Against this background, it becomes clear that Leibniz understood logic much more fundamentally and comprehensively than is common today. The universal task of logic that necessarily follows from Leibniz's worldview is no longer recognized today. Logic is therefore reduced to “mathematical logic,” i.e., logic is regarded as part of mathematics rather than as the foundation of mathematics and all other sciences. Leibniz would not accept this reduction of logic." — Ralf Schauerhammer, Kurt Huber über Leibniz

Bernstein, Wagner, Nietzsche, and pessimism

Despite his scathing attack on Leibniz, Leonard Bernstein is considered cultured and educated. As is Richard Wagner, whose works Bernstein often conducted, of course. Friedrich Nietzsche was a great admirer of Richard Wagner. It was Nietzsche who, towards the end of the 19th century, gave the concept of tragedy a completely new and culturally backward meaning. In contrast to Leibniz and the optimism he was accused of, Nietzsche also had a decisive cultural and philosophical influence on the concept of “pessimism.”

Starting from the nihilistic assertion of the non-existence of objective reality, Nietzsche transforms tragedy into its opposite. He denies the significance of tragedy for the development of the idea of civilized Athens and classically educated (in Schiller's sense of the word) Greece, claiming that "in its oldest form, Greek tragedy had only the sufferings of Dionysus as its subject, and that Dionysus was the only stage hero who existed for a long time ... All the famous figures of the Greek stage—Prometheus, Oedipus, etc.—are only masks of that original hero Dionysus."

Everything, according to Nietzsche, is nothing but a “Dionysian spell”

"which, while seemingly stimulating the Apollonian impulses to the highest degree, is nevertheless able to force this excess of Apollonian power into its service. The tragic myth can only be understood as a representation of Dionysian wisdom through Apollonian artistic means; it leads the world of appearances to its limits, where it negates itself and seeks to flee back into the bosom of true and only reality; where it then, with [Richard Wagner's] Isolde, seems to intone its metaphysical swan song:

‘In the surging wave, in the resounding sound, | In the blowing universe of the world's breath, — | Drown, sink, — unconscious, — supreme, delight!’"

— Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music

As with Bernard Mandeville and the Hellfire Club (“Fay-ce que tu voudras” = Do what you will), which invokes Mandeville's philosophical absolution of the usefulness of vicious behavior, it is also Nietzsche's will that plays with itself “in the eternal fullness of its pleasure.” A Dionysian, ecstatic, and irrational will.

“Only as an aesthetic phenomenon [does] existence and the world appear justified: in the sense that tragic myth convinces us that even the ugly and disharmonious is an artistic game that the will, in the eternal fullness of its pleasure, plays with itself. This elusive primordial phenomenon of Dionysian art, however, can only be directly understood and immediately grasped in the wonderful meaning of musical dissonance: how music, placed alongside the world, can alone give us a concept of what is to be understood by the justification of the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. The pleasure generated by tragic myth has the same origin as the pleasurable sensation of dissonance in music. The Dionysian, with its primal pleasure perceived in pain, is the common womb of music and tragic myth.”

— Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music

Nietzsche’s words in themselves seem weird enough, but their monstrosity becomes evident when considering that the “tragic” of the “Dionysian art” was real horror: The term tragedy is derived from the cries of woe which the sacrificial creatures emit. Those were most often goats or bucks. Hence Tragedy: τραγῳδία “goat song” (from τράγος trágos “goat buck” and ᾠδή ōidḗ ”song”). In the Dionysian rave, some followers tore apart the sacrificial creature alive in an act of sparagmos and ate its flesh raw (omophagia). However not only animals were thus sacrificed: The poet Orpheus was ripped apart by the maenads who were mostly female ravers of Dionysios. The modern term maniac comes from the Greek μαίνομαι (maínomai, “to rave, to be mad; to rage). Nietzsche has thus been considered a maniac for his obsession with the pessimism and delight for brutal and archaic rites, which he dared to consider art.

It is this nitzschean irrational, arbitrary, and totally totalitarian and misanthropic manipulation (as developed by Nietzsche's admired Wagner and his cult of the mystical Nordic, which also gave rise to the Nazi cult) that Gottfried Leibniz rejected with his philosophy of rational creation. Of course, Leibniz knew that humans are part of this creation and that their actions are significant in a moral sense, since everything is connected to everything else. This is the core of his (Leibniz's) monadology.

Friedrich Schiller, whose concept of aesthetics as an art to be understood and fulfilled rationally in accordance with creative laws preceded and diametrically contradicted Nietzsche's irrational-ecstatic concept, experienced during the French Revolution where the Dionysian-subversive actions of manipulated masses lead. His Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man are the anticipated response to Nietzsche. And to Leonard Bernstein3.

* This paper was inspired by two seperate presentations by Mindy Pechenuk, on classical musical composition, and Gerry Rose, on Greek Tragedy.

“The Purpose of Industrial Development is to have the Human Mind improved”
— Alexander Hamilton, killed in 1804 by a British Agent

The above clip is an excerpt of a much longer speech held March 26, 1994. Historian & author Anton Chaitkin speaking in Long Beach California. This speech, which I recommend you watch in its entirety, has not received the proper attention it deserves, as it contains important historical facts which even serve to better understand the atrocious situation in the Middle East today.

“Starting from a shooting massacre in Hebron in 1994 during a religious service, Anton Chaitkin describes the various means by which the British Empire since the Venetian takeover in the 18th Century has used to control and brainwash people. In Southwest Asia, extremists of Muslim, & Jewish faiths have a British origin. Also, organized crime, its defenders in the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith and the subsequent creation of Hollywood & Las Vegas, newspaper cartels such as the Hollinger Corporation, Geopolitics, crackpot movements like Theosophy, Satanism, Astrology, the belief in the End Times & Revelation, the installation of Hitler as dictator through the bankers Montague Norman and Hjalmar Schacht and the brainwashing of Hitler through British cult movements like the Thule Society.”

• his father’s work against the Hitler Government and certain Wall Street Banks,

• the Axis of the Privy Council of the British Crown and the pro-British Establishment in America

• Benjamin Franklin and Lord Shelbourne

• Abraham Lincoln and Henry C. Carey working for World Development

• Otto von Bismarck and Pope Leo XIII.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt and Montagu Norman

• Friedrich Schiller and the meaning of Universal History

• Hjalmar Schacht’s Grandson, his namesake Montagu Norman, and the De-industrialisation of East Germany after 1989

• How the Encyclopedia Britannica uttered a thinly veiled triumph about the death of President John F. Kennedy in January of 1964.

• Anton Chaitkin also addresses the present proxy-wars involving Israel in Gaza and Ukraine against Russia.

Read Anton Chaitkin’s Substack here:

Anton’s Substack

New historical discoveries for rising minds

By Anton Chaitkin

Mr. Chaitkin discloses how Volume III of “Who we are” will focus on the President of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, Sir Montagu Norman. Which tees off a short episode on Montagu Norman’s grandson’s role in the de-industrialization of East Germany.

Well, Friedrich Schiller, according to an as yet unsourced quote by Sir Winston Churchill, was feared for his spirit. Why? Because he not only wrote beautiful poetry and drama, but also had a firm grip on how to make sense of what has been going on, as well as why that was the case.

Following a few preliminary remarks by Schiller from his inaugural lecture as Professor of History at Jena University in 1789, I would recommend you make the time and watch the interview of Cynthia Chung on her recent paper which, as she expected, might seem outragous at first: How Britain had reconquered the U.S.A. and established an Anglo-American Empire.

Schiller writes:

“The course of studies which the scholar who feeds on bread alone sets himself, is very different from that of the philosophical mind. The former, who, for all his diligence, is interested merely in fulfilling the conditions under which he can perform a vocation and enjoy its advantages, who activates the powers of his mind only thereby to improve his material conditions and to satisfy a narrow-minded thirst for fame, (…). Who more holds up the progress of useful revolutions in the kingdom of knowledge than these very men? Every light radiated by a happy genius, in whichever science it be, makes their poverty apparent; their foils are bitterness, insidiousness, and desperation, for, in the school system they defend, they do battle at the same time for their entire existence. On that score, there is no more irreconcilable enemy, no more jealous official, no one more eager to denounce heresy than the bread-fed scholar.

How entirely differently the philosophical mind comports itself! As meticulously as the bread-fed scholar distinguishes his science from all others, the latter strives to extend the reach of his own, and to reestablish its bond with the others—reestablish, I say, for only the abstracting mind has set these boundaries, has sundered these sciences from one another. (…) New discoveries in the sphere of his activities, which cast the bread-fed scholar down, delight the philosophical mind. Perhaps they fill a gap which had still disfigured the growing whole of his conceptions, or they set the stone still missing in the edifice of his ideas, which then completes it. Even should these new discoveries leave it in ruins, a new chain of thoughts, a new natural phenomenon, a newly discovered law in the material world overthrow the entire edifice of his science, no matter: He has always loved truth more than his system, and he will gladly exchange the old, insufficient form for a new one, more beautiful. Indeed, if no blow from the outside shatters his edifice of ideas, he himself will be the first to tear it apart, discontented, to reestablish it more perfected. Through always new and more beautiful forms of thought, the philosophical mind strides forth to higher excellence, while the bread-fed scholar, in eternal stagnation of mind, guards over the barren monotony of his school-conceptions.”

(…)

“Out of the entire sum of these events, the universal historian selects those which have had an essential, irrefutable, and easily ascertainable influence upon the contemporary form of the world, and on the conditions of the generations now living. It is the relationship of an historical fact to the present constitution of the world, therefore, which must be seen in order to assemble material for world history. World history thus proceeds from a principle, which is exactly contrary to the beginning of the world. The real succession of events descends from the origin of objects down to their most recent ordering; the universal historian ascends from the most recent world situation, upwards toward the origin of things. When he ascends from the current year and century in thoughts to the next preceding, and takes note of those among the events presented to him containing the explanation for the succeeding years and centuries, when he has continued this process stepwise up to the beginning —not of the world, for to that place there is no guide—but to the beginning of the monuments, then he decides to retrace his steps on the path thus prepared, and to descend, unhindered and with light steps, with the guide of those noted facts, from the beginning of the monuments down to the most recent age. That is the universal history we have, and which will be presented to you.” (…)

Now, if you apply what Schiller laid out in theory to a review of historical evidence for the United States of America from 1776 to the present, you may find yourself in agreement with Cynthia Chung. Enjoy her presentation!

Articles discussed:

‘The Special Relationship’: How the British Reconquered the United States and Established an Anglo-American Empire

The Difference Between William McKinley’s American System School of Protective Tariffs and Today

Sugar and Spice and Everything Vice: The Empire’s Sin City City of London

The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

Books discussed:

Clash of the Two Americas, Vol. 1-4, by Matt Ehret

Treason in America, by Anton Chaitkin

The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set, by Cynthia Chung

Videos discussed:

1932: A True History of the U.S. — "We Must Speak not of parties, but of universal principles..."

Bandung (Asian-African) Conference- The Voice of the People, RTF-Lecture by Cynthia Chung

Teddy Roosevelt and American Imperialism, Part 1, RTF Lecture by Magdalena Therrien

Teddy Roosevelt and American Imperialism, Part 2, RTF-Lecture by Magdalena Therrien

Cynthia Chung Websites:

The Rising Tide Foundation Website

Through A Glass Darkly, Subsatck by Cynthia Chung

Note from the Publisher: Continuing the preparation for an upcoming interview with historian Anton Chaitkin below is the transcript of a video recording of a lecture by and H. Graham Lowry. Despite the fact that the lecture was held almost 30 years ago, the content is highly relevant to the understanding of the origins and continuity of evil politics conducted by misanthropic, imperialist oligarchical “interests tied to misery, degradation and suffering for the masses” (Webster Tarpley). Given the brazenly open highjacking of “The Science” during the “pandemic”, it is more than a striking coincidence that similar tactics had been applied against humanist efforts and achievements following the Renaissance with attempts to block the implementation of Leibnizian scientific principles designed to develop the nations of the world.

Transcript of Lecture given on February 18, 1996. Webster Tarpley:

… [Benjamin] Franklin served as the American ambassador to the court of Louis XVI in Paris. Franklin and his fellow envoys faced the task of organizing diplomatic, military, and financial support for the revolution. Because of their efforts, the British soon faced four belligerent powers, not one. as the Americans were joined by France, Spain, and the Netherlands, all of whom remained at war with the British as long as the Americans did. During the first years of the Revolution, most of the American military stores were supplied by France and Spain, partly as the result of the efforts of the pro-American playwright Beaumarchais. In addition, Catherine the Great of Russia promoted the League of Armed Neutrality, a militantly anti-British coalition of states seeking to rescue the freedom of the seas from the insolent and overbearing Royal Navy. The armed neutrality comprehended Russia, Denmark and Norway, Sweden, the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Portugal, and the kingdom of the two Sicilies.

History books today allege that the European Friends of America were simply geopolitical cutthroats, opportunist aggressors who took advantage of the American revolt in order to gang up on their resented British rivals. This ignores the fact that there was a community of principle against the British involved.

What gave Franklin his great resonance among the French and the other Europeans was his intersection with a later generation of the Leibniz networks among scientists, government officials, and men of letters. These circles sensed in Franklin an heir of the great Leibniz.

And what about the Venetian oligarchs, the great defenders of Republican liberty? They refused to accredit American ambassadors and they hired out a third of their navy as an auxiliary to the British fleet. During the American Revolution, the Venetians were the Hessians of the seas. As for Catherine the Great, the British have never forgiven her. They're still spreading stories about her to this day.

Hear ye! Hear ye! It's Anno Domini 1750 and all is not well. His Majesty's Parliament prohibits us from all further iron making. No new furnaces or forges. He bans our manufacturing of finished goods. His high mightiness thinks he can condemn us, and our posterity, to perpetual serpdom. Look to your future, Americans! Hear ye! Hear ye!

H. Graham Lowry:

America's colonists had good reason to be alarmed in 1750, and they already had revolution on their minds. Benjamin Franklin had reached the ripe old age of 44, though George Washington was only 18. Another quarter century would pass before Massachusetts militiamen fired on British troops at Concord Bridge in 1775. But Britain's Iron Act, of 1750 constituted a decisive act of war against any further American efforts to live as human beings created in Imago Dei. Without scientific discovery and technological progress and a people seeking to delight in them, there would never have been an American Revolution. Without a growing iron industry, new tools, machines, engines, or even implements of war could simply not be produced. During the first half of the 18th century, against what often appeared to be impossible odds, the American colonies had sustained and even widened a political war against British oligarchical rule.

Their leaders were guided by the ideas of Leibniz, aided by the bold work of Jonathan Swift, and were committed to founding a sovereign American republic. Contrary to mythologies prevailing then and now, the English-speaking colonies of North America were never ruled by a benevolent Mother England. John Quincy Adams' famous reference to Our Lady Macbeth Mother was a diplomatic way of summarizing the blunter descriptions used by generations of Americans. The rotten core of British colonial policy was to resort to pillaging and slaughtering America's frontier settlements in order to prevent any westward development. Britain preferred to confine its colonial subjects largely to manual labor, producing raw materials for delivery to British ships along the Atlantic seaboard.

The slaughtering was generally left to Indian tribes, whether based in the American colonies or in Canada, which remained in French hands until 1763. During the 18th century, such murderous assaults on New England were jointly run by British and French oligarchical circles. The two monarchies had even signed a treaty in 1701 prior to declaring war on each other in 1702, whereby the British guaranteed safe passage for tribes from French Quebec to attack New England throughout the war without any interference from the pro-American tribes of the Iroquois Five Nations. Under this Hobbesian arrangement, whole towns in Massachusetts were reduced to ashes from 1704 to 1708, their men massacred along with their women and children, except for those dragged off to captivity in Quebec.

Massachusetts Royal Governor Thomas Dudley made a killing selling arms and supplies to Canada for use against the very colonists he supposedly governed. And the British Navy left the New England coast utterly unprotected, enabling French ships to destroy 140 ocean-going vessels of Massachusetts alone by 1705. For generations, many of the French-run tribes viciously exploited and goaded to acts of barbarism were run by Jesuit priests of the time, who also instructed the Indians in such pieties as the claim that American colonists worshipped the Antichrist. These Jesuits, who pretended that their evil oligarchical service was somehow Christian, were so notorious that they were publicly condemned not only by leading American colonists such as Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, but by whole colonial legislatures as early as 1700 in the case of New York. Urgent colonial appeals to the mother country for assistance or military countermeasures were repeatedly ignored, others were granted nothing more than fraudulent pledges of support.

The one British military expedition against French Quebec ordered by Queen Anne to strike up the St. Lawrence River in 1711 to root out the Indian threat came and went without firing a shot. It was sabotaged through the Venetian party's political and military chain of command.

The foul arrangement to prevent any further development by the American colonies would remain in place. America's problem was that any hope of independence from Mother Britain depended on attaining a level of internal economic development sufficient to sustain a military capability of its own. The colonists, after all, could not ward off Indian massacres simply by wringing their settlements with political pamphlets. Nor did Britain permit the colonial militias to arm themselves. beyond some rusty flintlocks and old blunderbusses, except as Britain saw fit when it was at war with France. Even that limited opportunity disappeared from 1713 until 1742, when war between the two powers resumed.

Especially since Robert Walpole's rise as Prime Minister in 1721, Britain under King George I and George II had become the very model of the modern satanic state, operating according to the doctrine of Bernard Mandeville and the Hellfire Clubs, and Walpole's own maxim that every man has his price. Britain soon lay in its own ruins. Bankrupt, depopulated, and deranged, the British declared war on Spain in 1739 over Spanish refusal to renew Britain's monopoly on the slave trade in the Americas.

France, meanwhile, had tightened its military encirclement of the British colonies in America, pressing in from the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, and the Great Lakes. Then in 1740, the French completed a vast new fortress at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, which guarded the entrance to the St. Lawrence River and threatened the coast of New England. The British, desperate for any loot they could get their hands on, launched an undeclared war against France in 1742. Early in 1744, orders from London reached the American colonies, directing them to prepare for offensive war. A long awaited opportunity had arrived. Americans prepared for war all right, but they launched a war for nation building on a level that Britain could not match. They launched a war of ideas.

In April 1744, Benjamin Franklin unveiled in Philadelphia his newly founded American Philosophical Society, recreating the institution first founded by Increase Mather in America in the 1680s on the model of a Leibnizian Academy. Intended to function as a scientific committee of correspondence, it was Franklin's attempt to begin unifying the American colonies around a cultural commitment to reason, an indispensable requirement for a strong republic.

He had begun the project the year before with the publication of his proposal for promoting useful knowledge among the British plantations in America, urging that one society be formed of virtuosi or ingenious men residing in the several colonies, to be called the American Philosophical Society, who are to maintain a constant correspondence.

The proposed subjects of correspondence included botany, medicine, geology, metallurgy, new mechanical inventions for saving labor, and such applications as milling, transportation, and irrigation. All new arts, trades, and manufactures that may be proposed or thought of surveys, maps, and charts of particular parts of the sea coasts or inland countries, course and junction of rivers and great roads, situation of lakes and mountains, nature of the soil and productions, new methods of improving the breed of useful animals, introducing other sorts from foreign countries, new improvements in planting, gardening, and clearing land, and all philosophical experiments that let light into the nature of things, tend to increase the power of man over matter, and multiply the conveniences or pleasures of life. Franklin's proposal for the American Philosophical Society was a task force agenda for organizing a nation state.

The founding group in Philadelphia was drawn from Franklin's own original organizing committee, the Junto and its improvement clubs, He made a special trip to New York in 1744 to recruit James Alexander, a protege of Jonathan Swift's old friend Robert Hunter, governor of New York from 1710 to 1719. Swift, the brilliant polemicist and political strategist who was Leibniz's leading English-speaking ally, had arranged both Hunter's appointment as governor by Queen Anne and his induction into the Royal Society. Now, this is fun. James Alexander, heir to the Scottish earldom of Stirling, took part in the Scottish rebellion of 1715 against Britain's newly installed Hanoverian King George I, the enemy of Leibniz and the very stuff which the Venetian party dreams were made of.

Robert Hunter, himself a Scot, had known Alexander's family, and somehow, young James was spared the typical fate of being drawn and quartered and was deported to New York instead. There he became one of Hunter's most trusted friends, was trained in mathematics and surveying, learned astronomy directly from Hunter, and earned appointments from him to several offices in New York and New Jersey. As a member of the American Philosophical Society, James Alexander was the astronomer in charge of American preparations in 1753 to record the transit of Mercury. He also organized support for Franklin's first attempt to politically unify the colonies, the 1754 Albany Plan of Union.

His son, William Alexander, became one of George Washington's most trusted generals during the American Revolution. To bug the British during the war, he flaunted his Scottish title as Lord Sterling and helped expose the treasonous plot by the Conway Cabal in 1778 to remove Washington from command of the Continental Army. James Alexander had many blessings to count, and clearly it helps to defy the axioms of imperial opinion, especially if you wish to become a scientist and a philosopher and build a republic. The pursuit of knowledge was not going so well on the British side.

The English artist William Hogarth, another friend of Jonathan Swift, commented on the problem in a 1738 engraving of a leading Oxford professor, lecturing his students on the properties of a vacuum.

Franklin's nation-building agenda in 1744 was not intended merely for abstract contemplation. Indeed, given Britain's authorization to mobilize for offensive war, his proposals fueled a series of bold measures to smash the longstanding wall of containment which British and French oligarchical interests had maintained. Walpole was already a dead duck, and the collapse of his government had also left significant cracks in Britain's colonial machinery. A new governor had taken office in 1741 in long-suffering Massachusetts, William Shirley, who was already familiar with the colony and with the circles of Benjamin Franklin. The French military governor commanding the new superfortress at Louisbourg launched attacks on Nova Scotia.

In 1744 Shirley's warnings to London that New England's fisheries were in danger went unheeded. He began formulating a plan to accomplish the impossible. He proposed to the legislature in Boston during a secret session in January 1745 that the colony immediately prepare an expedition to take Louisville, the greatest French fortress in the New World, on its own authority and without the involvement of Britain. After recovering from shock, the legislators approved the plan, authorized bills of credit to pay for it, and mobilized more than 3,000 Massachusetts militiamen, a squadron of ships totaling over 200 guns, all the artillery they could get their hands on, and 90 ocean-going transports.

After the fleet sailed from Nantasket Rhodes on March 24th, 1745, Shirley sent a letter to London, which he knew would take two months to get there, informing His Majesty's government that New England forces would besiege Louisbourg with 4,000 men. The plan was so bold even down to attacking the fortress from behind at a point which the French thought impossible, that it worked.

News reached Boston at 1 a.m. on July 3rd, 1745, that the fortress had surrendered after a lengthy and devastating siege. Bells pealed, cannon roared, cheering throngs filled the streets, jubilant celebrations with bonfires and fireworks were held throughout the colonies as the word spread. With no assistance of any kind from Britain, untried, poorly equipped New England militia had taken out a French fortress boasting enormous firepower, and so vast that it contained an entire city within its walls. It was a stunning victory, especially in the minds of Britain's ruling circles, who regarded it, one might say, as a horrifying triumph. Americans eagerly anticipated the imminent removal of the French Jesuit Indian threat to the colonies and a British military follow-up on their spectacular achievement in the opening round. But British and French oligarchical circles were already at work redrawing future settlements to preserve their joint containment.

The British decided merely to project the illusion of supporting the colonies' hopes until the opportunity to take Canada had passed. Meanwhile, Louisburg was to be held at American expense, with nothing more from Britain than the promise that the garrison would be relieved by troops from Gibraltar someday.

More than 3,000 New England militiamen remained encamped at Louisburg in the summer of 1745. Their siege had reduced most of the quarters within the fortress to ruins, and relief was urgently needed. The drinking wells were dangerously contaminated and the island was completely dependent on external supplies. A major military and civil reconstruction effort was required, but two months passed with no sign of activity from London. Rumors spread in Boston that Britain was planning to return Louisbourg to the French. His Majesty's government threw a bone to Governor Shirley appointing him a colonel in the British Army to command regiments to be raised in America. Officers' commissions had been claimed for the British, however, and surely reported, men will not enlist here except under American officers. The British, meanwhile, left the New England regiments at Louisburg to twist in the wind. All through the fall and further isolated during the long winter, suffering from fevers, dysentery, and lack of supplies. They waited in vain for the relief promised from Britain.

By the time a modest detachment of troops arrived from Gibraltar in April 1746, ten months after the French surrender, nearly 900 New England militiamen had died. The survivors finally sailed for home, most of them from Massachusetts, bringing with them a deepening hatred of British rule. America's future was beginning to take shape in Boston in more ways than one. And inevitably, it reflected something of the past.

The leading scientist in America at the time was Harvard Professor John Winthrop. the direct descendant and namesake of both the Republican founder in 1630 of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and his son, who extended that constitutional liberty during the 1660s as governor of Connecticut. The Connecticut Winthrop was a scientist in his own right, and had corresponded with the young Leibniz.

Professor John Winthrop held the only academic chair in science in America. Like his fellow Bostonian, Benjamin Franklin, he was a protege of Cotton Mather and, like Ben, was something of a child prodigy. He was admitted to Harvard College at the age of 13 in 1728, the same year Mather died. He graduated in 1732, the year George Washington was born, and was appointed professor of mathematics and natural and experimental philosophy in 1738.

We know from student lecture notes that he included Leibniz in his course of study and that he had great fun using physical models to Socratically demolish the empiricist nonsense of Descartes. Benjamin Franklin had visited Boston in 1745 and returned again in 1746. He reports in his autobiography that it was then at Boston that he “witnessed experiments in electricity, a subject quite new to me”. On May 10th, 1746, John Winthrop presented at Harvard the first controlled experiments in America in electrical phenomena. He remained one of Franklin's most trusted friends throughout his life, which was ended by pneumonia in 1779. He was also at the very center of America's Republican networks.

He was consulted by George Washington during the French and Indian War, and again during the Revolution when Washington appointed him to oversee the production of munitions for the Continental Army's siege of British-occupied Boston. John Winthrop's students included John Adams, Sam Adams, and John Hancock, who were in constant communication with him during the Revolution.

When John Adams agonized over whether the Continental Congress should declare independence from Britain, Winthrop warned him in April 1776 that unless the decision were made pretty soon, Massachusetts would do it for themselves. In 1746, after the capture of Louisburg, the British had learned what Massachusetts could do on its own and already feared the threat of American independence.

Share

His Majesty's government, as Franklin later charged, affected to entertain a project for the reduction of Canada, merely by way of a feint to secure peace. The British went so far as to load up an expeditionary force on transports at Portsmouth, England, providing grounds for military countermeasures against America by France. Lord John Russell, a cabinet member from one of Britain's most infamous ruling families, then objected that a British expedition might further a tendency toward independence by the colonies. The troops were unloaded, and the expedition was canceled.

Jesuit-run tribes, meanwhile, had overrun settlements from Rochester, New Hampshire, to Saratoga, New York, and in 1746 seized Fort Massachusetts, the key to that colony's western defense. Within lands claimed by Virginia beyond the Ohio River, the French were building up Forts Miami, Louis Atenon, and Vincennes. In the summer of 1747, a French raiding party even ventured up the Delaware River to within 20 miles of Philadelphia.

In that same year, the British Ministry declared that the American regiments must be disbanded, as it put it, as cheap as possible, and that no more military actions be undertaken by the colonies. In 1748, at the Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle, ending the war in Europe, the British gave Louisbourg back to the French in exchange for the port of Madras, India, and future looting by the British East India Company.

A Swedish traveler in America at the time who visited with Benjamin Franklin reported from New York, the English government has therefore reason to regard the French in North America as the chief power that urges their colonies to submission.

If one steps back to comprehend what most Americans understood from these events during the 1740s, then one comprehends why the American Revolution was indispensable. Without it and without the power of the United States as a constitutional republic, Western European civilization, as created by the Renaissance, would not have survived. And had colonial Americans not fought for that higher conception of man against the bestial notions of the British oligarchy, we could never have won the War of Independence.

Yet the British and their American apologists, even to this day, twaddle on about their ‘special relationship and the common bonds of the Anglo-Saxon race’. The American Revolution was simply the result of a bit of misunderstanding, you see, and perhaps one or two tactical or administrative blunders.

Tom: The special relationship, Reggie, that ought to be right up your alley.

Reggie: It is the very core of my existence. Blood is thicker than water. Tom, you Yanks have to choose between your Anglo-Saxon kin across the sea and those bloody wogs.

Tom: What is a wog, anyway, Reggie?

Reggie: Very simple. Wogs begin at Calais. I say that every time I address the House of Lords. The Anglo-American relationship is fundamental.

Tom: Sounds right to me.

Reggie: Very staunch, Tom. Think of old Sir Winston. What a leader. He was always ready to fight to the very last American!

The reality was that British policy was consistent and consistently rotten. In terms of policy essentials, what they did in the 1740s during the War of Austrian Succession was the same thing they did during the French and Indian War and attempted to do again during the American Revolution and throughout our history as a nation.

Simply put, their policy has always been we will not permit the existence of an American republic. But Americans weren't stupid. At least they weren't in the 18th century, when they also happened to have the most literate population anywhere in the world. And they had an agenda for nation building, as Franklin had summarized it in 1744, for the American Philosophical Society. The work was already underway. The new territory. which America wished to develop was not Canada, but Virginia's vast colonial claim to the West, which then included what became the states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the portion of Minnesota east of the Mississippi River.

In Virginia, in 1747, Lawrence Washington, George’s older half-brother, founded the Ohio Company, with the backing of Lord Fairfax, the proprietor of Virginia's northern neck, a royal grant extending across most of northern Virginia all the way to the head spring of the Potomac River in the west, deep in the Allegheny Mountains. Proposed as a private venture to circumvent direct royal government, the company proposed to settle half a million acres just beyond the Fairfax grant, southeast of the headwaters of the Ohio River at what is now Pittsburgh.

The Crown granted the Ohio Company petition in 1748, and in March 16-year-old George Washington set off with a small party to begin surveying the Appalachian reaches of the Fairfax Grant towards the Ohio country. By the fall, The Ohio Company had begun recruiting German immigrants, especially iron workers, to overcome the shortage of skilled labor resulting from British repression of colonial iron making. Soon, a string of bloomeries and forges for iron making were underway in the Shenandoah Valley. At Lancaster, Pennsylvania, skilled German metal workers began producing the first rifles in America, spiral grooved and deadly accurate at more than 250 yards. The ohio company was now the spearhead of a growing effort to break through to develop the west, and in 1750 the British responded in their typical fashion by issuing the infamous ‘Iron Act’, decreeing a zero growth policy for America.

Franklin drafted and privately circulated his reply in 1751, published four years later as his “Observations concerning the increase of mankind”. He declared that “those who devote themselves to the promoting of trade, increasing employment, improving land, et cetera, and the man that invents new trades, arts, or manufactures, or new improvements in husbandry, may be properly called fathers of their nation, as they are the cause of the generation of multitudes”. Therefore, he said, “Britain should not too much restrain manufacturers in her colonies. A wise and good mother will not do it.” So much for Britain's maternal qualities.

In 1754, commanding the Virginia militia, George Washington forced the issue of developing the West when he fired on French troops who had pushed into the interior of southwestern Pennsylvania at Jumaville Glen. Franklin accelerated his drive to politically unify the colonies and issued his famous cartoon summarizing the crisis for America with the motto JOIN, or DIE.

Widely reprinted at the time, it later became a symbol for the American Revolution. In the ensuing French and Indian War, Britain decided it finally had to make a show of force in support of its American colonies. The British Army's only significant campaign on the Western frontier was designed to fail. And despite George Washington's best efforts, ended in Braddock's defeat in 1755, well before reaching Fort Duquesne. The British chose instead to attack French Canada, and with the cost of many American lives, a supposed victory was obtained.

This time, His Majesty's government wanted to return all of Canada to the French in return for the tiny island of Guadeloupe, which Britain fancied as a great convenience to its Caribbean slave trade. The furor in America, loudly conveyed in London by Franklin himself, forced the British to settle for taking Canada. The Jesuits, however, were left in place, even though they were being kicked out of both France and even the Habsburg Empire at the time.

Within weeks after word of the Treaty of Paris reached America in 1763, the worst Indian War America had ever seen broke out, drawing tribes from as far away as the northern Great Plains and western Canada, leveling nearly every outpost west of the Alleghenies, and driving deep into the colonies along the Atlantic coast.

It was a coordinated onslaught on a vast scale. And this time, every single assault came through territory administered by Great Britain. With professions of his infinite care for his poor subjects in America, King George III set forth in the wake of the slaughter his Proclamation Line, prohibiting Americans from crossing the eastern mountain chain ‘for their own safety’.

Not to put too fine a point on it, we told George to ‘stuff it’ and continued to explore the West and plan the roads and canals and new technologies which would be required to build a nation. I can tell you now, since it's not a secret, that we won the American Revolution. It's a fascinating story, much of which is scarcely known, and just the sort of thing you might imagine I could go on for hours about, but another time perhaps. But I will ask you to look ahead for a moment to something which occurred in 1785 when Benjamin Franklin returned following his long years in France, having negotiated a much better treaty of Paris in 1783 on behalf of the independent United States of America.

Franklin had examined some of the work on hydrodynamics by the Swiss scientist Daniel Bernoulli and was intrigued by the possibilities of water jet propulsion using a steam engine. Both, Bernoulli's uncle and his father, were scientific allies and contemporaries of Leibniz. Jacques Bernoulli was well known for his applications of Leibniz's calculus to problems in geometry. And Daniel's father, Jean, had played a leading role on Leibniz's behalf in the controversy with Isaac Newton.

In Philadelphia, on December 2nd, 1785, Franklin presented a paper to the American Philosophical Society entitled “Aides to Navigation”, which included some discussion of Bernoulli's theories on water jet propulsion. In Virginia, George Washington was already discussing the possibilities for developing a steamboat using water jet propulsion. With James Rumsey, his chief engineer for the Potomac Canal Company, Washington met with Rumsey at Berkeley Springs, Virginia, in September 1784. While staying at Rumsey's Inn named the ‘Sign of the Liberty Pole and Flag’, Rumsey showed him a model of a mechanical boat he was working on, and Washington was so enthusiastic he promptly wrote him a certificate of recommendation. Washington reported that he had examined the powers upon which it acts and declared that it was his “opinion that the discovery is of vast importance and may be of the greatest usefulness in our inland navigation.” On December 3rd, 1787, on the Potomac River at Shepherdstown, now West Virginia, James Rumsey gave a special demonstration of his water jet propelled steamboat. The turnout of cheering citizens included a large contingent of veterans and former officers of the Continental Army. This was what they had fought for.

Webster Tarpley:

Everyday life in the modern world is for most people a self-evident array of expectations. We expect hot and cold running water, indoor plumbing, central heating, electric lights, air conditioning, and the usual array of labor-saving appliances, which today might include a computer, a printer, or a fax. We expect to have music in the home whenever we want it.

When we travel, we expect a modern automobile, train, or a jet aircraft. When we are sick, it is clear that we want to have access to a qualified doctor, and if need be, to a fully equipped hospital. We want medicine, x-rays, CAT scans, MRIs, and so forth.

The problem is that for the oligarchical mind, it is very far from self-evident that the vast majority of people ought to have access to these amenities. The oligarchical party has seen the introduction of each of these modern conveniences as a violently partisan issue, precisely because they are a component of progress and an enhancement of human productivity.

Most people of today do not remember how dark, cold, and sick most of human life on this planet has been. Today, it is mainly natural disasters that remind us. Human history has been full of valuable human beings living in poverty, suffering in drudgery, and dying young? How many lives have been needlessly forfeit to pneumonia, gangrene, a burst appendix, influenza, polio, or the complications of childbirth?

Most of the planet still lives this way today. All of the cultural presuppositions of modern life had to be fought for tooth and nail against an oligarchy that instinctively saw its own interests as tied to misery, degradation, and suffering for the many.

Anton Chaitkin:

The ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus told the truth in his play on the legend of Prometheus that Prometheus gave us all the advances of human knowledge, fire, science, and power over nature, that he took man's side against the pagan rulers of the earth, the Olympian gods, who planned to exterminate mankind. Zeus imprisoned and tortured him, but Prometheus would not submit. He foresaw that Zeus was sowing the seeds of his own destruction and overthrow.

Gottfried Leibniz proposed that the modern nation must sponsor science, research, education, and new manufacturing to defeat tyranny and backwardness. Leibniz and his followers actually accomplished this. The American Revolution, the science breakthroughs, the important inventions, the great industries, were all deliberate projects of a single Promethean leadership faction.

All the progress we have had has come from forethought or planning for it by these Prometheans. Prometheus means forethought.

The Anglo establishment who fought against these developments boldly lied that they themselves gave machine power to the world and high living standards. These liars are the same merchant aristocrats that ran the holocausts of slavery and opium. But their history books claim that modern conditions came only from “the free market”. That industry appeared because private financial gain was totally unrestrained.

Communist writers agreed with this ridiculous version of capitalist history. So the poor anti-communist citizens of Eastern Europe or the Third World are left historically in the dark and at the mercy of the British sharks who try to stop their progress, just as they have always tried to stop Western progress.

When Benjamin Franklin arrived in England in 1757 as the colonists' political representative, Britain's rulers considered him ‘the most dangerous man in the world’. He had founded modern electrical science. He was the anti-imperial intelligence chief with a worldwide network of allies to back our fight for national development.

Now, England was then a filthy, backward country with no roads between cities, No canals, no railroads, no power machines, no factories, no plumbing, no running water. The people lived in poverty, cold, and darkness, and died young.

Franklin moved into a house in London, the empire's capital city. To counter the British ban against American industry, Franklin and a small circle of his followers began industrialization right there in Britain to make it impossible to contain. Franklin established Birmingham as the headquarters of his quiet revolutionary English faction. Matthew Bolton, a buckle maker, was his right-hand man. The Franklin Circle took over managing the estate of the Duke of Bridgewater, west of the little town of Manchester. Recruiting the idealistic young Duke to their scheme, they built England's first canal. This Bridgewater Canal got land buying privileges from Parliament, where the Duke and some friends were in the House of Lords.

The Franklin Bolton Group cut the canal from the Duke's coal-rich little mountain across the 10 miles to Manchester, completing it in 1761. In an instant, Manchester had abundant cheap coal from the Duke's coal mine, the coal price being fixed by the law that set up the canal.

Tens of thousands of families moved to the town for high paying new jobs and coal heated homes. Manchester immediately became England's first industrial city. Franklin's Birmingham Circle now built canals to Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, and London. Coal replaced local trees as England's fuel. Goods could now be shipped cheaply, and real industry was suddenly possible.

Franklin now started on the next step, the development of a practical steam engine. Franklin introduced to his English group Dr. William Small of Virginia, formerly Thomas Jefferson's mathematics teacher and musical partner. Dr. Small became industrial manager at Bolton's new SoHo plant. Small hired a young canal surveyor, James Watt, as principal researcher.

Bolton, Small, and Watt carried on the steam power project under Benjamin Franklin's personal scientific leadership. Using for their experiments, steam machinery developed long before by Denis Papin and Gottfried Leibniz. Franklin then met the young clergyman Joseph Priestley and convinced him that scientific work could help mankind more than disputes with the Church of England.

Priestley took Franklin's assignment to write a history of electrical knowledge to begin his career. Priestley discovered the breathable element in air, discovered how plants consume and renew what animals exhale, and how light grows green plants. Franklin's agent in France, Antoine Lavoisier, called Priestley's element oxygen.

Lavoisier created combustion science, and he and Priestley laid the basis for modern chemistry. Priestley's brother-in-law, Iron Master John Wilkinson, bored out a perfect steam cylinder that made the Franklin group's steam engine work. Wilkinson then used the engines to power up his mills, England's first modern steel mills.

Clergyman Edmund Cartwright, a member of the Franklin Circle, invented the first cloth-making machines using the group's steam engine. Franklin brought in the young Pennsylvanian, Robert Fulton, to apprentice with Bridgewater, Bolton, Watt, and Cartwright. Fulton would later make the world's first commercial steamboat in America. These latter developments by Franklin's group Inside England occurred under increasing police surveillance right through America's Revolutionary War against Britain.

Franklin's Birmingham Circle was soon hit with staged riots and police crackdowns and was broken up. The profitable new industries came under the management of swindlers who cut wages and worked women and children to death. British economics writers claimed the swindlers created the industries. Britain maintained strict tariff protection while demanding that other governments must not sponsor industrialization.

In 1787, the United States Constitution was designed by Franklin, his fellow Nationalists, George Washington, and allies, including their protege, Alexander Hamilton. As the first Treasury Secretary, Hamilton modeled the new government's program on the thought of Franklin and on Colbert, the patron of Leibniz. Hamilton's National Bank would provide easy credit for productive investment. High tariffs would promote new industry. And the government would build great transportation projects.

Reggie: I wish this fellow would nap off Those so-called founding fathers were not working for the public interest. They were working to line their own pockets. Hamilton was working for the rich and the well-born. He said so himself.

Tom: That guy Hamilton sounds like big government to me. And the era of big government is finally over.

Franklin and Hamilton, the founders of America's anti-slavery movement, put forward this industry building program as the only practical plan to end the plantation slavery system.

They rejected Adam Smith's doctrine that Americans were destined to be only planters, slaves, and peasants. But British-allied Boston merchants and southern slave owners blocked the founders' tariffs and canal plans, and American industrialization was delayed. The anti-big government faction virtually dissolved the army and navy. So the British stepped up attacks on US shipping and frontier settlements.

The nationalists rallied the country to defend itself in the War of 1812 against Britain. These nationalists then revived the Franklin-Hamilton program. Beginning in the mid-1820s, it was mainly four men who directed America's dramatic shift to industrial power and urban civilization. These leaders were

• Matthew Carey, Franklin's Irish Catholic revolutionary agent, a political prisoner of the British, who became a Philadelphia publisher and economist. Carey and his friends recreated Franklin's old nationalist movement with its headquarters in Philadelphia.

• Nicholas Biddle, president of the Bank of the United States, which was also in Philadelphia.

• John Quincy Adams, US President and later the anti-slavery leader in Congress.

• And Henry Clay, Speaker of the House and later Senator.

President John Quincy Adams in 1825 assigned the Army Corps of Engineers to plan the first railroads. Army engineers surveyed and designed 61 railroads before ‘the free trade crazies’ made it illegal in 1837. American railroad construction was financed by government, state, county, local, and later federal government with cash grants, loans, government bonds, stock purchases, land grants, and every conceivable form of subsidy.

Government backing created America's iron industry. We had only local, small-scale iron production until Matthew Carey's educational campaign moved the nation to pass high-tariff laws. As a direct result of tariff protection, American iron output more than tripled in 10 years to 1832. Then it stagnated for 10 years under free trade. Then more than tripled again in five years under Henry Clay's last high tariff.

Pennsylvanians, Biddle and Carey, got their state legislature and neighboring states to build 1,000 miles of canals. These waterways started bringing hot burning anthracite coal to market. Under the Biddle-Carey scheme, anthracite coal production rose from 400 tons in 1820 to 8 million tons in 1855. This anthracite was the first coal to be used for American industry.

Clay in the Senate, Adams in the House, and state leaders like the young Abraham Lincoln in Illinois worked with Biddle's Bank of the United States to finance new canals and railroads westward from Pennsylvania. This created the Midwest farming communities and industries, and a Illinois nationalist political base. But by the 1830s, Britain's merchant partners, called the Boston Brahmins, and the British-run secessionists in South Carolina were dragging down America's modernization. They closed the US bank, blocked national infrastructure, stopped protective tariffs, and stifled industry in the South.

The nationalists now reached out for allies, as Franklin had done. They planned to build industry and political strength in nations overseas who could stand with them against the British Empire. Their link to European science in the Leibniz tradition would magnify the economic and military power on the side of freedom.

The Ecole Polytechnique in Paris was the world center of research and the training of scientists. The British conquered and smashed France in 1815. German scientist Alexander von Humboldt arranged with American officers for teachers and material from the Ecole to be brought over and set up at the US Military Academy at West Point.

The Ecole geometric methods were used to train America's first really qualified engineers. And those West Point Army engineers were the ones designing America's first railroads. Now this is how electricity developed in that period. First in 1820, the Danish researcher Ørsted, who had studied at the École Polytechnique, showed that a current from a battery through a wire would pull a nearby magnetic needle away from pointing north. Ørsted wrote that it was odd that Franklin's discovery of lightning's electrical nature has not aroused an inspired representation from any great poet. The discovery was the fruit of scientific thinking, but was introduced into the world through an heroic act.

The Frenchman Arago, who taught geometry at the École, discovered that a current passing through a wire could make a neighboring piece of soft iron magnetic. The French scientist Ampere, who taught mathematics at the Ecole, discovered that two neighboring wires would either attract or repel each other depending on the direction of the currents in them. Ampere concluded, that natural magnetism is electricity within the material. And he formulated the mathematics of electromagnetism. In 1825, an Englishman named Sturgeon wound wire a few times around a piece of iron and could pick up nine pounds with it while a current was passing through.

Between 1829 and 1833, the American school teacher Joseph Henry made big breakthroughs. In accord with Ampere's theory, Henry made very powerful electromagnets with multiple windings of wire till he could lift 3,000 pounds. By turning his artificial magnet rapidly on and off, he first made a magnet induce a strong electric current in a wire.

Joseph Henry made the first little device, moved by electromagnetism, the first electric motor. He first sent powerful currents over long distances. He first magnetized iron at a distance. And by ringing a bell at a distance in a code pattern, he made the first experimental telegraph.

Then over in the German state of Hanover at Göttingen University, the mathematician Carl Gauss and his research partner, physicist Wilhelm Weber, excitedly picked up the leads of the American Joseph Henry. Gauss was the world's greatest scientist, a defender of Leibniz, and closely tied to the American nationalists. He was an advisor to the US Coastal Survey, and his three sons had emigrated to America.

Hear ye, hear ye. German astronomer Gauss sends a message by electric wire two miles in less than a minute. He says, telegraphs to be installed on all German railroads. The new invention could unify all of Russia. The British say it can't work. Here are ye! Here are ye!

Gauss and Weber built the world's first long-distance electric telegraph in 1833. Gauss intended it as a strategic tool the Americans and their allies could use with railroads to make unified nations that could overcome British power. And the Americans were moving to do just that. Their main international organizer was the German economist Friedrich List, who had been imprisoned for his anti-British nationalism and went as an exile to Philadelphia. List helped Biddle and Carey educate the country on nationalist economics as they launched modern America. The nationalists arranged for the honored former political prisoner, List, to go back to Europe as a diplomat representing the United States, stationed in France and Germany.

List's writings inspired all of Europe to emulate the nation-building principles of the American Revolution. On List's initiative, 18 little German states united. giving birth to Germany as a single nation, with tariffs protecting new German industry from British trade war. Friedrich List organized Germany's first railroad. First railroads. The American strategic program was for France, Germany, and Russia to cooperate in rapid modernization stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to China. To be sure, the alarm bells were going off in the British Empire strategy offices. Early in 1837, two American scientists sailed together to Europe on an intelligence and political mission that would deeply affect world history.

These two travelers were electrical researcher Joseph Henry and the young physicist Alexander Dallas Bache. Bache was a Philadelphia nationalist leader who had publicized Joseph Henry's work, thus allowing Gauss and Weber to act on Henry's breakthroughs. Taking separate paths around Britain and the continent, Henry and Bache were to contact Europe's leading thinkers to prepare a sharp upgrading of American scientific and military power.

Nicholas Biddle and his colleagues had commissioned Baesch for the trip because of Bache's unique qualifications. He was the great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin. This alone would get him a big reception in Germany's Göttingen University. where his celebrated ancestor Franklin had gone 70 years earlier to campaign for America's cause. Bache was also a brilliant West Point Army engineering graduate and leader of the Nationalists Research and Development Complex at the Franklin Institute and the University of Pennsylvania. In December 1837, Bache arrived in Berlin and took up temporary residence with Alexander von Humboldt, America's greatest strategic advisor.

Bache was preparing with Humboldt his imminent visit with Gauss and Weber at Göttingen University in Hanover. But one week after Beche's arrival in Berlin, before he got to Göttingen, The British royal family expelled Wilhelm Weber and six other professors from the university and surrounded Gerdingen with troops to prevent political demonstrations.

The British royal family at that time still ruled both England and the German state of Hanover, the original home of the British royal family. A month before Beche arrived in Germany, Hanover's king, Ernst August, a son of King George III, had revoked Hanover's constitution and liberties.

When Weber and other famous teachers protested, the British king expelled them and moved troops. Despite the British imposed terror, Baesch arrived at Göttingen the next month and met with Gauss and Weber. The Gauss-Weber research team was broken up, but the adversity and oppression forged strong bonds of friendship between Baesch and the greatest European scientists.

This relationship would shape American science in its most important advances. These scientists understood the British problem. When Carl Gauss received the Copley Medal from the British Royal Society, he told his children that he would have sold it for its metallic value and given them the money, but it was worth too little. Following his 1838 return to America,

Alexander Dallas Beche recruited a handful of loyal and patriotic science associates into a small junto. In private, they called themselves the Florentine Academy, or jokingly, the Lazzaroni, an Italian term for a bunch of filthy beggars. Working with Gauss and Humboldt, Bache and his group created a military industrial science complex to secure the defense of the American Republic.

This is what they accomplished in the next seven or eight years. Baesch organized Philadelphia's public schools along the lines of Prussia's excellent free compulsory school system. He built up Philadelphia's Central High into the first great public secondary school in America, the model for all other high schools. The Russian czar hired former U.S. Army engineer George Washington Whistler to build Russia's first railroad from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The locomotives were shipped to Russia from the Baldwin Company, part of the Philadelphia Nationalists Research and Industry Organization.

Bache studied with Gauss the Earth's magnetic field. For this purpose, Bache hired and trained an assistant named William Chauvenet, who began teaching science to sailors at a Philadelphia Naval hospital. These classes were transferred to a Fort at Annapolis, Maryland, and Bache arranged for this to become the United States Naval Academy. Bache himself was appointed head of the US Coast Survey. Bache made it the main government agency for employing and training scientists.

Union naval victories in our Civil War were ensured largely because Bache's teams had mapped the current and coasts, while Bache's teachers had brought Gauss's mathematical science to our naval officers.

In 1843, Henry Clay led the US Congress to pay for American implementation of the telegraph. It was Samuel Morse's version of the earlier invention of Henry, Gauss, and Weber. Congress accepted Bache's recommendation for Joseph Henry to be the first chief of the new Smithsonian Institution. Henry created the modern weather service based on reception of reports by telegraph. Meanwhile, Members of Bache's Lazzaroni set up real science programs at both Harvard and Yale and took those colleges temporarily out of the hands of the Anglophiles. A Bache ally at Yale, chemist Benjamin Silliman Jr., reported in 1855 that petroleum under the Pennsylvania ground could be cracked and refined into valuable fuel. This started America's oil industry. Bache was the recognized chief of America's scientists.

At the outset of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln asked Bache and his colleagues to sort out the loyalties of the entire Naval Officer Corps at a time when many military officers were deserting to the slave owners' rebellion. While the British built cruisers for the Southern Navy to sink US ships, Bache and his fellow strategists decided to build ironclad monitor warships that could defeat both the Southern and the British Navy.

Now, suppose that you are a leader of today's Russia or Poland. or Nigeria, or Mexico, or Brazil. And the banking authorities order you to murder your people with budget cuts and privatize everything so foreign financiers can loot you. They tell you that this free market insanity is what built the great Western powers. Well, The administrations just before Lincoln followed that policy. They took down the tariffs and manufacturing collapsed. Cotton grown by slaves became America's main product, sent to England to trade for goods we couldn't produce.

This got us weakness and bankruptcy so that even the Congress could not be paid. And when Lincoln was elected president on a contrary nationalist program, the British faction launched Civil War. Lincoln made America an industrial, agricultural, and military power, which his allies continued building after his murder.

The strong government action that made this possible was not socialism. It caused the greatest growth of private initiative and private property ever known. Tariffs on imported steel were raised to 50% and later to 90%, forcing into existence America's first steel mills. When the London-loving Wall Street bankers refused credit to the United States, the government printed lots of new green dollar bills, hired Philadelphia banker Jay Cook to sell government bonds to citizens, and passed federal usury laws limiting interest to 7%.

Lincoln armed the whole people, including the blacks, to defeat the slavery system left over from the British Empire, to defeat the British-backed rebellion in his southern territory. This problem may sound familiar to today's Mexicans, Sudanese, and Russians.

Lincoln organized the first railroad across the wilderness to the Pacific coast to be built at government expense under army supervision. Lincoln created millions of new private farms by his big giveaway program. Government land was given free to farm families. Cash and free land went to railroad builders, who got more construction money by selling the land to new farmers. Farm families were educated at government expense. Government scientists taught farmers about fertilizers, soil chemistry, and crop management. Farmers with cheap credit bought inexpensive machinery produced by patent-protected inventors who used inexpensive tariff-protected American steel. Diseases of livestock were conquered by government science and federal law.

In the colleges and the new agriculture department, Lincoln employed teachers trained by the great German biochemist, Justus von Liebig. Liebig taught these Americans that man at first sees everything around him bound in the chains of invariable fixed laws. Within himself alone, he recognizes a something which may govern these effects, a will which has the power to rule over all natural laws. The knowledge of nature forces upon us, said Liebig, the conviction that there exists an infinitely exalted being of whom we can only form some conception by the highest cultivation of every faculty of our minds.

Abraham Lincoln told farmers, a free people insists on universal education. “I know nothing so pleasant to the mind”, Lincoln said, “as the discovery of anything that is at once new and valuable, nothing that so lightens and sweetens toil as the hopeful pursuit of such discovery. For the educated mind, every blade of grass is a study, and to produce two where there was but one is both a profit and a pleasure.”

Lincoln said, “Population must increase rapidly, and the most valuable of all arts will be to get a comfortable subsistence from the smallest area of soil. No community whose every member possesses this art can ever be the victim of oppression in any of its forms. Such community will be alike independent of crowned kings, money kings, and land kings,” said Lincoln.

The British feared Lincoln as they had Franklin. The British press depicted him as a political extremist, a mad dog, a crackpot, and a loser. When Lincoln was killed, the US government convicted his assassins of a conspiracy with the secret intelligence agents in British Canada. That was the official verdict.

After the Civil War, the nationalists led by Henry Carey created new technologies which vastly expanded the power of man over nature in the US and overseas. The nationalist power centered in America's largest company, the Pennsylvania Railroad, a private enterprise built with Philadelphia city government money. Other railroads and steel and machine industries were all built by the same group of men. Their informal organization called the Philadelphia Interests overlapped with the federal government, the Army, and Navy, and science institutions that Franklin and his followers had set up.

They confidently invested huge sums in research and development without worrying about immediate profits, since their leader, Henry Carey, had designed the nation's strong protective tariff laws. Their banker, Jay Cooke, was still the government's private banker to keep national finance out of Wall Street and British control. By 1871 and 72, partner Andrew Carnegie was building the world's most advanced steel mill in Pittsburgh. They took control of the Union Pacific Railroad and started George Westinghouse's career by installing his air brake on the PRR trains. With government grants, Jay Cooke began construction of the huge Northern Pacific Railway.

When their Japanese friends set up a modern government, the Carey Group and the U.S. government sent over technical teams and anti-free trade economists for rapid Japanese development of science and technology. The nationalists planned a global system of railways, canals, and shipping. The American nationalists launched the industrialization of Japan, attempted it in China, and started it in Russia, whose czar, Alexander II, was a close ally of the martyred Lincoln. These nations could become powerfully independent. Standing together, they might overcome Britain's sabotage of their developments.

In 1871, the British created a new Philadelphia-based organization designed to smash the entire American political leadership. London banker Junius Morgan made a partnership of his son, J.P. Morgan, with Philadelphia's Drexel family, called at first Drexel Morgan, later simply J.P. Morgan and Company. The Drexels owned the Philadelphia Ledger, an editorial partner of the London Times. They ran a shameless worldwide slander campaign against Jay Cooke, warning that his depositors and lenders would lose everything, while the British squeezed his credit. They successfully bankrupted Cooke in 1873, setting off a panic that closed the stock exchange for a week and shut down American industry.

When the smoke cleared, Morgan and other British representative bankers had taken over US government finances. The Philadelphia interests had been broken and removed from their biggest projects, and the overall pace of American economy was never again recaptured.

J.P. Morgan, who sailed around in a yacht with a pirate flag, actually fancied himself the Jupiter of finance, the Roman name for the Greek god Zeus.

But the American Prometheus refused to give up. One of the Philadelphia partners was William J. Palmer, who had modernized the Pennsylvania Railroad and had won a Medal of Honor as a Civil War Cavalry General. General Palmer set up the Automatic Telegraph Company in 1870 to compete with Wall Street's Western Union. Palmer's assistant, Edward Johnson, hired for the company a brilliant 24-year-old inventor of telegraph devices named Thomas Alva Edison. Palmer set up Edison as an independent inventor, and Johnson remained Edison's business manager and closest friend from then on.

The Philadelphians' top scientist, Franklin Institute Research Chief George F. Parker, became Edison's science mentor and dear friend. The Philadelphians encouraged Edison as he perfected the telephone correcting the toy-like device of Alexander Graham Bell. When Edison invented sound recording, the phonograph, Barker and the cash-strapped Philadelphia group successfully schemed to make him famous. In 1878, Professor Barker gave Edison an intensive tutorial on the history of light and electricity and Barker asked Edison to make practical electric light his great project.

Edison soon announced that he was inventing the electric light, that he would advance civilization by giving mankind light and electric power. J.P. Morgan immediately swooped in and set up a Morgan-controlled Edison company that gave Edison a little helping of money in exchange for tight control. Edison mastered the necessary physics and chemistry and devised hundreds of inventions needed to begin public electric power.

Britain's pseudoscientists historically claimed that it was against well-known scientific laws to power many separate electric lights from the same power source.

The British and their whores in the press put out a stream of attacks calling Edison a fraud.

“Get your New York Times! Read all about it! Read all about it! Get your New York Times! Read all about it! Leaders of scientific community denounced the electric light as a failure. Edison is discredited. Get your New York Times! Read all about it! Edison's lab to be investigated for fraud. Get your New York Times! Read all about it! Get your New York Times!”

But Edison was a better thinker than the Newtonian fakers. Along with the thousands of experiments in his notebooks, there are working hypotheses on the nature of gravity as electromagnetism. Some depict the origin of the Earth's rotation in terms of the overlapping lines of force of the Sun and the Earth in the tradition of Johannes Kepler's work, a challenge to the Newtonian dogma that separates gravity from electromagnetism. Edison admired Bache's patron Alexander von Humboldt as the father of American science and kept Humboldt's bust in his laboratory.

Reggie: This is making me very uncomfortable, Tom. You know I've never sought the spotlight. I've always preferred to operate in the shadows, as it were. I think it's about time that I take a graceful exit. But don't worry about me. I'll be lurking somewhere. My thoughts have been around a very long time. We won't be far off.

Tom: I'm coming with you, Reggie.

When Edison's impossible light was proved, and his first US dynamo was successfully set up in New York, Morgan prohibited any more generators to be built. Edison and his friends had a stockholders revolt. And then they reached out to America's local governments, which put up the money to build power plants in their cities.

The Philadelphia nationalists made arrangements to build generators with Edison's partners in Germany France, Italy, Japan, Argentina, and many other countries. An apprentice named Frank Sprague worked with Edison on the first electric trains. Then the Philadelphians set up Sprague in business to build the first electric subways, streetcars, elevators, and electric tools.

Another Edison apprentice, Henry Ford, created America's automobile industry. Morgan changed the Edison Company name to General Electric and expelled Edison entirely. The railroads and all the great industries were seized by Wall Street and London financiers. But despite their plunder and destruction, the light of modern times had been turned on.

As patriots in each country today assess the wreckage caused by the ruling pirate economics, they worry about leaving this sinking ship for some unknown vessel. Yet real history teaches us that pirate empires are neither safe nor useful. and that mankind's power comes from the courage to aim for the stars.

This move to boycott German industry was so powerful that British-American imperial forces who have had, and continue to have, strong ties with the German industry, in fact had even held major shares in German industry ever since the Versailles Treaty and the horrendous reparations which had been inflicted upon Germany after World War I, so these imperial powers, British and American imperial powers, aka Wall Street, had conspired and collaborated with other Jewish organizations many of which had had clandestine secret society structures such as B'nai B'rith and others.

Listen to Anton Chaitkin describing his father’s work and background. Source: RTF-Lecture ‘Prometheus and America’

So a lot was done to counter the boycott of the American Jewish Congress and Mr. Chaikin and to help the Nazis keep very profitable business ties with the United States and the rest of the world until eventually the “Third Reich” was defeated. But the Nazis never disappeared.

They hadn't been German in their essence in the first place. The ideology had come from occult and anti-human oligarchical organizations and thinking. The money to set up the Nazi party in germany had come from abroad from oligarchical financiers and Wall Street with the help of course of their german partners such as Thyssen, but the fact remains to this day that the Nazi International was not at all an purely German project.

Cynthia Chung with her brilliant book “The Empire in Which the Black Sun Never Set” shows that this Nazi project, fascism in general, has been a project of the British Empire, and of the imperial interests at Wall Street, to derail sovereign national independence across the world, and to keep up and to solidify a one-world-government structure of Empire. This Empire at the time was British but it need not keep its name of British Empire. Rather, Empire is intent to maintain, reconstruct an oligarchical system in which a very small elite has absolute power over the majority of people. And this elite considers the masses to be ‘useless’.

This oligarchy, through its control over prominent universities and “science” argues that humans are a menace to the world, which is why they favor policies of depopulation.

During the past couple of years we have seen many events which are connected under the name “COVID” or pandemic. But this has been just one further piece to establish this kind of one world government across the world for good. Whether or not depopulation agendas. Vera Sharav spoke out against what she saw as a continuation of Nazi ideology and possibly the beginning of the ‘Fourth Reich’.

So, through my work with Vera Sharav over several years, I was motivated to set up this substack under the title of “Never Again Is Now”. Pointing out the continuity of misanthropic, anti-humanist ideology continues to be a key element of this publication. However, it is equally important to understand, and rediscover the concept of national sovereignty, humanist philosophy and development which all empires have tried to crush throughout history. In this, I agree completely with Anton Chaitkin, who said that to understand “evil” one has to understand what evil is trying to suppress: the great power of creative reason.

Anton Chaitkin on the necessity to not focus on evil, but on the great power of creativity which the empire is acting against. Source: RTF

Which brings me back to my scheduled interview with Anton Chaitkin who has, in many ways, continued to build on and expand his father's work, or to stop the influence and the onslaught of Empire versus sovereign nations and individuals. Anton Chaitkin has come to understand that the path to do so is to look at the one shining example where this modern empire has received its strongest setback so far in history, back in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

The success of the American Founding Fathers, and of the Republic which they created against empire is one which has not been completed, which is still under threat.

Some may wonder: America under threat? Why should we care, given that the United States of America is by now, today, in the 21st century, almost synonymous with empire with tyranny?

Anton’s Substack

New historical discoveries for rising minds

By Anton Chaitkin

Anton Chaitkin has spent his life conducting “a systematic inquiry into American history. He found that the mental map of America’s former leaders was far more profound and more pro-human than anything available in the post-JFK era.

He has done sharply original work in American history, in hundreds of articles and in two books, Treason in America, from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman – a 600-page unveiling of the Eastern Establishment as the tory-British-racist-imperialist faction – and George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography.”

His latest book, Who We Are: America's Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy is an extensive three part project, of which part two has just been released. In it, Chaitkin explains his motivation:

I am writing Who We Are as an American patriot and dissident. My country is misled by those serving the interests not of the nation but of a global clique; making our present outlook a menace to our own survival and to that of mankind.

We are fighting a continuous worldwide war, with degraded public services, and collapsing infrastructure.
But uncountable trillions are in offshore and criminal money flows, fraudulent speculation and spending for permanent war.
Only the deepest historical inquiry can adequately examine how this sordid mess came about, and give needed assistance to the search for a possible remedy.

I have come to understand that a very diabolical kind of shifting the blame by shifting the power center has been under way, following the realization by the British Oligarchy that America was not going to be destroyed by military force. Their plan to re-integrate America into the Empire therefore had to be accomplished covertly. This became clear after the Confederate Secession was defeated by the Union with support from around the world, especially Russia. What had come to be known as “the American System” led to the U.S. becoming the world’s leading driver of progress for the development of National Sovereignty. In order to stop this drive, British financial interests began to take over U.S. politics via the Federal Reserve System, and gradually turned the U.S., Britain’s nemesis, into an empire itself, the last step of this plan would be implemented after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who, in line with the tradition of the “American System” of National Sovereignty, became a champion for the independence of Britain’s former colonies.

In order to fully understand the threat which this original expression of America’s ideals and principles continues to pose for any “One-World-Government” it is extremely important, in my view, that we all take the time to study Anton Chaitkin’s work and his books. Chaitkin argues convincingly that we need to come back to the ideals which were set out by the American Founding Fathers. Those ideals were and have remained to be under threat and under attack by the (British) Empire, who never forgot that it had suffered its only major blow in all of history through the foundation and development of America. Today, Wall Street controls American politics, and Wall Street is controlled by the City of London.

is a voice we should take note of. His family background, but even more his track record of activism shows him to be of exceptionally high moral character. The lesson he can teach us is one that may seem counterintuitive at first, but it is very much to the point:

Who We Are explains

• How the USA rose to industrial power, high living standards, and world influence

• Who promoted this rise, by what strategy and through which projects

• Who has opposed the nation’s progress, and for what reasons.

Only this contrast of the two operative sides – the republic versus the empire - will allow the reader to see

• How we have gone wrong

• How other nations – some deemed our enemies -- have adopted policies which made America successful, policies which we have abandoned; and

• How our misleaders represent the interests we have always had to fight against to win national progress.

We have to know ourselves, in order to build a new philosophy for our society.

Purchase Anton Chaitkin’s book here

I am avoiding the term “rational thinking”, for though it is important, it is not enough to think rationally. Why? Because rational thinking leaves no room for emotion. Reason, on the other hand, is the product of using rational thinking in combination with emotional intelligence.

It was the German poet and philosopher Friedrich Schiller who — after studying the disaster of the French Revolution — had come to the conclusion that only the combined development of both essential human capacities, for feeling as well as for thought could bring about “the most perfect of all works of art, with the construction of true political freedom”.

Five years into the operation which started with lockdown and mask mandates, and which is still stuck in an argument about “Gain-of-Function”, “Lab-Leak” and “unmet needs for countermeasures against the Big One” on the one side, and “No Virus” on the other, the perpetrators seem to have managed to get “us” where they want us to be: in a state where few are able to think reasonably.

Whilst some readers of mine have chided me for going “a very long way around calling Fuellmich a fraud”, others have taken issue with Dr. Couey for including Dr. Yeadon “in a photomontage of alleged crooks”.

Clearly, these are emotional issues, as is Couey’s disappointment with some prominent figureheads for lack of support. You can’t argue about these, rationally. All one can do, which is what I do, is put on a beautiful piece of music (today I played the Concerto for Clarinet No. 3 by Carl Stamitz) and read Schiller’s text “On the Sublime”.

In it he writes:

“All other things must; man is the being, who wills. (…) For everything, the proverb says, there is a remedy, but not for death. But this single exception, if it actually is one in the strictest sense, would annul the whole notion of Man. By no means can he be the being, which wills, if there is even but a single case, where he absolutely must, what he does not will. (…) [H]is boasted freedom is absolutely nothing, if he is bound even in a single point. Culture shall set man free and help him, to fulfill his entire notion. It will make him capable, therefore, of asserting his will, for man is the being, who wills.”

It may seem as a provocation to some readers. “Get them iron shackles on your limbs, and preach then,” read another comment on the previous piece. I am sorry for those who feel offended. No offense intended. Quite the contrary.

In fact, it is my own experience that classical art, be it music, poetry or another form of beautiful art, did help me in regaining composure (which was needed, sometimes), as well as a sense of dignity and even pathos (the , which we have been conditioned not to access anymore in “the postmodern society.”

Especially those who are called upon to lead, but also those who follow, benefit from a mature and sound moral character, which is the result of a classical education (and that can be gained in more than one way). All classics have in common a foundation in Natural Law, an understanding of the cardinal virtues, wisdom, justice, valor, and temperance. Plato first discussed the cardinal virtues in the “Republic”. Confucian virtues are benevolence (ren. 仁), righteousness (yi. 義), propriety (li. 義), wisdom (zhi. 智), and trustworthiness (xin. 信).

Freedom and Sovereignty (“the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle [one people]”) were at the heart of the American quest for independence, which reached a climax 250 years ago. The Founding Fathers of the United States did not only draft important historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (which are loathed by the oligarchical forces behind the drive towards totalitarian “One World Government” and towards a “New World Order”).

The Founding Fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, were also profoundly aware of the importance of reason, dignity, and the sublime for the success of the American Republic and its safeguarding of the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. And, it is not very much known today, that also at the time of the Founding Fathers, one major criticism against the government had been the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny” by, amongst other things mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, “fatiguing [their people] into compliance with [tyrannical] measures.”

The fact that a power of a tyrannical force (maybe it is governments, but probably it is power of a different kind, evil force, which is being exerted over governments) is pulling the strings behind the scenes today, and one can only approximate the source of evil, rather than see it directly, seems to be a shared feature in the view of all of those who are “fighting for freedom” within the “movement” shall be taken as an indicator of “fear” being a motive for all those individuals, be they Reiner Fuellmich, Jonathan Couey, or Mike Yeadon. Even Robert Malone seems to be driven by fear, if what he says about the “unmet need for countermeasures” against “the big one yet to come” shall be taken as a genuine concern of his.

This, in my view, should serve as an invitation to look at what Friedrich Schiller had to say about how to attain “freedom”. Schiller urged his contemporaries (but not only his contemporaries only, as he knew the task at hand was a job “for more than a century”) to not give in to fear (or other sensual motors), nor to seek to merely act cold-blooded, from any emotion, but to educate (‘ennoble’) one’s character through beauty to the highest level (that of a beautiful soul) in which the senses can be trusted to act upon the will in ultimate liberty by chosing an action that is both, rational as well as reasonable. In which fear (or anger and rage) have been overcome. This is when a truly moral character has been achieved.

Whilst it may appear to be a little off-topic at first sight when challenged with the frictions and emotions within “the movement”, please bear in mind that even though the movement may be divided in fractions, all of them say they have one thing on their mind primarily: the Future of Humanity, no less! Therefore, take a look at how Friedrich Schiller proves how beauty is essential in overcoming emotional limitations of thinking, as well as in avoiding the dangers of “barbaric” scientism:

“[A]s soon as we remember that freedom is taken from man by the one-sided compulsion of nature in feeling, and by the exclusive legislation of the reason in thinking, we must consider the capacity restored to him by the aesthetical disposition, as the highest of all gifts, as the gift of humanity. I admit that in his potential he possesses this capacity for humanity already, before every definite determination in which he may be placed. But indeed, he loses it with every determined condition, into which he may come, and if he is to pass over to an opposite condition, humanity must be in every case restored to him by the aesthetic life.

It is therefore not only a poetical license, but also philosophically correct, when beauty is named our second creatoress. For, even though she only makes it possible for us to attain and realise humanity, leaving this to our free will, she thus has this in common with our original creatoress, nature, which has imparted to us nothing further than the potential for humanity, but leaves to our own determination of will the degree to which we make use of it.”
— Friedrich Schiller, Aesthetical Letters, XXI

Mind you, dear reader, these lines are written not to lecture any of those who are fighting on the stage. I am merely sharing personal observations about changes I noticed within my own thinking over the past two and a half years. I myself was suffering from deep fears about where the world was going. I thought it was a unique situation in human history, which we faced. Evil perpetrators winning because people were “too dumb to get it.” My preservation-drive was in charge of me, and all I thought I could do was research even more, get more data “out there” to turn the tide. Of course not only was the tide not turning, I was getting more emotional, more desperate, more aggressive without getting anywhere. Today, I know that what we are dealing with is new in its appearance, but old in its essence.

In the Spring of 2023 I got introduced to Schiller. Funny, isn’t it? I am German, but I didn’t know Schiller. Sure, I knew his name. But I needed to be introduced to his thinking and principles of work: beauty. This happened whilst I was researching for a joint project with Vera Sharav which is responsible for the name of this substack, ‘Never Again Is Now’. Vera and I were very much afraid of the evil behind such things as eugenics and transhumanism. And it was a lecture I watched, given by Cynthia Chung on the issue of transhumanism, which confronted me with Schiller’s quote about beauty being the way out.

Through A Glass Darkly

Why H.G. Wells' World Brain and Yuval Harari's Hackable Human Will Not Succeed

The following is the transcript of a lecture I delivered this past March in Basel, Switzerland as part of the Kernpunkte Kongress…

Read more

3 years ago · 134 likes · 46 comments · Cynthia Chung

It sounded nice, I wanted to believe it so badly, but at the same time it seemed so naive. Which is when I decided to sit down and study Schiller (and the classics he taught, and had been taught himself by people such as Moses Mendelssohn or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz — who, by the way, was a key thinker for the Founding Fathers, and who had thought and published extensively what the pursuit of happiness was all about. It is from people such as Leibniz that the Founding Fathers got the idea!).

Anyway, I eventually came to understand that I had to come to terms with “suffering”, and get out of the preservation-drive which creates fear, that, if it persists over anything but a very short period of time, becomes very debilitating. One doesn’t even notice that debilitating effect, but it drastically reduces one’s creative, human capacity. Beauty and the sublime, instead, nurture the soul, and enhance creativity.

“[I]t is the judging subject, who produces the conception of suffering in himself, and transforms the given subject matter through reference to the preservation-drive into an object of fear, and through reference to his moral person into a sublime one.”
— Friedrich Schiller, Of the Sublime

So, in essence, what Schiller taught (and what is contained in every line of his poetic and philosophical writings) is not at all naive romanticism. It is, instead a precondition to maintain and improve one’s rational capacity, independence, or… FREEDOM!

In closing, I will now recommend you, maybe, take a short break and immerse yourself into some classical poetry or music, before you take a look at these three videos:

Why? Because, as rational beings, most of us want to understand (better) what is going on, and what did go on. In this respect, Mark Kulacz has put out another important show recently about the Biology 101 which Dr. Jonathan Couey is continuing to work on.

Now, I am aware that some people have issues with Kulacz as much as they have with Couey. I get it. I, too, wish both would understand that bitterness and strong language is not conducive to what both of them clearly continue to want to get out there as a message.

The reason I am sharing these videos is simply that I believe that the subject discussed, phages, is highly relevant for a better understanding of what went on. I am grateful for the work which both, Couey and Kulacz, have done, and continue to do. Which doesn’t mean I subscribe to all they are saying, nor how they are saying it. However, the general content is - as far as I can tell, being a layperson - better than most other stuff which I have come across (happy to receive suggestions if you should know other sources).

Therefore, this is something, which I would like you to watch and take note of its essence.

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“That’s what you would use if you wanted to make SARS-CoV2”.

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“Pleolipoviridae. It actually starts to look an awful lot like SARS-CoV 2. … Under the electron microscope this would just look like SARS-CoV2. Wow. Isn’t that interesting. … Instead you have Andy Kaufmann … say ‘you can’t isolate it’.”

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“‘Viruses. The kind that make you sick.’ They are not going to talk about the 99.999% of viruses [and phages] that help you.”

“To review: Thomas Brock, PCR. Read the letters between him and [Joshua] Lederberg… everything goes back to phages… Phages, phages, phages. That’s how the make synthetic viruses. Thats how they use CRISPR. CRISPR uses phages… If you want to use a single cell organism to make some type of synthetic virus, which could infect and cause a transfection, you would use [a phage] that looks like SARS-CoV2!”

These clips, in my view, are highly relevant, because they seem to suggest a very plausible biological description for a) the high number of positive tests during Covid being due to known but unspecified background noise from such [phages]. And also, b) a possible explanation of “symptoms” in some cases. DISCLAIMER: this is what I get from these clips. It doesn’t have to be an accurate understanding. It may be an accurate understanding of what was said, but not what actually happened. However, this should be given very close scrutiny by the larger public. I would like to see “experts” debating these hypothesis (by Dr. Couey, if I am not mistaken).

In any case, it is indeed striking how the whole issue of “phages” should not have been more present in the public over the past years, if not decades. The difficult distinction between “phages” and “viruses”, together with the overall rationale of mere RNA-viruses causing the pandemic, or of injection behind the barrier of exposure to immunize against infection, when biologists such as Couey contradict that something like a pandemic could result from it, all of this together requires a very thorough examination. All the more so since the overlap between prominent scientists on both sides of the “us/them divide” is very concerning.

Thank you for reading this piece the whole way! I will now go and listen to some Beethoven!

“Russell, in his ‘Impact of Science on Society,’ goes on to talk about how one could program a society to think snow is black rather than white:”

“First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

This was written nearly 75 years ago. Today, it is evident how such a program has been implemented long ago, taking children away from their parents, if not altogether, then at least temporarily for “education” at an increasingly early age (“not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten”).

In a similar manner, those who hold opinions contrary to the majority (or a perceived majority) are deemed more and more to have ‘a morbid taste of eccentricity’. This is the case even within the so-called Freedom Movement, where asking questions about the integrity of “leaders” is becoming to be a no-go, just as much as it was a no-go back in 2020 when the “leaders” of mainstream politics and science conspired in order to get everybody on board with totalitarian “countermeasures” against a “deadly pandemic”.

With the great number of inconsistencies among official narratives regarding the “pandemic” being apparent to even the “mainstream” it has become increasingly likely that an operation might be under way to “make snow appear black”. That is to say: An illusion of consensus may very well have been created about an issue which seems to be almost as basic as the color of snow, namely the nature of viruses as being causative agents of deadly disease — and thus of worldwide pandemics.

How would such an operation have to be conducted? Well, if you wanted, for whatever reason, make the world believe that viruses pose such a threat, you would have to make sure that any opposition to such a statement would have to be controlled within a very narrow spectrum of debate, in which you orchestrate a very lively debate. For example the question of “existence of virus” or of “isolation of virus”. But by no means would you want people to take a look at what you are actually taking about. You would also want to make sure that people stay focused on the success of some heros, and the tragic plight of others. But by no means let people make up their mind themselves about what is relevant. For example questions like: How can RNA pandemic? What is the rationale of injecting people into the muscle if you want to boost their immune system? Questions of the kind Dr. Jonathan Couey has been asking for years now. And which will eventually lead to an answer to the question of the color of snow.

History

For remarkably many people “in the movement” it seems to be more important to rally behind their perceived heroes than to consider the possibility that — as has been done before — the resistance (which the perpetrators surely will have expected to be significant) should be broken up by way of false flag operations.

A very prominent case of false flag has been conducted in the resistance against the Nazis during WWII. Operation Market Garden was designed to get to the industrial heartland of the German Reich, the Ruhr Area, in the fall of 1944. If successful, the war would have been over by Christmas 1944. If successful, the Nazis would also not have been able to ship their assets abroad, as they started to do just weeks before Operation Market Garden went ahead. Consequently, Operation Market Garden had to be thwarted by the Nazi international. Not to win the war for the Nazis. That was not a realistic goal then (Vera Sharav believes it is the goal now). The goal back in 1944 was to run down the clock, so that the assets could get stored away. Say in South America.

In charge of making sure that goal was accomplished was a German Prince and SS-Officer, who, as kids are made believe, “switched his allegiance to the allies”. Later, that Prince, Bernhard, went on to found the Malthusian World Wide Fund (together with another man of German descent, who, in turn, later was to go on the record to state he wanted to be “born again as a deadly virus” to rid the world of overpopulation, in good Malthusian fashion. Note to Dr. Couey: here is an early attempt to get the world to believe the ‘deadly virus’ narrative).

Just a few days before Operation Market Garden was to go ahead, Bernhard was put in charge of the Dutch Command in Brussels just in time to thwart the arrest of a double-agent nicknamed “King Kong”, whom he put in charge of taking the plans of the operation behind enemy lines. The drive to the German industry’s heart choked at the Bridge at Arnhem in September of 1944. Even though the German army eventually surrendered in May of 1945, these nine month were enough for the Nazis to ship most of their assets abroad, according to a plan which was revealed to the U.S. Senate after the war.

Ten years after the fateful Battle at Arnhem, it was, again, Prince Bernhard who convened the first meeting of the Bilderberg Group right there, in Oosterbeek, a suburb of Arnhem, a mere 7 Kilometers away from the Bridge the Nazis were able to keep under their control due to the treason of Lindemann and his oligarchical handlers. At the meeting in 1954 the reintroduction of capital into the European economy was decided (apart from the creation of the EU’s predecessor, the common market). How convenient that the matter of German external debt had been settled one year earlier at the London Agreement on German External Debt by another former I.G. Farben man, Hermann Josef Abs.

The official agenda at Bilderberg was said to have been the fight of Communism, the unification of Europe and economic problems. Remeber: Narrow spectrum of debate. Group Think. Do not start to think about what really might have been discussed behind those closed doors!

What is the lesson to be learned?

Together with the huge number of False-Flag-Operations conducted throughout history, the fact that subverting the opposition from within has been applied especially by oligarchical operations should make us weary of “unity” being the most prominent virtue to observe in the fight for freedom. In fact, to establish a desire for unity within a group is the most powerful weapon for any one power wishing to destroy that group — provided the infiltration of agents of influence beholden to the aggressor has been accomplished first. It is very easy for such agents to act presidential, stay aloof, and give a bad name to those who ask questions about the integrity of prominent figures or organisations.

Tragically, many people seem to have lost every capacity for thinking for themselves. This is a tragedy, because “individual sovereignty” apparently is what these people want to retain. A sovereign mind, however, is only truly sovereign if it is capable to resist (peer) group pressure and focus on the fundamental issues.

Fundamental in a struggle is not who you are fighting with, or how many you are fighting with, but what you are fighting for! A sovereign mind knows that one has to be prepared to continue the fight even in an unfortunate event when you find yourself isolated. It is the reason why which you need to have a clear understanding of. You want to do the right thing. Not just run with a pack.

The capacity for reason is what distinguishes man from animals. Animals, sheep in particular, stay within the group. They feel lost on their own. Man, on the other hand, has the ability to continue without any assistance from other people over a long period of time. The Human Soul is connected to the transcendental. It can, as Viktor Frankl showed, retain a sense of purpose even through the most horrible adversity. But only if it is morally healthy.

Interestingly, the adversaries of humanity, the transhumanists, eugenicists, Malthusians, deny this human capacity of reason. There is no free will, they say. Humans are hackable, they say. Which is why they have been investing for a long time in psychic research of the weirdest kind, only to engineer a way to take away from man free will and the capacity for morality and reason. Tavistock is the name which is most closely tied to this kind of psychological warfare. Group think, is what they want to create and gain control over “the masses”. In order to do that, they have to create a culture of depravity. They have to take away the concept of beauty, and of the sublime.

They have made a lot of progress, don’t fool yourself about it. But they are not nearly where they want (and need) to be in order to destroy Humanity.

Some people take offense in my keeping to ask questions. I seek answers from people who are, or want to be, considered leaders. I will continue to do so, and I will continue to explain why I think this is the right thing to do in a situation like the one we find ourselves in.

I have nothing against Reiner Fuellmich personally. I met him. He seems a nice guy. However, he has a problem. Which is significant from a moral standpoint. And, forgive me for being old-fashioned: A true leader of a true freedom movement needs to keep his personal conduct beyond any kind of doubt. They need to be a shining example. “Noble Lies” are intolerable!

Consequently, I have a problem with the way Reiner Fuellmich is hailed as a hero, now more so, maybe, than ever.

We don’t know that! We need to take a closer look!

The mere fact that he is in jail is not enough for him to be called a hero. Christian Lindemann, the King Kong of WWII, had been put in jail by the Germans, and was considered a hero for some time.

Yes, the German Judiciary has been conducting a show-trial against Fuellmich. But they have conducted show-trials against people such as Sucharit Bhakdi, who have not once shown any sign of moral slack. That Fuellmich’s trial is a scandal does not necessarily mean that what Fuellmich did was ok. I have documented extensively the many oddities of this case which happened long before Fuellmich was apprehended in Mexico. He has not been forthright about that, at all. Those who hail him today should know this. It should give them pause.

If Reiner Fuellmich is the leader which many people want to see in him, he needs to come clean. Clean about his personal involvement with Scientology. And people should know that campaigning for victims of psychological abuse has been a trademark of Scientology from very early on. It doesn’t mean that those who are mistreated aren’t victims. But it does mean that the motives of those who are campaigning are unclear. Remember, Group Think. The engineering of Group Think is not exclusive to Scientology, but it has been a key feature of said organisation.

If Reiner Fuellmich is the leader he says he is, he should act in a sublime way.

Reiner Fuellmich should call out the cover up which is being perpetrated by many of the very people who now prominently defend him. He ought to call out their denial to discuss the serious doubts about the existence of “pandemic potential” altogether, as Dr. Jonathan Couey has been highlighting for many years now. Doctor Couey has been let down by Reiner’s “Friend” Robert F. Kennedy jr., today HHS-Secretary of the USA. A true “Leader” will recognise that his prison term is (virtually) nothing compared to the continuation of a criminal narrative being upheld, which at any time could lead to the same regime of “mandatory immunisations” starting all over again. Even if it didn’t, there is ample evidence by now, that stopping the injection of our children immediately, is what must be done.

Excerpts from stream.gigaohm.bio

In this respect, it is very relevant how many of the prominent defenders of Reiner Fuellmich are continuing their silence not only about the work of Dr. Jonathan Couey (), but also support in one way or another the narrative of ‘pandemic potential’. Dr. Couey has recently done another very imortant show in which he pointed out that the whole research in “Virology” is primarily research that has been done on phages. Bacteriophages, according to Couey, are the most abundant source of packaged genetic material in nature. Phages have been accepted to exist by both, Virologists as well as those who say Viruses don’t exist. Very early on during the research of what phages do, and what they are, the term “virus” emerged — and has taken over public debate completely. Even though it is practicably impossible to distinguish between phages and viruses. I include Mark Kulacz () in this reference, Dr. Couey’s researcher friend for many years, who has dug deep into the biographies of the scientists which, collectively, provide a disturbing impression of continuity of research during WWII (and before) including the present promoters of “pandemic potential” and “Team Worst Case Scenario”.

Group Think. What would be gained for the perpetrators from having Reiner Fuellmich in prison and attention focused on “his plight” by way of a group (!) of “leaders” (growing in numbers) campaigning on his behalf?

If things go as planned, “the movement” will succeed in further destabilizing the established institutions of society. The judiciary will continue to be compromised. “Justice will be done” will become a hollow phrase which fewer and fewer people believe in. Reiner Fuellmich eventually might be released (“proven a victim”), and possibly join other leaders, such as RFKjr, in “making us healthy again”. Without having spent just one word on the important questions raised by Jonathan Couey (and very few others).

Even if it should not work out quite as planned, at least “the movement” will be focused on continuing the “fight for Reiner” — and not think about whether pandemics are possible at all (which is a very different question from whether “Covid was a plandemic”).

I wish Reiner Fuellmich the best, personally. But I know that he has to pivot for that “best” to come about. He has to prove Juval Harari wrong and show that Humans, indeed, do have free will, and act in a sublime way.

Why? Because she re-posted an old article of hers about “the virus” and why “viruses are real”. Her first line read:

“I think it is important for us not to fight over this, but we can of course disagree”

Well, she may be “of the opinion” - but it can’t be “thinking” which got her to that opinion on it being important for “us” not to fight. No evidence of reason. Besides: who is “us”?

Anyway. Meryl Nass went on to give her best in making her readers see what the devastating consequences of “denying the existence of a virus” would be: “We” would be “playing into the globalists’ hands…”.

Thank you, Meryl. I prefer to think for myself!

As you were softly “nudging” your readers (“Do you see…?”), here is what you seem to have been losing sight of yourself: There is no logic, and even less reason behind your argument!

No, quite to the contrary: The need for the shutting down of biowarfare-labs is not in any way contingent on the question of SARS-COV-2 being a virus or not. Why would it be of consequence? You tell me! You explain why what is developed in those labs has to be “a virus” for it to be dangerous? Or why the substances developed in those “labs” would have to be causative agents for infection (as people commonly understand the term) to be dangerous? It can be dangerous without “jumping” from an exposed person to another, and that is, simply, for the harm the substance causes to those exposed to it in ANY way! It is not necessary to ban “Gain-of-function” research (and development of applications from such “research”) only if it is a viral agent, or a virus. Those Biolabs are dangerous either way. What they produce, or can produce, is dangerous, and the means to spread these substances are in no way contingent on “a virus”. Do you see?

On the other hand, don’t you see that the way you argue plays into the hands of “the deep state”?

You are holding up the narrative of biosecurity risks by provision of “Nature”. Viruses being the main culprits (so far). However, as Dr. Couey has been pointing out repeatedly, scares have been carefully constructed around the issue of a virus, and “we” should have a natural interest to re-visit the story we have been told.

The way you seem to be “thinking” to do it just doesn’t cut it, Meryl!

We can’t allow to be forbidden to question a highly questionable narrative, simply by positing that if we dare question it, we would be “playing into the hands of the deep-state”. That’s ridiculous, Meryl!

Why don’t you join researchers such as Dr. Jonathan Couey (, who was let go by a friend of yours for questioning another friend of yours, who continues to see an “unmet need” against what Dr. Couey challenges him to explain) or Mark Kulacz () in finding out the reasons for so many odd “coincidences” around the same people, such as Dr. Joshua Lederberg, being involved in discussing very gross ideas at the CIBA Conference in London in 1962 (a mere 15 years after the Nuremberg code was published) and going on to develop the “idea” of “biosecurity”.

And it is not the end of the list of “coincidences”. Another one concerns questions around the death of Dr. Annelisa Kilbourn. Which may be connected to just the same question Dr. Couey keeps raising: RNA can not pandemic! Of all people, Dr. Kilbourn was the scientist who is said to have discovered the proof for zoonosis of Ebola from apes to humans in 2001. And shortly thereafter, Dr. Kilbourn is said to have died in a plane crash in Gabon, Africa.

Sure, planes go down, but just for this crash there is no record with the authorities in Gabon.

And, strangely enough, three other passengers who were said to have been on the plane, went unharmed. Only Dr. Kilbourn dies. Things happen. Mark Kulacz has just done another memorial show for Dr. Kilbourn, in which he said, that she died young, “making the pandemic possible — yet is unknown (or overlooked).”

Given the unprecedented consequences of said pandemic, should we not investigate such leads as to what really was found, who found it, and who was involved? As I have pointed out earlier, you friend Dr. Malone is always not very far from these key people.

A Coincidence, you think?

Cohen, a regular contributor to the REDACTED program, on March 6th had an appearance on that show (which has 2.61 Million subscribers), in which he was asked to explain the detail of how RFKjr did “ignore one of his top avisors during the pandemic”.

I am happy that Dan Cohen was able to raise this crucial question about Kennedy’s integrity to a level where millions of subscriber can see it. For it is deeply shocking that Kennedy should not understand the implications of Couey’s concern about the general possibility of pandemics. It is this premise of an ostensibly existing threat from possible global pandemics that most of the infringements, or abolitions of Human Rights, are based upon. To not thoroughly investigate those premises when somebody who was essential for the writing of his latest book, is not what any responsible leader would do.

So why does Mr. Kennedy do just that?

As for how much I agree with Dr. Couey:

Dan Cohen went on to do an interview with Dr. Couey for Dan Cohen’s Uncaptured Media, the raw recording of which is on Dr. Couey’s channel “Gigaohm Biological”.

In this, Couey criticizes those who take Depopulation agendas seriously. He says, that this was overblown (my word), and that it was about changing the way the Health system works, because they do not have to kill us, because the population pyramid is tipping over.

I would rather Mr Couey be a little more reluctant about dismissing such scenarios outright. The way he reacts is similar to what he criticizes other people for, such as Denis Rancourt, who for Couey dismisses the significance of the population pyramid too readily.

He, Couey, as well as Mark Kulacz and others have shown that there are disturbing continuities of essentially malthusian, Ueber-Menschen attitudes around. Just in the same way as it would be a sin to not question Mr Kennedy on his ignorance of Couey’s concerns about the pandemic scam, it would also be a sin to assume that those plans to relieve “mother earth” from an ostensible “burden” of too many useless people are no longer what certain elites are planning for.

Why? Because those “ideas”, which are real thought-crimes, are hatched over multiple generations, and are easily disguised as being merely “about money”, or “power”, or “the health system”. It takes a historical perspective to expose them.

Here is the transcript of the clip posted above:

Natali: All right. But did RFK Jr. ignore one of his top advisors during the pandemic? Dr. Jay Cooey helped RFK Jr. write his book about the pandemic. And he says that he told RFK Jr. that his work showed that the pandemic could not have happened naturally. And he was shrugged off and ignored. Now, given that RFK Jr.'s promises as the head of Health and Human Services is that he will explore all avenues when it comes to scientific analysis, is this story something that will give us pause that perhaps there are things that RFK Jr. is prone to ignore? Well, Dan Cohen from Uncaptured Media has been in touch with Dr. Couey, and he brings us this story. Dan, thank you so much. Can you... Give us the background of how you came across Dr. Tui's work, and what his claims are.

Dan Cohen: Well, I started to suspect that the idea of a pandemic was questionable by my research on, in particular, the lab leak story. And what I saw is that not only the lab leak, but the natural origin story, both sides of this were basically being promoted by... Deep state mouthpieces, whether it was, you know, USAID and any defunded outlets on one side. And then at the same time, having fact checkers say that that the other side was false. You know, the intelligence agency saying that. we think maybe it came from a lab, or we didn't think it come from a lab, or Tom Cotton, or whoever it was, President Trump in his first term, saying it came from a lab. And then the fact checkers would say: “No, no, no, it definitely did not come from a lab, but not definitely, we don't know.”

And this has gone on for years and years. And so I started to look at the way – and we've discussed this at UNREDACTED before – the way death certificates, for example, were flipped on their head. They created a new way of writing death certificates specifically for COVID-19 in order to inflate the death count.

The same thing with PCR testing, which is – Everyone just accepted that you stick this thing up your nose and it magically tells you if there's a virus, a specific virus there. There's a huge amount of fraud that went along with that. And so I started to suspect that maybe this thing is not what they're saying.

I ended up being… I got in touch with Jonathan J. Couey, who was a professor, an academic biologist at the University of Pittsburgh. He was fired for correctly saying that the COVID jabs are something called transfections. And that's a term that is not used in media much, but that's what it was from the start.

It wasn't a new technology. It was something that actually existed. But my question was, is this thing even biologically possible? Because everything I'm seeing suggests it's not. And Jonathan J. Couey, his position was that this was actually biologically impossible, so that basically an RNA virus, this is his position, cannot create a pandemic. And Jonathan Couey, he ended up…, he was hired by RFK jr to write the book… to help write and research the book “The Wuhan Cover-Up” which was RFK's big book on supposedly how the lab leak happened. And in the middle of writing this book Jay Couey, who really was very confident that the SARS-CoV-2 did come from the lab in Wuhan, he had basically gone back to the start and he realized that this is all biologically impossible, that it's nonsense.

And he went to, well, … let's… actually, we have a clip of him explaining what happened here. Let's maybe we can run that.

“‘This book would not have been possible without the expertise and invaluable insights provided by Jonathan Jay Couey…’ and then a bunch of other people. First name that he mentioned. Not only that but I'm in the index and I'm quoted in that book six times. The last quote in that book is that they wouldn't even need a virus to do this.

Now the thing that he won't tell you and won't talk to me about anymore and Children's Health Defense, I believe actually fired me for, is that I think that these people are covering this up. I taught them, before this book was published, I taught all of the people that worked on this book, the biology that I'm going to teach you now, in much more detail, with much more questions and many more arguments. And I won them all. And you're not going to find any evidence of that in this book, because, as Bobby told me to my face, ‘this is not the book for those answers’.

And I'm sorry, but if we're going to save America, we need those answers right now!”

Clayton: So, Dan, I'm just curious. Why? Just a simple question. Why?

DC: Well, that's the million-dollar question, Clayton. I mean, he is credited, as he said there, as the first person in the acknowledgments without whom the book would not have been possible. And he says at the end of the book that you don't actually even need a virus to do what was done. So...

The fact that he ignored his own top advisor and told him this is not the book for that is a big scandal, in my opinion. And now... RFK has ascended to very powerful position. He's the head of HHS, and it seems like he's playing, well, to put it nicely, he's playing politics.

So, I mean, this is a question that I think RFK needs to be asked directly: “Why did you ignore your own top advisor whom you credited in your book as... ‘This book would have been impossible without him’?”

And I think more people need to reach out to Jonathan J. Couey and ask him what he thinks and ask him to explain, well, why do you think this?

I'm not a biologist or virologist. Personally, I can't assess those claims. I don't have the scientific background, but he definitely should be heard out!

Natali: Right. And so the thing about, you know,… I had I had a lot of hope in RFK Jr. as in this powerful position. I have not seen fluoride mandate that he promised on the day one of the Trump administration. And now he put out this week something that said that anti-Semitism is one of the great threats to our national health. And obviously... Where's the science that shows that? Do you think… I mean, I don't want to see him play politics. And now we have evidence that that's happening. So what's your take on that?

DC: Well, you know, in 2023, when I first started to see RFK had a very pro-Israel position, in contrast to all of his talk about the tyranny during the COVID era and lockdowns and mandates, that suggested to me: “if he does not see what's happening, you know, the Gaza Strip or the West Bank as tyranny, where in the Gaza Strip, people are... surrounded by remote control machine guns, that is the picture of tyranny, then there's something that is not right or not honest.” And if you remember in January 2023, the piece that we did here on REDACTED, we did a big piece on, in fact, a series on Peter Hotez. And Peter Hotez partnered with the Israel Lobby outfit the Anti-Defamation League claiming that RFKjr was spreading dangerous misinformation, and he got… he took credit publicly and got RFK kicked off of meta, so facebook and instagram he got him suspended by those by those platforms.

And then he partnered with the ADL and said… this is they said “anti-vax is a new form of anti-Semitism”, which is obviously just total nonsense. If you're if you're critical or you question like pharmaceutical products, then you hate Jews. That's completely insane and frankly, insulting. Honestly, they're just exploiting anti-Semitism.

So now it comes full circle, because RFK is basically tacitly partnered with Peter Hotez, who got him censored by creating some interagency task force and claiming that anti-Semitism — which he just means criticism of Israel — is some kind of public health crisis in our universities and college campuses. And so this is another... clear indicator or clear evidence that RFK is playing politics.

It's not about public health. It's not about saving our children or actually stopping antisemitism or anything like that. And so it's I've been very skeptical and critical of him basically since I first saw that. That suggested to me or demonstrated to me that he's not the principled figure that he portrayed himself as.

I have found it to be highly relevant to hold leaders or even “icons” to account for their actions, which includes general trustworthiness. The public has a right to know, when (self-proclaimed or elected) leaders apply the “noble lie” (which doesn’t exist, as the term in itself is a propagandised mistranslation). In this respect it was that I dared to question Reiner Fuellmich for his denial of any Scientology connection, which had been explicitly raised in a documentary from the late 1990s in Germany. In it (which in essence had been confirmed by court rule, contrary to Fuellmich’s claim that was a fabrication) it was alleged not that Fuellmich is a Scientologist, but that he did the “dirty work” for that organization). You can read the history of all respective research here. That Reiner Fuellmich lied about not knowing what Scientology even was, became evident when in court rulings Fuellmich was quoted as having reported competitors to the police for “being Scientologists”, i.e. something fishy, possibly criminal that needs reporting to the authorities. It is in this meaning that Fuellmich himself had made use of the term well before that documentary was even aired. Later, he wanted to make the public believe that he “didn’t know”. He wants to have the cake and eat it at the same time, it appears.

Further, to underscore the relevance of establishing certainty about Fuellmich’s possible involvement with Scientology, may I recommend this article by .

In this respect it is noteworthy to highlight the fact that among the prominent defenders of Reiner Fuellmich today are at least two protagonists who appear to have a Scientology background themselves. What a remarkable coincidence! These two are the wife of Dr. Peter Breggin, Ginger Ross Breggin, and the German psychologist and “forensic expert”, Dr. Andrea Christidis.

Dr. Peter Breggin has been on the record for his wife’s scientology past, however, he may have been holding back some interesting detail, according to several records [1, 2] still available on the internet, as yet undisputed. Apparently Ginger Ross Breggin on February 3rd, 1994, issued an affidavit about her past in the Guardians Office, the intelligence arm of Scientology, which was disbanded following operation Snow White. According to that “affidavit”, Virginia (Ginger) Ross had been married to Fred Ulan, a scientologist so high-ranking that he was among the two officials who in January of 1976 handled a press conference in which they confirmed the acquisition of the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater for Scientology. That operation had until then been a top-secret “Program LRH Security. Codename: Power” ordered by L Ron Hubbard himself, according to a December 19, 1979, report by Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Stafford [“Church entered Clearwater on path of deceit”].

After the marriage to Mr. Ulan was ended, Ginger Ross later married Dr. Peter Breggin MD, who had been a prominent critic of clinical psychiatry. Scientology also is opposing clinical psychiatry.

Ginger Breggin later publicly distanced herself from Scientology, according to her husband, who told an interviewer that his wife “is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back”.

If that is indeed so, it makes it even harder to believe that Ms. Breggin should not have taken note of the fact that Reiner Fuellmich demonstrably lied about his knowledge of Scientology while instead obfuscated a clearly existing connection with operations involving Scientology. Maybe she wants to reassess the evidence concerning Mr. Fuellmich?

Dr. Andrea Christidis (formerly Andrea Jacob), the second “expert” to testify on behalf of Reiner Fuellmich, seems to have been featured in a German radio program in early 2000 as an ex-Scientologist. There, one “Andrea Jakob” (sic!) is portrayed as a victim, who even “suffered a cardiac arrest” due to the stress, and barely managed to escape alive. After that “traumatic experience” Jakob, according to the broadcast, goes on to study psychology.

Andrea Jacob, too, goes on to study psychology. Failing to complete her degree in Germany, she finishes a PhD at a college in India (which later is at the centre for trading degrees for money), and becomes involved in lobbying against transgression in psychiatric settings such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.

Both, (Dr. Peter) Breggin, as well as Andrea Christidis, Ph.D., have been calling attention to the plight of Reiner Fuellmich. And both do so by taking explicitly sides with Reiner Fuellmich, and against Viviane Fischer, Fuellmich’s long-time co-host at the Corona Investigation Committee. Breggin even goes so far as to call Viviane Fischer “a mastermind behind the accusations made against him” [Fuellmich].

At this point it seems necessary to pause for a moment: The question is not wether the German Judiciary is right in their handling of the Fuellmich case. It is probably very wrong, and has been so from the very beginning! Just to make this clear. The handling of the case seems so out of whack that one can get an impression of an intentional scam, which would, of course, play nicely into any script designed to show Reiner Fuellmich the victim of cruelty, even of „psychological torture“.

Instead, the question seems to be: is it possible that we, the public are being taken for a ride? Is it possible that the whole affair is a set-up, designed to “steering the plandemonium on behalf of some powerful interested party”, as Mathew Crawford has put it? In such a set-up, if it existed, Fuellmich could be a participant, wittingly, or unwittingly.

Is it a coincidence that “Scientology”, or “methods employed by Scientology” are all over the place in this whole affair, up to the extend that we are meant to think of coincidences that two prominent “defenders” of Reiner Fuellmich have been, or seem to have been closely connected to Scientology?

If is correct, then it might not at all be a coincidence that (not only) in the case of Fuellmich Scientology keeps popping up. Ehret has been highlighting a concerning parallel between secret societies and organizations devoted to mystery cult practises, UFO disclosure, and people close to or even within the new administration. Scientology is often considered a organization which is after people’s money. However, whatever it may be after, it is built on the idea of Xenu. Interestingly, Dr. Robert Malone, who has virtually taken over the “freedom movement” is not only seeing dangers in viruses, but also in UFOs. One more reason for a one-world-government, top-down-approach, in which human dignity, individual sovereignty and God (He bestowed inalienable rights onto man) seem to not matter very much.

Ah, of course. Malone also came out in favor of Reiner Fuellmich.

The article on Malone’s substack named Fuellmich a “political prisoner”, who had been “ousted without forewarning” by, it is alleged, Viviane Fischer.

Malone is thus repeating the pro-Fuellmich narrative, blaming Viviane Fischer (just as Peter Breggin, who previously got publicly attacked by Malone), effectively deepening the rift within the “movement”.

Malone, and hardly anyone else, did not do their due dilligence and check the facts.

There are well-known dissidents in Germany who were very critical of how particularly Fuellmich had handled the situation regarding funding of the Corona Investigation Committee (which led to the arrest and trial in the first place). One of these critics, who so far has remained silent about it in public, is apparently Professor Ulrike Kaemmerer who, according to email-communication which has now surfaced, in August of 2022 was part of a group of prominent “mediators” trying behind closed doors to get Fuellmich and Fischer back on to the same page. In an email dated August 28, 2022, Kaemmerer is quoted criticising Fuellmich, in translation:

“(…) What do you think, Reiner in particular, how many thousands of people put their trust in the absolute honesty and voluntary nature of the committee, because that was always communicated in such a way that no one makes any money from it and everyone is just fighting for the good cause. I can already see the critics and the fact checkers getting riled up if this should come out... ‘Nothing but a rip-off.’ A nightmare for the movement critical of the governments!!!! (…)

I am a financial non-professional, but (…) I cannot understand how donations and earmarked funds can flow into a private home, for example. In my opinion, this is a no-go and how should that be communicated transparently to the outside world? (…)

Reiner, you have already made several concrete plans to return to the USA. How will that work? Surely all the financial issues must be resolved beforehand? Please make sure to clarify a clear and transparent financial overview in a timely manner, without even the slightest suspicion of favoritism! (…)”

Unfortunately, Kaemmerer chose to remain silent when the CIC blew up in public in 2022, instead of taking a stand that it was not at all as black-and-white as Fuellmich and his camp have continuously tried to frame it.

And from another email, which we have obtained, it becomes evident that Fuellmich can not have been as surprised about not having been invited to the CIC-session three days later. August 30th was a Tuesday. At 14:25 he (and the group of ‘mediators’) received an „URGENT/IMPORTANT“ email from Viviane Fischer

The message reads (in translation, emph. added):

Hi Reiner,

In agreement with the above list of recipients, I would like to give you one last chance to settle this matter. The deadline for the following actions is tomorrow, Wednesday, August 31, 2022, at 8:00 p.m.

1. storage of the gold at Degussa in Berlin with the Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. [a.k.a. CIC], with simultaneous verification of authenticity – your consent/signature on the storage contract is required for this today, as well as appropriate instructions to Jens, following that I will commission tomorrow's transport.

2. Assignment of the second-ranking land charge for €550,000 in favor of Wucherpfennig (now apparently, per your statement, an “owner’s land charge”) to the Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. [CIC], proof of which is to be provided by sending me the assignment deed and the registration authorization from the notary

3. Written declaration of intent to provide information and negotiate with regard to the invoices which the law firm Fuellmich issued to the committee. On this topic, we need proof of payments to Cathrin Behn and, if applicable, to other employees by tomorrow evening.

If these measures, which are necessary to secure the organization's assets, are not taken, we will have to assume that you are not interested in solving the problem and want to permanently deprive the committee of the funds that belong to it.

This is in contradiction to our statutes, to our public appearance and to justice and the law.

The experts came to us on the committee and people supported us because they trusted our volunteer work and our seriousness. Should this trust now turn out to be unjustified, we will have to inform them.

If the deadline passes without result, we will first inform our most important contacts and cooperation partners about the events. This will also be CHD, where Renate [Holzeisen] has been on the board with Cathrine Austin Fitts for a few months.

Regardless of the registration of our company, it is clear from our statutes that the funds are not individually available to any of the shareholders and that even in the event of failure, the assets are bound.

None of us gets any of the company's funds for personal or private activities.

Best regards, Viviane

Fuellmich, it appears, was not “ousted without forewarning” as Malone and other claim. Instead he seems to have been aware of a deadline, this shows. He can not have been surprised, as these items seem to describe what Viviane Fischer mentioned in her explanation on September 2nd, for why Fuellmich “pending some questions for which we [the CIC and mediators] seek answers” would not be part of the CIC.

If anything, then it could be argued that if Ulrike Kaemmerer, as well as Wolfgang Wodarg, or Renate Holzeisen, who seem to have all been copied in on these communications, had spoken up and signalled that what Fuellmich said in public about being “ousted” was not equivalent to the state of discussion within a larger group, it would have been nearly impossible for Fuellmich to assume the position of an ‘innocent victim’. Wodarg was more or less the only one to publicly comment on this, which made him a target of the pro-Fuellmich camp as well.

If more prominent activists had spoken up, in all likelihood it would have resulted in more pressure on Fuellmich to assume responsibility.

However, here is another twist to the story:

What if Reiner Fuellmich was not allowed to do settle peacefully? Is it possible that Reiner Fuellmich has been acting on an order?

In any case, another set of messages show that Fuellmich had apparently wanted to cooperate. On Sunday, September 4th, the group of ‘mediators’ had “agreed on milestones”, as Viviane Fischer phrased it in her email sent to the group at eight minutes to noon on September 5th, 2022. These milestones included

1. Gold – I will draw up the contracts with the depository right away, Reiner will sign them so that the deposit can take place on Wednesday.

2. Reiner is submitting a notarized acknowledgement of debt with a submission clause today because of the €700,000 liquidity reserve (so that foreclosure is possible immediately). I am happy to personally cover the costs if requested, and the deletion authorization for the second-ranking land charge will be sent to Martin.

3. I list the receipts and expenses for 2020News (renovation, rent for the new

rooms, etc.)

4. I return the alleged license payment to Ovis Callidus (€1,190), the money is still untouched in the account

5. I return the rent for the committee room that was paid twice by the standing order

Reiner Fuellmich did not contradict the general thrust of Fischer’s memo, nor did he seem to have had major objections, which his reply some 140 minutes later that same day indicates. He was, however, insisting that access to the Gold should only be limited to himself and Viviane Fischer.

“(…) it must be ensured that the gold can only be realized by both of us together upon storage, and it must be ensured that after realization, everything ends up in an account that only both of us can access.” — Reiner Fuellmich, Sep 5, 2022

This has to bee seen as a rejection of Ulrike Kaemmerer’s suggestion from a week or so earlier, where she preferred a solution including all 4 original founding members of the CIC:

“… and the proceeds can and may only be mobilized with several signatures with equal rights (i.e. at least Viviane and Reiner, but preferably all 4 lawyers of the committee).” — Ulrike Kaemmerer, Aug, 28, 2022

What this means is that Reiner Fuellmich and his camp of followers have been accusing Viviane Fischer incorrectly of scheming against Fuellmich, “ousting him without notice”, and being “a mastermind of the accusations made against him” (Breggin).

In fact, Fuellmich even was prepared to play along, and drafted a text for an “explanation” in which he was suggesting to downplay the controversy as follows:

“Right at the beginning [of the CIC session on Sep. 9, 2022] , we should make a joint declaration, which, for example, might read as follows: It only became clear after further discussion that this was the-orange-and-the-peel-problem: everyone wanted the orange, but it turned out that one person only needed the flesh and the other only the peel.” — Reiner Fuellmich, Sept. 5, 2022

What then happened remains unclear. For some reason, Fuellmich chose to go public about the CIC in a very peculiar way, on his own, and using a language which, on the background of the existing communication, can only be characterised as manipulative, designed to make him look good, and others (Fischer, Wodarg) look bad.

In this recording, Fuellmich posited that the dispute had been about “professionalism” vs. nepotism, with him being the professional. He also introduced a completly new issue, which had never played a role during the mediation effort, which is an allegation of censorship against Viviane Fischer. Why would he make his colleagues look bad, when both sides had demonstrably agreed to be in agreement. Orange and peel. Why, Mr. Fuellmich?

Another question remains: Why did everyone else keep quiet and let the whole thing escalate into a “good-guy-bad-girl” play, when in effect it seems to have been an issue over a number of irregularities and inconsistencies, committed for the most part by Reiner Fuellmich as the record shows, which were shared between a substantial number of leaders?

Which brings us back to the initial setting above: Any “powerful interested party” could hardly have wished for a greater number of “coincidences”, and a better way of self-destruction of “the freedom movement” during the “plandemonium”.

Disclaimer, borrowed from Mathew Crawford: Being named in this article or mentioned in any document or graph linked to from this article is not a judgement. Make your own judgement!

Once upon a time … I was a fan of Children’s Health Defense. And of Robert F. Kennedy jr.

I volunteered my time to work for them, later got hired on a pityfully small compensation. Because I thought it was for the cause of making the world a better place for children to grow up in, I thought everyone was doing it.

I even worked six month to translate (what I thought was) an important book, “Turtles All The Way Down - Vaccine Science And Myths”, into my native German language. And donated most of my fee to Children’s Health Defense so that they could build up their team in Germany. Again, I thought that’s what everybody does: pay it forward.

I must admit: am gradually waking up to reality.

Most of it has to do with getting to know Dr. Jonathan Couey whilst working on a project with Vera Sharav. Jonathan was going to write an important chapter for “our book”, a project we had started working on right after Vera visited Nuremberg in 2022 to give the main address at the commemoration event for the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code. Dr. Couey had been hired by Robert F. Kennedy jr, to research and write for the book “The Wuhan Cover-Up”. Later he went on to work as a staff scientist for CHD.

When Dr. Couey found out that there was no science to back up the narrative of an RNA-virus causing a pandemic, and that Dr. Robert Malone (who was close to Mr. Kennedy, and was authoring books for the CHD imprint at Skyhorse Publishing) seemed to be not forthright about this crucial part of the narrative, Dr. Couey was fired by CHD. Which got me thinking.

When I, too, was let go by CHD after I had raised Alarm about Dr. Reiner Fuellmich not being forthright about his involvement in dubious proceedings involving Scientology in the past (which appears to be of some possible significance given the amount of coincidences around the possible subversion of “The Freedom Movement” by Scientologists (or those who were Scientologists in the past, or who are connected to Scientology in some way or another, as per Mathew Crawford’s research), this got me thinking even more.

What Dr. Couey, and his colleague Mark Kulacz, , have found out indicates that Ms. Vaughan was very vocal and very successful about educating the general public about the dangers of the pharmaceutical industry, and of vaccines in particular.

People may think that Couey might just be frustrated and bitter about being let go. Maybe some people think so of me, too, for writing about it. I can’t help it.

The situation is such that serious questions about what really happened keep being ignored. Those questions were expressed in a moderate way initially, but, as was also the case with Dr. Mike Yeadon, attacks on a personal level by “leaders” such as Robert Malone, facilitated the pushing out of those who dare to ask questions, such as Dr. Couey. Therefore it is even more important to give such questions the benefit of the doubt: if these concerns prove to be true (RNA not being able to pandemic, and intramuscular injection of any combination of substances being a “dumb” idea to augment the immune system), this would turn the tables completely.

Consequently, even though I would rather not question my former employer and its president, this is what I feel I have to do!

Given the fact that “Learn the Risk” was instantaneously successful starting with opposition to “SB277” in California, and that it was headed by an eloquent and experienced former pharma executive, the idea that opposition to vaccines needed to be controlled effectively does not seem far-fetched.

Whoever watches the video taken from the website learntherisk.org understands that Brandy Vaughan indeed was much more to the point, no less eloquent and, at least, equally as charming as Robert F. Kennedy jr. So, on a level playing-field her organisation might have outperformed his. If it ever was “his”. Which you may think about after watching this:

“I support the measles vaccine, I support the polio vaccine. will do nothing as HHS Secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking either of those vaccines.” — Robert F Kennedy jr.

Following Kennedy’s performance in the Confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, one must take Couey and Kulacz seriously!

Especially if you take into account that Children’s Health Defense, according to tax disclosures, when CHD and Kennedy were “branded” as “dangerous” for spreading misinformation during the height of Covid, they received large sums of money from a Vanguard fund, even though CHD ran articles which appeared to be critical of the power which Holdings such as Vanguard have. To be precise: Vanguard Charitable Endowment is “donor advised”, which leaves the loophole to say that Vanguard itself may disapprove of such donations. “Plausible deniability” is a principle which has been widely made use of over the course of time.

However, Kennedy himself remains a client of Vanguard, as of Fidelity. He also seems to have no qualms holding stock in gene technology companies.

This may all mean not much. What it does mean, though, is that Dr. Couey is right to ask questions.

As a translator of the book “Turtles All the Way Down” I would have expected Mr. Kennedy to speak “truth to power” in his nomination hearing and cite the extensive data contained in that book showing that the science in favor of vaccines is “flawed”. To put it mildly.

Instead he bowed to the dogmatic and ill-informed “questions” of politicians. Who need to get their campaigns funded for re-election.

Addendum: After publication of the first version of this article I received a message pointing out that the qoute from Mr. Kennedy’s Senate hearing was misleading, as it pertained only his support for the measles and the polio vaccines. This is correct. I amended the article. However, it must be noted that especially the “science” polio vaccines has been dealt with extensively in the “Turtles” book, showing that there is practically no science to support the existence of a “polio virus”. Likewise, the measles case is a little different, but in a similar manner, there is virtually no science to support the claim that the measles mortality was reduced substantially by the measles vaccine (according to the book published by Mr. Kennedy’s organization).

Addendum 2: Following allegations by researcher Mark Kulacz that Children’s Health Defense had misspelled Brandy Vauhan’s name, as well as discouraged readers from donating money (for a private investigation into the case, possibly), I looked up the CHD website myself.
I came across a very odd detail, which is that CHD is not only not nearly as outspoken as was Brandy Vaughan about the risks of vaccinations by intramuscular injections (where Brandy Vaughan had long campaigned against injections, as it was much more dangerous than ingestion of the same toxic substance), CHD also did effectively distort Brandy Vaughans message by portraying her (and her organisation) as “campaigners for safe vaccines”. Insinuating that these are possible. Instead, even in December of 2020, when the CHD article was penned, the learntherisk.org website explicitly stated: “This campaign challenges you to LEARN THE RISK of vaccination. Do the RESEARCH. Know the INGREDIENTS. Build up your NATURAL IMMUNITY — the ONLY type of immunity that truly works.

It appears, therefore, that Ms. Vaughan and her organisation needed to be stopped, because the opposition they led was too close to the truth at a time when it would have been very dangerous. Questioning intramuscular transfection before the roll-out had even begun. Instead of picking up the ball and run with it, CHD seemed to have been more concerned with memory-holing Brandy Vaughan, and continue to advocate for „choice“.

It was Vera Sharav who introduced me to Jonathan Couey, and we continued to work together after we “rocked the boat” unintentionally by questioning Naomi Wolf about a half-hearted commitment (Jonathan) and retweeting said question (Uwe) and both were let go by CHD (Jonathan) and Vera (Uwe). I have come to know Jonathan Couey as a very humble yet dedicated scientist who was genuinely shocked about the level of fraud and deceit being perpetrated by large parts of the scientific community.

Both of us shared a dedication to “look behind the curtain”. I know that I have to continue to investigate all discrepancies about the Covid narrative, as well as about the history we have been told. From what I understand, Jonathan feels the same, maybe even stronger, with regard to biology.

The questions which Jonathan Couey keeps asking seem to be very much to the point. Which is why I am continuing to highlight his work. I am not concerned about minor issues of style or choice of words.

As the story of the “Freedom Fighter” Prince Bernhard illustrates it is important to be aware of sabotage and treason as a distinct possibility. Anyone with a clean conscience will understand that questions need to be asked. If questions which are based on reasonable evidence or even hypothesis get brushed aside, or if the person who asks a questions gets attacked, I know that something else is going on. And I will not yield!

Below is the transcript of an interview which Jonathan Couey gave for my German blog. Due to a technical issue, some of the audio is in a sub-optimal quality, which ofis why I am happy to make it available in writing.

— So, Dr. Couey, we have gotten introduced via work which you and I have been doing on a project for Vera Sharav, Holocaust Survivor. This project is not ongoing anymore, but I am grateful for you to be available to give me, give my audience for the radio show „Gesunde Stunde“, which means „healthy hour“, an interview about the concerns you have pertaining to the crisis. Because a crisis it is, whatever may be behind it but it is a crisis which we've been experiencing for the past five years now, almost. And that's why I'm so grateful for you to be on.

But would you please tell my audience a bit of your background as to how it came to be that you were in biology. You were working eventually in the laboratories of people who earned the Nobel Prize, which is something where not many people get to work. And you were also, later you were en route to becoming a professor yourself, I mean you were a professor but not tenured yet, I understand, but please explain what was your way into biology and what did you do?

The way into Biology for Dr. Couey

— Thank you very much. I'll try to be quick. Again, thank you very much for having me on this little interview. I am a lifelong biologist. I think that's the best way to start. I had a grandmother that that. taught me to watch birds and uh mow the lawn and and catch snakes um and keep rabbits. I guess i'm just one of those kids that loved animals. My whole life I never really got into the dinosaurs, because they weren’t… you couldn't play with them and you can't raise them and you can't catch them. So I really just was into nature and wanted to be a marine biologist for a while.

And eventually I found that adults really react well when you tell them you want to be a doctor. And ever since I answered the question with, what do you want to be when you grow up? And I said, „doctor!“ I kind of somehow fell into this group. I think it was already when I was 14 years old. Because I wanted to be a veterinarian, actually, after reading „All Creatures Great and Small“. And my parents and everybody told me that „Veterinarians don't really make a very good living. You should be a doctor!“

And suddenly it just kind of fell into that way. And I went all the way to university as a young adult, as a pre-med person, saying that I'm going to get into med school. And I applied to med school actually five years in a row after college. getting waitlisted every time.

And during that period, I was teaching high school, and I actually loved it. But I just despised the other teachers that I was working with, because they had all given up on the kids.

And this was in Chicago public schools, I'd gone to university in Chicago. And so I stayed there after university. And then as luck would have it, I was making more money as a bartender. So then I bartended for a couple of years until I lost my job for another long story, that really just had to do with not respecting the idea that this guy had given me the keys to his business and I just took a night off. And he fired me.

So then I had to get another job and I ended up getting a job at the university of Chicago as a microscope and cell culture technician with a guy who actually taught me the highest level of methodology that he was using there, which at the time was a recently awarded Nobel prize, for single cell recordings of ion channels in membranes, and patch clamp recordings. So this was given to Erwin Neher and Bert Sakman in, I think 1990, might've been 1991.

And so that technique became the way that we studied all of these channels. And then people were cloning channels. And I started working for a guy at the University of Chicago who was doing in vitro measurements of potassium channels using some of these models.

And so I learned all these techniques of cell culture and gene expression in cell culture and biophysics of ion channels and all the recordings and how to do it. And the weird part was, is that the microscope part and the lab part and all of the the voodoo and cooking and and stuff that you that you do with your hands I was exceptional at and it became kind of a joke: „Why don't you just let Jay see if he can do it“ and I was fixing people's postdocs projects by just fixing what they were doing wrong, or figuring out how their their noise went away, or what they plugged in wrong. It was really bizarre. I started to become this little shaman. And not to toot my own horn, but that got me kind of the attention of a lot of people.

I actually started to get recruited to do a graduate project at the University of Chicago. But there was this guy from the Netherlands who was there. And we became friends in the off time between labs. And the way that the labs were organized, you could mingle with a lot of other workers from a lot of other labs because the wet areas were all intertwined. And so I became friends with this Dutch guy who went back to Holland and became a professor, and he invited me to do my PhD there. And at the time, it was just after 9-11, and I was riding the train from the north side of Chicago to the south side of Chicago in the wintertime, right after 9-11, and I was putting on the chair of every train, of every chair that was open in the train — I had printed them out the day before at at the university — it said, “OIL. WAR?” and great big giant letters on, on A4. And I was putting them around. Some people would crumble them up and throw them at me. And I was sure that, that 9/11, something was wrong with it. I was sure that buildings didn't fall that way.

And I was convinced that shit was happening. And when this guy said you could come to the Netherlands, um, I said, „you know, the only problem is I just got a dog“. And he's like „well we have dogs in Holland.“ And so I went and did an interview and then a month later I moved to Holland and that was in 2002 and then I just did the tenure chasing thing. I did my PhD in Amsterdam. We did a postdoc in Oslo and then we did another postdoc in Trondheim. And in Trondheim is where I met Edward and Maybrit Moser, who got the Nobel Prize about a year and a half after I left the lab. And I had about, I think it was four, maybe five papers, four pretty good papers with them when I went back to the Netherlands. And we thought we were pretty much a shoe-in. (…)

We thought we were pretty much a shoe-in to get tenure in the Netherlands. I had a dutch wife, we wanted to raise our kids in holland, I had learned to speak dutch. I almost screwed that up by learning to speak Norwegian. There's this little pocket in my brain and most people's brain for foreign language and it started to replace Dutch and then I gave up on Norwegian.

And so I was really ready to write grants in Dutch. I was ready to try and win it in the Dutch way and... And that didn't work out.

Four years of work in Rotterdam at the Erasmus MC. Very ridiculously coincidental with all of this controversy with the bird flu, because actually we moved to the Netherlands in 2012, which is a year later, or the year that Fauci was doing all that stuff. And all I really remember from it is that my PI at the time made jokes that “above us, they're making bioweapons”. And that they're giving a seminar. We should go listen to it.

And we went to a seminar together — and heck if I know, I think, it was just a seminar about what they did and talking about how, what it's not, and that we don't have to worry that it's going to get away or something like that.

But I just remember that I was, this was a joke in the elevator at some point in my early time in this lab. And then I never really thought about it again. It wasn't something that I was aware of because, again, I'm just thinking: “all of these people in these buildings are working in earnest and they're just producing knowledge and there's no reason to question any of it. It's just got to build on it because you work on your thing, they work on their thing and you work in earnest and they work in earnest, right? There's no reason to suspect a carpenter is building bad stuff. You're just a carpenter. Just keep building your stuff, right?

And so this is how I went. And I really thought that I would make it. And I applied for the biggest grants, these EU grants that you're supposed to try and get. And when I finally got an interview, I think it was the second time I submitted for one of these bigger Dutch grants that are kind of a similar thing. They said that all of the techniques and all of the experiments that I proposed were all doable. And these grants are for experiments with higher risk and with a possibility of failure.

So I was actually told by the evaluator that the reason why I was not going to get funded for what I thought was a great culmination of my ideas and proposals and combination of my skills and insight was not fundable because it didn't contain the level of risk that this grant required.

And so that really, that was really it. I had to leave.

My boss was just kind of shoulder shrugging. „Yeah, sorry, man, there's nothing we can do. You don't have funding.“ And all the funding that I had ever pulled in just bought equipment. So they were fine with keeping all the equipment that I got them, even if they couldn't run it. And it's just, I left very upset, but I came back to the United States really fired up because we got off the plane, and it was Pittsburgh.

I hadn't ever been here. Coming from Wisconsin I actually disliked Pittsburgh because of their Football team. Pittsburgh is a beautiful place with multiple rivers that come together and lots of bridges and hills that are covered in trees. It's a really working class town and and my boss at the University of Pittsburgh took me to a baseball game that overlooks the skyline. And I love baseball, and I was sold. I'm like, „we're coming here. It could be so much worse than coming back to a town like this.“ And I told my wife, “it'll be four years.” And my dog that we brought back now has 10 tags around her neck. We just got her 10th tag.

So I'm a little over time on this.

And so we were at the University of Pittsburgh for … 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, almost five years, four years before the pandemic started. I helped my boss get an R01, which is the first level of NIH grant that any wannabe tenure track professors should get. He used all of my data to get that grant. And then he tossed me out.

He was wearing three masks. He was pretty scared. It was interesting too. Because what also factored into that - just to tell you how crazy it is - at the beginning of the pandemic, he started wearing three masks really early. And it was strange to me because he's a… the guy that I worked for has a special background. He is, was at the time, an active Navy [officer], whatever is underneath captain on a submarine. And so he did ROTC and then went to Harvard and did his postdoc at Janelia Farms. And so he was like a Navy officer, nuclear sub-trained guy, like hardcore. That's the highest level of of technology in the in the government as far as i know, is nuclear subs. And he was a guy who got promoted during my time there to captain although he wasn't active anymore. And actually was at some point right before or right during the start of the pandemic was threatened to be shipped to Africa to work on some kind of anti-pirate thing, and so there was talk about how I might take over the lab for a year.

And so this guy had a Chinese wife who had a postdoc. He met her at, at Janelia and then they came to Pittsburgh, and she had a postdoc that was crap at the University of Pittsburgh and then just dropped out of science and started working for McKinsey.

And this was also at the start of the pandemic, or a year before the pandemic. And so I'm working for a Navy sub captain, who has a wife who works at McKinsey, and at the start of the pandemic, before anybody else was really serious about masks, he was wearing three. And so for me, that was also kind of computing in my machinery, like, „okay, this guy has security clearance that sometimes he locks his door for, and he's wearing three masks. What is going on here?“ And so I started talking to him about it. Like, “Dude, what's going on? Because this is stupid. Like, something is incongruent. If you know something, you should tell me or you should tell everybody. If you don't know something, then you should not be doing what you're doing. Like, what's going on here, man?”

He wouldn't come into office, he would stand outside of offices talking to people. He was so bizarre.

And the only thing that I can say and defend is that is that this guy was already like that before the pandemic. He was really weird. The way that he exercised, the way that he ate, the way that he kept clean, what he did, like he was just a weird guy.

So it wouldn't surprise me if he was also like this when somebody said there's a virus around. I don't think he's especially sophisticated from the perspective of being a biologist his whole life, and having an intuition about how things work that he's constantly checked for decades.

He's a guy who who went into biology for practical reasons, learned it because he can. He's a very smart guy, he can memorize stuff, so he was he was working on being an anatomy professor as a fallback and learning all the anatomy in in his spare time because he was working at a med school and anatomy professors have jobs. And so he's a very practical dude.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I fought tooth and nail to keep working for him.

I fought tooth and nail to try and get his perspective to change a little bit and for him to realize that what I was doing on my bike was real and that it was important and that thinking about this stuff, we needed to be careful. Because this biology is sketch like „I don't know but you guys are you guys are arguing with me using the New York Times. Do you do you hear yourselves?“ And at some point that started to become an issue where people wouldn't even look at me in the hallway anymore and for a few weeks…

Q: Sorry, can I cut in there? Because I would like the audience to understand that you riding a bike is something which is relevant in this context because you started a podcast on your bike, JC on a Bike. And I'm assuming that riding bike is something which you took up in Holland, because, as we Germans know, Holland is famous for their conditions for excellent bike riding and even very high level sports in this area.

But so during this start of what is now called „the pandemic,“ you had, if I'm right, you had concerns about what was going on, as you started to explain. But you also had concerns about what was being discussed in terms of countermeasures. Could you elaborate on this, particularly to the level of „transfection“. It is something which you were then beginning to warn people about in terms of these discussed countermeasures. Please explain these

Concerns about “Transfection”.

— Yes absolutely …

So the issue is actually twofold

The story that I just told about my primary or principal investigator, my boss at the university of Pittsburgh is kind of the context in which this discussion occurred. And so the incredulous nature that some of the faculty members reacted with when I would say, „well, have you ever considered the possibility that it's a lab leak?“ At the time, I thought I was being very clever. I thought at the time that also seemed to...

The word that comes to my mind, although there might not be a good German word for it, it seems „to jive with” my whole interpretation of the situation was the behavior of my boss. His putting three masks on and acting like a crazy person, while having access to [classified] information, I presumed that the rest of my faculty didn't have information, didn't have access to, made me realize or think that this other stuff I was hearing on the internet wasn't nuts.

And there is a long, if you dig, there's a long sort of track record of this issue coming up every three or four years in places like bioethics journals, or in this… there's a journal of the nuclear something, something, I can't remember what it's called anymore, but but it's where Klotz writes articles. [Her] last name is K-L-O-T-Z.

There's a few places where periodically, especially the most prominent example would be when Fouchier and the Japanese guy at the University of Wisconsin simultaneously claimed to have enriched avian flu to be aerosolized, this discussion of what these laboratories are doing and how many people they're putting in danger has come back and forth many, many times.

But I wasn't aware of it as an academic biologist focused on the brain and working on whatever I was working on at the time. This is not on my radar at all. But because of the the sort of generic skill set that I had developed as an academic, it was pretty easy for me to say, „okay, I got some key words here. I'm going to figure out what's going on.“ And I also, and I think this is a skill that all academic scientists and biologists and wannabe tenure track professors have, or should develop, is the ability not to use Google, but to use bibliographies. Because bibliographies are the admitted sort of „ideological foundation“ of the source that you're reading.

And so more important than what comes up when you search from Google is if you have a source and that source has cited other sources, this is almost the... The most foolproof way to get to the truth, even if the truth is not represented in those sources, there will be a pattern of misrepresentation that will show up. That will show up in no other way. If you default to Google or whatever algorithm and give me whatever it gives you that. That is the worst way to do these searches. And in fact, as an academic biologist, I was never searching that way. I don't, that's not how it works. Like for me, it would be going to PubMed, figuring out and trying to get a feeling for what the general consensus is, and then building out from a couple reviews, for example, to try and find what reviews cite multiple things, multiple times, and then build from there.

And so, I think quite successfully, at the beginning of the pandemic, read my way into virology and thought, “wow, there aren't that many papers about this stuff. I mean, it's not very hard.”

It'd be different if you wanted to read into the hippocampus. Then you got to read all the human literature. You got to read all the monkey literature. You got to read all of the rodent literature. Then you got to read the stuff that's done in cell culture. (…) And so I could go on for hours about how many different compartments of academic investigation you would need to refresh, or even come familiar with if you want to read into a new part of the brain.

But virology, and especially coronavirus virology, is like a handful of papers.

I mean, it might be two weeks of reading if you read slow, but it's not an insert. You want to read into, like I said, memory in the hippocampus and what is the foundation of the work that was that Nobel Prize, for example, that my former mentors got. That's a lot of reading. That's 30 years of reading.

But most of the... of the virology before 1950 you don't even need to really read it because the the the techniques they were using are so outdated now and and and and so misinterpreted often that it's not worth it. So then there's really this paucity of of literature that you're required to read and if you read it you're not left with some feeling of a „high fidelity understanding“ and a field that is well defined you're left with a bunch of hand waving. And “because there's suds in the dishwasher, then the foam in the ocean can be explained the same way.” It's like, what? What are you talking about here?

And they make so many generalizations. And the one generalization that really started to stick in my craw was this idea that all of these people in my academic circle that were willing to accept all these stories on the the web about the pandemic and what it was, or what it wasn’t, and who's responsible, and what R-naught number it has, and how infectious it is, and whether one mask or two masks is better.

None of these people seem to be aware that the news programs and the people in front of the podiums were all talking about an “investigational vaccine” that was actually just a transfection.

And the weird part about it for me was, working in the rodent level of neuroscience, that's rats and mice, the genetic manipulation of that animal model is just ubiquitous. We do anything we want. We knock out genes, we knock in genes, we interfere with proteins, we transfect proteins in and express proteins where we want them to see what they do or to see what extra protein will do or what an aberrant protein version would do. All of that stuff has been going on for decades.

And at the heart of all of those manipulations is the use of DNA and RNA to manipulate the expression of proteins. And pretty much irrespective of how you do it, if you go all the way back in history, the very first thing that we learned how to do is put DNA or RNA somewhere to get a protein to show up. And so you can imagine if a baker, for example, wanted to figure out how baking a cake works, he might add extra sugar until the cake doesn't work anymore. And now you kind of understand something about it. Then you might take some sugar out until you understand what that sugar is doing. Then you might add yeast or subtract yeast or add flour and subtract flour.

And so we've been playing around with mice and rats by adding protein and subtracting protein by transfecting these animals, which is to put DNA and RNA places. And the way we do it doesn't matter. That's the part that really... bothered me.

That if you use gold particles to do it, it's transfection.

If you use DNA or RNA, it's transfection.

If you use lipid nanoparticles, which for when I was working at the bench, this was called lipofectamine. It's just lipids or fats that you would shake up with your DNA and then use that to transfect your animal. You could inject it in the brain, you could inject or transfect a cell culture, and that would cause the expression of a protein or interfere with the expression of a protein.

So without wanting to beat a dead horse, it was very, very frustrating. And then it moved to very disturbing that after trying to point this out for many weeks, none other than Bill Gates went on the American „PBS NewsHour“, which is pretty much the center of the center of the center of the of the state kind of news. The BBC News, I guess, might be the equivalent, in America it is PBS NewsHour.

They actually put Bill Gates on there with a lighted table, and he explained transfection as a vaccine. He just explained that some vaccines are like this. This vaccine is like that.

And at that point, something snapped. And I made a video on a hike, and I made a couple bike ride videos, a couple of which got immediately struck [from YouTube], where I was just like, “there's something weird here”. Because the day that I got kicked out, I actually went... lab to lab. And I tried to find people that I thought trusted me because we'd worked together over the last four years, or I'd helped one of their PhD students and grad students or postdocs. And I just said, „you understand that they are calling ‚transfection‘ an investigational vaccine and that they're encouraging old people to think about taking this. You understand that, right? This is the same stuff that That we do to our mice.“

And I also said it to people that I worked with. There were a couple guys that I had done monkey experiments with, and I also went to one of them and was like, „you know, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they say it's a special new lipid nanoparticle. You know that, right? That's not... That's still the same chemical thing. It's still the same concept.“

And the point for me was that no one seemed to understand. And this frustrated me — and I think this story is relevant! Because for all of our experiments that we do on the bench, we always have to sacrifice the animal.

Sacrifice means: end the animal's life. So that you can do other parts of the study. One of the things that you do in neuroscience, of course, is that you would take the brain and preserve it and then make slices of the brain so that you could anatomically map where it was that you were doing the experiment. That's like a... The gold standard of neuroscience. Now, you can't do anything unless you prove that where you express the gene or where you put your recording was and you know where it was for the whole time. And that's why you can make a lot of the assumptions, or let's say: come to the conclusions that you do.

So one of the absolute requirements is when you do these transfection experiments, that you do anatomy afterward and show where the transfection occurred. And that's usually done using a fluorescent tag that is genetically connected to the protein that you are transfecting. And so you use that as a way of mapping this.

Now, the trick is to understand that when transfection is used in that context, and I'm just speaking from my own personal experience and expertise in neurobiology, when you transfect the brain of a rat, or the brain of a monkey you have a limited time window in which that an anatomical signal will be preserved. Because we don't really know because no one's ever investigated, but it's always been my assumption that the brain eventually destroys those neurons because they are expressing foreign proteins and so the the resident immune cells of the brain eventually trigger apoptosis in those cells and those neurons eventually disappear. It can also be because they are continuously, as a result of transfection, overproducing the protein that you're studying, or the manipulation that you've done, and eventually that reaches toxic levels because it never stops.

So that combination of limitations makes it a useful but limited tool on the academic bench. And the ramifications of those long-term effects are irrelevant to any investigation.

What happens when the the cells that are transfected in their body are destroyed?

And if those cells are somewhere where we don't want to destroy things, what happens?

Are we kidding ourselves here letting Bill Gates call this an „investigational vaccine“ when we as academic biologists already know this is just a transfection under the guise of a countermeasure?

And these people just... It was like I was talking in a different language.

I could have been speaking Aramaic for all I know. They actually just said, „I think you should just leave.“ And that was the day after I got this email saying, „you need to send in your badge and keys and not come in anymore“. It's crazy.

Q: It is very, very remarkable, to say the least. And now we are in a situation where everyone, even in the mainstream, is talking about what happened, what was done wrong during the so-called pandemic. We come to this later. But everyone is talking about the damage which those injections have caused in a great many of people, many, many deaths, but also severe injury and even long-lasting injury has occurred.

I heard you talk in another of your talks where you said that it had been known that the potential for damage was there with this kind of technology.

So you are not talking about one particular protein which was encoded for, but you were talking about the general platform of technology, i.e. this kind of transfection. What was known about it and why is it that no one looks at these facts, if they are facts, but I have no reason to believe otherwise, since you're explaining exactly what might happen, which is also congruent with what other scientists such as Professor Sucharit Bhakdi have been saying (at Minute 34:00 of linked video from July 2020) and also has been criticized and even had his reputation destroyed about.

And this is something which at this moment I would expect people would be looking at, but no one seems to do.

Please tell our audience what has been known about those kind of adverse effects of the platform of the technology?

Adverse effects to be expect from Transfection

— Absolutely. So I think one of the things to bring your readers in on the trick is that what I've described as transfection via lipid nanoparticle has been a methodology which has been investigated for a long time. And the way that they investigated it originally was... „Where do they tend to go?“ And then they sold it as a destination biased carrier. So in other words, what they did was they said, this is really cool. When we put it into animals, it looks like a lot of the lipid nanoparticles end up in the liver. So we're going to argue that lipid nanoparticles are useful for transfecting the liver.

And they did a very similar thing with… Another conclusion, excuse me, would be the way to say it… Another conclusion that was drawn from those early studies was that the lipid nanoparticles tend to go to platelets.

Now, these two rationales for using lipid nanoparticles were used as, “well, since they go there, then we can use lipid nanoparticles to study the liver and liver metabolism. And we can use lipid nanoparticles to study platelets, to transfect platelets, and to augment platelet-focused therapies.”

And so then if you have a platelet disease or you have a platelet sort of malfunction, or a genetic whatever, then you can, in theory, you could use these technologies to investigate that. And so you can find um many many papers. I don't know how actually how many but it would probably it would surprise me very much if it wasn't in the hundreds of papers talking about lipid nanoparticles going to the liver and lipid nanoparticles going to platelets and how we could use that to augment platelet function, to supplement this and that or the other, or to, in one case, in the case of Jesse Gelsinger, use a Adenovirus to express a protein that he was missing in his liver.

And, again, the rationale was, that if we put adenovirus transfection particles and use adenovirus particles as a transfection vehicle, that when we do it, the preponderance of these things end up in the liver. And so it looks like that adenovirus is a great candidate for transfecting the liver and replacing an enzyme maybe that somebody's missing.

And so in the case of Jesse Gelsinger, he had a very rare childhood disorder where one of his liver doesn't even produce one of the essential enzymes for, I think it's for cutting starch or something like that. It allows you to cut starch.

And so the idea was to replace or to put that enzyme in his liver using an adenovirus.

But what ended up happening, of course, is what I've argued also should happen, and is happening in the brain of our mice, is that the immune system doesn't recognize that new protein as being normal. And instead, it attacks the liver cells that are transfected because they are expressing a protein that it hasn't recognized as self.

It's essentially attacking what it thinks is an invading cell or a foreign material. And in so doing, he went into acute liver failure and died.

The very interesting thing about this story, and it's not an anecdote in my humble opinion, is that the ‚pseudo whistleblower‘ that... was publicized three times in the New York Times or other articles in the AP about this narrative is Robert Malone.

And he claims, Robert Malone claims, to be the guy who was the guy who spoke out and told the truth about what happened with Jesse Gelsinger. But in reality, just like with what I would argue that he's done for the pandemic, he's kind of been the dude that that defines the limited spectrum that never gets anybody to see the, the actual consequences in reality of, of that story.

And, and so this was many, many years ago. You can look up Jesse Gelsinger on Wikipedia. Off the top of my head I'm not sure if it's… it could even be 20 years ago now. And, and it's really a, a tragedy because that is also something that I, as a biologist in 2020, wasn't able to get to.

I didn't get to Jesse Gelsinger early enough to say, „oh my gosh, they're using adenovirus right now in Johnson & Johnson“. And instead, actually, the IT guy at the University of Pittsburgh, who's my one friend on that faculty that I'm still friends with, I recommended that he take the Johnson & Johnson. And so it's...

It's been a long, long, long road. But for sure, for sure, for sure: What we should have been doing was telling college kids in 2021, like I was trying to, that even if — even if, this was what I was saying in 2021: even if this transfection is helping our old people, it would be a terrible idea the younger you are!

Simply because I had already come to understand that if there's anything to be believed in the literature of immunology, and let me just back up by saying that one of the other things that I spent 2020 doing and 2021 making sure I had accomplished was reading and understanding as much immunology as I could. So I'm not saying I'm an expert in everything, but I am saying that as a I probably earned a master's degree in immunology over the first two years of the pandemic, trying to read into virology and read into molecular biology far enough to know what was claimed.

I'm not saying it's right, but I needed to understand what they were claiming and the observations upon which they were making these claims so that I could at least evaluate them.

And that's what part of the exercise that was required in order to pull my head out.

Q: Right. So can I also at this point stress that we have not been inviting you to be making absolute claims about anything. I did not understand that you were doing such. In fact, you did not. Nor is it our aim to be telling that these claims do exist. What I think is of relevance, of high importance in this context, is that at this point, I mean, you said college should have been warned and people should have been warned back in 2022 or 2021, which is one thing. But today where we are so-called doing the investigation in what was missed, which errors were made, still nobody is looking into these very plausible ways of explaining a great many of adverse effects attributed to those injections. Instead, everyone seems just to be concerned about the various proteins which were encoded for so saying „we made a mistake about the spike protein“ or about this…

— That's a that's actually — that's a really good point and I want to just follow up on it quick because it's gonna vanish in my head and that's a point I've been trying to make too which I couldn't have realized at the beginning of the pandemic but after many years of talking to many people there's one thing that that I think is often missing from the discussion and that is that :

What was the state of the art of... pharmaceuticals before the pandemic. And if you understand what the state of the art of pharmaceuticals was before the pandemic, you'll understand how much hand waving and also ridiculous exaggeration about what we needed to do, or get ready for, or what we're doing now, has been made.

So at the beginning of the pandemic, or let's say before the pandemic in 2019, the state of the art of pharmaceuticals was that we could make proteins. And making proteins is the foundation of biologics. You make a protein, you make it pure, and then you inject it.

Maybe the most familiar example would be monoclonal antibodies. And monoclonal antibodies are things that were used to cure cancer, to attack cancer. We use antibodies for millions and millions of things. And one of the ways that antibodies are made, one of the ways that — almost exclusively sometimes — these other kinds of biologics, these proteins are made is the same.

And the way it's made is that they use molecular biological techniques developed in the Human Genome Project to make synthetic strands of DNA, actually synthetic circles of DNA.

And bacterial cultures can be used to make large quantities of those circles of DNA. And then those circles of DNA encode for the proteins that they want to make, and using other cultures or using commercial enzymes or any number of proven and already working manufacturing techniques, take that DNA, convert it to RNA, and then to protein.

Now, the trick here is to understand, Mr. Alschner, that at this stage, the protein has to be purified. And very specifically, the protein must be purified from all of the bacterial components, the bacterial proteins, the bacterial DNA, and the DNA that they use to make the protein, and the RNA that they use to make the protein. All of that stuff has to be removed, and the protein must be pure!

And this process is called „anion exchange chromatography“, and it is the most expensive process in the making of a biologic. And if this process fails, then the entire batch of biologic has to be thrown out. You can't run it again.

And so if you get to the end and you test for DNA or for bacterial endotoxins or for RNA contamination, nucleic acid contamination, and it's there, [then] the whole batch has to be destroyed. And this is the primary reason why many of these biologics are so expensive in the first place.

Now, understand that in order to make the RNA that they say that they injected, they do not need to go all the way to the protein — which means they also do not have at their disposal the cleanup step that they use to make the pure protein, which is anion exchange chromatography, because it actually removes, as much as possible, and if they're lucky, all the DNA and RNA present. You can't use that process to purify … RNA from DNA. You can't use that process to purify RNA from bacterial endotoxins, and this is not a secret!

It's not a methodological secret that nobody knew before the pandemic. There is no way using standard pharmaceutical, state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques to make a pure RNA!

It can't happen in the way that they did it.

And all of these people from the beginning of the pandemic knew it. That's why they have somebody from the Human Genome Project talking about PCR at the beginning of the pandemic.

That's why that guy is now talking about the DNA contamination and not the methodological shortfall that was already present from the very beginning when they announced they were going to make them.

Q: It should have been also obvious to him at the time?

— It's obvious to anybody that considers themselves a career molecular biologist, which I do not. I just figured this out. It's not something that I... I probably should have known it, but I didn't understand it until now.

And once you understand that that process, that was available, that standard operating procedure, then also you realize that the production of RNA is not something that they all had to retool for. They actually just had to stop short of a previous endpoint, which is also remarkable when they knew that stopping short of that previous endpoint would remove their ability to purify it. And they all knew it!

And that's why it's very important to see that a lot of the people that we think are „on our side“ actually have the pedigree inside of a pharmaceutical company to have no excuse not to know that!

And that's what becomes very terrifying to me is that I didn't work at a pharmaceutical company for 20 years before the pandemic. That's my excuse for not knowing. But somebody who has worked at a pharmaceutical company, never mind has worked at a pharmaceutical company branch that has made proteins. Now you have a problem here because they knew! They had to have known!

Q: Which brings me to a complete different area. Well, not completely different, but a separate area of reassessing what actually did happen and what may happen again with regards to possible pandemics.

If I understand you correctly, then you are raising serious doubts to the possibility that something like an RNA virus could cause a global pandemic in the first place. Which of course has severe consequences, if it were true, because then we would not need many of those very, very severe infringements on basic civil and human rights, which were only possible because they were justified in „saving the world from a from a dangerous pandemic“.

Now if this is not possible biologically then we would not have to forego those democratic rights, those existential democratic rights for democratic societies, at least in the West or even worldwide. Now, please explain your arguments as to why you should raise those doubts to say “RNA can not pandemic”.

Reasons why „RNA cannot pandemic.“

— So I think the short through the corner version of this is that the vast majority of RNA virology is not done as portrayed. And I think one of the extraordinary aspects of the pandemic narrative that we've experienced was, I think even people in Germany will be aware that there was a group of skeptics that were specifically skeptical about virology in general, and specifically about there being „no viruses“ at all, as in all of this biology was made up and that they're „just lying about disease“. And a very, very complete explanation, which essentially meant that you're just going to discount everything that's ever been seen under a microscope because “they aren't very precise about it.”

And that's what I want to be very clear:

For a long time, I spent a significant amount of energy trying to understand why it was that there had to be a fight there. And in fact, I approached many different people about this idea that „why are we fighting with these no virus people“ and „why are they fighting with us?“ Because essentially we kind of agree about what happened in the last couple of years. It's just, they want us to somehow argue and defend all of molecular biology's history and DNA. And I mean, it went all in, they went all in on everything.

And for me, that's what started to break it. And I just want to break it right here. I don't remember your question. I want to start over.

Q: Right. So, yeah, let me again repeat, but also specify in terms that this, what you've just said, enables governments and „experts“, so to speak, to say, „look, there are those „virus deniers“ and we don't, we must not even engage with them in any discussion because this is clearly silly because things do exist as one can show, and therefore don't listen to any of those people!“

Whereas the thing is quite of a different nature if whether something exists and what those properties are of that which is existent has in terms of it being able to cause a pandemic as even people who are known to be „opposition to the government measure countermeasures against this coronavirus pandemic“ are not in opposition to the general need of countermeasures, „an unmet need“, which Dr. Robert Malone keeps insisting would be existing.

If I understand you right, then you are saying those risks are not existent or at least gravely oversized, because there is a limit to what RNA molecules can do in terms of going pandemic.

— Yes. And so let me just expand on that, too, because it kind of cued in why I brought up the no virus position in the first place.

I think it's very important to see that and admit that part of my confusion in 2022 and 2023 was founded in the fact that I realized in 2022 that a lot of these people — the one that I would say that I respect the most is named Mark Bailey from New Zealand — they were able quite to quite succinctly explain what virology was doing with certain words and those words are „culture“ and „isolate“ and „purify“ and those were the same words that were used to create and and curate the narrative of AIDS and they were the same um Sort of words that were used to curate the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the 90s or the 80s.

And then again, they're starting to use them now. We're starting to use them then. And it bothered me.

But what I thought was most important was: I thought naively that the no virus people had just missed something. And what I picked up in the virology literature, thanks absolutely in no small part to being employed to help write this book. — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at some point during the writing of this book asked me to teach him what infectious clones meant in the virology literature. And I was already on this problem, but then he asked me to give him a brief about it or see if I could teach it to him. And so then I spent a couple more weeks or I don't know if it was only eight days or whatever, just reading as many papers as possible that talked about and used infectious clones in their methodologies and what it was.

And then it suddenly at some point snapped in my head what had happened here.

When I read a couple methodological sections that... And I don't think it's worthwhile to tell you what they are now. I can if we get there. Where the details of the methodologies made me realize that they actually didn't know what they were doing.

And so what I realized... is that like a lot of the neurobiologists that I've worked with, like a lot of the systems neurobiologists to the molecular neurobiologists, they're so stuck in the little tiny bit that they know, and the rest of it is assumptions. that they aren't in a position to really evaluate observations made by other biologists because they don't have any context to put it in.

And so in this scenario, I just thought, „wow, these people just might not get it. The virologists don't get it. And maybe the no virus people don't quite get it.“ But what they really do in all of these papers is they transfect animals or they transfect cell cultures.

The same word that I used earlier to describe the use of synthetic DNA and RNA to express a protein. Virology as it stands, and coronavirus virology as it stands in the gain-of-function mythology, or the gain-of-function narrative, is that they have trouble growing the viruses that they find in nature. They're not very good at growing them. Sometimes they grow for a little while in cell culture and [then they die]. But what that means is that they can they can put a sample on a cell culture and the cell culture will die and then they can use standard recombinant genetics, and and standard molecular techniques like PCR, to show you that certain small sequences of DNA are present. And therefore, those DNA are indications that they're doing virology.

Now, again, this is a hard analogy to express. But what they do is that they find these sequences in nature in very small pieces and assemble them as though they represent something new. The best way that I would say it maybe would be to go through all of the garbage from a particular city and assemble a page of sentences from all of the texts and sides of boxes and bags and all things that you can find. Assemble a text and say, „look, I think there was a new book here“.

And that claim is made.

And then what they do is they take that book that they assembled from the garbage by taking a bunch of words and putting them all together again.

And then they take that book to a “publisher” and they come back with a pile of those “books” and they say, okay, now we're going to sit down and see what these books say. And now the way that they read them, of course, is that they might give these books to a ferret and see if the ferret has an immune reaction to them, see if the ferret is excited by these books.

So the point would be that RNA virology in particular — and this is why I say RNA cannot pandemic — RNA virology is based on an assumption that viruses have figured out how to use RNA with the exact same fidelity that we heretofore, before the pandemic, only attributed to DNA!

And so these two things add up to a very, very bright signal.

The first thing I mentioned and say it in short is that RNA virology is not done in the way that the TV news cartoon says — which is that they find viruses in bats and then they grow them in their cell cultures and then they study them.

The way that virology is done is that a DNA sequence is detected in an animal, or claimed to be detected. And then that DNA sequence is made using the standard techniques that I've described already as the state of the art of pharmaceutical manufacturing and academic molecular biology, which is just, you make a synthetic DNA, you grow a lot of it in a bacterial culture. And then you use that DNA to do whatever you want.

In molecular virology in RNA virology the way that it is done is that „a novel signal“ like a novel sentence could be found in this case a spike protein and then that signal alone in virology is already enough to claim that you've found a whole new book.

And in fact, you are allowed to take chapters from previous books you found and then take this new chapter and put it in there and then say you have a whole new book. And I'm not even kidding.

What I'm suggesting to you is that if there's a background of books in the background and you find one chapter and claim that that one chapter is new, but you didn't find the rest of the chapters because it was a really faint signal, you would be allowed to take that chapter from this RNA and substitute all the other chapters to make it a complete book.

And then take that book and transfect a cell culture and claim that you are studying the new book.

And that is how RNA virology is done!

There are no books that you can put into a cell culture and they'll make lots of copies of those books and those books will all be the same and you can go sell them.

The only way that you can make lots of copies of a book is to go to a publisher. And the only way you can make lots of copies of an RNA sequence is to manufacture it. You cannot do that in a cell culture. You have to start with DNA, and you have to use a bacterial plasmid!

And so what I'm suggesting is that all of this talk of an RNA, a gain-of-function RNA molecule that could go from a mud puddle in Wuhan and circulate the globe for six years is absolutely a biological impossibility, if not a, it's an absurdity!

Q: And this is again something where we want to make clear this is your hypothesis or at least your warning as to the real dangers which exist if we are assuming that what they are saying does exist even though you are saying it's not possible we need to reassess, versus the dangers which exist in terms of the infringements of civil liberties of human rights for the whole of humanity from now on until the end of time. Because they say “these dangers exist therefore you have to accept us coming along and say that now is the time to do this and this and this and inject yourself with this and this, or do this and this countermeasure”.

This is the discussion which needs to take place, which is not taking place anywhere except for very few spaces such as yours.

People who ought to be concerned about this are not engaging in a discussion about this, which is not a fringe discussion, but is a very relevant discussion to anyone who claims to be protecting the interests of the United States of America, or the Federal Republic of Germany, or Humanity.

This is something which needs to be discussed and is not being discussed, which should give us a reason to be concerned.

— Yes. And I would stress that to round that off, I want to be clear, at least from my own personal opinion: the danger, although, yes, I agree, the danger is don't let them inject you. And we can talk about intramuscular injection being dumb in general, if you would like. I think that's an interesting idea.

Q: My last question. Yes, sure. But go ahead and finish this note.

— Oh, shoot. Just cue me off what you just said.

What every Biologist in Academia and Education must understand

— Oh, yeah. So, yeah. The point that I think that everybody or a lot of people have missed that I missed, and that I'm stressing now more than anything is: that the coercion that was necessary for us to be where we are includes something in a molecular biological methodology that no one has questioned, and that is the PCR test!

The PCR test is the same kind of methodological tomfoolery that RNA virology engages in.

The idea that PCR can be used to find a signal is absolutely true.

But to every academic biologist that's listening to this podcast or listening to this interview, you must understand that the way that you use PCR on your bench to get your „Nature“ paper, that includes reactions in triplicate, that includes multiple amplicons, that includes nested primers, and that includes sequencing the amplicon that you have amplified to be sure that the sequence you wanted to find is the one that you found and produced the fluorescence,… None of those things were done! And instead oftentimes tests with only a single primer, a single amplicon, with no nested primers, and no sequencing done, were used to drive the narrative of the pandemic!

And we have no one in the “dissident space” that is questioning PCR as a diagnostic and therefore products are still being produced. Products are still being used, that are being used incorrectly to diagnose a background signal a RNA explanation.

These products are being… they're spending money on them and the most important thing to understand for me, that I’ve become aware of, that I think is so important to this is: that these diagnostic tests in America I don't know if it's this way in germany or not provide a new and unending stream of medical remnants.

If if anyone is not aware: the American medical system makes a very very big profit from selling the medical remnants that are produced throughout the system. It doesn't matter if it is placentas from birth, if it is foreskin from young baby males, if it is aborted fetuses, all things that are produced on a regular basis are monetized. And they are monetized to the highest bidder. And it is without a doubt that the testing remnants that were produced at universities in America, and hospitals in America were sold to the highest bidder. And this data is part of the operation.

And this data and this collection and this slow... sort of surrendering of our sovereignty to this idea that these diagnostics work is the opening that we... Obviously, we're not going to transfect ourselves again, but the way that they will coerce us is with the diagnostics.

They will claim that they have this high-fidelity signal that they can define with their proprietary technologies, and we have to accept it. And none of the people that seem... that are supposedly fighting for us are... are going to this foundation because, and I'll stop, in America, the PCR test was used in combination with the pulse oximeter to give people in the hospital supplementary oxygen.

And in giving people supplementary oxygen, we violated a rule of medicine that we've known since the 1980s, which is: unhumidified pure oxygen gives you acute respiratory distress syndrome in a couple hours.

And in fact, ICU doctors have been taught this in their textbooks for a couple of decades. And yet at the beginning of the pandemic, because of this narrative that we were running out of ventilators or we needed to make more in Elon Musk's factory, that we used supplementary oxygen. And there are many doctors, especially young doctors at the beginning of the pandemic. In America, we sent all the old doctors home because they were in danger of getting infected. And so we had young doctors being told protocols that included,“ well, shrug your shoulders and give them supplementary oxygen.“

And those people got sick in a very predictable way. And that was also called COVID, but it was actually just murder.

And so what occurred in America in 2020 and 2021, in Scotland and in other places, in care homes and in all kinds of different manifestations, was murder! And it was misconstrued as the manifestation of a “novel virus”.

And no one that I can see in the ‘dissident space’ that is supposedly coming to our rescue on white horses... is remotely concerned about the coercion and fear and uncertainty and doubt that was created in 2020 and 2021 that allowed people to make the mistake of transfecting themselves. And that is really at the heart of this.

— So can I just, please allow me to give some pushback at this point.

— Sure.

Q: You are calling it murder, which is a legitimate expression of your professional subsumation of what has been happening. The point is, and everyone should agree, this should be investigated and it can be investigated. So therefore, this is something which also should have been taken up long ago. It hasn't, which is one more reason to be concerned about the way things are going in this field. Just to get this clear for our audience,

Please allow me to ask my last question because I'm a bit under time constraint for the broadcast:

The issue you've just described with the failure to use the PCR test, or with the use of the PCR test in the way it has been done without the necessary precautions to make sure that what was claimed to be measured was indeed measured and nothing else.

These brought us to a position where we now have a „new novel or innovative platform“ to immunize people against any pathogen. And the thing is very, very much,.. it should concern us very much.

However, Even if we don't switch as the move is now to switch to those genetic products for immunization, even if we would stick to the old way of doing immunization for every child which is going to be at least in school, or a kindergarten, but sometimes it is even compulsory to have newborns injected with the intent to augment their immune system. You are saying that from a biological point of view, this concept of intramuscular injection with the intent of augmenting anybody's immune system doesn't make sense.

Please explain this because it is of high relevance for many people who have grown skeptical about those promises of „the blessings which vaccines have given us. And now, since we are able to produce better vaccines, why shouldn't we?“

Why intramuscular injection to immunize is “dumb”?

— Very good. This is a consequence, again, of trying to... do the best I could to learn immunology as it stands and what we've been told of immunology. And one of the things that struck me as absolutely certain is that there isn't an immunologist in the world that doesn't understand the immune system as having an orientation.

And by that, I mean that it is oriented from the inside out.

If you think of your body as having „an inside“ and „an outside“, actually your gut and your intestines, your stomach, your intestines is actually „outside of your body“ and things that are outside of your body pass through that „tube“. They never really enter your body.

And actually what happens in your gut is a very selective process of those materials with an orchestra of bacteria that process that material and allow only certain things into your body that you want in. And it's designed to keep everything else out.

And we should also be well aware that on our skin, we also have a microflora of bacteria that we kind of have a symbiotic relationship with and most of them are pretty friendly and it's good to have friendly bacteria there, because otherwise other bacteria might come to to occupy that. And we have understood many skin disorders and gut disorders as being an imbalance between the immune system and the and the flora that's present there, the bacteria are present.

But again, getting back to the original idea, the immune system is oriented from the inside out. And so at some point it became interesting to me that in reading all of the history of vaccination, I bought a lot of very old books to make sure that I was really reading original sources… And vaccination as a concept was accepted as being „a skin thing“ from the very beginning because smallpox was a skin disease. And so they were scratching things into the skin with the idea of augmenting a person's immune system, exposing them to something in a milder fashion that would protect them from the exposure to the real thing. And intuitively, I don't think that's a crazy idea at all. And in fact, augmenting the immune system at the barrier is a very intuitive thing that matches all of modern day immunology as well.

It makes perfect sense because the immune system is oriented layer by layer, from the barrier, whether you look at the gut and then work your way in. Or whether you work at the skin or work your way in, or whether you even look at the mucosal lining of the respiratory system, you're going to see this „layered defense system“. And that layered defense, I don't think can be usefully augmented. [It] doesn't make any sense to augment it by putting things behind it. And in fact, as far back as you could put it: in the muscle, the most protected area, basically, of your body.

I mean, yes, your muscles don't have a rib cage around them, but your muscles are as deep inside of you as they can be. They're under all of the skin. They're inside of you. And so things aren't supposed to get there. If you think about yourself as an upright hunter-gatherer, in the wrong situation, a sprained ankle could result in your death. And so we're talking, puncture wounds are not things that you survive without an incredible amount of sort of luck and modern medicine. If you get an infection in your gut from a sword wound in Japan in the 1500s, you're done. This isn't going to go anywhere unless you get very, very lucky.

And so I guess my point is, is that we have been, our parents were led to believe, that intramuscular injection of a combination of substances was a pretty good way of administering medicine. And I, after five years, have come to understand that as being absolutely the opposite, actually. And maybe one of the best ways to get people to think about vaccination in general, and one of the ways that no one has previously suggested we think about it. Which strikes me as very odd because it is very, very easy for me to make the argument that the beautiful, intricate understanding that we now have albeit limited of our immune system suggests that it is an extremely well organized, finely tuned machine with a very obvious orientation. And intramuscular injection in no way shape or form takes that into account.

And so it's not very surprising to me that there has been this undercurrent of people that has been saying that this isn't working. What strikes me as most odd is that in all the years of objecting to it, no one of prominence has ever gotten to the point where I have which is that what if we just questioned the whole methodology in general. Intramuscular injection of medicine is that really in 2025 the best way of doing things? Even a good way, even a remotely good way of doing things? And I think the answer in a few years will be: no!

Q: Right. Okay. Thank you very much for this explanation. And let me also add now as a publisher of “Never Again is Now Global on Substack”, where I am happy to also publish our conversation here. This is of particular concern to me, given from the standpoint, which no one else but Vera Sharav has taught me to look at. In this whole process, you and a couple of colleagues, one of whom being , has been teaching, and showing, and researching that we have individuals and institutions involved in this whole development, who have been…, now let's start for this project, for this discussion, just start 1962 with „the Future of Man conference“ of the Ciba Foundation in London. So this was 17 years after the end of World War II, where we have senior scientists, high ranking and lauded heads, who were discussing things about the „desirability“ of having certain traits within the population as opposed to others and how to even „cause fertility and infertility“ to enhance this development. This had been happening in 1962 with people who continued to be very influential in this area until the break of the new millennium. Who were advising governments, who were towers of influence within the scientific community.

This is a reason for concern to me as a historian, as a German! And it is something which we need to discuss, which we need to assess and which we must contemplate its consequences of. And this is why I am so grateful for your work, and for the work of your colleagues, such as Mark Kulacz in particular, who have been doing groundbreaking work. Which may must not or may not mean that everything which we and you dig up will stand until the until until eternity. But it is something which is necessary to be unearthed to be rediscovered or discovered and to be discussed from a perspective of the…, well, even of the future of humanity, because this is what I see is a tendency with people to acquiesce, to keep quiet if people „up above“ who consider themselves smarter, better, or whatever, assume a position to be deciding what needs to be done for the rest of „the great unwashed“. They are not using this term, „the great unwashed“, but their mindset is exactly this. And this is something which I will not remain silent about. I will... I will sound the alarm. I will keep promoting very, very important work such as yours, and therefore I'm very grateful for this discussion. Thank you very much!

— You are very welcome. I'm happy to call you my friend. Thank you very much.

— All the best.

What does it mean?

It could mean that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Given the fact that he has been working in the Lab of two Nobel Laureats, and given the fact that he was hired by Robert F. Kennedy jr to do important research for his book about “a novel virus escaping from a Lab in Wuhan“, that doesn’t seem to be too likely.

How much on-target Dr. Couey probably is about his hypothesis that he has been the target in early 2020 when he began to voice his concerns about the impossibility of distinguishing any signals obtained from PCR test from an earlier existing background) can be gauged from the fact that he has been approached by many people who are prominent today. Among those was also Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who was a guest on even mainstreet newsprogramms such as FOX News as an alleged “whistleblower”. Yan, it was said, had fled from China, because she knew the “truth” about “SARS COV2 coming from a Lab”.

Research from Mark Kulacz () proves that Li-Meng Yan was not what she claimed to be. She had very likely not fled China, because she is married to a scientist who works and lives in the US. In her interview with Tucker Carlson, who also hailed her as a whistleblower, she speaks with a very broad Chinese accent. However, in a presentation in 2018, Dr. Yan was much more fluent in scientific English. Why did she appear to make people believe that her English was poor? Was it to prop up her narrative of a Lab Leak? In any case, Yan was cleary presented to Dr. Couey to get him dig deeper and concentrate on his own Lab Leak hypothesis, which he had developed as had many others back in 2020, rather than on his hypothesis on the background noise problem of PCR-tests, which only Couey had! Instead of encouraging him to elaborate that crucial piece of evidence further in order to get to the bottom of the questionable “novel virus” narrative, almost all of his co-activist-scientistst at the time were doing their utmost to get Couey to drop that theory and fall back into line with the prevailing narrative.

All of the above indicates that, very likely, Couey does know what he is talking about today, as he did back in 2020.

The consequences of him being onto something are so important for humanity, because they pose an existential threat on all of the pandemic preparedness planning which mainstream science, dissidents such as Malone, and governments around the world in unison with supra-national bodies such as the W.H.O. (who would indeed become a kind of One-World-Government in times of “the next pandemic) are pressing for relentlessly.

Therefore I am supporting Dr. Couey in his calls for all the co-authors of the famous/infamous Corman-Drosten-Review to come forward and explain the questions which need to be asked: how did that illustrous circle get together? Who coordinated the work? What was documented? Was there no discussion of the “background noise problem of PCR”? Why not?

Coping with the situation of a world in crisis is not always easy. Art and its object, beauty, is needed to educate and cultivate a soul which otherwise would run the risk of sustaining damage from what is going on in this world.

Friedrich Schiller, the great Poet of Freedom, has helped me personally to understand that adversity and even tragedy are not exceptional to the times we live in. However, it is man’s destiny to conquer fear and passion and become truly free (instead of following ‘a momentary dream of freedom’) by developing within him the power to “achieve an objective distance from the sensible world which otherwise weighs down on us like a dead object, pressing us down like a blind force. This distance gives us the power to transform the material world into a free work of our own intellect, and exert dominion over it through ideas.” This power is developed through an aesthetical education, of which the study of universal history is an integral part.

Schiller wrote:

“Only from history will you learn to set a value on the goods from which habit and unchallenged possession so easily deprive our gratitude; priceless, precious goods, upon which the blood of the best and the most noble clings, goods which had to be won by the hard work of so many generations! And who among you, in whom a bright spirit is conjugated with a feeling heart, could bear this high obligation in mind, without a silent wish being aroused in him to pay that debt to coming generations which he can no longer discharge to those past? A noble desire must glow in us to also make a contribution out of our means to this rich bequest of truth, morality, and freedom which we received from the world past, and which we must surrender once more, richly enlarged, to the world to come, and, in this eternal chain which winds itself through all human generations, to make firm our ephemeral existence. However different the destinies may be which await you in society, all of you can contribute something to this! A path toward immortality has been opened up to every achievement, to the true immortality, I mean, where the deed lives and rushes onward, even if the name of the author should remain behind.”

Two voices who have been reluctant to fall in line behind “leaders of the Freedom Movement”, and instead have done their own research, have contributed a lot to my personal understanding of the paradoxies and discrepancies within the number of narratives which were offered for consumption by ‘authorities’ of both ‘main stream’ and ‘freedom movement’ alike.

The amount of hostility which Mark Kulacz () and Dr. Jonathan Couey () have received has been staggering. It is my intent to thank both of them for their important work! Both, Mark and Jonathan, are controversial with many for their individuality. Both are human, which is to acknowledge the flaws in both of them. You can criticize the language they use (which is not poetic, for the most part). But if you do, you can not ignore that fact that both of them may have reason to be angry, or even bitter. One has lost a child, the other one a career, because of “the pandemic”. And both have been more or less stone-walled for their research, as well as ridiculed and attacked. Which should make you wonder why.

Following recent presentations from both Mark Kulacz, on the history of the Human Genome Project and its connection to major events in recent U.S. History, such as 9/11, and Jonathan Couey, at the Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International, it was about time, I felt, to honor both researchers for the evidence which they keep piling up.

And it is that evidence which should be given rigorous scrutiny!

Kulaczs has produced a short, 30 minutes video in which he dropped a lot of names, and put a lot of dots on the map, which need connecting beyond what was covered by the video’s title. It is astonishing what amount of coincidences you would have to believe in to not feel offended by the official accounts of History which are being taught in High School, college or even university level to this day.

Watch on Housatonic Peertube

Erich Traub, Head of the German Divison for Biological Warfare on Insel Riems during WWII, directly reporting to Heinrich Himmler, ‘Reichsfuehrer’ of the SS, has been a protege of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research during the early 1930s, was brought back to the U.S. during Operation Paper Clip after WWII, and worked on Vaccine Development. Traub was mentored by Richard Shope, who also worked with (and mentored Alice Elizabeth Moore, who was not only close with Hilary Koprowski and Joshua Lederberg, but also with Henry A. Kissinger.

The Vatican was instrumental in helping Nazi war criminals escape to South America. But not only Nazis. Hilary Koprowski was also helped to get to Brazil, where he would end up working for the Rockefeller Institute and the Yellow Fever Vaccine.

Koprowski continued to be a door-opener at the Vatican for the rest of his life. Koprowski also contributed to the 1962 CIBA Symposium on “Man and his Future”, in which mere 17 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, where Josef Mengele conducted experiments on Humans, the need for and desirability of Eugenic Selection and Genetic Engineering of Humans were broadly discussed (without noted objection from any of the many participants). One of the contributors to these discussions at the CIBA conference was Joshua Lederberg, who would continue to be a link in all matters biological between U.S. governments and oligarchs such as the Rockefellers until the late 1990s. The Rockefeller-Kissinger connection is equally well documented. Mark Kulacz has contributed a connection between Alice E. Moore and Kissinger.

The Human Genome Project, as Kulacz has shown, was closely connected to the 9/11 Amerithrax incident, which, he suspects, did not go according to plan. In any case in and around 2001 much of what was used as a tool to demolish democratic freedoms and Human Rights was implemented.

As for the Vatican: Not only did the Papal Scientific Academy (which may be where the notebooks of Josef Mengle are kept) stay in close contact with many of the players who would drive the global Genetic Agenda. Pope Francis, who put an African Cardinal, Peter Turkson, in charge of the Papal Scientific Academy, came out in favor of the genetic injections “to fight against Covid”. When in 2021 the “Global Covid Summit” met in the Italian Senate in Rome, one of the prominent “Freedom Fighters”, Dr. Robert Malone, met with Cardinal Turkson. Of course, as Kulacz points out in his extensive documention on Malone, the “inventor of mRNA” was already in close proximity of the 9/11-Amerithrax events in an around 2001.

Hmm.

In this context the early warnings against “Transfection” by Jonathan Couey, and his personal voyage to discover that “RNA cannot pandemic” - which would make all of the “Pandemic Preparedness Planning” obsolte which Malone so viciously defends - are highly significant hypothesis.

Oh, by the way: The title of this piece, ‘Hypothesizing the Higher Hypothesis’, is taken from another great soul, who for much of his life worked tirelessly against the Oligarchy, and in particular against Henry Kissinger: Lyndon H. LaRouche, who understood not only the destructive nature of the British System, but also how classical art. and philosophy is needed to advance Humanity. No surpise: as an opponent to the British System, and its global machinations and hybris, Larouche has been labelled right-wing, anti-semitic and worse. As have many others since. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Mr. Larouche, who passed away in 2019, and his colleagues, were very outspoken about the British Intelligence operations which set up secret societies all over the world. Including B’nai B’rith.