Alternative WEF - The essence of 9 hours of formative contemporary history.
Numerous luminaries of the enlightenment scene came together at the Alternative WEF in Prague.
The Alternative WEF is a counter-idea to the Great Reset, an alternative think tank for a free world of tomorrow.
Kla.TV presents the essence of historical speeches, exciting discussion panels and exclusive interviews.
You can find all the contents of the alternative WEF at AUF1: www.auf1.tv/alternativ-wef
The crème de la crème of enlighteners, of freedom fighters, are meeting here these days to launch something very special.
We want to stand up against globalism, against oppression, for peace and for freedom.
We live in challenging times and therefore it is important to connect, ally and create a network.
And we would now like to invite the two people who came up with the idea to join us on
stage: Elsa Mittmannsgruber and Stefan Magnet.
Yes, I had the idea because I read an article about the beginnings of the WEF by Klaus Schwab.
And then I saw and read how small it started.
And that somehow impressed me. That's the important thing.
And it is not carved in stone that the globalist WEF must hold the sceptre in its hands.
It can now have competition, it must now have competition from the Alternative WEF.
And who better to do this than those who have already shown courage and taken on the system.
It has to be said that these fundamentally different people are now entering into a dialog.
Looking back, it will be a historic moment when we managed to bring together so many great personalities who may not agree
on all issues, but who are united by a common goal and that is the will for self-determination, sovereignty and freedom.
And everyone involved here is determined to give their all to achieve this, because
without these values, the future is nothing.
Thank you for the moment and another big round of applause for the initiators.
We are in the Czech capital Prague, a beautiful city, in a beautiful congress center.
And so it is only natural that the welcoming words should be spoken by someone who has
always played a prominent role in this country.
He was once a permanent guest at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Now he has changed sides and is at the Alternative WEF.
We are delighted that he is here, that he is doing us the honor and, above all, that he
is also giving the official welcoming address.
The former President, Dr. Vaclav Klaus. A warm welcome.
For me, one of these symbols is this hotel and this hall.
The last time I was here was in 2008 at my last ODS congress.
Some of you may know that the ODS is the civic democratic party that I . . .
The development of this party, like the development, the political and ideological development in the Czech
Republic as a whole and in Europe as a whole, has gradually moved towards today's post-political, post-democratic world.
That is why I have given up my honorary chairmanship in this Chamber. I did not want to be here.
Even then, I clearly saw and hopefully understood the powerful tendencies of the Western world.
They threatened to bring us into the tragic world of today.
In my view, the most important role today is played by the ideology of multiculturalism,
which produces, praises and defends mass migration.
This ideology does not even know the word freedom.
In principle, it is aggressively oriented against the main institution of democracy, against the nation state.
However, the nation is without doubt the fundamental and irreplaceable element of human society.
Today's powerful genderism or radical feminism attacks the biological substance of human beings and thus the
elementary basis of human society, which is the family.
As Prime Minister and President of the Czech Republic, I must confess that I brought the Czech Republic into the EU.
My well-known attempt to pull the emergency brake at the last moment and not sign the Treaty of
Lisbon, as President of the Republic, was in vain.
As a consequence, European integration has definitely turned into political unification in recent years and decades.
The idea of friendly and mutually beneficial cooperation between sovereign European countries is now a thing of the past.
I'm certainly not the only one who says that the entire West, especially Europe, is in decline.
The challenge of our time is to prevent today's decline from continuing tomorrow.
Hopefully, conferences like this one can help.
I wish you a productive meeting. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear viewers at home, dear contributors, I completely agree with Prof. Dr. Vaclav Klaus
when he says that we have to deal with the world now.
I thank him for these clear, refreshing words from the mouth of a true statesman who still knows responsibility, unlike those
who have now risen up to actually lead our world into the abyss.
And you know me. I am a friend of clear words and I also state the actual situation very clearly.
What is being done here, before our very eyes, is a direct ride to ruin.
And this is quite deliberate, because certain circles have taken it into their heads to carry out what they call a Great Reset, a
complete reorganization, a transformation and, along with it, a destruction of the middle class,
a destruction of the European affluent society.
And it's not just about economic interests, it's not just about siphoning off capital and the
biggest expropriation in the history of mankind.
The point is that these circles want to secure power, modern technology and digitalization for the future.
This enables them to do things that pharaohs and emperors could only dream of.
They want to close the bag now so that there will never again be freedom for us, for the rabble, for the 99 percent, so
that the 0.001 percent of the super-rich, the globalists, the billionaires can exercise power for all eternity.
And that's what we're up against and I don't want today, and you don't want today and in the
following events, to focus energy on what's bad today.
Yes, we need it as a fixed point in order to recognize how we want to do things better.
But at this alternative WEF, we want to deliberately focus on what a better future could look like,
talk about solutions and start by coming together.
Because when we come together and talk, the future already begins.
Because the power elites are doing everything they can to ensure that their Great Reset and their new globalist world order
becomes reality, and anyone who opposes it will be shot down, will be declared a member of a lower caste, a pariah (= outsider),
so to speak, and will then be fought against accordingly.
And despite everything, despite this whole climate of terror of opinion and conviction, there are still people
with courage, there are still people who go against the tide and have the courage to speak the truth.
And who better to call than those courageous people who have distinguished themselves in the last four years of
the state of emergency, who have come out of hiding, who have taken a stand and held their ground?
Who would be more qualified to think about tomorrow's world now?
And that's why everyone involved in this event today has been chosen very specifically, because everyone
has already made a name for themselves in their field.
And I've made it my mission to bring people together, to try to develop things further or to
support things that are already developing well.
Incidentally, there is no idealism at all on the other side.
Take away the billions in funding. Do you think ARD would still be broadcasting the next day?
Or do you think any of the professional politicians would still be in the Bundestag?
There is no idealism for this regime.
On our side, there is idealism, there is a capacity for suffering and there is a willingness to make sacrifices.
And then you have to put one and one together to see who will win in the end.
We organized this event with confidence in the people, with confidence in the participants, but above all with confidence
that there is a need, that many people will watch it, that they will be inspired, that they will derive projects
from it themselves and that they will of course support it.
I am convinced that this trust will not be disappointed. And this trust is what sets us all apart.
And this year's conference theme, the motto of the first Alternative WEF, is: Images of a free world of tomorrow.
We want to outline how we imagine the world of tomorrow, regardless of political realities. What do we want?
Sometimes we have to change our path. But we remain true to the goal, we remain faithful to the target flag.
Prague comes from pragmatic, I just wanted to say. I'll start with Carl Schmitt.
He once said: "The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of emergency.
And as we apply this to the coronavirus years in Europe, one thing cannot be denied: Europe
was and is obviously anything but sovereign.
During the coronavirus period, Europe has subordinated itself to a narrative that did not originate in Europe, but
was deliberately created in US think tanks and foundations.
The European state of emergency was dictated to Europe via the WHO and not decided by the population.
In reality, individual countries have no say in the WHO.
The binding decisions are made by big money and this big money comes primarily from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
This is not a European foundation, but a US foundation that is being used as a tool of US foreign policy.
This foreign policy role of US NGOs to manage artificially created crises was conceived as early as 2010, when the Rockefeller
Foundation outlined its coronavirus simulation game Lockstep.
Subsequently, appropriate structures were built up over the years.
In October 2019, the final rehearsal, so to speak, took place with the simulation game Event 201, the last test of which was
then released in Wuhan with US funds to create a bioweapon, called Covid-19, in order to be
able to completely reorganize the world afterwards.
In this Great Reset, sovereign individual states or a union of states outside the USA no longer play any role at all.
Government is being replaced by governance. Power is thus completely centralized and digitalized in all sectors.
Behind ID2020, for example, is the perfidious plan to be able to harass everyone in all their needs.
Anyone who does not have the current vaccination status, who exceeds the arbitrarily defined CO2 footprint, who does not
adhere to corresponding narratives in public spaces, will be punished with the withdrawal and then the only valid digital
currency or will be arbitrarily deprived of all civil rights.
If you want to live undisturbed as a sovereign citizen of the future, you will have to disclose
your entire privacy to a handful of US IT companies.
We live in an illusory world dominated by the dollar.
Europe has completely leaned away from the schoolyard bully USA.
You nod off to avoid taking any more blows below the belt or hitting the waterline.
We all know that so-called freedom, especially freedom of expression, is now very, very severely restricted in Europe.
And the Internet has now become a place where censorship is exercised arbitrarily.
Europe is not focusing on dialog, but on weapons again.
We let the weapons do the talking when it comes to intra-European conflicts.
And the question is, who started it? The Russians in Ukraine? No. NATO in Yugoslavia in 1999.
A war that was decided by the USA in order to divide Europe.
Divide and rule - always the same principle.
Europe is currently being prepared for a major war against Russia in order to assert US interests in particular.
I used to think everyone was against the war until I found out that there are some who are
for it, especially those who don't have to go.
This outburst comes from Remarque and it is true.
Europe must be defined as a Europe of fatherlands.
A Europe that has no interest in subjects, but relies on the responsible citizen.
A Europe that recognizes who operates military bases and parks soldiers on European soil in
order to start wars inside and outside Europe.
Such a Europe does not politely ask these enemies of cohesion whether they might want to cease their warlike activities,
but terminates them and then insists on this termination.
Step two would be to not just talk about democracy all the time, but to finally introduce it.
Because no European state is truly democratic.
Wherever we look, democracy is only simulated.
I just have to remind you of Romania. If you make a mistake, you get to start again.
We all live in nations that have been hijacked by a party oligarchy.
There are fewer representatives of the people in our parliaments than traitors to the people.
Because they represent the interests of those who have elevated them to this position and in
doing so betray the interests of their own citizens.
We are governed by morons who should not be called that because it has recently become a lèse-majesté insult.
As sovereign citizens, let us protect ourselves from a completely overreaching state
temporarily locking away our freedom for security reasons.
To stop this from progressing any further, we need to add a crucial word to our colloquial language.
And that word is NO! No to bullying! No to censorship! No to the surveillance state! And above all, no to war!
For those who cannot decide for themselves whether they die a natural death or by injection, or whether they are sent
to some front to fight and die for the interests of third parties whom they do not know, cannot be sovereign at all.
He behaves like a sheep. And sheep fear the wolf all their lives.
But they are killed by the shepherd.
The freedom that we all miss in Europe must first be invoked in each of us and then lived.
This is exactly what makes people human.
But we, the citizens, the sovereign, decide where we meet. In other words, where the power is
actually located. For example, now in Prague.
Our power meets best in a decentralized way, i.e. anytime and anywhere, but organized collectively.
Nothing disempowers the self-appointed elites more effectively than when sovereign citizens all over Europe
gather unasked at x round tables to draw up new constitutions and new laws for their nations.
This is the maximum expression of democratic sovereignty. You simply decide on it and live it.
Every man for himself and we as the peoples of Europe.
I conclude with the words: We can do this.
Then I would like to welcome my guests to our panel on Health and Medicine of Tomorrow.
We all know that our healthcare system is ailing, which is becoming increasingly obvious.
There is a chronic shortage of staff, doctors' surgeries are overcrowded and doctors nowadays
have very little time to deal with patients at all.
There are increasing shortages of medicines and it is quite clear that today's medicine is actually driven
primarily by the profit interests of the pharmaceutical industry and large hospital groups.
And in this round, we want to explore the question of what a better medicine of tomorrow could look
like in order to keep people healthy for longer.
Dr. Hubmer-Mogg, how do you envisage better medicine in the future?
Yes, so for the better medicine of tomorrow, it has to be said that we don't really learn anything else during our
studies as medical students, apart from what is written in the books. What our teachers teach us at medical school.
And basically, and this is always very important to me to say, it is the case that in medical studies, as it stands
now, things that are essential, in the truest sense of the word, are given far too little attention.
We start our studies and the first section is microbiology, i.e. hygiene and microbiology.
And then you learn that there are vaccinations and which ones there are. And then that's it again.
We hear nothing at all about adjuvants, additives or side effects.
And later in your studies for the respective specialist exams, whether it's pediatrics or
dermatology, you have the right answer ready, so to speak.
Yes, what can you do to protect yourself? Yes, this vaccination, that vaccination and so on.
And the students don't learn that there can also be side effects, whether that was from the conventional
vaccinations or from the new modified mRNA products.
In other words, the medicine of the future would mean that you have to start in training, where you implement much more, so to
speak, that the person sitting opposite you, sitting opposite a doctor, sitting opposite a
doctor in training, is a wonderful individual.
I always say that we have spirit, soul and body. And we are here with our thoughts, feelings and actions.
It's only during your studies that you actually learn that there is a human being who is now somehow like a machine.
Professor Dr. Dr. Christian Schubert always says that.
Machine medicine, something is broken and it needs to be repaired now. And we have to get away from that.
We have to convey that there are various factors as to why this person is no longer healthy.
Why something has happened here in his system, that he has symptoms, that he has become ill or seriously ill.
Prof. Bhakdi, I would like to pass the ball to you right away.
You are sitting here as one of my heroes, I have to say, and I probably feel the same way about many others.
Your warnings about coronavirus injections from the outset have certainly ensured that many people have
resisted these gene injections, and you have probably saved many lives in the process.
I would like to turn to the role of vaccinations.
Can you perhaps briefly outline the role that vaccinations can generally play in a better medicine of tomorrow?
Vaccinations will play a crucial role in tomorrow's medicine because vaccinations will be a
monument carved in stone against deception and illusion.
I am a conventional doctor.
I studied medicine, learned microbiology, taught for 25 years. And I believed in vaccinations.
I have taught everything that is written in the textbooks.
Only in the last three years, because of Corona, have I started to read what I missed out on during my studies
and my professional life. There are some excellent books.
One book that I would now like to present publicly is the book by Suzanne Humphries. And it's called The Vaccination Illusion.
It contains everything a doctor should actually know today. With sources, scientifically.
It is not an anti-vaccination book. And I have benefited enormously from it.
I think I now know that the whole vaccination business has actually been the biggest business in human history.
So much money has flowed and so much money is flowing.
And that is the reason why vaccination was chosen as the spearhead of the globalists.
They are waging war against their own people.
When people believe in themselves and overcome this dogma that man was built as a machine, inadequate, flawed,
that in principle it is only fate whether you die of Alzheimer's, cancer or an infectious disease.
The fact that people are not capable of being healthy on their own requires a complete rethink of
medicine and, above all, of how people see themselves.
And self-confidence starts with people having a healthier brain again, because that's where
thinking, feelings and responsibility begin.
And part of being a healthy human being is that we also understand - what I call the mental immune system - how to recognize and
react to external threats, both as individuals and as a society.
This is because the mental immune system also gives rise to the social immune system, which we use to
defend ourselves against others who want to harm us.
And these fundamental things in the corona crisis, for example, it was quite fundamental, vitamin D, we know.
Hundreds of studies that show vitamin D deficiency, the probability of dying from any infectious disease - regardless
of whether it is now called corona because a PCR test has been carried out - any virus can be behind this corona PCR.
Or any cause that then leads to pneumonia.
But this can be fatal if certain fundamental things are missing.
And the last fundamental building block, or one of the last in a new foundation or in a new building of
medicine - for me it's a bit like the keystone at the moment, there are several more to come.
And the keystone, stone is called lithos in Greek, is lithium.
Lithium is probably one of the essential trace elements.
And I can prove that in my next book, which is called The Lithium Conspiracy and will be published next spring.
But in this book I prove that lithium is essential, and most importantly it is essential against all fundamental,
or within all fundamental systems that keep us in balance.
Above all, keep our mental immune system in balance.
Lithium ensures that we form new brain cells that keep us young, that keep us curious.
Lithium ensures that the chromosomes are preserved for life, that we do not die of old age, so to speak - in the
sense of dying prematurely, a year or decades earlier - that we develop Alzheimer's disease or depression.
Lithium plays a fundamental role in all essential, fundamental biological processes, and it is the antidote to
e.g. the neuroinflammation produced by mRNA injection.
According to the European Food Safety Authority, we are allowed to consume up to ten milligrams of aluminum per day.
Even though we know that aluminum is toxic to the brain. And is responsible for the autism rates we see,
for example, because it is also part of the vaccines.
So 50 percent of vaccines contain aluminum, which is actually toxic to the brain.
Dr. Strasser, I would also like to invite you to answer a question. As an advocate of evidence-based medicine.
How important are empowered patients for better medicine?
Empowered patients are crucial. At the moment, we are seeing a development that runs completely counter to this.
For thousands of years, it was taken for granted in our medicine that only two people actually
knew medical data: the patient and the doctor.
That was strictly confidential. It's even regulated by law.
I'm not even allowed to talk about a patient with my wife.
It is absolutely punishable. And I'm even threatened with prison for it. But what's happening at the moment?
All medical data is currently recorded digitally.
Austria is currently even a pioneer in this respect.
We have now introduced a digital vaccination record. The electronic health record.
And all this data will be collected and made available to a huge circle of institutions and people at once.
This data is collected and at some point will be available to the federal government, the state governments, the social
insurance companies, the emergency doctors, the hospitals, the doctors in private practice, all kinds of people.
In other words, confidentiality between doctor and patient - that which is crucial - that a patient goes to a doctor
where he has confidence and knows that he will be looked after.
And it's not my data that's floating around somewhere, being analyzed and used in some way, it's gone. It's completely gone.
And in my opinion, this leads firstly to the disappearance of the doctor-patient relationship.
If you read through the papers currently published by the World Economic Forum, the WHO or the laws,
there is never any mention of doctor and patient.
Then they'll just talk about healthcare providers. That's the new buzzword.
We are all healthcare providers.
As a doctor, I no longer appear in many of these papers.
And that leads to everything becoming incredibly depersonalized, dehumanized, in my opinion,
and that what medicine thrives on, trust, is gone.
If you read through the papers from the World Economic Forum, it goes as far as artificial
intelligence, which is being planned and will come.
It literally says in a paper: It is planned, literally, i.e. triage systems generated by artificial intelligence.
In other words, they even write that it is planned in the future that some artificial intelligence, a computer, will
decide who, when, where and what treatment is given or not.
So this is not an invention - I'm not saying that - it's in a paper from the World Economic Forum.
That is the vision of these people. And that is a development that is disastrous, that
is going completely in the wrong direction.
And which, in my opinion, should also be massively rejected and something urgently needs to be done about it.
We don't need any computers or any telephone numbers to treat people.
What is still completely lacking at the moment is prevention.
As doctors, we hardly ever learn how to keep someone healthy in healthcare, in training.
And that is the crucial point. Because if we keep people healthy, keep them fit, then we need
less medical treatment, fewer hospitals, etc.
And these are both undesirable developments.
And if you see, we also had this tradition here, in our latitudes in Europe.
But then came the Rockefeller Foundation, and in the 60s, 70s and 80s there were also major campaigns that were steered.
You can read all about how people were incapacitated, deliberately incapacitated, no longer taking their health
into their own hands, but instead relying on the authorities.
And this was then also integrated into the medical training.
And that makes no sense, if I want a plant in the garden to thrive, then I don't go there
when it has a problem and pour something over it.
Instead, I look: What does she get to eat, what does she get to drink and how much sun does she get.
So actually, if we detach this a little from the system, we know that this is actually the basic idea of a healing system.
And we used to have this plurality of opinions - I always enjoy reading old books on medical approaches - before
the Rockefeller Foundation, there was an art of healing.
Everyone had their own individual medicine. What one person did to his people in one village does not necessarily mean that he did
the same thing in another village a few streets down the road.
But that's how the whole thing developed.
How this development came about, that the Rockefeller Foundation, you've mentioned this a few times now, that it has had such a
massive influence over the last few decades, the last 100 years.
Why has it gone away from these healing aspects that we used to have to this pure apparatus and preparation medicine?
Money. So it was quite simple, it was recognized that at the beginning of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, homeopathy,
osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, these were all recognized medical studies that
ran in parallel and also had the same rights.
And then you realized, well, you can make a lot more money with petrochemicals.
And that's what's happened in medicine at the moment: I only have a symptom and I have a drug - and
everything else that makes up a person is left out.
Yes, as I said before, it's not an interest in curing, it's keeping someone on a drug for the rest of their life.
And with cardiovascular disease, the most obvious thing is probably that we know the cause.
We know the effective treatments, but in the system we have right now, there would be no remuneration and no doctor could live.
And we already have other models in Scandinavia where every doctor simply has a rate, a monetary rate, a flat
rate per month - and how many patients there are, what he does with the patient, doesn't matter.
That would also be a possibility for a system of the future.
We also have to be careful that we don't create a central structure again, which would be there
everywhere, because we have to get out of the WHO because we know who the donors behind it are.
But these decentralizations from the system are, I think, very optimistic movements.
How could this curriculum be changed?
Who would have the decision-making power? And what would have to happen for today's young
students to be given the medicine of tomorrow?
The future of medicine must change many things. It must change the industry's influence on curricula.
That's the first thing that has to happen.
The second thing that needs to happen is that we reintroduce the word species-appropriate for humans.
There is something that every human being fundamentally needs, it is part of our species.
And to all people. That is species-appropriate. Species-appropriate must be the basic principle of new curricula.
Then, of course, we have to change the guidelines.
Guidelines alone, the word already sounds like leading media, is a huge problem, is made by the industry.
And the doctors believe that they have to stay within these guard rails and that
everything to the left and right of them is forbidden.
And they are afraid to use their own minds because they are not trained to do so.
Professor Bhakdi, if you think about your colleagues who are still stuck in this old way of thinking that the corona policy was
right and vaccination is more important, how can we reach them?
Do you have any ideas on how we can bring them closer to reality?
It's not as if the doctors are stupid. They are not stupid. Most of them are very intelligent.
It's not that they want bad things. Most of them want good things.
But they are, Michael, indoctrinated. They are indoctrinated.
Only a small part has escaped and realized that the guidelines, the recommendations, that something is wrong.
Now that we have experienced this catastrophe with Corona, they are perhaps easier to reach.
These vaccination narratives came about because they were ultimately invented. And
there is incredibly little truth to them.
And the truth is that a good proportion of these vaccinations have terrible side effects. But who even dares to say that?
Mainstream and all people who are heard say: Aluminum is the most common heavy metal in the world.
And everyone breathes it in and eats it every day. It does nothing.
And the small amounts that you inject with these inactivated vaccines are in all inactivated vaccines, and in
high concentrations, relatively speaking. They are so much less than what you eat, so forget it.
But what people don't tell you is that there is a big difference between eating something and injecting something into your body.
Because what is injected is exactly what I said about corona.
These vaccines do not stay there, they go into the bloodstream.
And aluminum in the bloodstream goes immediately to all organs, including the brain.
One of the people who knows the most about it is sitting next to me.
And in the brain, this aluminum is bad. There is nothing good that aluminum does in the brain, only bad.
And it also goes into all the other organs. And there's nothing good that aluminum does. Isn't there?
That's why I suggest that we reconsider this.
Do we want to inject a vaccine with aluminum into the muscles of children at three months - now they want to start even earlier -
in order to reach the toxic concentration in the child's blood?
Always. They are poisonous.
And the smaller the child is, the higher the concentration, because of course it is
distributed in this small volume for the first time.
Yes, and it is very rare for the viruses to actually enter the bloodstream and spread in large quantities, in high numbers.
Yes, when that happens, you can get very ill. But it happens extremely rarely, because
and that's also a problem with my colleagues.
Numbers no longer mean anything in medicine. They don't understand anything about numbers.
They don't understand that if someone has the flu or corona, really, and a virus finds its way into the
bloodstream every now and then, or 10 viruses or 100 viruses or millions of viruses, that people won't die from it.
On the contrary, if you inject billions, not millions, of genes into the body, packaged well so that they
cannot be destroyed, then the bloodstream is flooded with a number of protected viruses.
And if they have antibodies, the antibodies cannot take effect because this lipid packaging protects the viruses, the genes.
And that is the great crime that has been committed.
Ah. These people, the Nobellists of last year, have ensured that indestructible genes have been injected in
incredible quantities into the bodies of millions of people, I think a billion by now, yes.
And the outrageous thing is that they knew that the effects were unknown.
Relevant data is only collected post-marketing, write the people at the Robert Koch Institute.
You are declaring that a human experiment should be carried out.
I am speechless. And I am calling on the world now. To do something about it. I
really have to say, these are the conspirators.
When I observe medicine, and I am also a member of the Medical Association and talk to colleagues, I realize how
concerned some doctors have become about what has happened.
They don't like to talk about it, but everyone or most doctors actually know that something has gone completely wrong.
If you look at it, there are surveys in Germany that show that about half of the German population knows
someone or has been affected by vaccination side effects.
In my opinion, the coronavirus has led to a fundamental crisis in modern Western medicine in recent years.
And people can see that it was all nonsense, if you'll pardon the expression.
How many people do you think come to me in the surgery with health problems after the vaccination, where their
grandfather died from the vaccination, where their sister is seriously ill after the vaccination or relatives, acquaintances.
People come to me in the surgery and say, doctor, I'm not vaccinated, but my vaccinated colleagues are constantly ill.
They fail all the time. We all experience that every day. And we doctors experience this every day.
Doctors don't like to talk about it because many doctors have of course pushed for vaccination.
But we are currently experiencing the collapse of evidence.
I'll tell you straight out, John Ioannidis published over 20 years ago that 90 percent of studies are wrong
- one of the most widely read scientific publications.
And now people are realizing that. People are realizing day by day that what they were told about vaccination is not true.
This is the next step in this system of why medicine is in crisis.
And we knew what harmed us and what helped us.
The heal criteria for vaccination versus autism have been clarified. We know it's dangerous.
We can now say, okay, we'll do another ten years of research.
But in the next ten years, babies will be born every day with an autism risk of 1:32 or even higher. Why don't we just end this?
Why don't we just stop doing it until we know whether we can rule it out?
The question is not, can we prove that it is not so, but we must put an end to it so that simply no one is born
with the potential to become ill because of something we have changed that was not there before.
He who controls knowledge also controls opinions.
And the globalist players and networks are of course all too aware of this.
Billions are being poured into journalist networks and media companies around the world, which retain the power of
interpretation over every significant event and development in the world and, above all, clearly
communicate to the population what they should think about it.
This information monopoly is also the central pillar of a globalist transformation.
And that is the central anchor in the elites' fight against the people.
The most important tool in the direction of unfreedom is clear to everyone.
So anyone can take their cell phone these days, record a video and upload it to TikTok, Instagram or YouTube.
Simply sharing your own thoughts and visions. That is the first step.
And if you want to go public and be part of this alternative medium, then anyone can do it.
And that is the positive thing about today.
We can use the media for something positive and get a positive message out.
Or we just spend the whole day in bed scrolling around on TikTok or watching series.
And it always starts with your own decision: what do I choose?
If I want to change something in this world, then I have to do something.
My father simply dealt with this fourth power from the ground up and realized: the fourth power is
not the fourth power at all, it is the first power.
No more compulsory fees for this war propaganda, for these so-called leading media that squander billions here, for
notorious lies, but this fourth power has become the first power and it belongs back to the people and he
has therefore worked very hard on a people's network.
And I also see the key to new media in the new man, where he has actually achieved this.
He actually said this in a provocative sentence. He said: The new world is without money.
And afterwards always, yes, it needs money. Of course it needs money, but it's not the focus.
Rather, it's volunteering, giving, fully investing myself in the firm belief that everything will flow back to me,
because the person who sees my performance will support me.
And here I see the self-promotion as an extreme model for the future.
Now it's time to turn off the free media's money tap from everywhere.
I heard about AUF1, ten accounts canceled. You want to get in everywhere.
Here is a solid basis in the free media, where people invest themselves voluntarily and say: It's my concern, it's my thing.
After work, I spend my time, I spend my skills, my knowledge.
I think that's the kind of basis that makes the new media extremely secure and ensures that it remains a popular movement.
That's what fascinates me about our work. That's how it came about.
Today we have over 2,000 voluntary contributors to various projects:
Stimme&Gegenstimme is designed for offline distribution.
Where we say it's just an A4 sheet, front and back, and I pass it on to two and motivate him to
give it to two again, that he gives it to two again.
We are also building this network now. It's also a concept that, for me, has a character for new media at this time.
But everything is always based on people. It relies on your own change, on your own ability to take action.
The new system is based on the new people.
And then we are also sure that there is not this corporate dependency, this is even better in the voluntary sector.
You are not financially dependent at all, but can really say what needs to be said.
It was also very impressive to see the community spirit that you had back then.
90 minutes later, the hall was swept clean. It was just like Swiss clockwork.
So it was really impressive. Greetings to the outside, to home.
Greetings from my father and the whole family.
Yes, thank you very much.
I also know from my experience in the GDR that journalism and the media cannot be thought of without the political system.
In the GDR, the SED leadership had to resign first. First Honecker, Mittag and Herrmann had to resign,
i.e. the party leader, the economy and propaganda.
And then, the next day, journalism could immediately deliver what people wanted from it.
Today we have a media landscape, a leading media landscape that is firmly in the hands of the state, politics, corporations,
public broadcasting and platforms anyway, but also the major newspapers, which are in the hands of a
few ultra-rich families: Mohn, Burda Bauer, Holzbrink.
So I have to start my vision with a society in which we all, including us here on the podium, us here in the
room, us at the screens, in which we can all have a say, have a say when it comes to our lives.
To do this, we not only need information, as your presentation made clear, but above all we need
transparency. Information is an instrument of power.
We have experienced a quantum leap in this area, in the area of counter-publicity, in recent years,
I would still like to know about every appeal for donations, even if it involves a lifetime or lifeblood, as in your case, Elias. I
still want to know what the financial situation is with every appeal for donations. Is
the station attached to my 10 euros or not?
That is one part of my vision: transparency. The second part, the second pillar, is diversity: diversity of
topics, diversity of perspectives, diversity of opinions. Diversity in the origin of the authors.
So not only the usual big-city academics in all possible skin colors and with all conceivable sexual orientations, but also the
working-class son, the farmer's daughter, the country children.
Perhaps also diversity in organizational forms. Why not experiment with audience
participation, not experiment with audience speeches?
Without a change in political structures, we will not get a different media landscape.
We have actually seen the future here in this congress.
So we should simply carry on, carry it forward in the sense of a real utopia, try ourselves out and in this way increase the
pressure so much that the political structures actually change.
We come from a situation where the absolute sovereignty of mainstream opinion was assumed.
So if you consumed media 20 years ago, you only had the mainstream as an alternative. And
that has changed dramatically with the internet.
And ultimately, media consumption behavior also depends on the viewer's media literacy.
Above all, I would like to see a bit more happening in the future.
Because if viewers were aware of the manipulation techniques that are constantly being used on them day
after day, they would be much more resistant to them.
And then propaganda would also be less effective.
And yes, I simply want media that give people the information they need to shape their lives better.
And not the opposite, as we are currently experiencing.
We don't do the media for our own sake, because we could do something else.
We are doing it because society and politics and the framework conditions and the future are changing.
Because I have children, many of you have children. We don't want them to grow up in a world where they are just
slaves or where they no longer have a right to exist because of transhumanism and have to leave.
So we want something to change fundamentally.
And that's why the topic of alternative media or this unpleasant topic of censorship is always said
to be just our problem. It's everyone's problem.
If there is censorship and if there is no alternative media, then people cannot get information.
And then they can't see for themselves.
If we want free media, we need free citizens, we need free, liberated politics.
These are vessels that communicate with each other. And without one, the other is not possible.
And by making progress in the media, we also make progress in society.
As society progresses, the political balance of power is also changing.
Because when the lie enters into battle with the truth, we know who will win in the end.
And in the beginning, of course, you just want to educate or deal with the topics that
used to interest me personally or still do.
I address that and then you immediately get a headwind and immediate pressure from YouTube, from these
platforms. But the key is to keep going and not give up.
And that is very, very difficult. But I can see from this congress here today that it is possible.
Of course, it would be better if even more young people took this step and went public or at least dared to speak their minds.
People who are actually still trapped in this, yes, I found a great word, in the thought dungeon
of the system media. Yes, how can we reach them?
I believe that people have a second prison in addition to the prison of thought, the prison of
prosperity. This has also been mentioned a few times today.
In my research, I investigated what makes people stop watching Tagesschau and switch to AUF1,
for example. The answer is relatively simple.
There always needs to be a break between personal experience and the official narrative.
When the official narrative no longer matches personal experience, people start looking
for other information, on a Golan or elsewhere.
More and more people will experience these disruptions in their everyday lives.
And then it's good that there are offers like yours, your offer, everything we have here on the stage, that there are
these offers, because that's where people will find answers.
So here, too, we just have to carry on and trust that reality, and therefore time, will play out for us.
The economic data doesn't indicate anything other than that next year 2025 will see an unbelievable
wave of insolvencies with mass unemployment and so on.
There are now major shock events and we have to set up our vessels, we have to stand up, we have to be ready,
we have to be recognizable as beacons for the seekers when they somehow stumble out into the dark.
And that's why. You should really get the GEZ media to work on a voluntary basis in the evening from their own concerns
with their own resources and then you would be on an equal footing and could see where people are really interested.
We have relied on our own servers and infrastructure right from the start, but we haven't let the others go, and I think that's
the stone that can bring down the Goliath if everyone really finds their own slingshot
and sets up their own decentralized systems.
And then network with each other and federate with each other, find each other, decentralized.
But I say, how can you start right now and here local networking is, of course, the keyword, really call people and say,
people, you're on the spot, get us the information, we need the best experts, we must have the best information.
I also say that professionalism and so on is totally important and needed.
On the other hand, if you really have the top information, the top experts, then we were also always amazed at how
the most unprofessional programs went into the millions when we invested in other productions and so on.
We also made feature films, theatrical films, all on a voluntary basis, and we kept getting kicked out
of the theaters and I don't know what, huge expenses.
And you produced other work on the side, but it had a certain spin to it and then people wanted it, they needed it.
Before we get more into this balance, into justice, you simply have to exhaust all means and here local networking is the
absolute plus, which we see as a central strategy for the future, you have to use everything,
decentralized servers, social media as long as possible.
We are constantly adopting new strategies, new approaches, new paths, we hold task forces where we discuss which social media
reacts to which censorship and how, what is still possible where?
We have to remain active on all fronts, but local networking, calling people into the network, calling them out of
anonymity and saying: Hey, you live there and there, go over there to the event, take photos, send them here.
We need to get a head start and then let our professionalism increase.
But always take the resources you have and just go full steam ahead.
I've been arguing the thesis from the very beginning and from the very beginning means 2005, 2006, i.e. when YouTube was
born, we were there from the very beginning and that's why I'm a bit stubborn on the subject, to be honest.
I don't want to be driven away from this big marketplace.
If you sell a product, you go to the market and shout, then you sell it.
But if someone somehow comes along and says, no, no, you're only allowed to offer your stuff back there in the very last corner,
in the very last alley, I won't go along with that, because that's a distortion of competition and I
insist that the conditions are the same for everyone.
But as I said, I'm stubborn. It's happened to us several times.
We just started all over again at the beginning of 2024 on YouTube.
And I'm also of the opinion that we absolutely have to do that, because that's exactly where the people
are that we have to reach in order to change something.
After all, there's no point in always playing in the same bubble.
Plus Shadow Bans, our largest channel, 280,000 subscribers.
If I upload a video there, and it doesn't matter whether the content hits or misses, as you just
described, it gets 2,000, 3,000 clicks and that's it.
If YouTube really decides to go radical at some point and ban everyone from the platform for good, which is certainly feasible
with artificial intelligence, then the point would be reached where consumers would be forced to look for new ways again.
People want to be entertained, bread and games. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.
We should not completely ignore this in this alternative bubble.
I believe that it is essential for changing society and politics that these media are also broken up.
This is a quagmire. You can't reform it. The second is censorship.
Censorship must be prohibited by law, if we are talking about laws.
What is censorship? Censorship is not just that they cut us off from the competition. No, we
have experienced it with Corona. Censorship kills.
Censorship kills. Because a lot of viewers who have contacted us in the last two years have said that if I'd seen
your program, I wouldn't have let that shit get into me.
And I am now ill because of it or I have lost a dear person. I didn't get any clarification.
I typed in this Google: Vaccination dangerous.
And I have only found the pages of the German government and Wikipedia, where it is stated that the vaccination
protects and is safe. And the Lauterbach video a thousand times.
So there's the censorship. In future, this must be treated like failure to provide assistance.
If I drive past a car accident and just laugh about it, then I can be prosecuted for not helping.
And when the media or Silicon Valley corporations censor, it can happen that they cut people off from vital information.
This must be strictly prohibited or the free market will regulate it and we will chase them away anyway. But that's the issue.
A revolution cannot be outlined in individual steps, but in the distant future there must be no
censorship and no public funding for one side only.
It's about the democracy of tomorrow.
More and more people perceive the current state of EU-Europe as a simulation of democracy, where democracy is highly
praised and sanctified, but in reality is not filled with life.
The Western woke elites and their mass media claim that they alone represent democracy. And
that their democracy must be constantly defended.
More and more people are experiencing lack of freedom, state persecution and repression.
The state is often perceived as an overbearing tool of the powerful.
Today, there is no longer any talk of the people, from whom all power was supposed to emanate.
I am firmly convinced that, to describe the current situation, we are dealing with a multiple coup d'état - a
breakdown of the separation of powers on a broad front.
And that we are confronted with a vicious regime, the viciousness of which is not apparent
to the majority of the population in my view.
And that's why I'm quoting from our latest publication, Gegendruck:
A vicious melange of rulers holds on to power with predatory lies, massive corruption censorship, omnipresent
propaganda, permanent breaches of the law, war cries and permanent state attacks against any opposition.
As a result, governments, the corporate economy and anonymous bureaucracies are increasingly
mutating into networked criminal political organizations.
The term criminocracy could be an adequate description of the monstrous power syndicate of postmodernism.
And we have to learn democracy in the first place because we've never had one.
For me, democracy in a nutshell today means the reversal of all existing relationships. It means
learning everything anew, retraining everything.
And may I conclude my first statement by saying that we must document the crimes of recent years.
Because if the system falls, and I hope it does, we will need a documentation center for regime crimes.
This is essential if we want to move forward into a new society, because the old gangsters and criminals, the organized criminals,
must be held accountable in some form under the rule of law.
In principle, the regulations that we have in Germany or Austria, i.e. our constitution of 1923,
1928 or the German Basic Law of 1949, are very good.
So they are well thought out and they set sensible rules for a democracy.
But as we have seen in the last, not years, but decades, this erosion, which has already been mentioned here, is not enough.
And there are various ways in which this set of rules is being undermined or used by forces that we do not see, that we do
not choose, that we cannot control, to impose their will on us.
And here I see two very important things for the democracy of tomorrow.
One thing is that politicians are once again true representatives of the people. That sounds so obvious now.
But a politician today represents all interests, those of the pharmaceutical industry, those of any
secret services, foreign secret services preferred.
And that must end. And as soon as he is a representative of the people, he is only responsible to the people, the sovereign.
And the people must become aware of their power.
That means the second component: We need citizens again who have earned the name and not just some end consumers.
And these citizens also need to inform themselves. And that goes beyond the entertainment program at the jungle camp.
Horst Seehofer would add: Those who decide are not elected and those who are elected have nothing to
decide, he said wonderfully to the cameras at the time.
The Nobel Peace Prize went to the EU, which is now preparing for war against Russia, or to the drone murderer Barack Obama.
We live in an absolute simulation.
I believe that it is possible, and this is where I stop with my mission statement, that politicians with
responsibility become people's representatives when they are burdened with responsibility.
Among primitive peoples today, if the chief sacrifices his people because he orders them to do something
wrong, a false war or something similar, then he is beheaded, for example among the Indians.
There is responsibility. And if a politician does something that is bad for the community, there must be responsibility.
We are civilized and we don't behead anyone or hang anyone on cranes. But he must be punished.
He must be liable with his assets. That cannot be the case.
Independence of the judiciary, free from the interests of the state. What does that mean?
For me, this means that the judiciary actually prosecutes and sanctions violations by the state,
violations of the law, violations of the constitution and possibly violations of the penal code.
Only then can we be sure that we have an independent judiciary if it really does keep a watchful eye on the state,
which may be abusing its offices or perhaps betraying the constitution and thus the interests of citizens.
And that's where it lies. And your case shows that. Many cases show it.
Almost all of us are affected in some way.
Above all, of course, Corona shows to an impressive extent that this is exactly what is not happening.
Yes, let's pass the question on to Michael Ballweg.
Yes, I wanted to add something, because it's very important. Arbitrariness can only ever take place in the dark.
And I don't think many people know how a criminal trial works.
So criminal trials are public, but they are not recorded, nor are minutes taken in criminal trials.
So nothing is documented in this whole procedure. And that opens the door to arbitrariness.
So if we really say that we have an independent judiciary, then it must also be controlled.
And this is best controlled by a broad public.
And there's nothing wrong with broadcasting a court case like mine in public.
First of all, of course, to record it so that you can see afterwards in the audit what actually happened.
And so that people are also given a control function.
We've never had an independent judiciary in Germany either.
For example, the judiciary has always been a hybrid, as we all know.
The public prosecutor's offices are all dependent on instructions and that's where the first corpse lies in the pepper.
And that means that they cannot achieve an independent judiciary through this construction alone.
Regardless of the reactionary judiciary.
I'm a natural at this, I come from a legal background.
I know what these people are like and the only sensible thing my old man once said was that it's not about
justice in court, you get a judgment in court.
Period. Great sentence, right.
A revolution, and especially a violent revolution, is to be rejected, quite clearly. Life is to be honored.
The USA is nothing other than a violent war state and an armament state.
And Mike Lofgren, who knows the whole place inside out, was a member of parliament for many, many years.
He wrote the book The Deep State. He proved in the book that the average
congressman is at least 40 to 50% busy raising money.
So, and that is almost exclusively through the arms companies. And then you can think about why the USA is such a warring state.
Not only because of their own ideology, "We have to be the first."
You can read about this in all foreign and security policy and intelligence papers, where available.
And from the national security programs and statements again and again, we have to be the first.
The world has to take its cue from us and so on. Anyone who is like that already has war in their program.
And that's why we don't need this kind of democracy, because it isn't one. We need completely new procedures.
For who, so to speak, should actually determine, perhaps also lead or guide or direct?
I have nothing against a world order, a council, a high council, if it consists of the very
best people who act for us in the best interests.
If they are irreproachable, if they are wise, if they are experienced, if they have really shown through their lives that
they are honorable, wise, experienced, human men and women.
The best, really the very best, who make the essential decisions in terms of freedom and peace and contentment, of course.
But these best people will do the same.
So I would like to take up the cudgels for the Council, a World Council, so to speak, if, and this
is the prerequisite, if they really are the best.
And that is the longest way to get there.
Because what we really need to learn again - and I'll make one last point - are respect, decency, politeness and manners.
This lack of space, no matter whether on German highways or in any other way, this unspeakable, this decay of
manners, which is really also an expression of the fact that we are not governed by the best.
And if they are the best, then I would be very happy to put myself in their hands, because we all have enough to do.
And in our small circles, in our small societies, in our small and smallest units, family, profession,
community, city, country, nation, we have enough to do anyway.
How can a state and a society produce truly responsible citizens?
Let's just start with Mr. Schöning on the outside.
Yes, the first thing to say, as a doctor's diagnosis, is that we don't have a democracy at all, we have an
oligarchy. Especially in the Federal Republic of Germany.
If you look at who founded it in the first place - an Adenauer family, McCloy. How can we do better?
We can do better by combining elections and lottery procedures. By also saying what is.
And I am always very grateful to Ulrich Mies for putting it in clear terms and saying that we are an organized crime here.
And Beate Bahner, for example, who also takes this to the courts and tries to establish the rule of law. We don't have that.
But with a balance between elections and lots, a lottery system, I am sure that we can improve it and make it practical.
And we should work towards this.
If we then also tackle the problem of this fraudulent fiat money interest money, then there
will be much, much more added value left over.
And then people - this is of course a vision - would have an incredible amount more time to
commit themselves to what is true, good and beautiful.
And that is where we are working towards, because then we will have responsible citizens, then we will be
like in ancient Athens, where truly responsible people can take on responsibility by lot.
And I think we can head in that direction and there are some wonderful developments, we just have to keep at it.
Germany's national debt now stands at more than 2.5 trillion euros.
High energy prices threaten the competitiveness of European companies and industrial production.
The planned digital euro threatens the financial freedom of citizens.
What could a monetary and economic system of tomorrow look like that keeps people free and independent?
I'm talking about this today with the following guests.
What should a monetary and economic system of tomorrow look like? Time is running out.
So a monetary and economic system of tomorrow should above all have less government
and should rest on a few very simple pillars.
Namely, that people are free and can act freely.
This includes a lean state that takes up no more than 10% of the gross national product.
Lean legislation where we could delete 99% of the current laws.
A monetary system in which the state can no longer instrumentalize money to expropriate us in various ways, especially inflation.
There is actually only one gold-backed system, I don't see any other, despite Bitcoin.
And essentially to let people do what they think is right for them.
An end to the idea that politicians know better than us what is good for us. That's it already.
I can add that I think financial self-determination must be the most important feature of the new monetary system.
We must not hand over our financial self-determination to someone else.
And that is exactly what is threatening us at the moment.
So we are threatened with the introduction of digital central bank money.
And that means that someone else decides what we are allowed to do and what we can do.
This means that our self-determination is lost. For me, this is the central point that is important in the next phase.
- And the next monetary system or the various systems should not be able to develop a dominant currency, so
that sanctionism finally stops - so that everyone can produce and hack in peace and quiet.
That is the most important thing for me now from a global perspective.
In my view, it is not expedient to leave everything as it is - less government and the like - but we are all continuing
in an elbow-competitive society with simply free markets.
But I'm talking more about a kind of cooperative capitalism, where this cooperative
component should simply become much more pronounced.
After all, many scientists have already researched this and clearly proven that we can clearly generate
more revenue overall - i.e. more prosperity for all - with the same effort through cooperation.
Or the same result as today with significantly less effort.
And then you simply have to consider: do we need sovereign money? Does it have to be backed? In whatever form?
Is that even true about the money supply?
Where does the money for the interest actually come from?
So the bottom line is a paradigm shift on many, many levels.
And economics and finance are only a very small part of it all, albeit a very important one.
If I were Minister of Economics or Finance, I would not come up with a measure of my
own, but with a huge public awareness campaign.
I would follow on from Henry Ford, who once said: "If people understood the monetary system, we
would have a revolution before tomorrow morning."</i
I don't think most people have the slightest idea of how such a monetary system works and I would
launch a huge awareness campaign with two main focuses.
I would explain to people that the monetary system we have had since the Second World War is dominated by one currency,
the US dollar, which most people are not even aware of.
And secondly, that the central banks that are maintaining this monetary system at the moment are controlled by a private
organization in the background, namely BlackRock, which is acting as the main advisor to both
the Federal Reserve and the ECB at the moment.
I think this way, I would first enable people to understand the whole thing and actually have a say and a say themselves.
I think it's quite good if the money is tied to a physical value.
We are living in a time of digitalization and a time in which all these cryptocurrencies are being brought ever closer to us.
I consider this to be a great danger, because cryptocurrencies are ultimately nothing
more than a data set, i.e. not a physical asset.
And a data set only has value as long as people recognize it as money.
I'm a sceptic when it comes to Bitcoin - also generally known - simply because I always think to myself that
Bitcoin is like a vault and someone is sitting in front of it trying to open the vault.
And after much effort, he succeeds. And he opens the door and what does he find inside? Nothing. Nothing at all.
And I also believe that Dirk Müller was not entirely wrong when he said a few years ago
that Bitcoin is nothing more than a Trojan horse.
I think that if you look at when Bitcoin came into the world, you must have some doubts.
Bitcoin was launched in 2009, shortly after the global financial crisis of 2007/2008.
The great interest at the time was to introduce a new monetary system, digital central bank money, at some point.
That slowly became apparent at the time.
And to do this, young people in particular had to be prepared to embrace digital money as much as possible.
And this is exactly the role that Bitcoin played back then. A lot of people, especially young people, jumped on Bitcoin.
And we have seen recently that Bitcoin is being played with incredibly.
What many people don't realize is that Bitcoin is anything but a democratic currency.
Because 91 percent of Bitcoin is in the hands of large investors. Only 9 percent is in the hands of ordinary earners.
This alone shows that this currency can of course be moved in one direction or the other by large investors.
And I agree with Ernst Wolff that if 91% of these bitcoins are in the hands of a few people or large
investors, then trust is very, very difficult to establish.
The second thing, however, is that Bitcoin is only really undisputed or unique as long as the code cannot be cracked.
But it's only a matter of time before the computing power is sufficient to crack the code.
And if it is true that patents have already been filed on how to decrypt the Bitcoin code, then it is
only a matter of time before it can also be decrypted.
And then it is actually obsolete to think about whether Bitcoin is a veritable thing. Because then I can also multiply it.
So this limitation that I promised everyone is just an empty promise. So it has to be kept first.
Today, this is a common business model. People go into debt in fiat money, in the certainty of monetary deterioration.
Monetary deterioration is the main repayment component and thus buys assets and accumulates wealth.
And in this way, people have been taken to the cleaners, because it is possible to make money
at the click of a mouse, by posting a record.
And this has been the case since 1970. Formal gold backing was abandoned in 1971, and since then money has been
produced without performance and without prior savings.
This means that it is produced and then has to be developed later.
In 1970, the average employee in Germany had about 5,000 euros, converted.
Now we are at around 30,000, which is roughly 475 percent. However, you can only get a tenth as much gold today.
In other words, the printing of money has reduced the value of labor by 90 percent when calculated in gold.
The two most important instruments of power in the world are, on the one hand, money, i.e. we come from a society over
several hundred or several thousand years in which the following sentence applied: Money rules the world.
We can't beat about the bush. Money has ruled the world.
In our time, there is also a second means of power, and that is data.
So anyone who has an infinite amount of money and an infinite amount of data in this day and age, such as a man like Elon Musk,
has an incredible amount of power and can determine a great deal and can rise above other people and help determine their fate.
And that is why I am in favor of approaching the constitution and including a limitation of power in the
constitution as far as money and data are concerned.
So I am very, very skeptical of any approach that allows any state - even a majority in a state - to have tyranny.
And taking away earned money is always tyranny.
I take something from someone and then what do I do with it?
Then I'll give it to the politicians. Or do the politicians get it so they can wage war with it?
An even worse socialist concept.
So I think we should just get away from the idea that there should be a central power here that restricts the
individual in his creativity and in what he can achieve.
And I think patents and licenses are something very harmful in our time anyway, especially in the IT sector, because a
lot of young people who found start-ups today quickly hit a wall because they violate these patents and licenses.
If they have good ideas, they are quickly taken over by large companies.
So my suggestion - to throw something concrete into the round here - would be to give up
patents and licenses in the IT sector worldwide.
I don't want a state that empowers and commands itself, you can do that, you can do that.
In other words, I fully agree with Markus Krall and say that the state must exercise complete restraint.
The market itself must decide which type is ideal for this.
If things are desired by the majority or by a certain critical mass of people, then
charitable institutions can be created there.
- That will happen automatically, if that is the way it should be. But the state must exercise maximum restraint there.
And then it doesn't come to these great excesses.
We should simply abolish debt. It must be banned.
But if we look today, according to the Institute of International Finance, we have a global debt of
around 400 percent of the world's gross national product.
So around 400 percent, depending on which year we look at now. This can never be repaid, even at low interest rates.
In this respect, debt is not a good idea. We should really say goodbye to it.
The FED is a private bank owned by private banks, which the state has granted a legal monopoly to print money -
without compensation - and has also given them the supervision of the banks as a monopoly.
This is nothing other than an oligarchic network that has managed to undermine the
market economy in the sense of a state monopoly.
This kind of thing should be smoked out, I say, from a market economy perspective.
In the USA, the best example was the Silicon Valley Bank, which was allowed to go bankrupt so that a member
bank, i.e. a bank owned by the Federal Reserve, JP Morgan, could take over the bank.
Then they said you don't have to worry about the bad loans that are in there - all the government bonds that are devalued
because you have infinite backing from the Federal Reserve.
For me, that is state corruption or corruption in this system.
And this only made it possible for the necessary correction - and this is basically what Schumpeter meant by
saying that we have to allow bankruptcy from time to time in order to have a cleansing thunderstorm.
This was not allowed in the financial industry because it was always labeled as systemically relevant or
something else, whereas it is always allowed in the real economy - especially in the SME sector.
And that is not right. I think this injustice is one of the key points that needs to be corrected.
And then I would like to point out that we should not glorify the market economy too much.
If I imagine the healthcare system and approach it as a market economist, then I go and say I have to run a
group. I have to generate a lot of money with the group.
I have to offer my shareholders good dividends. And how do I achieve this in the healthcare system?
The best way is to keep people ill for as long as possible, let them get better for a short time when they
are ill, but generally keep them as customers by keeping them ill for as long as possible.
So I think that healthcare, for example, is an area in which the market economy has no place whatsoever.
And then, and this is the second point, we also need a genuine rule of law, which I would like to question, at least in part.
Because we do not have a completely independent judiciary.
If the judiciary is bound by instructions or can be influenced by certain government influences, which unfortunately we now have
several examples of, not only with Mr. Ballweg or others, but also in larger scandals, then we have a
situation here that is simply not possible, which we were promised otherwise under the Basic Law.
And we simply have to go back to that.
These are adjustments that we can easily make and that I am quite sure will be implemented in the next few years, because
the way it is now, people are accepting it less and less.
So we are dealing with the Magnificent Seven in Silicon Valley.
That's Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Nvidia, Tesla and one other company, so there are seven in total and they
hold almost all the patents and licenses in this area.
They do what benefits them and not what benefits the rest of humanity.
And that has reached a very dangerous threshold at the moment, because they have the knowledge in the field of artificial
intelligence, and when it comes to artificial intelligence in particular, it has to be
said that there are some really alarming signs.
Well, I just want to remind you that Jeffrey Hinton, the chief developer at Google, resigned last year on
the grounds that it had all become far too dangerous.
The same applies to Mo Goddard, the head of marketing at Google X, who is now touring the UK and filling entire
halls with stories about how humanity has reached its Frankenstein moment in the field of AI.
So just to remind you, Dr. Frankenstein is the fictional character of a doctor who sews together a human being from corpse
parts and breathes life into him, only to discover that this person is suddenly stronger,
more intelligent and also more evil than he is.
So we are on a very dangerous threshold.
And the big problem I see is that the development of this technology is in the hands of very few people who are only
interested in their own interests, in their own advantage.
What can entrepreneurs do in concrete terms to get their money and economy back on track?
The entrepreneurs must now recognize the value of educational work such as AUF1 and support it so
that it continues to take place and can be expanded.
So this reticence that they're already doing it and we're doing our thing has to stop.
We are in the same boat here and there are too few of us for us to be able to afford to just let others do it.
I believe that SMEs should show quite confidently that they really are the basis of society and ensure that people
actually buy from SMEs and serve SMEs and not the platform economy of today, which does exactly the opposite.
It is creating fewer and fewer jobs, and is in fact hardly training any more young people.
Images of a free world of tomorrow, under this wonderful motto we continue our coverage of the Alternative WEF from Prague.
Left against right, top against bottom, migrants against nationals.
The majority of the population has uncritically tolerated the totalitarian coronavirus coercive measures.
Adaptation was more important than independent thinking.
In general, there is an incredible pressure to conform, especially in Germany.
The demonization of the term lateral thinker is emblematic of how free spirits are to be eradicated with stump and style.
The number of academics is rising, but the number of independent thinkers is falling.
Adult education outside the norms is completely unknown to the masses.
It's an educational problem that starts at school and ends with a hectic society.
Individual overload, stress, risk of burnout and hardly anyone has the time or leisure for further training,
independent thinking or even personal responsibility.
Critics claim that all this is deliberate in order to be able to steer the compliant herd without any problems.
Working, consuming, paying taxes and not rebelling. But is that what we want?
And what should or could the values and society of tomorrow look like?
Personal responsibility is a big word that is needed in a free society, but is learned and practiced far too little.
That you simply have the feeling that you are responsible for others, that you are responsible for your own
happiness and your own health and that we are all one and that if we harm others, we also harm ourselves.
Over the last four years, I have been involved for many, many years with criticism of this materialistic medicine, of
conventional medicine, which treats people like a machine, which separates body, soul and spirit, which seeks and
finds the reason for health and illness in the smallest building blocks of our existence in the material world.
And I ask myself all the time how such a thing is even possible, that medicine does not change, when we have ultimately known for
a long time, from psychonormology for example, and also from psychosomatic research, that health and illness can no longer be
thought of in any other way than by adding immaterial factors, which are possibly even more powerful when it comes to
the question of what keeps us healthy and what makes us ill.
I have relied on journalism in a naive form, I have always consumed the entire system media and I had to
realize that I was taken in by the whole thing for 50 years and was seduced into a false way of thinking.
And the question of why something doesn't change cannot be solved with the mind.
And that is important for me to bring this aspect into this panel discussion. This is not about understanding.
It's not about using pure reason to understand what happened.
The first Enlightenment over 300 years ago, in the 18th century, gave us the opportunity to distance ourselves from the
nobility and clergy and to perceive ourselves as citizens.
We were given the power of reason and we may have done a lot of mischief with it.
Because what happened after the pure use of the mind with the loss of the rational, the emotional, the spiritual, we
went towards industrialization, towards mechanization, capitalism, neoliberalism, now we are at transhumanism.
This means that people are increasingly becoming machines.
And I strongly advocate that, especially in view of these last few years, we should change our thinking
and focus on the irrational rather than the rational.
If you ask me what kind of image I have, then I have to tell you that I believe that there is no
person in the world who does not have a special ability.
And if I believe that, then it would actually be our social responsibility to help, encourage, support and coach
them to develop this talent and contribute it to society.
If we succeed in doing this, then there will be synergy between these individuals, who have incredible abilities.
If we succeed in doing this, then we will have raised society, society's values, to such an extent that we will have no problem
at all satisfying basic material needs and individual luxury needs thanks to the technology we have
developed in recent years. But it would then be a synergy and actually paradisiacal conditions.
And this image drives me and that's what gives me the strength to get through it all, even if I'm a little hostile, if I
have different thoughts or if I demand certain transparency.
Well, I have to speak for medicine, my specialty is medicine.
I would like to revolutionize this soulless medicine.
You can't reform that, you really have to improve it from the bottom up.
I used to stand at attention when I heard WHO.
I thought they had the wisdom and it took me a long time to realize that this is really the very last thing we need.
I have a joke that we used to tell each other when I was a student: Give a physics student a collection
of physics formulas and tell them to memorize them.
Then he asks, why? If I need it, I know where it is.
Give a medical student the telephone directory of his home town and tell him to memorize it. He asks, until when?
During the pandemic they said, please vaccinate, they didn't ask why, but how often. so very adapted,
very straightforward and never questioned anything.
And I make a very strong distinction between doctors and physicians.
Doctors are a dime a dozen. The university hospitals are teeming with doctors.
They read every study and are up to date on the current state of error.
If you've been in the business as long as I have, you know that there are paradigm shifts that are firmly believed.
And at some point someone comes along and says that's not true.
If you've experienced this a few times, then you know that not everything is set in stone.
We all know that a human being is an individual - translated, this means an indivisible duality.
And I would extend it, I would say that man says Indivitrium - indivisible trinity between body, mind and soul.
And there may often be psychological problems that manifest themselves physically.
If they are treating the body, they are on completely the wrong site.
The doctor must see the person as a whole, not as the sum of their organs, but as the sum of body, mind and soul.
I think the desolate state of German education in particular is absolutely intentional.
The inflationary awarding of pseudo-academic titles for gender mainstreaming of whatever kind.
You can put any term you like at the end of it.
I think we lack the courage to admit that.
And I see this as the final stretch of a decadence, a neglect of prosperity that we have in our society, which leads to a panic of
wanting to preserve the little luxury that is still there, this pseudo-security, to
submit to everything that is held up as a spectre.
No, but a self-responsibility in which we say that we refuse to obey an order from Nancy Faeser, a
directive from Karl Lauterbach, when it comes to vaccination.
We refuse the policeman's order to put on the mask.
No, we have to learn to say as adults, no, I'm not doing that and I'll take the consequences.
In my view, that is also the most peaceful way to do it.
Because it's a passive way of saying to someone, I reject something, I reject this submission and I'm not
raising my fist or anything else to get you out of office now.
For decades, politicians and opinion makers have been concentrating solely on destroying everything, removing
boundaries, liberating from all collectives, all constraints.
No one is accountable to anyone anymore. There are no longer any fixed, stable pillars, not even our gender.
So nothing is fixed any more, you can't hold on to anything. You can be anything or nothing.
Many people feel like nothing and then look for substitute identities in consumption, in brands, clothing
brands. 'I'm an Apple user' or in social media, where you can then find substitute groups.
These are all substitutes, but they're not real. These are false identities.
And such people are also very easy to influence. They are very easily influenced by propaganda and manipulation.
They simply lack roots. They lack stability, a foundation of values, traditions and stable communities.
The middle class finances around 80% of revenue.
This middle class is so endangered, which I don't think anyone in the group is even aware of.
We have a situation where we have been too successful in Europe, which has led to our
competitors worldwide now having us on their radar.
Whether we call the Americans adults or perhaps adolescents and we are still in kindergarten, that could
also be the case. We can argue about where we stand.
The situation is such that Europe has achieved independence through financial success, through economic success.
There have been freedom movements, i.e. opportunities that are not to everyone's liking.
And the situation we have in Central Europe is that out of 3,500 hidden champions, half are in German-speaking countries.
So Hidden Champion, one of the best in its sector, you can't get past it. He is ahead in terms of
technology, ahead in terms of sales - hidden champion.
It's clear that our global competitors don't like that, because the others are 8 billion and that's maybe 120 million.
That's a bit of a disparity in performance. How do I get this competitor under control?
I can generate inflation, which is naturally 0.1 / 0.2 plus minus, but not 10 or 20 or 30.
So I have to print quite a lot of money in the National Bank, I have to give it out quite cheaply.
Then I can be 100% sure that I will be able to compete, because salaries are going up, materials
are going up, I can no longer compete worldwide.
We are world export champions, i.e. the German-speaking countries.
But that's not enough, I also have to break the base, the base is energy.
Then I'll quickly blow up the Nord Stream. I would have to install 120 nuclear power plants to compensate
for this energy output in order to see the connection.
I shut down nuclear power plants in a flash, I switch to alternative energy, dark doldrums or whatever you call it.
And if that's still not enough, then I'll introduce a senseless CO2 tax.
And if that's still not enough, then I'll destroy morale.
But with these five measures, I can bring the strongest economy to its knees.
And some people will be looking at what's coming in 2025.
International competitiveness has been completely destroyed in the last three years.
I have clients who have planned to invest in Europe right down to the last minute: "Stop, we're going to Dubai."
How is it possible for a country to keep electing its own murderers with its eyes open?
How is it possible to have a people who repeatedly vote for the people they confirm as chancellor, as Green economy
minister, as health minister, without immediately arresting them on the street, without self-hatred?
You have to hate yourself if you are pushing for your own abolition and then applaud it, then go on television and
claim that, finally, we've just established this again at the Green Party conference: Germany has to serve the world.
No, for God's sake, I didn't.
It has to shut up and behave as a good country among neighbors.
But it does not have to serve anyone or pay off any debts. The same applies to others.
Self-hatred is the key and the answer to that, exactly what you said, is just learning to love yourself, I'm always a bit wary of
that, it sounds so narcissistic, liking yourself, self-sympathy, letting go of the morbid
self-doubt, that's the big challenge, I totally agree.
Perhaps also attack the cult of guilt. So we avoid saying that all the time, but it's simply about
the country and this guilt and shame of being German.
Was I too indirect?
Yes, you were too indirect to really address the fact that you have to be ashamed or right-wing
extremism when you say I'm proud to be German.
I am proud of the German heroism, the creative spirit.
Wow, the right-wing extremism warning lights are going off in our heads or on our cultural heritage, on our ancestors.
So that's where the self-love or self-hatred begins, that I'm constantly in denial and ashamed.
So it's so important that we tackle this, but if we keep going back to that time and crossing
ourselves and apologizing for it, we won't get out of it.
We have to learn from children. And we also have to learn from the elderly, who say to themselves on their deathbeds, well,
actually, what I didn't manage to do is have a relationship.
I have managed everything else.
I bought my Ferraris and I don't know what all the successes were.
But what I really suffer from and what I would do again is a healthy relationship.
And I think that if you apply it to society now, this role model function, I think that's a very, very, very important thing.
That hasn't even happened yet, not as a coach, but each person for themselves, what they can contribute to a
better society, to make themselves the best version of themselves and then to be a role model.
If you look at average schools, especially in Berlin, I come from Berlin, it really is the very worst, the
deepest hole in Germany, an avant-garde state in every respect.
Because nobody has to laugh from Germany, because you are all on your way to the state of Berlin in this country.
And if you look at a school in Berlin, you'll see that the holes, the roofs have holes, that there are so many children in the
class that even the most dedicated teacher standing at the front doesn't have the opportunity to somehow get a grip on them, then
the classes don't even understand the national language that the teacher speaks and the parents push the
children there on the assumption that they'll sort it out.
No, that's exactly what we want. We attract people to schools who want to become civil servants.
People go there, almost seamlessly, after they have finished school themselves, then go to these schools
and are happy to have finally been made a civil servant.
That is unbelievable.
So the school system is the short, quick recap of our entire state system.
And if we don't start tearing down these schools and rebuilding the school system, then we won't even have to try the rest.
So what drives me, that may sound harsh, but it's death.
Is death, if I just think about it, what do I want to be able to say to myself on my
deathbed, or what do I not want to have to regret?
And that's something I hold against myself quite often.
I just want to be the best version of myself every day because I never want to blame myself for not
living this life to the full and not giving it my all.
There is no reason not to give your all every day.
Many people keep asking me how you manage to do all this.
But it's really just this will to fully savor the life that I'm so grateful for - that's the second tip:
gratitude - I'm so incredibly grateful for this life.
And that gives me so much strength, just the finiteness on the one hand, the gratitude that
I simply draw so much energy to create a lot.
I can pass that on.
You have certainly noticed one thing, dear viewers, waiting for the Savior is pointless, because the Savior is already here.
You yourself are the savior.
The topic is tomorrow's global conflict resolution and we are of course dealing with the global challenges.
One of the main causes of the large movements of refugees is certainly wars, and it doesn't matter
whether these are economic wars or military conflicts.
It is clear that the beneficiaries of these developments are corporations and lobbies, and this chain
reaction of conflict must be broken at all costs.
So it looks as if things are getting worse and worse.
We really are now here on the Grand Hotel precipice.
The fact is that we could now be directly involved in a very hot war.
Civilian structures are being pulverized everywhere. Which of course causes a huge wave of refugees worldwide.
And the governments in the rich countries are in no way ready or willing to respond appropriately.
Rather, the whole escape end, what is there, is commercialized.
In Germany, for example, there is a company called Serco.
It is a British conglomerate that sells or markets 30% of its armaments and operates over 120 asylum centers in Germany.
A very profitable business and which also ensures in the background that retirement homes
are closed, especially in the Corona period.
This is a very bad thing. Retirement homes were deliberately driven into bankruptcy on the grounds of coronavirus.
And we simply see that as long as all this unbridled profiteering with people's misery is not curbed.
This means that what actually needs to happen is a taming of financial speculation.
What is driving the world into misery, for example, is the dominance of the dollar.
What drives many countries into misery. It is the sanctions.
It is speculation on the financial markets with the downfall of entire states and economies.
They are betting on it and the bought press is also being used to smash this state.
And who is actually in charge?
Here in Germany, it is strategists from the investment banks who basically just give politicians the cues.
Politics is just PR and a matter of how to sell certain strategies.
We can see that social tensions are also exploding in all these countries.
And I can only appeal to you to keep calm and really think about a concept.
So the people at the bottom would now have to develop into think tanks, think tanks from the bottom up.
Of course, this gives us a new migration weapon. Because migration is a weapon.
It is also deliberately used to destabilize the world of other states, in this case Germany or Austria.
We are currently experiencing a situation similar to that before the First World War, where local conflicts that
were seemingly independent of each other are breaking out again and again and yet are connected.
So back then it was the Balkan wars.
Today, it is the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that will eventually unite in a major battle that nobody wants.
I think that, because it arises in part from contradictions, from interests and also from human nature at its worst, it will not be
possible to prevent this in the sense that a total age of friendliness and peace will break
out, but by putting a stop to the warmongers.
In other words, by creating political conditions in which these people who go to war because it benefits
them, because it serves their interests and because they earn money from it, cannot do so.
That is the task of politics. It is also the task of the media, of journalists, to create such a situation.
And to make it clear to people that nothing happens by chance - nothing is more thoroughly
prepared than a war that suddenly breaks out.
But in a setting where war breaks out, something falls away, the law.
We have just seen this in Syria. No sooner has Syria suddenly fallen than Syria is
attacked by Israeli jets and 250 attacks are flown.
That is the crucial point.
We live in a dog-eat-dog society. We live in a competitive society.
And in the end, war is only what we do on the job.
You also have to take a look at the bottom.
How are people actually socialized, educated, drilled to accept this as something normal?
Someone will just fall by the wayside. I don't agree with that.
I simply believe that what makes a person human is that they are a social being.
But we are drilled and trained to compete in the small unit. Then you make a career by stepping down.
And from these people you create globalists and people who accept everything.
I think that with what we are discussing on the panel, 90 percent of people out there
wouldn't even know what we are talking about.
They believe that you can find an order like the one we have, that it will be delivered to you, that you just have to sign it.
But that's not how democracy works at all.
Democracy means not only having a say, but also having a say.
And I think we should stand up everywhere and say we don't want this.
Because when it comes to migration and remigration, you have to say one thing: of course every people
has the right to an identity, that's absolutely clear.
But those who come to us also have the right to a home.
They don't want to leave.
They are also bombed away, driven away. They are made offers that make it impossible for them to
live in their culture. We have to see that too.
And then we bring these two groups next to each other. They then beat each other up. And we
don't see the ones who make the puppets dance.
Remigration is definitely needed, because I believe that only the people can save the world from the
globalists and only remigration can save our people.
Because I would also like to end this first speech with a question: Why is no one asking you whether new
waves of migration to Saudi Arabia are now being triggered?
Why is no one asking whether waves of migration are now coming to Azerbaijan?
There are 57 Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia is incredibly rich. They are building a new city of Neom, they have a
huge tent camp that they only need once a year for the Hajj.
They could take in tens of thousands.
They are also partly to blame for what is currently happening in Syria because they have helped finance these jihadist militias.
Why is it always Europe that has to believe?
So the population exchange in Europe, this migration weapon, the arbitrary creation of multi-ethnic states in which
we natives will soon be the minority, must be considered separately from these geopolitical issues.
And this unbelievable trick, which the left in particular has managed to pull off, i.e. actually
pseudo-leftists, to present the mass movement and mass migration as something positive and philanthropic.
And it is not. Neither for us nor for the migrants, including the economic refugees who come.
Families are being torn apart, we are practicing demographic vampirism. When I hear that, we have to recruit skilled workers.
We are stealing them from the countries where they are needed most.
In Mozambique, 70 percent of doctors who were trained in the country have emigrated.
Where will the people who live there then go? They will follow them to Europe.
That is a crucial point.
And the millions of women who clean, care for or prostitute themselves here are also torn families.
This mass migration is inhumane in every respect.
And I completely agree with you, we have to refute this moral hypocrisy, this pseudo-humanism and show that only
one group benefits from the mass movement and mass mobilization of humanity, namely the globalists.
The people do not benefit from this.
So this is all just looked at individually, you take a complex look at Corona.
Only now are people finding out that there are beneficiaries, that it is a business model, that the
pharmaceutical industry has earned billions of billions.
That the doctors who have appeared, the scientists have been bought off with studies where they have
collected millions, as we have already heard here today.
That there are politicians and the media who benefit from this. There is an exchange of personnel.
And we can actually see that in every complex, regardless of whether you are talking about migration, it has also
become a business model in which large corporations earn money, the international financial industry earns money.
This also applies to remittances back to the countries of origin, for example, some of which
are subject to high fees and poor exchange rates.
And of course war is the business model par excellence.
If you look at the eastward expansion of NATO, every country that has to or wants to be included has
to convert its entire military to NATO standards.
In other words, what they need is, of course, the American arms industry. We've already been through this today.
It has to bring the ammunition up to NATO standards, the devices, the software, the cloud.
So Big Tech, Microsoft, Amazon have earned hundreds of billions of dollars with cloud
services for the Pentagon, for the CIA, for the NSA.
Huge data octopuses have been created. A huge business model has emerged.
And then it is quite brazen that one of the main profiteers like BlackRock, which is significantly involved in many, many
arms industries, also went public a few days ago and said that we would like a reconstruction fund for Ukraine.
They brazenly said that we don't want any money for this, but we just want to manage them so
that their BlackRock companies can profit from it.
So that's a pretty cynical business model.
The USA has a gigantic debt burden that can never be repaid.
And at that moment, the threat of war increases.
You do it once, as we have always seen in previous wars: When the financial world, when the uncovered bills or fiat
money no longer have the cover, then you have to mop up once.
Then you have to clear the air, wash everything up and then, after the war, develop a new world order, such as Bretton Woods.
People then believe that Trump will descend from heaven and everything will be fine. That's not going to happen.
That is more in the interests of those who want to paralyze us. They want us to believe that we can
be saved, because then we won't do it ourselves.
After the assassination in the USA, Trump has almost achieved saintly status.
So divine providence, one movement and the bullet passed.
Not that.
Maybe he was meant to be shot by, maybe he was lucky, I don't know. But he is not a divine being.
Trump ran with the position "Make America Great Again".
And you have to take that seriously. And you also have to be aware of what that doesn't mean.
Make America Great Again does not mean make Germany sovereign. Or make Europe great.
Or make the world a better place, but push American interests.
That is his duty as American president. That's what he was elected for.
In case of doubt, however, it will do so at the expense of other states, at the expense of other
interests and at the expense of other sovereignties.
You should never fall for the idea that a country is only ruled by one power base, one family, but it is the same in
every country where there are various rulers or rich families.
Arend Oetker, then head of Atlantikbrück in 2005, said that America is ruled by 200 rich families
and we would like to have good contacts with them.
And those who now support Donald Trump found that they were not really supported by the others before.
So they vote now, like to put the cart before the horse, but it's the same race.
So nothing will change.
But the fact that we even wait for someone to come and do it better shows how we are drilled.
That in a democracy, where the citizens decide, we wait for the savior that we can then elect every four or five years.
That's the first one that we've already accepted. That can't be right.
In other words, let's see if we're lucky. But if you say, who is currently driving the regime change in Syria?
They were Ukrainian soldiers, trained by the British.
Aren't they needed in Ukraine now? Yes, not at the moment. They can't do anything there.
But they can still make a difference in Syria. There they are at the largest filling station in the world.
And then you have a bit of negotiating leverage over what should happen in Ukraine later after Trump.
And by the way, the British are strong leaders here, which you can also recognize by the fact that they don't appear anywhere.
The Brits are doing really well.
I have to say, that's really gentlemanly. It's after-eight style.
They do not appear. They are so relevant.
And that's why, with Syria, we're taking two players on one card out of the game.
They are smashing the Shiite crescent, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria.
There is bombing in all directions. Nobody talks about it.
And at the same time, if they push the Russians out of Syria, and that's what it's all about, they take Tartus out of the game.
The most important and only Mediterranean port of the Russians there.
So we should look at ourselves as a human family and say, how do we want to do it in the future?
Because we all have the right to a home.
And the absurd thing is, it's not that there isn't enough of everything. There is enough for everyone.
If we were to distribute it fairly, there would not be any refugee movements.
But that is the political intrigue that is taking place here. It's Machiavelli in all areas.
We should develop a national feeling for the German-speaking world. Which doesn't mean that the others are stupid.
But we have the right to the German-speaking area, the linguistic area, the cultural area and we are proud of that.
We can also simply say that.
And that's the first thing we can program' because then we take people with us, because it's tangible for them.
That we once again take national pride in what we stand for and bring it to the stage.
We stand for German thinking, for German culture, for German engineering.
And we also stand for German trade.
Because if Germans have learned anything from history, it is that war is not a good idea, we won't win either.
I don't know who is now coming up with the idea that we could win a campaign against Russia.
So the story as I learned it didn't work out so well last time.
I wouldn't do that.
And I think we would be horrified if we knew how deeply the Verfassungsschutz, the secret services
and the BKA have been instrumentalized by the states.
And no longer to protect security, simply from crime, from organized crime, which exists and is bad
enough, but against our own citizens, against the media.
That's the next trick, saving democracy now in order to abolish democracy later.
You can see this in the election results in the eastern states.
In Thuringia, where the biggest election winner was the AfD with 32 percent, there is now a four-party
coalition, which is then called a three-party alliance.
And you make an alliance with the left, i.e. with the SED.
The CDU is going along with all this, simply to retain power for a few ministerial posts.
All instances are failing, including politics, the media and the courts, as we also had to experience with coronavirus.
And that is certainly the deep state in its purest form.
We are now putting an end to the simulation that the people could still somehow choose the legitimate government, which
is usually only a choice between similar candidates anyway.
But what we can also recognize is that we have been drilled by propaganda and education to think that if
the right person came along now, I would bet on him.
And that will not happen. That would be centralist again.
And the crucial point is that you stand up and say, I'm not going to wait, I'm going to start, I'm just going to do it myself.
And what is a thorn in the side of the usual suspects is that we are so self-confident that we come out here and simply say that
you are such ridiculous birds, you are no longer a threat at all.
It's funny what you're doing.
I often do the analysis on how stable an empire is and whether it might have to do with the medium on which it communicates.
It sounds complicated, but it's simple.
The most stable world empire that ever existed was that of the ancient Egyptians.
They communicated on stone, you can still see them today.
Today, we are dealing with means of communication that are much faster moving, at least since Marconi.
And today we have a global empire that works digitally.
If you pull the plug on this world empire, it's over. It no longer exists.
This means that control over us also passes through our mobile devices.
When we put them away, when we turn off our digital devices, we are invisible. That is our power.
The power is that we simply no longer switch it on and then we are no longer accessible.
We were told to be available so that we wouldn't miss anything.
We are kept up to date, in truth we are kept on our toes.
The balance of power only changes when I decide what kind of media I let into my head.
That's the first sovereignty. I don't even watch it anymore.
If we have been thrown to the ground, then we have to consider how the other side did it.
They have it, as Ken has already said, through these think tanks, these discrete transatlantic networks.
Something was always presented to us in a shocking way, so to speak.
We need to start networking now.
We need to set up think tanks ourselves.
We have so many incredibly good initiatives in Germany, but they all know nothing about each other.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel when an energy self-sufficient village is established in Jühnde.
And someone somewhere else wants to do it too. Then you can gather expertise there, professional journalists who can
convey this to people in really good, understandable language.
We need experts.
I'm sure there are quite a few people at universities, professors with their fists clenched in their pockets,
who are isolated and would like to do something, make their expertise available to the public.
And we have to do something about that. And I think, yes, we have to reduce selfishness, giving is more blessed than receiving.
It is very gratifying. We also saw this during the coronavirus period, the inner strength we
developed, the joy we felt in helping each other.
And I think that is indeed a power. We can even, yes, make the Deep State obsolete.
Most people, once they have woken up and recognized and seen through the problem, don't go back.
It's like fruit falling from an apple tree. Some fall earlier, some fall later.
This means that every individual we wake up is someone the elites have lost almost forever.
They forced us to stand up.
We have noticed it in Corona and this podium here at AUF1 is also a feature in which we ourselves recognize how strong we are, how
networked we are, how confident we have become in the meantime.
I also hope it gives viewers hope that they can see that people here are thinking full-time,
full-time about how we can get out of this misery.
And I believe that corona has triggered political puberty in most people.
And now we are forced to move out and should move out.
And once you've moved out and are out for longer, there's no offer that my father or mother could give me to move back
into my nice old nursery, which is what they would offer me.
Firstly, my father is dead and my mother is a bit senile.
This can also be applied to countries: Thank you for the offer. But I'm grown up myself and will manage my own life.
And anyone who rejects this does not deserve freedom.
Today we were able to peer a little into the future with these various topics to see what it might
look like if we can develop the corresponding power.
Which we want to give back to the people, which was taken away from us.
And that is the drive. And we have shown one thing above all. We can achieve something.
We need a clear objective, a clear vision. And we have to work towards this unwaveringly.
And we have shown that we can do it, we do it and we do it. Thank you.
What can each individual do now?
Spread, spread, spread, and not just the media offerings on the Internet, but also deliberately offline.
Just as my father Ivo Sasek has been doing for 15 years with the example of the S&G network.
You can inspire people and say: "Only pass this on to 2 and if you pass it on to 2 again and you again and
again. Then you'll be at the end of the world in 20 steps.
It's an extreme fascination for what you can win people over to when the digital gates close.
This requires strategic networks, locally organized networks.
Spread, spread what you can - be it digitally and, if the barrier continues to close, offline, what you can.
Anyone can do this.
Send this video to two people.