On March 29, 2025, the event "Freedom & Self-Determination - The Mature Citizen" took place at the Cultural
Hall in Dornbirn with important contributions on the rule of law, sovereignty and cash.
The event was organized by the Dornbirn Academy for Personal Development.
HOCH2.TV has also recorded and edited this report.
- Today Kla.TV brings Philipp Kruse on the topic: WHO regulations: "Toxic from A to Z and to be completely rejected!"
Part 1: The problem
May I ask Mr. Kruse to join me as the second speaker. Nice to meet you.
Yes, Mr. Kruse, we just heard from Ms. Tagberger about the transition to the e-vaccination certificate.
In principle, this is very much part of your subject matter.
So if you view all the consequences of Corona that came about, then in retrospect you have to speak of a great
fall from grace, of a large-scale attack on the self-determination of mature citizens, right?
Absolutely. Mündigkeit (maturity) gives today's event its title.
Allow me to refer to this very briefly, it has already been addressed by the organizer Erwin Rigo.
In our laws today, the term "maturity" actually only refers more or less to the age of majority.
But behind this - as already rightly noted - lies the broader understanding coined by Immanuel Kant.
Maturity in the sense of: One can speak for oneself, participation in political decisions.
And Kant placed this maturity in the context of the Enlightenment.
Enlightenment is man's exit from his self-inflicted immaturity.
In doing so, he expresses the fact that man's original state is immaturity and that he must first earn his maturity.
He has to work for it, he has to train it.
Because maturity is necessarily linked to the ability to judge - in other words, to be able to
correctly assess the consequences of one's own actions.
And we are in a very difficult situation today because the factual foundations - which are the prerequisites for arriving at
a reasonable judgment - have been monopolized and uniformly prescribed throughout
this entire crisis period, from the top down.
Ultimately orchestrated by the WHO and passed on one-to-one to governments and by governments.
Exactly, that's where I'd like to start, that's exactly the point.
Maturity presupposes freedom of choice and freedom of choice also presupposes the opportunity to
consider different options and courses of action.
But if, as we experienced back then, practically no alternatives are decreed from above.
When it is said: This is a deadly virus and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
When it says the tests are reliable and safe.
When it is said: "We have a vaccination here that will definitely protect you.
And when it is said that these measures work and anyone who speaks out against them makes
themselves an enemy of the nation, so to speak.
Then there can be no more talk of maturity and self-determination.
And this was not just practiced in one country.
That was really imposed globally from above, as you say, top down.
And that would be exactly the topic, what the WHO actually wants today, what it is still doing.
It didn't self-critically reflect on anything from that time, on the contrary.
It is actually trying to turn it into a principle that still applies today.
Keyword pandemic treaty, right?
Yes, that's right.
So this monopolization of information was a constant throughout the coronavirus crisis.
This has been the case for a very, very long time and has actually been developed by the WHO over the last 10 or 15 years.
And this basic principle, known as 'infodemics', is to be anchored both in the pandemic treaty - which still has
to be negotiated - and in the already negotiated and agreed adjustments to the international health regulations.
In other words, we have a cementing or formalization of what we have now experienced.
Of course, this means that we can expect anything but that the discussion will now open up, that we will
hear different positions and that there will be a free debate in science - on the contrary:
It is monopolized even more, thereby making it impossible for citizens to make their own judgments and become mature.
There is also a very important element: the influence of fear, of threat scenarios.
Everyone knows that fear has a very, very paralyzing effect on free thinking.
And it is precisely then that the ability to act rationally is paralyzed.
And here we can come back to Kant and the original statement that maturity needs to be trained.
You have to actively obtain this information.
You have to try to take a critical look behind the scenes and then have the courage to do so.
Kant recognized this very correctly.
You then have to have the courage to act accordingly, even if it becomes a little uncomfortable.
And that is simply a question of training.
Now we have had the opportunity to learn this once in the last four years.
We have inoculated ourselves against it and will have to show this much more clearly in future under
these pandemic agreements - in order to ward them off.
Mr. Ghebreyesus, the head of the WHO, originally intended to have the pandemic treaty "cut and dried"as early as 2024.
Fortunately, I would say that has failed so far.
But as we can see here, the agenda continues apace.
The key points for 2025 therefore point in a clear direction.
Here, the attempt is being made at full speed to practice the inevitable, so to speak.
What do this pandemic treaty and, above all, the changes to international health regulations actually mean for the freedom of
each individual with regard to disregarding the Nuremberg Code, compulsory treatments, no
more freedom regarding vaccination and so on?
What are the consequences?
Yes, here you are addressing the real fall from grace that we have experienced in the
last four years, which has been established.
People were kept in the dark about the fact that these substances were completely unknown and unproven.
There was no scientific data to say when they were introduced: They are effective, they are safe.
It was a classic experiment.
And these data, these substances, were presented as if they were just as safe and just as
effective as all other normal vaccinations.
That is deception.
And if you now assume that it is an experiment, then as a lawyer you must know that conducting experiments under the
Nuremberg Code is absolutely forbidden because of the atrocities committed during the Second World War.
That is mandatory international law!
Look at how people are clapping here in relief, even though I'm just stating the obvious.
This is mandatory international law, ladies and gentlemen.
It says so in the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7, and then Article 4 says:
This mandatory rule even applies in times of pandemics that have been formally declared and
could threaten the lives of an entire nation.
So this is a rule without exception, in other words.
And the mass violation of this rule is then a crime against humanity according to the Rome Statute.
Here we are in this big scenario.
Yes, so there is another aspect.
The IHR went much further in its regulations.
So it's not just about medical aspects.
For example, it stipulates that governments should take action against disinformation - or whatever is meant by that.
In other words, restrictions on freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.
What then for anyone who is critical of this, who claims their rights, is critical of this development.
You also have to see that.
So it is not just a health dictatorship that is planned here, it really almost reaches into
the literal meaning of the term dictatorship.
Or have I got that wrong?
You are absolutely right.
And the WHO is setting the pace here with regard to a real pack of lies.
And I have listed here the most important, not conclusive, but the most important points of this structure of lies, in which we
have not yet succeeded in a single court case - at least not in a German-speaking country - in
getting any lawyer to set the record straight.
So the courts are still assuming that SARS-CoV-2 is the most dangerous threat since the Spanish flu.
It is still said that this epidemic threat can only be measured using a PCR test.
And people are still saying that the mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccines are effective and safe and that there is no question about it.
And above all, they deny that it is an experiment.
Of course there are other points: The total lack of pharmacovigilance and also that
alternatives have been totally suppressed.
But these are the cornerstones of an actual edifice of lies.
I have also worked in the tax administration and as a tax lawyer.
And here the keyword 'edifice of lies' is absolutely constitutive of tax fraud.
In other words, the state has no difficulty at all in recognizing a structure of lies when companies are convoluted.
And here it has built one itself and maintained it for years.
That is still the situation.
And anyone who attacks this structure of lies - for example, a doctor in Zurich - has their license withdrawn.
This is because, in true knowledge of the true facts, he issued three of his patients with
a certificate of exemption from vaccination.
And then the health authority of the canton of Zurich says: "You are a criminal, you have criminal energy. You are endangering
public health. We are withdrawing your license to practice."
This man had more debts amounting to 50,000 per month in the first few months.
This is a serious sanction of criminal dimension.
All I'm trying to say is that this edifice of lies is still being defended hook, line and sinker.
And yes, you mentioned it: The new health regulations explicitly state that states must commit to counteracting
all such doctors and other people - who courageously tell the truth - and clean up social media.
Last year, or rather after the election of Donald Trump, there were high hopes that this would be destroyed.
In one of his first executive orders, Trump actually announced his withdrawal from the WHO.
And then others followed, Argentina. In Europe, too, there are now countries that definitely.
... Exactly, so Slovakia and Hungary are also strictly opposed to a WHO pandemic treaty.
And so there is hope.
On the other hand, of course, a cartel of states has formed here, which is obviously doing everything it can to push
through this agenda - the key points of which you describe here.
Are there any hopes that the entire WHO construct will actually be brought down by Trump?
Or is it rather the case that they are now becoming even more dependent on authoritarian regimes, such as perhaps China, and are
perhaps becoming dependent on even more billionaire foundations and then doing the same thing virtually in an aggravated form?
Well, I have to say that it is now open to interpretation and ultimately speculation as to how things will proceed.
For me, the positive thing about Trump's move on January 20 was that he issued an executive order:
All conditions and preparations must be made for the USA to withdraw from the WHO.
And he justified it by saying that the WHO is a health service provider, a service organization in the field of health.
Its mission is defined in Article 1 of its constitution.
It has breached its contract, serious breach of contract, so we are terminating the contract.
And we must also adopt this basic attitude.
We need to be as critical of this international organization and make it clear to politicians that
these are not health apostles acting selflessly.
Rather, the financing structure already clearly shows - as can be found on its website - that the WHO is financed
and controlled to a very high degree by the interests of the WHO and is therefore a very big business.
And this is where we simply have to intervene and have our political representatives critically
scrutinize the WHO's performance and actual achievements.
Yes, it has a mandate to protect health and not to confirm the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
Exactly, that also leads to my next question.
You could say that the rule of law has been undermined more than ever before under Coronavirus.
And various basic rights were restricted and suspended for months - of course all with the alleged reference to the protection
of life, the welfare of the individual and health protection.
And what was actually established back then, and what we can all still sing a song about today, what also
torments us today, is this principle of the state of emergency, the permanent state of emergency.
So the fact that policy is being made today with the statement: there is no alternative,
there is no other way, it is a state of emergency!
And we're not just seeing this with the pandemic, we're also seeing it with the climate.
We can see it in the current war in the Ukraine.
And this begs the question: Is this also part of an agenda, is there a method to it?
There is certainly a method to it if we look at what is happening at UN level, the Pact for the Future.
In the broadest sense, the basic idea is laid down here is that the UN should be given
special powers to act in all kinds of emergencies.
If we look back over the last four years, we can see very clearly how the basic principle of the rule of law in
democracy - has been pushed aside and replaced by the rule of emergency, i.e. necessity knows no commandment.
Everything is permitted that serves this officially declared goal.
I have illustrated this somewhat graphically here.
On the left-hand side you can actually see the basic idea of how a state with separation of
powers should function with its three powers:
With the government, the legislative power, the legislature and the courts.
They are independent of each other, they balance each other and control and monitor each other on
the basis of independent, autonomous information.
And now, under Corona, the WHO has come forward with the requirement:
Only information that is WHO-compliant may be used as a basis for decisions by the government, parliamentarians and courts.
And I simply have to say that here in all clarity.
I have conducted some 35 or 40 complete proceedings against unlawful measures or for the protection of doctors.
And what I keep hearing from the courts is: No, their statements of fact are in conflict with the WHO guidelines.
In times of a pandemic, what the WHO experts and the government experts approved by the WHO dictate is decisive.
We are not allowed to check this.
And that is a deactivation of the separation of powers and in the end a complete
suspension of the protection of fundamental rights!
In other words, in the end, the courts can no longer protect fundamental rights if they don't even take note
of the facts of the case - which we lawyers present to them - the evidence-based facts of the case.
In the end, all of these state powers will be like hanging from the WHO's information strings.
That's what it means when we have emergency legislation.
Democratic control mechanisms are simply being eliminated in the interests of monopolizing the healthcare system.
So only very few products are still recognized, they have to be taken.
And this clearly pursues economic objectives and not health protection.
And it is of course a perversion of the principle of sovereignty, because ultimately, just as the citizens were
incapacitated by Corona, entire states are now in principle being incapacitated by the UN.
Right, yes, absolutely. So that's what I wanted to say but forgot.
It is not only a problem of the mature citizen, but the entire state is being placed under curatorship, i.e. disempowered.
They will be deprived of their sovereignty if they are robbed of their information.
If they are not allowed to summon their own deserving scientists to the government's expert council.
If a Professor Haditsch has nothing to say or is discredited, then the state deprives itself of its own basis for action.
And that, of course, poses a maximum risk to the state's ability to act, which is supposed to protect its citizens.
It should protect the health of citizens, and it can only do that if it does so on the basis of independent
facts that it has scientifically established itself.
And that is why this set of WHO regulations is toxic from A to Z and should be rejected in its entirety.
That was a nice closing statement for your contribution in the first round.
Yes, then we would now come to Mr. Kruse and look forward with great interest to the prospects.
Yes, let's start with that.
I think most of what we discussed earlier is still present.
The main topic is, of course, maturity.
Looking ahead to the next few years, how can we defend our civil liberties and regain our constantly restricted rights?
Yes, before I give the actual answer here, I would like to express my great optimism, which stems
from the fact that there are over 500 people here.
And I would like to make this a little more specific.
I would be interested to know which of you are from Austria? I would ask you to stand up for a moment.
Please all from Austria.
Yes, that's interesting.
For those who don't have my perspective, I think I can see about 90 percent. Thank you for standing up.
But now, of course, the next question.
Who has traveled from Liechtenstein?
I would like to welcome everyone who has traveled from Liechtenstein, thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Then may I ask who has come all the way from Germany?
Please stand up for a moment. Bravo, that's about 50 from Germany, previously there were about 30 from Liechtenstein.
And now from Switzerland. May I briefly ask those of you who have traveled here from Switzerland to stand up.
Bravo, yes, thank you.
And that's the first part of my answer!
An answer that we can all give ourselves: We are not alone and we are working together.
This hall is packed with people from Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Germany.
You are the solution, we are all the solution, bravo!
To start right away with maturity.
A mature person, I explained, is able to understand the consequences of their actions, but
also the consequences of their failure to act.
They know that if I do nothing, my rights will be taken from me in the future just as they were taken from me in the past.
We have seen that human dignity is not carved in stone, even though it was supposedly enshrined
in Article 1 of the German Basic Law for all time.
This means that we must continue to actively stand up for our rights and not remain silent.
This includes having an absolutely clear understanding of what has been done to us over the last four years.
We must understand that we have been systematically deceived, coordinated and permanently deceived.
And we must point out that the highest state authorities are still clinging to this structure of lies today
and are still persecuting and sanctioning doctors who say the right thing and do the right thing.
And we must all stand up to this together and actively help these doctors, these courageous people, with our vote! Thank you.
I have identified a real emergency.
An emergency condition was mentioned by the esteemed colleague, Dr. Sharon in the juvenile psychiatric clinics.
And I have noticed the emergency in my law firm.
People were running me ragged and I couldn't even answer emails.
There was a state of emergency there because the state had deceived the entire
population and deprived them of their basic rights.
We must raise our voices here. We must not let up under any circumstances. That is the starting position.
I would also like to point out how we can do this now.
There are a thousand different ways.
They have their way. They have their environment. They have their strengths, their skills.
And don't think there is only one petition. I'll mention a few petitions in a moment.
But you are the solution. That's the very first thing I wanted to say.
Well, now I can be more specific.
A quick question from your side, perhaps?
That's very interesting.
The second round is also intended to be more of a presentation, because the solutions also require a stringent presentation.
At most perhaps a question in connection with fundamental rights, because you had just mentioned that.
I believe that many people have now experienced an incredible level of resignation, not only in the
professions you mentioned, but also among the general public.
And many people somehow couldn't get their heads around the fact that they were told one
thing and perceived something completely different.
I think that gave a huge boost again in terms of disenchantment with politics.
Is it more about finding a solution now and regaining maturity, is it more about restoring trust in politics?
Or is it perhaps a question of taking a completely different approach and saying: we no longer
trust politicians here, we no longer believe them.
We go our own way, so to speak, by networking. Grassroots work, whatever.
I'm not talking about revolutions or anything like that.
I only mean networking in the sense of active citizen resistance.
What is the approach?
Yes, current politics is a reflection of our choices, the choices of our fellow human beings.
So we have to start with our fellow human beings.
We are the people. That means convincing our fellow human beings.
It is not our job to restore trust in politicians, but to elect the politicians we trust.
And they must prove that they are worthy of our trust.
That's the starting position.
Then basically we have to be aware of the fact that
since the Second World War, we have been used to being given basic rights.
That the foundations of our prosperity only had to be earned through work.
All we had to do was be trained and exercise our profession diligently and efficiently.
But there was never any question that we had to take to the streets.
It would never have occurred to us, at least not to me, to make such speeches and go to rallies.
And unfortunately we have to do that until we get our basic rights back.
In other words, we need to make a paradigm shift.
We have to reclaim our basic rights by demanding them from politicians. And we do that from the bottom up.
And that's where I get very specific.
There is a specific date in connection with the World Health Organization, with the adjustments to the health regulations.
I mentioned it earlier, July 19.
If our governments have not objected to these adjustments by then - i.e. have not submitted a declaration of objection to the WHO
in Geneva - then these adjustments will become legally binding.
Then the reappraisal will be over. Then the WHO will take that as a signal:
"Yes, they agree with the past. Now we should tighten the screw a little more."
That is the message that is getting through to the WHO.
This means that, first and foremost, what we can do is put our energy into making politicians at local, regional and federal
level realize this: We have to keep our foot in the door.
There are various petitions: Here in Austria, in Vorarlberg, one was presented yesterday by a lady who is doing this for Austria.
In Switzerland, we have the Free Switzerland Action Alliance.
I also support this Action Alliance with presentations and input.
We launched a petition two months ago.
The aim of this petition is to send a signal to parliamentarians that they have never seen before when they
meet in the summer session in June - and the adjustments will be debated in Switzerland.
Namely 100,000 signatures; people who say: Reject these health regulations! We want a reappraisal first!
This is a possible step, a possible approach.
You have to make your voice heard. Never think it's useless.
I don't know, that's what Sharon just said.
What would have happened - we don't even know what would have happened - if nobody
had taken to the streets in 2020, 2021, 2022?
Never let anyone tell you that it is useless!
There were hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of Vienna.
And it is precisely with the same logic that we must express and assert ourselves.
With all the possibilities that we have, which will be noticed in the end.
Write letters, take part in the petitions.
Action Alliance Free Switzerland can also be signed from abroad.
And promote information in your environment.
I keep hearing from doctors that people suffering from health problems are always willing to listen - to
understand where these problems come from and who can help them.
Let us be the ones to provide this help.
And so we will continue to bring person after person over to our side.
I don't want to spit in your soup and act like the party pooper.
It's just that when we talk about these issues here, what you are saying now, everyone in this room
will blindly sign up to. And it all makes sense.
And we are part of a certain community here.
Of course, when you say something like that, it's like a ball pit.
I don't think you'll find any conflict there.
That's absolutely okay. That is also justified.
The only big problem is the stigmatization, the exclusion.
Everyone sitting here has already had that experience. Or the vast majority of them, I would assume.
And we also ultimately realize that we are all more or less still among ourselves five years after Corona, unfortunately.
So there is a silent majority out there, which unfortunately still decides the elections at
the moment. And you can't get through to them.
The hinge is the public media.
The hinge is this spiral of silence in the public sphere, in various areas, in the cultural sector and elsewhere,
where everything we say and do here is actually still being pushed into the conspiracy theorists' and babblers' corner.
And the big challenge of everything you are saying is this: How do we break through this wall to the outside world?
Because we often don't want to hear it, but unfortunately we are ostracized as a kind of sect.
Although, of course, we actually work with objective facts, with facts that cannot be refuted.
In contrast to the other side: they lie, they cheat, they use false information.
We have the real information. The disinformation is on the other side.
But the public perception is that we are still the "crackpots".
What can you do to break out of this?
Because I see a very big problem - especially with a view to the future - that there may be a lot more going on at the
moment to drive this disinformation and censorship forward.
Keyword EU, Digital Services Act. Erwin mentioned it at the beginning.
What can be done to convey what you have now rightly compiled to those who are not yet aware of the problem?
Outside our bubble.
I can't speak for everyone. But over the last three or four years, I've always been looking for a
principle. Namely, where is the opponent's wall weakest?
And I gave it my all there. I gave it everything I had. And I didn't stop.
And that is why there was not only a criminal complaint against Swissmedic, but also a complete new edition 2.0.
I said to the whole team: we'll do even more, even better, even sharper.
And we are holding a press conference that has never been held in Switzerland before.
Incidentally, Professor Martin Haditsch was also present here and helped, Professor Andreas Sönnichsen helped.
And the weakest point in this whole pack of lies, which you can explain to any kindergarten teacher or any editor or any member of
the National Council within a minute, irrefutably - from my point of view, in this context of the whole modified mRNA, is this:
It is irrefutable and indisputable that at the time these substances were introduced, there were no
studies to know the medium-term and long-term effects, especially harmful side effects.
By definition, this means that a substance has been introduced while flying blind.
The Phase 3 study has not yet been completed. It was conducted in real time.
This means that the entire general public was subjected to an experiment.
You have to get there, in conversation:
Do you agree with me - ask your colleagues - or do you have any proof that in December 2020 studies existed on
the effect in three years, in four years, in five years?
Then please show us this proof.
- It does not exist.
And now comes the legal part of it, which I only touched on earlier, but I mentioned it.
This is mandatory international law and mandatory constitutional law.
This is the absolute ban on conducting experiments on humans without their being fully informed
and giving their voluntary consent, in a nutshell.
The key information that should have been given to people at the minimum would have been: We're
sorry, we don't know what the outcome will be.
It is an experiment. We hope it will be good; we believe it will be good.
But we cannot make any promises at all.
A minimum of information should have been given!
And to this day, this key information has been suppressed, let alone all the other information.
And that is the weakest point for me!
The weakest point I would ask you to make if you ever have the chance to sit in a discussion group, in
front of the television or have to talk to others.
You are the only person and you feel a great deal of nervous pressure, then you come up with this point irrefutably
on the factual level and irrefutably on the legal level.
That's my recommendation to use that, an argument I'm giving you.
Because then the world could become aware of what a great crime has been done to everyone. Both to those who took the substances
without informed consent and to those who were discriminated against because they did not take these substances.
Find your spot where you say: This is my spot, where I know the opponent's wall is
weakest or our cards are strongest. And keep going!
These are all only, I say now, invisible walls.
Walk through them. Run through them and keep going, completely unperturbed, peacefully, objectively and humorously.
That's also a nice close. Thank you very much.
Dear viewers, further reports from this event in Dornbirn can already be seen on HOCH2.TV.
You will find the links under this program.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank HOCH2.TV for the excellent cooperation.