Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own reason!”- that is the motto of enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay – others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.
Why I resigned as Ambassador General of the “free” Republic of Užupis since the beginning of the so-called “pandemic”. Why we have to talk about the coronavirus period and insist on a clear distinction between fact and fiction. What role does our economic system play in this. We must talk about this and more – for the sake of our friendship. This is my review of the last three years, with the help of Hannah Arendt, Slavoj Žižek and many others – including the wonderful constitution of our little free Republic of Užupis.
Do not defeat. – Do not fight back. – Do not surrender.
Update: Thank you so much for the positive reactions to my article! Some high-ranking state officials in Užupis asked me how all this is related to Corona. My answer: A republic that calls itself free but does not defend basic constitutional liberties is only free on paper and must fundamentally question itself. Sapere aude!
“Tolerance does not mean that one shares the opinion of another, but only that one grants the other the right to hold a different opinion.” (Viktor Frankl)
It’s still quiet in my autumnish yard in Vilnius, it’s an early morning at the end of November. It’s dark outside, frost has appeared after the night. I can hear the fire burning in the stove behind me – how I love that sound! -, there is a candle burning on the table and a cup of coffee is standing next to it. There’s my mind map near by as well, I use it to map out ideas for important texts.
I’ve sent you Professor Homburg’s speech (en) at the German Bundestag by e-mail, which I shared on my Lithuanian news portal sapereaude.lt (for english version click here). The entire speech together with my introductory words was also published by Bernardinai.lt, a popular Catholic news channel. I’m glad it shows I’m not alone. Homburg shows in his speech that there was no pandemic. The most important symptom of the pandemic is a significant increase in mortality, and in 2020 It was not recorded in Germany. He bases his arguments on documented, and thus hard to refute, data from state institutions. I know that as an intelligent and logical person you like arguments. So I asked you to tell me if you think there is anything wrong with Homburg’s statements.
I quickly received your reply: that the speech was not given in the German Bundestag (as an institution), but as part of a symposium in the Bundestag, organized by AFD (Alternative for Germany), and that I had deliberately “misled” my readers. That I do not do in-depth research and that Homburg and others have argued unconvincingly in other thematic areas as well (you do not say which ones), so you do not want to go into his arguments.
I replied you that I asked you for your arguments to refute the facts given by Professor Homburg; that the speech was given in the Bundestag (as in a building); that I would have translated Homburg’s speech if the symposium had been organised by the Greens or anybody else; and that unfortunately it’s hard to find any discussion regarding Corona period by any other party. I quoted Žižek on this point: “One of the most important postulates of the great Enlightenment was that arguments remain arguments, regardless of who makes them.” And that arguments must be grounded in reality (i.e. verifiable) and that they are essential for making the best decisions together for the good of humanity.
I did not find that precise quote from Slavoj Žižek – but that is not so important, because the statement would be true even if it was said, for example, by me, an ordinary child from a working-class family in Westphalia. Instead, I found many other noteworthy quotes from him. I will include some of them in the text.
“I am neither naïve nor unrealistic. I know that there will be no great revolution. Nevertheless, we can still do useful things, such as putting limits on the system.”
I keep thinking about the discussions I used to have with my students a few years before the Corona happened. They wanted to explain me that, in principle, you can always find good arguments for all sides, so in the end there is no solid basis for any decision. Therefore, the truth would be something arbitrary. I strongly disagreed with that even then. Take the so-called pandemic as an example: the defining feature of a pandemic is excessive mortality. If there was no excess mortality, there was no pandemic. Prof. Homburg proves that this was the case with Covid-19 using official German data, which can be easily verified (for more articles on mortality during the coronavirus era, see here, here and here).
The most important 20th century totalitarian thinker Hannah Arendt emphasizes the importance of sticking to arguments, and therefore to reality. She was born just 150 kilometers from Lithuania, in Karaliaučius, and as a Jew she experienced fascism up close. She is a wonderful and perceptive thinker, whose works, I hope, will someday be discovered again in Lithuania.
By the way, Arendt was most disappointed by the intellectuals who not only looked up at Hitler, but also found good reasons to do so. One professional group stood out in particular: from 1933 onwards, doctors joined the Nazi party in large numbers. Many of them were enthusiastic about Hitler. Many joined the fascist party because they hoped to gain personal benefits.
So at least you have made the effort to answer me, and you have shown that our friendship is important to you. Thank you for that. But you did not refute Homburg’s arguments. That is not possible, because he clearly backs up his claims with reliable (officially confirmed) sources. In short, you have refused to give me a substantive answer. Like many people who now say: “Corona is over, I don’t want to hear anything about it anymore!”. And yet we, vaccine sceptics, were called “imposters” and “conspiracy theorists” – even though all our claims (“that vaccines are experimental and have unpredictable side-effects; that they don’t prevent infection or virus transmission”, etc.) have been shown to be true and have been corroborated by e.g. European Medicines Agency (EMA). By the way, we have never said that the earth is flat, although it was repeatedly said about us.
In 2020, extensive research has already been carried out showing that a sufficient vitamin D balance provides excellent protection against the coronavirus. You can find out for yourself about ivermectin – discredited as a drug for horses and now officially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Both products have no side effects, are beneficial for health and prevention and are practically free of charge. Though the scandalous purchase of vaccines by EU has cost us around €100 billion euros.
Where does your refusal to accept reality come from? I suspect that if you wanted to seriously look into the arguments, you would have to fundamentally question the narratives that form the basis of your reality.
However, many of us risked our professional and material existence in the name of truth. There are hundreds of examples of brave people losing their livelihoods, such as doctors who lost their licenses or even went to jail for issuing exemptions for vaccinations – Prof. Homburg also mentions them. Remember our mutual friend, a long-term civil servant, a teacher who, being unvaccinated, justifiably risked losing his job. He received warnings from the headmistress several times for discussing official statistics on the corona virus with students in class. Five years ago, this would have been unthinkable.
It was a little easier for me because I had fallen out of the system a few years earlier and had already learned this lesson:
Now I am happy and grateful for that, even though it was difficult then. It was much easier for me to understand our situation. And, to be honest, I do not know how I would have behaved as a civil servant, a well-paid teacher in Germany during the coronavirus crisis. Especially if I still had a family to feed and an apartment to pay for with only ten years left before receiving my civil servant’s pension, which is three times higher than normal German pension (for my Lithuanian readers: you meet these Germans holidaying in Nida. Civil servants also have much better health insurance. And also: if my German friend who’s a civil servant and a teacher were to die, his much younger wife would be entitled to a generous pension for a lifetime. And so on. And all of this comes from tax payers’ money).
However, your children have grown up and, unlike most of the people, you live financially independently. Therefore you could “afford” accepting the arguments proving that there was no pandemic at all. Of course, this would shock your worldview. It would require you to open yourself up to life in a way that could affect you, “like facing the storm without an umbrella’, as Arendt wrote of Rahel Varnhagen, whom she admired. Such opening is painful. How many moments of uncertainty have I experienced in recent years, especially at the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, when I was ostracised and lonely because of my openly expressed scepticism. Although our Constitution of Užupis states that doubt is not a duty (15. A man has the right to doubt, but it is not his duty.), to science it clearly must apply:
The media’s coverage of the virus has been unspeakably one-sided, and the politicians and so-called experts presenting it were obviously moderately competent at best. Doubts ware forbidden. I felt the need to do something about it, therefore founded the website sapereaude.lt. I titled it after the main idea and meaning of one of the most important texts of our European Enlightenment: “Have courage to think for yourself!”. Don’t rely on authority. When I was at school, this was still a compulsory reading.
Have you ever questioned your point of view? Do you really believe that reality is only black and white?
Constitution of Užupis rule No 35. No one has the right to make another person guilty.
I became an outcast and this was happening in my beloved free (!!!) republic of Užupis, which claims to be so small that there is room for everyone. This is one of the paradoxes that I like so much. I knew perfectly well now, that it had nothing to do with reality. I used to read the thoughts of passers-by when I dared to go out into the street: “Here is a vaccine skeptic who is harming us all.” How I wished to hear their arguments based on facts. For example, regarding the insanity of the PCR test or Ioannidis, one of the world’s most cited experts in medical statistics, whose statements about the (non)dangerousness of Covid-19, as we now know, turned out to be correct. But they refused to discuss it with me. And I heard no arguments that could withstand critical analysis.
Rule No 38. Everyone has the right to not to be afraid.
But there was only fear, deliberately fueled by photos taken out of context from Italy. And there was the concept of pandemic that was changed 10 years ago by WHO, which meant that virtually any cough could be declared a pandemic. According to the German government’s crisis plan (which was applied worldwide before the Corona), the most important rule in the event of a “real” pandemic was to calm people down and not to cause panic in any way! The opposite was done: fear was stoked and calm discussion soon became impossible.
Since the beginning of the “pandemic”, there has been a debate on how to count the number of deaths. It was clear from the start that the elderly and those who already had health problems would be the most affected. The average age of those who died was, and still is, about 2 years longer than the average life expectancy. This is also the case in Italy. More than 97% of those who died from Covid-19, had at least one known pre-existing disease. This has now been pointed out by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in its assessment.
“To be together, but not to be a herd.” (Romas Lileikis, President of the Republic of Užupis)
These words of the President of our small, peaceful republic have often rung in my ears, but even in our small Republic, full of so-called artists and free spirits, everyone was running in herd, driven by fear. And I was the black sheep, and there was not a single person who did not succumb to this mass psychosis and who would have supported me openly. There was no question of continuing my garden project – in the open air (!!) – because I was the one who refused to accept science. The fact that it is madness for the vaccinated to be afraid of the unvaccinated has completely drowned in the general hysteria. Now we know that it was all a lie. It was only after vaccination that we had a significant excess mortality.
I was an outcast. And when the so-called pandemic ended, or was replaced by the terrible war in Ukraine, I was expelled again: I was turned into a Putin fan. There were rumours in Užupis that I was on the Russian side.
How did this happen? In spite of my doubts, I decided to organise another event in our Parliament (In a Cafe in Užupis). I wanted suggest a screening of a movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” before Christmas and then organize a concert afterwards.
When at Spunka I asked the bartender of Užupis café for her opinion, she said: “Andreas, before I answer you, I need to clear one thing.” She looked me seriously in the eye, and it seemed to me that everyone around me held their breath: “Andreas! Slava Ukraini?!”
I was confused. I had clearly condemned the Russian occupation several times before. I had also pointed out America’s geopolitical interests and asked how the US would behave if China or Russia were to deploy nuclear missiles in Mexico or Canada that could reach Washington within five minutes – even though China and/or Russia would explicitly claim that the missiles were aimed at North Korea. I also find it difficult to use a greeting that has been particularly popular among members of the ‘Ukrainian Nationalist Organisation’ (OUN). The OUN collaborated with the German fascists, provided SS volunteer battalions and distinguished itself as a persecutor and murderer of Jews, Poles, Roma and Sinti, Russians and, in particular, members of the Red Army.
I also do not understand how Lithuania could have supported the terrible US war against Iraq, which Americans clearly started by a lie. This war resulted in the deaths of a million innocent people, including 500 000 children, in the 1990s alone. Nobody here wants to talk about that. Are there different standards there? And please do not start accusing me of ‘whataboutism‘, which is inappropriate in a presence of so many innocent, victims of barbaric murder.
Madeleine Albright justifies the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as “worth it.”
And when these war-traumatised men ever return home, they will see that the fertile land of Ukraine has been sold off to oligarchs and multinational corporations, mainly from the US. The land they fought for no longer belongs to them! Ukraine is being sold out before our eyes. Viktor Sheremeta, the leader of the small farmers, sees a bleak future: “When the small farmers come back from the front and realise that they no longer stand a chance against the big corporations, the protests will no longer be peaceful but radical. Because this land belongs to our children and grandchildren.”
So I said: “I am for peace”.
I do not want to lose my children in wars that have never served our interests.
I have been met with open hostility. Since then, several people do not say “Hi” to me anymore.
This has affected me very much. That is why I am announcing:
“As long as I cannot speak up for peace in Užupis, as long as we do not listen to each other and do not talk openly about the Corona period, I am resigning from my beloved position as Ambassador General of the Free (!) Republic of Užupis to Germany for an indefinite period.”
Rule No 1. Everyone has the right to live next to River Vilnelė, and River Vilnelė has the right to flow next to everyone.
Republic literally means public, hence common cause. It requires everyone to have the courage to put forward their opinion for public discussion and be heard. Let’s not deceive ourselves: this common cause did not exist in Užupis even before Corona.
The success of Užupis is based on the fact that it is a projection of a happy and free life. Since in our society most people are denied such a life (and we are told that it is our own fault because we are not ‘good enough’), the idea of a free state in which every citizen is free to develop all his or her abilities is very fascinating. But this projection is empty, because we have no common understanding of what such a life could look like and what prevents it. We have no direction. And yet everything is written in our wonderful constitution. Unless we think together and base our ideas on it, in the future we will be what we became already: a tourist attraction and a trendy neighbourhood for people who can afford it. With some nice traditions, but without any appeal, especially for young people, to join in.
Fear shuts down the mind, and a vague fear that has no real object – a virus no one could see or touch (the same goes for terrorism and climate) because it can only be detected by PCR tests, which are too sensitive and have been proven wrong – diverts existing anger into a scapegoat. This scapegoat has become the vaccination sceptics, because we have dared to publicly question vaccination. Mattias Desmet, whose book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’ we should read together in our Parliament in Užupis, has explained this mechanism vividly. And Desmet is due to speak in the Lithuanian Parliament on 9 May on my initiative. His book will be published in Lithuanian before the book fair.
Fear shuts down the mind, and undefined fear that has no real object (a virus that could not be seen or touched by anyone – the same applies to terrorism and climate change) directs already existing anger to the scapegoat. We have become these scapegoats for daring publicly question vaccination. Mattias Desmet explained this mechanism clearly in his book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’ that we should read together in our Užupis parliament. It will be published in Lithuanian before the Book Fair. Due to my initiative, Desmet will be speaking in the Lithuanian Parliament on May 9.
I shudder to think what would have happened if compulsory vaccination had been introduced. All my theoretical knowledge of fascism, which as a good post-war German I tried very hard to understand, was surpassed by reality.
“Aufarbeitung” of the past
“Aufarbeitung” is a German word that is not easily translatable. The best possible translation is probably “to deal with, to come to terms with the past”. The main question of Aufarbeitung in a historical context is how Germans deal with their fascist past. This question has been addressed by the philosophers Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, among others, and their critical theory has had a profound influence on German post-war history.
Here is one of Adorno’s important thoughts: “The past will only be dealt with when the causes of what has happened have been removed. It is only because these causes still exist that the ties of that past have not yet been severed.” Benito Mussolini said bluntly about this thought of Th. W. Adorno: “Fascism is more appropriately called corporatism, because it is the fusion of the power of the State and the power of the corporations.”
Here is one of the important Th. W. Adorno’s thoughts: “The past will only be dealt with when the causes of what happened are removed. Only because these reasons still exist, the ties of that past have not been severed to this day.” Benito Mussolini bluntly commented this thought: “It would be more appropriate to call Fascism corporatism, because it is a fusion of state and corporate power.”
Why is Covid not over for me yet? I will try to explain it briefly: because human rights – including my “right to physical integrity” – have been suspended to unimaginable extent. The vaccine skeptics, who were already outcasts, were only a small step away from being forced to be vaccinated or forced to house arrest (because they were supposedly dangerous “public health”). We were called “rats” in the German media. We have experienced firsthand how thin is the layer of civilization that separates us from lawlessness. We were de facto outcasts without rights. I do not want to talk here about the decline of politics and media, and especially intellectuals, because it is too obvious and painful. Fascism in Germany showed that intellectuals, especially doctors, were always susceptible to totalitarian tendencies. Some frightening studies were done on this. After her experience as a Jewish intellectual in Germany, Hannah Arendt did not want to do anything with intellectuals anymore and did not want to be ever called an intellectual. Let’s protect ourselves from self-professed intellectuals and experts, from people who do not accept any other opinion and are the only ones who know what is true.
Finally, on the basis of the information available today, the only conclusion that remains is that the “pandemic” was planned well in advance.
You ask me why? We could have a long discussion about this. For me, the most important thing is to acknowledge that the officially available data in Germany clearly prove that there was no pandemic. Since the virus in Lithuania could not differ from the virus in Germany, the same applies to Lithuania.
Please read Professor Homburg’s excellent summary, which prompted this long letter.
However, I will try to answer the question “Why?”, because it arises naturally. All the information – at least for the time being – is easily available on the Internet.
The history of our civilisation has always been characterised by a small number of powerful people and a large number of ordinary people. As soon as these ordinary people realise that this constellation puts them at a great disadvantage, the few rich at the top, who naturally want to keep their power and the privileges that go with it, have to do something. Moreover, any system can only survive in the long term if it is in balance. Obviously this is not the case when five (!) people own as much wealth as half of humanity (Oxfam).
The history of our civilization is characterized by the fact that there have always been a minority of powerful and a majority of ordinary mortals. As soon as these ordinary people realize that this system puts them at a great disadvantage, the wealthy minority, who want to maintain their power and privileges, naturally have to do something. Moreover, any system can only survive if it is in equilibrium. Obviously not when five (!) people control as much wealth as half of humanity (Oxfam).
Professor Rainer Mausfeld’s lectures are very informative in this context. Before Corona in German-speaking countries his video “Why do the lambs remain silent?” got several million views because he put into words what people felt in their daily lives.
These lectures can still be seen on YouTube, but the enormous number of views is no longer visible (I do remember that this lecture had more than three million views).
My personal experience: I was born in 1970 as the fourth child in a working class family of five children. My father, as a normally trained worker for Claas (a company that makes green harvesters), earned enough to feed his family and build a house. When my younger sister (she was the second unplanned child in our family – there was no contraception those days) started attending school, my mother, who was trained as a seamstress, started working again. As a cleaning lady. Because she wanted to be independent and contribute to the family budget. Not because there was not enough money! Today it is unthinkable, although we are becoming more and more productive. Where can you still see a family (and this is true all over the world, where the “free” (!!!) market economy is triumphant, Germany and Lithuania being no exception) in which the woman does not have to work and therefore can look after the children, as it used to be a norm (by the way, I did not go to a kindergarten, because I much preferred to play with the many children in our street). Is it not strange that the question of why less and less of our money is staying in the hands of ordinary people is not, or cannot be, asked in public? Despite the fact that all normal people clearly feel that the gap between rich and poor is changing more and more to their disadvantage.
I can already hear the cry: do you want to take away women’s right to work and to self-realisation? No, I don’t want that, although I have never understood the concept of self-realisation. Nor do I understand feminism, which demands equal rights in a male-dominated world. In a world based on competition, which isolates people and mercilessly destroys the planet. But that is a subject for another time.
What is left for that small class of ultra-rich and ultra-privileged? The “soft” control of our minds through the media or, if that no longer works, the “hard” control of our bodies. In addition, well-known strategies such as ‘divide and rule’, which make us increasingly isolated. We are also “indoctrinated” into the idea that failure is our own fault. This is a lie, and nothing is more dangerous for the powerful and their vassals in politics and business than a global understanding of the real causes of our slavery.
And the dream of this class is, of course, to control us digitally. Anyone who resists will no longer be allowed to travel or to get cash from ATMs, as this already happened to the rebellious Canadian truck drivers. And best of all, it would be digital money only, so that we have no more secrets. This is the elite’s wet dream that we must defend ourselves against.
If you teach people to think, they won’t be able to obey as before. Not because of a rebellious spirit, but because of a habit of scrutinising everything when in doubt.” Hannah Arendt
Historically, the state has always been a tool of this ruling caste. By the way, even before the “plandemic” I no longer believed that we live in a democraticy. This is shown, for example, in the award-winning book “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Why policymaking in the United States privileges the rich over the poor”, written by perhaps the most famous American political scientist, Princeton professor Martin Gilens, who was the first to study the relationship between social classes and political decision-making.
Perhaps his most important conclusion: the probability that the political will of the majority will be implemented if it wants something other than the richest 10% (e.g. peace or fair tax policies) are effectively zero. Gilens shows that in 25 years the absolute majority (more than 60%) have never once been able to consolidate their interests politically if they sought something other than what was wanted by “those at the top”. So do we live in a democracy? Let everyone answer that question for themselves.
The same study was commissioned in 2015 by the German “Social Democratic” government for the so-called “Poverty Report 2016” (German: “Armutsbericht 2016”). It was led by Professor Schäfer and again was carried out by good and financially independent researchers and had an excellent database. The only difference: the period analysed was “only” 17 years, from 1998 to 2015. The result was the same: the majority of people in our “democracies” have no voice if their wishes do not coincide with “those at the top”. The consequences of these startling conclusions: none. The truly scandalous results, which revealed the illusion of democracy, were presented among other things in the summer, in one of the last sessions of the Bundestag before the holidays, and the press did not notice it at all (who does it actually belong to?!). Befitting the time, it was raining cats and dogs.
There was only a minor scandal because the German government brazenly wanted to rewrite the report in its favour. Which government wants to be exposed being powerless or working only for the interests of those in power – even if practically no one reports it and no one notices it? You can read about it in detail here. Horst Seehofer, a well-known – and sometimes surprisingly outspoken – German politician, said briefly: “The ones who decide are not elected and those who are elected have nothing to decide”.
There is nothing to add to that. Or maybe there is: the top green politicians in Germany – Foreign Minister Baerbock and Economy Minister Habeck – now have the temerity to admit openly that they do not care what their constituents think. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be completely incompetent to carry out any tasks that really matter.
However, I had to experience more than once how difficult it was for my Lithuanian students to admit this (you cannot refute these results with arguments, otherwise the federal government would not have been forced to rewrite the results). It was simply “inconceivable” to these wonderfully intelligent young Lithuanians that after the “terrible” communism democracy was also a rotten egg.
“The most important tool of such collective hypnosis is, of course, language. Those who control language, that is, the concepts and categories with which we think and talk about social and political phenomena, easily control us. “Language is used to control thinking.”
Prof. em. Rainer Mausfeld, “Why do the lambs remain silent”?
These bright young people have also unanimously spoke against referendums, supposedly because the majority of citizens are not capable (i.e. too uneducated) of defending their interests. This is also clearly false. “Ordinary” people make just as good (or bad) decisions as professional (?!) politicians. There is only one major difference: politicians are better at explaining why they made bad decisions. After all, their very existence depends on it. Paul Schreyer has described all this in his book “Was fürchten die Eliten” (“What the elite fear”), which was worth reading even before the “coronavirus”pandemic”. It is also worth reading his thoughts on the ‘deep state’.
Mausfeld has just published a new book. The book launch reads:
“Power seeks more power, and wealth seeks more wealth, and this dynamic threatens to undermine and destroy the cohesion of society: it is one of the first insights into the history of civilisation. That is why power must always be firmly restrained. The most important means of safeguarding civilisational power is the egalitarian basic principle of democracy. Psychologist Rainer Mausfeld, in his new book “Hybris und Nemesis. How the de-civilisation of power leads to the abyss”, shows how the concept of democracy has been stripped of its original meaning and is now being misused as democratic rhetoric for the purposes of domination. In recent decades, this has led to a de-civilisation of power, the psychological, social and ecological consequences of which threaten the whole of human civilisation.”
In short, it is more than doubtful that we live in a real democracy, and that decisions are made by a small group of unimaginably wealthy people. It is naïve at best, or, more accurately, stupid, to think otherwise.
And these elites have repeatedly made it clear that (for whatever reasons) they consider themselves better, i.e. more worthy to live. And these people have repeatedly warned publicly that there are too many people on this planet. The fact that they are also largely supporters of Eugenics is something anyone can investigate for themselves or read here and here. Don’t even get me started on the whole LGBT debate and climate hysteria. Just two links:
Of course we need a different relationship with our world, but that requires an understanding of who is responsible for major environmental problems. Just as we cannot understand fascism if we remain silent about the economic system that gave rise to it, we cannot solve environmental problems without acknowledging their causes. Here I will mention just two key challenges.
We can talk about prevailing joint stock companies as an example. They were founded in the USA in the end of 19th century, so that larger projects, such as the construction of bridges, could be implemented without threatening the financial existence of their participants. Over time, it has become a form of company where neither shareholders nor managers can be held accountable. Without responsibility, in a world where profit is the most important thing, no one will act responsibly. By the way, this also applies to our politicians, who cannot be held accountable for the harm they (deliberately) cause.
Money production should not be in the hands of private companies, it should be regulated by the state taking into account the interests of citizens.
Every system of interest requires infinite growth. If we want to look at the world soberly, we must first realize this. As a result, the destructive and imbalance-enhancing monetary system needs to be transformed into a full-fledged monetary system that serves everyone. Such a full-fledged monetary system, which would be controlled by real democratic structures, was called for, for example, by a referendum in Switzerland. We need a system that creates balance.
Film and reading tip: ‘The Miracle of Wörgl‘. (Das Wunder von Wörgl)
It is surprising that these key factors are not being discussed publicly, and instead there is an increasingly open call for digital currencies that will allow a complete control over us. The alternatives are not shown. By the way, it already makes a big difference if we all pay in cash.
The creation and circulation of money are essential for a better future for humanity, because they determine the fair distribution of our resources.
I will finish with Hannah Arendt. ‘The world,’ she said in 1959, when she was awarded the Lessing Prize in Hamburg, “is the space between people, and this “in-between” – much more important than, as is often thought, people or even a person – is what is of greatest concern today in almost all countries experiencing various shocks in the world. In the Western world, where from ancient times freedom from politics was understood as one of the basic freedoms, more and more people take advantage of this freedom, withdrawing from the world and their responsibilities in it.“
It is not only us Germans who have painfully realized that we cannot suppress the past. It works subconsciously in us and is passed on to future generations. If we want to break this vicious cycle and revive this space “in-between” which is the basis of all friendship, beauty and humanity, we need to talk to each other. And then act together. To do this, we need the optimism expressed by Charles Eisenstein in his essay “The Coronation“:
“None of the world’s problems are technically difficult to solve; they originate in human disagreement. In coherency, humanity’s creative powers are boundless.”
I look forward to your reply.
P. S.: In the last almost four difficult years, I have been saved by many wonderful new peoplewho have enriched my life beyond imagination. Of course, we met behind closed curtains. How wonderful those evenings were! My beloved Spunka, the pub from which I was kicked out even before the lock down because of my stance against vaccinations, was closed. Tonight I will drink to the health of those new friends. The very last word belongs to Hannah Arendt:
For a world among people!