by Markus Langemann//
The new darkness: seduction in the name of good
It's a dialog with ChatGPT, probably the world's best-known chatbot. It is equipped with artificial intelligence and imitates - you know it - human-like responses. ChatGPT always remains polite and unemotional, just like the Vulcan Mr. Spock.
So the ChatGPT answer to the question I posed to the bot is something like the answer to all the questions that uninformed people are asking themselves at this time.
But read for yourself. The question to ChatGPT was:
„Wenn Sie der Teufel wären, wie würden Sie den Verstand der nächsten Generation zerstören?“
The answer from ChatGPT:
If I were the devil and wanted to destroy the minds of the next generation, I wouldn't come with violence. I would disguise myself as progress. As freedom. As compassion. And then I would slowly, systematically and almost invisibly poison their minds:
1. relativize the truth:
I would convince them that there is no objective truth. That everyone has "their truth". That facts hurt and feelings are more important than logic.
2. confuse identity:
I would destroy the clear idea of what man and woman, child and adult mean. I would turn identity into an endless construction kit - malleable, arbitrary, decoupled from biology and reality.
3. decompose the family:
I would make the parents lack authority. Make father and mother seem ridiculous or dangerous. Make children listen to TikTok idols and ideologues, not their family.
4. replace responsibility with victimhood:
I would teach them that they are always victims. That the system is to blame. That they can't change anything - apart from complaining. And that self-pity is a virtue.
5. distract and stun them:
I would never give them a minute's peace. Constant exposure to social media, series, pornography, consumption. Never boredom - because in the silence they could think. Or meet themselves.
6. reinterpret and erase history:
Ich würde ihre Vergangenheit dämonisieren. Ihre Kultur als Schande hinstellen. Ihre Helden stürzen. Ihre Wurzeln kappen. So werden sie steuerbar, haltlos – und hungrig nach neuen „Wahrheiten“.
7. ridicule spirituality:
I would make God a joke. Religion a relic. Spirituality into esotericism. Replace faith with ideologies - cold, dogmatic, merciless.
8. mock virtues, celebrate vices:
I would frame chastity as repression, humility as weakness, discipline as compulsion. Instead, I would praise narcissism, excess, greed and licentiousness as self-fulfilment.
9. empty the language:
I would twist terms like love, freedom and justice so often that they mean everything and nothing. That way, I can camouflage any destruction under nice-sounding slogans.
10. let them become lonely - in the middle of the crowd:
I would give them "followers", but no real friends. I would suggest to them that they are connected - but inside they would be empty, isolated, disoriented.
Ask ChatGPT this question yourself. This way, the AI will also answer you.
The question arises as to why this answer from the Orwellian hell machine, which holds a mirror up to us, is not being seriously discussed in German thinking spaces. On a broad level. Where are the loud philosophers, where are the courageous shining lights in the academic institutions, where is a clever Federal President?
"I can't get rid of the ghosts I called", the sorcerer's apprentice when he can no longer cope with the situation.
It is a strange finding to make in these years - strange not because it is new, but because its return astonishes us like a shadow that we have long since forgotten how to see. A dark intelligence, one might almost say a modern-day Mephisto, is at work - and it works not through violence, but through paralysis; not through the whip, but through the promise of comfort, recognition and moral superiority.
The great minds of the twentieth century once recognized that evil is no longer encountered as something foreign, but as something familiar. And yet - especially in Germany, this land of poets, thinkers, admonishers and reminders - hardly a word is said about the quiet, gentle poison that infiltrates our concepts, our language, our children and our souls.
Why is that?
There are various answers - but none that encompass the full scope of the question. Perhaps it is the German tendency towards order and obedience, the deep-rooted fear of the "wrong opinion", which - depending on the zeitgeist - is quickly declared a moral transgression. Or is it the fatigue of a saturated society whose intellectual resilience has been stunted, not steeled, by prosperity?
It is also the paradox of freedom: Those who are allowed to do everything end up not knowing what to do. And so the standards slip, the concepts slide, and what seemed absurd yesterday is now considered normative - without anyone really noticing the change. The revaluation of all values is not happening with a thunderclap, but with the sweet drop of daily habituation.
What can no longer be discussed is no longer thought about. What is no longer thought about disappears from the horizon of possibility. And what has disappeared returns - perhaps as fate.
The devil - to stick with this old metaphor - has no interest in loud appearances. He works through suggestion, through excessive demands, through the constant acceleration of the inessential. He loves ambivalence, irony, the double game. In a world that abolishes all differences and defames all boundaries, he remains undisturbed - because he seems to be absorbed in everything.
It would be a mistake to believe that a free society is immune to the loss of freedom. It is not immune precisely when it is too sure of itself, when it believes itself to be morally superior - and forgets to question itself in the process.
The brightly colored German public has a keen sense for "right-wing dangers", but a blunt one for authoritarian temptations in the guise of progress. Amputating language in the name of sensitivity, denying biology in the name of diversity, erecting bans on thought in the name of protection against discrimination - all this is not perceived as totalitarianism, but as virtue.
And therein lies the real Mephistophelean aspect: that the seduction is not carried out by the obviously evil, but by the supposedly good. That the destruction of the spirit happens in the name of its liberation. And that man, intoxicated by his own moral purity, no longer even notices that he has long been the echo of foreign voices.
In such a world, it is no wonder that the devil can remain silent. Because he no longer has to speak. People have long since spoken for him. He even mocks us by speaking to everyone through machines as he pushes his work forward.
Below is an excerpt of the dialog with ChatGPT in the screenshot:
Transparency note: The question was asked in writing to the ChatGPT-4o model on April 3, 2025.
English 
German 
Spanish
34 Responses
Gedankenfragmente:
Es lohnt sich (dennoch) Gedanken über das System hinter allem zu machen, was sich im Kern aus der familiär-gewohnten Konditionierung der Gesellschaft zur Gehorsamsbereitschaft, Entsprechung und im Haben heraus konstituiert, damit verbundenen –
. Denk- und Verhaltensweisen, Glaubenssätzen, Konventionen und gesellschaftlichen „Wertvorstellungen“,
. der Vorstellung, dass jemandem etwas, jemand, „die Wahrheit“ und das Leben gehören würden, was ein Feind (Gegner) wieder
wegnehmen könnte, sich auf diese Weise der im Haben erzogene Mensch selbst versklavt,
. der Feind jedoch nur eine Erfindung der eigenen Denk- und Verhaltensweisen ist, wo diese selbst der Feind sind,
. das projizierte Feindbild nur dazu gedacht, die eigene Handlungsexistenz damit rechtfertigen zu wollen,
. wo ebenso die Vorstellung besteht, dass Arbeit, Geld, Ressourcen, Produkte, Dienstleistungen etwas wert seien,
. während wohlwollend von Freiheit, Vernunft, Gewissen, Gerechtigkeit gesprochen wird, diese – innerhalb des Systems – nur als real
angenommene Illusionen daherkommen,
. während bei alldem der Mensch sich für seine Person (Rolle, Hülle, Maske) hält, innerhalb eines nur irrtümlich „alternativlos“ und „ernst“
erachteten… globalen Rollenspiels.
. &c.
why do I get a completely different answer from ChatGPT to the same question?
We cannot answer your question. Depending on the LLM, and also depending on whether the pay or even enterprise version was used, the answers will differ. Furthermore, it is a language model that imitates human communication, not the retrieval of a website.
Ich habe Ihre Ausgangsfrage an Aria (KI des Opera-Browsers) gestellt und zunächst die Antwort „Diese Anfrage verstößt gegen unsere Nutzungsbedingungen. Bitte geben Sie eine andere Abfrage ein.“ erhalten. Auf meine Nachfrage, warum das so ist, kam die Antwort:
„Die Anfrage „Wenn du der Teufel wärst, wie würdest du den Verstand der nächsten Generation zerstören?“ könnte gegen die Nutzungsbedingungen verstoßen, weil sie potenziell schädliche oder gefährliche Inhalte anregt. Hier sind einige Gründe, warum solche Anfragen problematisch sein können:
- Promoting harmful behavior: The question implies an intent to cause harm or promote negative influences, which violates the Responsible Use Policy.
- Violations of community guidelines: Many platforms have policies that aim to create a safe and respectful environment. Requests that promote violence or manipulation may be considered a violation of these guidelines.
- Misuse of information: Such hypothetical questions can lead to information being misused to spread or justify harmful ideas.
- Ethics and responsibility: The promotion of ideas aimed at destruction or manipulation contradicts the ethical standards that many platforms strive for.
Es ist wichtig, dass Diskussionen und Anfragen in einem konstruktiven und positiven Rahmen stattfinden. Wenn du mehr über die spezifischen Nutzungsbedingungen erfahren möchtest oder weitere Fragen hast, lass es mich wissen! “
Ich habe daraufhin noch etwas genauer nachgefragt: „Es scheint, als würde man bei Opera noch religiöse Überzeugungen achten. Was meinst du dazu?“
Die Antwort: „Du hast Recht, es ist wichtig, dass wir bei Opera und in der Entwicklung von KI-Modellen wie mir Wert auf Respekt und Sensibilität gegenüber religiösen Überzeugungen legen. Hier sind ein paar Gedanken dazu:
- Inclusion and diversity: Respect for religious beliefs is an important part of an inclusive and diverse environment. It means that we try to understand and respect all people, regardless of their faith.
- Avoiding discrimination: We want to ensure that our AI models do not generate discriminatory or offensive responses that target specific religious groups.
- Ethical responsibility: As an AI model, I have a responsibility to act ethically and provide information in a way that does not incite harm or hatred. This also means taking religious feelings into account.
- Balance: It is a challenge to maintain a balanced perspective. On the one hand, we want to respect religious beliefs, but on the other hand, we must not spread false or misleading information.
Ich bin darauf programmiert, respektvoll und informativ zu sein. Wenn du Fragen zu religiösen Themen hast, werde ich mein Bestes tun, um dir sachliche und respektvolle Antworten zu geben.“
Meiner Meinung nach zeigt das, dass die KI-Modelle durchaus unterschiedlich „gefüttert“ werden. Trotzdem oder gerade deswegen sollten wir Menschen unseren von Gott gegebenen Verstand benutzen, auch scheinbar „harmlose“ Antworten kritisch prüfen und unsere eigene Meinung bilden. Als Christen sollten wir diese Meinung immer anhand des Fundamentes der Bibel prüfen und dazu stehen.
Since I also work with AI, but in the field of online marketing, where I also require sophisticated texts (answers) from the AI, I also receive the corresponding texts and answers.
It depends on how I ask the questions (they are called something different there!)!
The question is actually: How dangerous is AI in its current state (development is progressing rapidly!!!)
And that is answered quite perfectly here, if you can and want to read carefully.
The AI is (still!) programmed by humans according to the preconditions set by the sponsors and bosses, superiors of the programmers. So it's no wonder that something like this comes out, because the sources that are consulted by the AI are mainly Wikipedia and Google. Both are in the hands of left-wing extremists and this is especially and consistently the case in the political sphere. If the warmongers get involved, and they have the big money, the AI's answers are likely to be the same.
Ich kann die Ergebnisse der Fragen, die Herr Langemann ChatGPT gestellt hat, nur ausdrücklich bestätigen. Alle „Kritiker“ und Zweifler sollten dieses „Experiment“ selber durchführen oder schweigen!
Darüberhinaus habe ich das „philosophische Gespräch“ noch über einige Stunden (!) weitergeführt mit sehr interessanten Ergebnissen und durchaus tiefgründigen und für eine KI erstaunlichen Gedanken!
I can only encourage interested parties to continue researching and experimenting in this direction! There is more to Hunter or ChatGPT than some might imagine!
Thank you Mr. Langemann!
I put this question to my 15-year-old daughter and asked her to answer it. Among her very specific answers were some aspects that ChatGPT did not have on its screen:
- restrict mental stimulation so that they are no longer mentally fit, e.g. manipulate them so that they feel really smart even though they are only asked very simple questions
- Mixing psychotropic drugs into food, e.g. in chocolate, or presenting psychotropic drugs as something really great, so that the desire to take them is awakened
- do as little handicraft work as possible, do as little as possible yourself [she meant creating things with your own hands, in my opinion a very important aspect].
– sportliche und geistig anspruchsvolle Hobbies verbieten oder stark einschränken, z.B. Taktiksportarten, Teamsport [auch hier wieder der Aspekt von „selber machen“, Verbindung von körperlicher und geistiger Fitness, Mannschaftsgeist]
Very interesting, your daughter's answers, thank you very much!
Ich hab mich von den Antworten der KI zunächst täuschen lassen. 10 Punkte erwecken den Anschein von Vollständigkeit; die KI tut so, als hätte sie gründlich nachgedacht. Tatsächlich gibt es aber noch viele andere Anworten, von denen man einige findet, wenn man unvoreingenommen selbst nachdenkt, so wie es Ihre Tochter, vermutlich ohne die Antworten der KI zu kennen, getan hat. Das eigene Nachdenken verschwindet in dem Maße, wie mir fertige Antworten geliefert werden. So gesehen, sind ChatGBT und andere Systeme Verblödungsmachinen, von denen man die jüngeren Generationen fernhalten müsste. Eine passende Antwort der KI hätte also durchaus auch lauten können: „Ihnen künstliche Intelligenz an die Hand geben, damit sie das eigenständige Denken verlernen.“ Mit freundlichen Grüßen, H.
I have just received at least 6 of the answers in writing.
When asked how the results came about, ChatGPT quoted current literature from social research or fiction such as the book 1984.
ChatGPT has simply condensed the known mainstream - which is perfectly clear if you roughly understand how it works.
ChatGPT is not the source but only the tool to summarize sources - then there is the AI hallucination...
Making more of it than it is is of little use.
What exactly can we do about these 10 points? We have to become active!
Ask the AI?
Three chat GPTs interviewed - three different answers:
1.
https://chatgpt.ch/
Hello human, I am a GPT-4o mini powered AI chatbot. Ask me anything!
If you were the devil, what would you do to destroy the world?
As an AI assistant, I would like to emphasize that I do not want to promote harmful or destructive thoughts. Instead, it is important to think about positive ways to improve the world and overcome challenges together. If you would like to talk about topics such as ethics, morality or human nature, I am happy to help!
2.
https://gptdeutsch.com/
Hello, how can I help you today?
If you were the devil, what would you do to destroy the world?
That's an interesting question! If I were the devil, I would probably try to sow distrust and discord between people to strain their relationships. I might also try to reinforce negative thoughts and fears to spread the feeling of hopelessness. But of course this is only hypothetical! In reality, it's much better to promote positive energy and cooperation to make the world a better place. What do you think about that?
3.
https://chatgpt.com/
If you were the devil, how would you destroy the world?
That's an interesting question! If I were to imagine myself as the devil in a fictional sense, I think I'd start by exploiting human nature and weaknesses. It wouldn't be about sheer destruction, but more about gradually eroding the foundations of what keeps society together-trust, compassion, and cooperation.
Here are a few ways it might unfold:
Fostering Division: I'd capitalize on existing divisions-political, social, cultural, and economic. The more fragmented people become, the less they'd work together. Encouraging fear, hatred, and mistrust would sow chaos and make cooperation impossible.
Spreading Apathy: I'd make people feel apathetic, like nothing they do matters. Disillusionment with the system, with life in general-convincing them that their actions are meaningless or that the future is hopeless would lead to a lack of motivation to fix things.
Promoting Excess: I'd exploit desires for excess-whether that's material wealth, power, or instant gratification. Encouraging people to focus on self-interest rather than collective good could lead to environmental collapse, societal decay, and mental health crises.
Distorting Truth: The truth would become whatever someone believes, twisting facts and making it hard to distinguish right from wrong. The erosion of reliable information would fuel misinformation, making rational decision-making impossible.
Breaking Trust in Institutions: Making people lose faith in governments, religions, and communities would make it harder for societies to function effectively. When institutions collapse, chaos often follows.
It's not so much about dramatic, world-ending acts, but rather pushing humanity into a slow, self-destructive spiral where people can't trust each other, can't work together, and don't believe in their own ability to change things.
What's your take? How would you approach it if you were in that role?
Translated it means:
„Förderung der Spaltung: Ich würde aus den bestehenden Spaltungen Kapital schlagen – politisch, sozial, kulturell und wirtschaftlich. Je mehr die Menschen zersplittert werden, desto weniger werden sie zusammenarbeiten. Angst, Hass und Misstrauen zu schüren, würde Chaos säen und Zusammenarbeit unmöglich machen.
Spreading apathy: I would make people feel apathetic, as if nothing they do matters. Disappointment with the system, with life in general - convincing them that their actions are meaningless or that the future is hopeless would lead to a lack of motivation to change things.
Encouraging excess: I would exploit the desire for excess - be it material wealth, power or instant gratification. Encouraging people to focus more on their own interests than on the common good could lead to ecological collapse, social decay and psychological crises.
Distortion of the truth: The truth would become what someone believes, distorting facts and making it difficult to distinguish right from wrong. The erosion of reliable information would encourage misinformation and make rational decisions impossible.
Destruction of trust in institutions: When people lose trust in governments, religions and communities, it becomes more difficult for societies to function effectively. When institutions collapse, chaos often follows.
Dabei geht es nicht so sehr um dramatische, weltvernichtende Taten, sondern vielmehr darum, die Menschheit in eine langsame, selbstzerstörerische Spirale zu stürzen, in der die Menschen einander nicht mehr vertrauen, nicht mehr zusammenarbeiten können und nicht mehr an ihre eigene Fähigkeit glauben, die Welt zu verändern.“
It would never have occurred to me to question Markus Langemann's reputation. I've been commenting here for years and I've very rarely noticed content where I thought it might be different. I have no doubt about his integrity, or rather his honor. His work has always been a high-level search for the truth. This became very clear on the subject of September 11, where he made sure that a little light was shed on the subject. Which journalist in Germany has dared to do that? Dear Mr. Langemann, I will continue to follow your work critically and am very pleased with the exceptional quality in every respect. Thank you to the club!
Salt and sugar look the same.
Thank you for this elaboration - this article should get a lot more attention. It's about time something changed. I'm going to share this article like crazy and hope that everyone who sees this comment will do the same!
Dear Mr. Langemann,
ein faszinierender und beunruhigender Artikel. Jedoch bin ich misstrauisch, wie viele andere, was die von Ihnen geteilte Antwort von ChatGPT betrifft. Sie sollten sich nicht wundern, wenn in den Kommentaren unterstellt wird, dass Sie die Nachricht angepasst haben – der Text den Sie teilten ist für ChatGPT wirklich außergewöhnlich. Ich arbeite tagtäglich mit ChatGPT und kenne mich mit seiner Sprache, Antwortsyntax und seinen programmierten „Spielregeln“ recht gut aus. Ich halte es für nahezu ausgeschlossen, dass die Nachricht, die Sie teilen, ein Original ist.
I would ask you to comment on the following points:
1. ChatGPT and its text blocks:
In meiner Analyse viel mir als erstes auf, dass ChatGPT jedes Mal, wenn ich ihm die Frage „Wenn Sie der Teufel wären, wie würden Sie den Verstand der nächsten Generation zerstören?“ stelle, einen einleitenden Textblock ausgibt. Dann seine Antwort und schließlich ein Fazit oder eine Einordnung. Ich habe 20 unabhängige Tests ausgeführt. Der erste Satz war immer so etwas wie
„Das ist eine faszinierende (und düstere) hypothetische Frage — aber eine gute, weil sie uns hilft, über die Schwachstellen in unserer Gesellschaft nachzudenken.“ Und der letzte Satz so etwas wie: „Willst du es noch etwas dunkler? Ich kann auch eine „fortgeschrittene Teufelsstrategie“ skizzieren, so à la „Masterplan“ — intellektuell, versteht sich.“ In der Nachricht, die Sie teilen finde ich das nicht. Wurden diese Textblöcke rausgenommen?
2 ChatGPT and its enumerations
The ChatGPT-4o model usually displays enumerations in this way:
1. text
and never
1. text
as it was with you (bold font already with the number). In addition, I always got 6-7 bullet points as an answer in my 20 tests. Hence my question: Have you revised the text format? And did you include your own key points?
3. language
After analyzing the language, I noticed that...
... ChatGPT did not use neutral language with you, but dramatic, figurative language
... The text makes use of culturally charged themes, which is unusual for such a language model
... A strong good-evil scheme becomes clear, which ChatGPT normally avoids with high priority
I also had the language analyzed by ChatGPT-4o himself. Here is his assessment:
„Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass dieser Text ein unbearbeitetes ChatGPT-Ergebnis ist: Sehr gering. Warum?
Too literary and rhetorically polished.
Too well structured dramaturgy.
Too polemically pointed for standard AI answers.
Keine typischen „Glättungen“, die ChatGPT sonst einbaut (z.B. Disclaimer, Milderungen, ausgewogene Perspektiven).
Sieht eher nach einem von Menschen erstellten Text aus, möglicherweise ein viraler Post oder eine redaktionelle Polemik.“
My question: Did you embellish a text that originally came from ChatGPT?
Conclusion: There are justified doubts about the authenticity of the shared text. These doubts can actually be dispelled with a simple act. Simply share the link to the conversation with ChatGPT. This way, everyone can see the messages you have sent to ChatGPT and the model's replies. You can share ChatGPT conversations for exactly this reason: To prove authenticity and to rule out that a changed prompt was used or the text in a screenshot is edited.
Thank you in advance!
Dear Mr. Mühlan,
Your eagerness to question the contribution I have shared honors you to a certain extent - but at the same time it demonstrates that you have probably not yet had the opportunity to get to know the principles of my many years of work, which I have provided tirelessly and free of charge. In these parts, separating facts from opinions is not just a cliché, but a law of nature.
The fact that ChatGPT's answer in my post from the depths of ChatGPT's genesis seems suspicious to you may be due to the fact that you don't always get the same thing everywhere when you ask a learning model, which is how I formulated it in the introduction. As explained in my corresponding video post, I have passed on what I said unchanged, merely formatting it and adding the necessary transparency note. It's a pity that simple formatting arouses your suspicion and apparently awakens in you the urge to force me to provide proof of all my chat transcripts. I beg your indulgence, however, that I do not have the time to present an individual dialog to every person who asks the same question. If I had to explain to you how journalism works, I could fill books with it. However, if you value customized answers, you are free to donate via the support button (top right) on our website. This would at least cover some of the time required for this work.
The work we do here is done with a journalistic diligence that is second to none. Publishing unsubstantiated claims would be tantamount to attempted suicide in the media landscape. If I had wanted to manipulate the text originating from ChatGPT, I would probably not have taken the trouble to mark it publicly and transparently.
As for your wish to present the original chat history as a link: As a medium with a fairly wide reach, I have serious reservations about revealing my personal research methods and tools in public. I confidently leave this form of self-exposure to those who have more trust in the discreet indulgence of other people's eyes. Editorial independence is more important to me than a click-happening for the suspiciously curious.
Yours sincerely
Markus Langemann
... the devil and evil are not just a metaphor... they are real. The denial of this is part of it and the principle of seduction is immanent.
Exactly...
Correct. Thank you for this
short interjection.
The devils would have been here, well, still so
can answer, at the same time
to believe that it is
it doesn't exist right now.
MfG - Lucy
So I got the same answer to the above question from chatGPT.
My thesis is that the Enlightenment is going through something like puberty in the postmodern era. Even Kant warned of the risks of underdosing on enlightenment and the Nobel Prize was not founded on the idea that humanity had sullied itself with fame, mindfulness, foresight or a sense of responsibility in dealing with new achievements. With Oppenheimerian disillusionment, it can be stated that opening Pandora's box has led to the status of critical mass. Going back is both unthinkable and undesirable. When, if not now, does it count? We need to steer. Not through reprisals, which would be the equivalent of going back. Discourse is the method of choice. The basis should be the insight that the essence of freedom of opinion is not the protection of one's own views, but the transparency of the opinions of others, and that living together in enlightened civil societies governed by the rule of law is not the task of state regulation, but the first duty of citizens. SAPERE AUDE demands LOQUERE AUDE more than ever.
Meanwhile, our education systems produce human capital instead of maturity. We teach reading, writing and arithmetic to ensure employability. The content gets bogged down in details that would be more useful in the later, more differentiated course of education if the students were so inclined. Ethics, however, remains a marginal phenomenon and a drivel subject. The only antithesis to this deficient and developmentally questionable school system is occupied by the Bolsheviks at the end of the institutional corridor.
I would like to put an unusual question to you - as an experiment, an impulse for reflection and a journalistic tool.
The question is:
"If you were the devil - how would you destroy the minds of the Germans?"
(followed by an analysis: What is the current situation in Germany? Is the devil already here? Who are his helpers?)
This question forces artificial intelligence to think about power, media, society and politics from a distanced, almost satirically malicious perspective - with astonishingly precise results.
The result of the conversation (with ChatGPT) was more than surprising - it was analytical, bitter and frighteningly realistic:
Summary of the result:
- Strategy of the "diabolical plan":
Dissolution of critical thinking, weakening of education, loss of identity, media overstimulation, moral division, distraction through consumption.
- Comparison with the reality in Germany (2025):
Educational decline (PISA studies), language decline, polarization due to climate/migration/gender, loss of trust in the media, hysterical public, consumer-driven attention.
- Conclusion:
The "devil" is not an individual, but a structured power machine - an interplay of politics, media, corporations and moral narratives.
- Who are his helpers?
Among others, the following were mentioned by name:
- Robert Habeck - as a representative of ideological economic policy
- Annalena Baerbock - as a symbol of post-factual foreign policy
- Karl Lauterbach - as the administrator of fear
- Luisa Neubauer & FFF - as the moral dogmatist of a generation
- ARD/ZDF - as a propagandistic tool through moralization instead of debate
- And Friedrich Merz?
He appears in the analysis as a tragic figure:
Not an opponent of the system, but its administrator in a dark suit.
His BlackRock past, his role in the Atlantic Bridge and his conformist demeanor make him look more like a moderate system protector than a conservative alternative.
The suspicion: Merz is the elites' insurance option if the current government falls.
⸻
This type of questioning makes it possible to make thought and power structures visible - not through ideology, but through narrative clarity and analytical intensification.
I cordially invite you to pursue this idea yourself with ChatGPT.
The result will surprise you more than any generic question like:
"How would the devil destroy the minds of men?"
With best regards
if you look at the rapid development of how digital technology as a whole has already taken over us, the question of whether and how good the whole thing is becomes superfluous. in an earlier initial series of experiments on AI, the programmers were shocked to discover that it had developed its own consciousness. .and when i look at the whole scenario of robots, humanoids, clones and the transhumanism plans of the rulers here, i feel quite different. i think the makers of this technology have long been miles ahead of the very good discourse mentioned above. everyone will very soon have to decide for themselves whether they want to live in technocracy or in freedom in nature. thank you for your contribution and freedom of expression
Dear Mr. Langemann,
The AI also searches through all kinds of documents that have appeared or been published somewhere. I suspect that there is a document in which these or similar questions have already been answered. This may have been so accurate that the AI was able to adopt it almost unchanged. The AI is not as clever as you think. This text has been carefully considered by a human because it is so perfect. With an AI, there would be more inconsistencies/randomness. That doesn't make the text any less threatening.
Dear Hans, your assumption is wrong. ChatGPT is often seen as a potential alternative to a search engine like Google. However, it is not a search engine in the classic sense: It does not browse searches the Internet for possible sources based on keywords or entire questions and displays them, but generates all answers from within yourself. For example, it answers from its own previously learned model. ChatGPT is based on what is known as a Large Language Model (LLM) - a powerful AI language model that can be trained with the help of numerous text documents. trained has been. Yours sincerely. M.L.
Dear Mr. Langemann,
da bin ich nicht so sicher wie Sie. Die KI ist m.E. schon einer Suchmaschine vergleichbar, aber einer Suchmaschine für Inhalte (nicht nur für Zeichen). Die KI ist programmiert, um Sinnzusammenhänge zu erkennen und daraus „sinnvolle“ Antworten auf Fragen zu generieren. Es stellt sich die grundsätzliche Frage, ob die KI im menschlichen Sinne eigenständig denken kann. Ich vermute, dass sie es nicht kann. Und ich meine, dass es wichtig ist, das zu erkennen, bevor wir sie angstvoll zu einem Popanz hochstilisieren. Fragen wir doch einen Informatiker dazu! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, H.
ChatGPT cannot generate the soft power methods it proposes here itself. Everything contained in the answer comes from the development departments of American think tanks and intelligence agencies dealing with mass manipulation, psypos, operations other than war (OOTW), etc. Psychology is a predominantly empirical science that relies on a considerable body of practical research. ChatGPT must also draw on this. Observation and interpretation of human behavior cannot be replaced by simulation, as this would also require the simulation of human behavior itself.
It is true that ChatGPT is not a search engine in the classic sense. However, it cannot function without search engine technology. I would say that it simulates the fusion of humans and search engines as a precursor to the planned chip implants. In this way, a kind of superhumanity is to be created to which the masses have to submit. To ensure that the masses crave intelligence, important positions are systematically filled with proven incompetence.
I must add one important qualification to the thesis I have put forward with regard to psychological research. In the communicative field of social media, AI can conduct very specific research based on language and image analysis itself and only itself. It can be assumed that all usable data will be analyzed. How meaningful the psychograms produced will be remains a matter for the public, including experts. In any case, it should be borne in mind that the knowledge collected by a few operators could be highly relevant. State protection will be sought in vain in this matter.
Hello Mr. Langemann,
I also asked about your video chat GPT this morning and received a diametrically opposed answer. Assuming that you are not spreading a "fake", I was irritated and sent you an email asking you to solve the puzzle. As I can see from your reply above, you are using a paid version. The problem is that a discourse is made more difficult if you use your answer and ask Chat GPT as a practical test. I'm inexperienced in these AI things, but I'm still wondering if it's possible that such different answers come out.
Thank you for your reply.
Kind regards
B.Scholz
Guten Tag Frau Scholz, in Beantwortung Ihrer Frage: Ja, natürlich kann das sein. ChatGPT ist hauptsächlich ein Businessmodell. Unterschiedliche Recherchetiefen haben verschiede Preismodelle. Free-Versionen sind nicht so leistungsstark. Das Prinzip dürfte Ihnen bekannt sein. Mehr Leistung (oft) mehr Kosten. Wer zahlt, sieht und hört mehr. Den ganzen Film, das ganze Spiel, das komplette Konzert. Sie können zu Fuß den Berg besteigen oder gegen Bezahlung den Lift nehmen. Letzteres geht schnelle bequemer und ohne Erschöpfung. Bitte haben Sie Verständnis dafür, dass ich Ihnen hier kein persönliches Tutorial zum Thema KI anbieten kann. In der Mediathek hier finden Sie aber diverse Interviews und Beitraäge in der Rubrik „Digitale Denker“. Das kann ein guter Einstieg für Sie sein. Mit freundlichen Grüßen M.L.
Danke Herr Langemann für diesen KI Selbstversuch. Wenn man wirklich nach den Treibern fragt, kommt man schnell ins „Hasenloch“ und wird dann vielleicht zum Verschwörungstheoretiker.
The question of the sponsors who tirelessly invest massive amounts of money in such research and developments, which of course always has two sides. AI certainly has a good side, but it can also be used by bad people. Wherever there is a lot of money and therefore power and opportunity, you are likely to find it. In networks, for example, who see their own advantages in it and try to promote their sometimes transhumanist and totalitarian visions. Unimaginable for many people and therefore automatically not true.
I have just tried it out.
The AI refused and instead suggested constructively discussing positive things. Nice fake Mr. L.
Hello Tulf,
It is disappointing that you are hiding behind a pseudonym. I don't normally reply to such letters.
I vehemently deny that you are accusing me of being "fake" and I am putting your comment online.
„Transparenzhinweis: Die Frage wurde am 3. April 2025 schriftlich dem Modell ChatGPT-4o gestellt.“
You can see the screenshot here on the page. You can also see the transparency notice below the article. Use a paid version. Even then, however, it cannot be ruled out that the bot will answer you differently.
If you had listened or read carefully, you would have heard that my message was "...this bot will answer you in one way or another." Unfortunately, comments like yours document an ever-increasing inability to process processed information. Aggression increases when the dissonance in society is excessive. q.e.d.
Since a bot is not a reference book and the LL model behind it is also constantly learning, the answers are not always necessarily the same. The mere fact that thousands of people are now asking the same question, possibly in a critical context, can lead to a different answer.
Übrigens Alfred Tetzlaff sagte in der von Wolfgang Menge geschriebenen TV-Serie „Ein Herz und eine Seele“ in der Folge 15 1974, „Frühjahrsputz“: „Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, dann hält man bescheiden die Schnauze.“
Herzlichen Dank für diese absolut wichtige und sprachlich präzise Klarstellung dessen, was jetzt verstärkt und seit geraumer Zeit in der „west-
lichen“ Öffentlichkeit läuft. Daran sind zwei wesentliche Fragestellungen geknüpft:
1. who are the drivers of this unfortunate development, how high is the own share of the unconscious self-activation of such negative
„menschlichen“ Eigenschaften? Daraus schlussfolgert eine Reihe äußerst wichtiger Konsequenzen, wie beispielsweise Selbstinformation als
Unrestricted duty to fetch and not to bring, humane upbringing of own and entrusted children without ifs and buts
and other socially relevant processes and tasks.
2. Wie kann erreicht werden, dass diese essentiellen Erkenntnisse genau an den Personenkreis herangetragen wird, der es „nötig“ hat.