by Markus Langemann //
The CIA had developed the strategy in response to the social unease and the growing doubts about the sole perpetrator after the assassination of JFK in 1963, "Conspiracy Talk" as communist propaganda. They had sufficient contacts and close connections in the journalistic sector to steer public opinion. The term "conspiracy theory" was thus born as a political battle cry. Even if the term "conspiracy" itself has a longer history and goes back at least as far as ancient Rome.
It is remarkable how unreflected and undistanced the judiciary in Germany uses this political fighting term, manifesting it in the legal system. A document "which illustrates how many light years away our judiciary is from dealing with the massive violations of fundamental rights of the last one and a half years in accordance with the rule of law" was sent to me these days by a German lawyer for my information using the same wording.
This is an invitation from the Ministries of Justice of Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland to a training program for judges, public prosecutors and judicial officers.
You can view the original invitation here.
You can also gain an insight into the state of our accounting system in this previously published Interview with Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab.
English 
German 
Spanish
23 Responses
What about the independence of the courts/judges?
Isn't that called "obstruction of justice"?
"All virologists and virologists agree that ..."
That then has nothing to do with science anymore; it's conformity.
On the one hand, I do not expect a reply to my letter to the Hessian State Chancellery, on the other hand, I am happy to do without it. At the latest since I became aware today that the Hessian Corona Cabinet has decided to extend the 2G rule to the entire retail sector, in force since today. This explicitly includes basic suppliers! It is "not believed that they will go along with this", but they could if they wanted to. For me, at any rate, this is beyond belief. How red does a line have to be before it is not crossed by the current governments? What else can we do? I am completely at a loss and helpless...
I sent the following letter to the head of the Hessian State Chancellery today. Everything is clear from this letter, including the reason.
If I receive an answer, I will also report on it.
Dear Mr. Wintermeyer,
"The head of the Hessian State Chancellery, Axel Wintermeyer (CDU), considers the discussion about a "Freedom Day", on which all restrictions are lifted, to be premature. "All virologists agree that it would be negligent to initiate this now," explained Wintermeyer in an interview with hr on Tuesday. "As politicians, we don't really want to impose any restrictions - but we have to do so in order to protect our healthcare system."
As long as almost two million people in Hesse are still not vaccinated - because they don't want to or can't - rules will have to be put in place. Wintermeyer expects a tough winter, but has hope for the coming year: "I'm guessing that next spring will also be a spring of freedom for us." He can then imagine that there will be recommendations rather than commands."
The above excerpt from a report in today's "Hessenschau" prompted me to write you this short e-mail. It should be noted in advance that you are not "my" member of the state parliament, as I no longer support the CDU after many years as a loyal voter. The reasons for this include statements such as yours, see above.
It is absolutely untrue that "all virologists" unanimously say what you claim above. I can name you a whole series of international and national scientists who not only claim the opposite, but substantiate it. And this is evident.
Furthermore, you don't "have" to do anything as a policy, but you want to, for whatever reason. The only thing a person really "has" to do in their life is to die at some point. Everything else is a choice between several options.
The last paragraph is particularly foreboding, because you make the return to "freedom" dependent on having to "regulate" the remaining almost two million people for "vaccination" beforehand. And here again you believe you "have" to do something.
Perhaps you are aware that there are now over 400 constitutional complaints before the Federal Constitutional Court, including those by extremely renowned constitutional lawyers such as Prof. Dr. Murswiek and others, legal complaints by scholars such as Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, papers on the so-called vaccination, e.g. by Prof. Dr. Thomas Rießinger and others. Prof. Papier and other former members of the Federal Constitutional Court are also very critical here.
Please note that the currently available, conditionally approved vaccines are medicines whose effectiveness, usefulness and safety in use are anything but undisputed. And this whole campaign, that humanity is to be driven into these injections by politicians with every conceivable promise and threat, even with the promise of regaining "freedom", is, in my humble opinion, an unprecedented political failure. I prefer to refrain from further speculation here.
What I have learned in the last 1 1/2 years tells me that this endless curtailing of human rights is not in accordance with the Constitution or international law. You can't give back freedoms because you can't take away freedoms at all, because they are inalienable human rights. But do I really have to tell all this to the head of the State Chancellery?
What about the so-called Nuremberg Code, what about the so-called Geneva Pledge? These are all achievements that suddenly no longer seem to play a role for many in the wake of these unspeakable measures.
Dear Mr. Wintermeyer, you will not take me, for example, to the so-called vaccination for the simple reason that I do not trust you.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Linsner
Bravo Mr. Linsner!
I have the greatest respect for your activism. I underline every word you say.
I am very much looking forward to the response, if there is a (comprehensible and valid) answer at all.
Chapeau Mr. Linsner, can you also send this to the "State Chancellery" via Ebf. Rsch. with a request for a binding answer within 14 days, thank you very much!
Yes, if there is no other answer. (So far silence in the forest...)
What's the point of complaining? It's normal that we want to simplify the world. Instead of complaining to a small circle of smarter people about how we are being manipulated, it would be better to make these manipulations clear to as many people as possible with simple messages.
An example, it would be nice if there were many examples in the comments: I produce electricity with my solar system for 10 ct/kWh. Why does this electricity have to be bought from my neighbor for 30 ct/kWh? Answer: the energy supply cartel has corrupted politics and the media and made laws that allow this. This state failure exists in almost all areas of life.
The term "conspiracy theorist" alone denies the social phenomenon that people with the same goal - to conserve resources or improve performance - come together to form a community of interests, in which there are naturally also disadvantaged people.
On the basis of this, someone please explain to me how this is to be controlled or prevented at certain levels - especially when it is known that Germany refuses to sign anti-corruption laws.
As far as I know, until the 1990s it was still possible to deduct bribes for politicians from taxes - or rather, it was not even a criminal offense per se.
From the frightening linked paper, which made me sick to my stomach when I read it: "... including the question of whether and, if so, how the
conspiracy theories can be countered with arguments."
Angela Merkel, Christian Drosten, Richard David Precht and other prominent figures were asked exactly how to deal with "such people". The answer was always the same. The answer was "Not at all". The reason? It's not worth it because V-theorists are sick. A substantive, argumentative encounter - that is precisely what does not happen and should not happen. Instead, defamation, dehumanization and pathologization take place. Unfortunately with success.
As Mr. Langemann correctly points out, the origin of the word "conspiracy theory" can be traced back to the Kennedy assassination. Almost one in two Americans believed in a state conspiracy and not in the assassin theory. This was a huge problem for the credibility of both the state and the secret services. The state-convened Warren Commission, in an investigative report of the same name, unsurprisingly confirmed its own version/theory of Oswald as a lone perpetrator. It's a bit like the RKI doing a fact check to see if Drosten or Wodarg are right on a medical issue. Hardly anyone believed the report of this commission, especially since a certain Allen Dulles was a member of this commission. Allen Dulles was the ex-CIA chief dismissed by Kennedy, Kennedy's arch-enemy and, among critics, the suspected mastermind of the conspiracy.
So the CIA's PW/CS (Psychological warfare/Clandestine Service) department developed a strategy paper, a manual on how to discredit these critics, the "conspiracy theorists". The paper was called "countering criticism of the Warren Report", how to counter critics (these conspiracy theorists) of the Warren Report. The paper was sent to all branches worldwide. Related editors and media were to be involved. The paper is verified and was kept secret for decades until it was finally released. Daniele Ganser, but also other sources offer the released pdf for download, see
https://www.siper.ch/assets/uploads/files/dokumente/CIA%20(1967)%20-%20Countering%20Criticism%20of%20the%20Warren%20Report.pdf
Points 3 and 4 are particularly interesting. A still harmless example: the critics should be accused of being "financially interested", they only have personal financial motives. This is exactly what Ballweg, Reitschuster, RA Fuellmich or any prominent Youtuber who is critical of the government was and is accused of.
Since the Kennedy assassination, the word conspiracy theorist has been brought out of the closet time and again for critics who dare to question a government version. For example, just a few days after 9/11, the whole of America and the world were still in shock when Bush gave a speech proclaiming the unquestionable "state truth" and warning against conspiracy theories. The techniques of defamation have remained the same for almost six decades, they have just been refined. And thanks to the internet, there are greater technical possibilities. It always boils down to one thing: "Destroy the reputation of the messenger, then people will no longer listen to his message."
It is also interesting that, according to the invitation, we are dealing with "judges", "public prosecutors" and "judicial officers" on the one hand and "Reich citizens", "corona deniers" and "conspiracy theorists", i.e. exclusively men, on the other. Ponder, ponder!
Anyone who uses the term "corona deniers" is either too stupid, at best, to understand that the group of people in question is predominantly not concerned with denying the existence of corona, but with rejecting nonsensical or even counterproductive methods, including the curtailment of civil liberties guaranteed by the Basic Law. In the case of events such as the invitation published here, however, it can be assumed that a totalitarian mindset is to be planted in politics and authorities, probably in preparation for justifying any criticism of the so-called climate protection measures that are encroaching ever more deeply on freedom. In any case, it is striking that there are a particularly large number of representatives of this totalitarian view of politics and society among climate activists, who immediately jumped on the coronavirus bandwagon.
Incidentally, the term "climate deniers" is no different. They include many contemporaries who are up to no good other than casting doubt on the general narrative of climate change.
Nobel Prize winner Klaus Hasselmann has just won the Nobel Prize in Physics by demonstrating, like almost all climate researchers, that the equation system:
Temperature rise = f (CO2) (Eq. 1)
Observed temperature rise = man-made climate change (Eq. 2)
to the equation:
CO2 = main cause of man-made climate change (Eq. 3)
simplified. If you ask renowned climate researchers close to the Nobel Prize winner how they explain the fact that global warming in Germany and Europe has developed far above average since the introduction of wind energy around 1990 (the first wind farm was erected at Kaiser-Wilhelm-Koog on August 24, 1987) (see WELT report: https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article158110222/Wetter-aendert-sich-in-Deutschland-besonders-krass.html), you get such meager explanations as:
"Research is being carried out into the effect of wind energy on the ground-level climate. For example, a colleague of mine at the University of Hamburg has investigated the influence of wind farms in the North Sea on the regional climate of the Hamburg metropolitan region. Although the effects are statistically significant, they can by no means explain the observed increase in the annual mean temperature in the region. Conversely, a correlation between temperature and wind energy seems plausible to me. More wind energy is being used because of concerns about global warming..."
So remember: anyone who feels compelled to use terms such as "..... denier" or "conspiracy theorist" is clearly running out of arguments. There is a difference between questioning melting glaciers and questioning the explanation behind them. Climate researchers, politicians, representatives of the authorities, journalists and lawyers should be able to make this distinction in the same way as the distinction explained at the beginning.
Even if it doesn't contribute anything, you should be able to decide between "at best" and "in the best case". Anything else sounds stupid too!
It is no longer just stupid but either criminal or a huge coincidence that six people in our extended circle of acquaintances alone fell seriously ill after a corona vaccination, five of whom suffered a stroke and the sixth only narrowly escaped death after suffering massive breathing difficulties. It would be interesting to know whether the concealment or non-investigation of these cases by the authorities and media also counts as corona denial for Antonius Dominiak and Walter Groß and whether researching these cases, to which I cordially invite both of them, can already be classified as tinkering with a conspiracy theory for the speakers mentioned.
If Corona has one advantage, it is that this disease shines a spotlight on the socio-political abysses of our republic, and indeed the whole world, following the Paris Climate Agreement. Never before have these been better illuminated for anyone who is not prepared to close their eyes to reality. If we really are facing a global "Great Reset" of the world (Klaus Schwab: https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset) or a "Great Transformation" (Angela Merkel: see 19:00 Uhr-Heute-Nachrichten des ZDF vom 22.04.2021; min 3:20 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocHHQ6YUH8k), then this should not take place at a summit of technically clueless heads of government, as reported in the Today program on 22.04.2021, and on the basis of the Chinese model of general lack of freedom and surveillance, but only after an in-depth democratic discourse in which critical voices also have their say. If politicians around the world want to tell us that we won't be able to return to the old normality after coronavirus, the warning lights should go on for us citizens. Probably never before has a disease or virus been so politically instrumentalized as Corona or Covid-19.
With the vital CO2 (see https://bildungsserver.hamburg.de/klimawandel-und-landwirtschaft-nav/2203496/kohlendioxid/) is no different, by the way. All the climate doomsday prophets fail to mention that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has fallen by around 80% in the last 50 million years (see https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/Kohlendioxid_in_der_Erdgeschichte) and would continue to fall without increased volcanological activity or CO2 emissions from humanity. Even today, more CO2 contributes to more plant growth (see https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/co2-macht-die-welt-gruener-a-1089850.html). That is why we are not destroying life on earth with our CO2 emissions. On the contrary, we are preventing the global exodus of all life in the long term. It can be assumed that the first link to the Wiki education server explains an essential part of the mechanism of global warming:
"Increased uptake of CO2 also has an impact on other plant growth processes. In order to absorb carbon dioxide, the plant must open the stomata in the plant leaves. In doing so, however, it loses water from the inside of the leaves through transpiration. At a higher CO2 concentration, the absorption of CO2 is more effective, the stomata do not have to remain open for as long and therefore less water is evaporated. A higher CO2 supply therefore leads to better water utilization by the plant, making it less sensitive to drought. On the other hand, evaporative cooling on the leaf surface is reduced, which can be a problem at higher temperatures." More CO2 therefore has the same effect as more wind turbines: a reduction in evaporation and therefore the most significant effect on cooling the Earth's atmosphere. It is up to people like Angela Merkel and her climate whisperer Stefan Rahmstorf (see http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/klimaskeptiker.html) on a large scale and Antonius Dominiak and Walter Groß on a small scale that our world is sinking further and further into a kind of denial of reality.
When Stefan Rahmstorf writes: "The arguments often sound plausible and a layperson is usually unable to verify their veracity. For example, it is claimed that volcanoes spew out more CO2 and.....", he only documents that he cannot do the math. The Federal Environment Agency, for example, writes "Volcanic CO2 emissions, on the other hand, are much lower. They amount to around 0.3 to 0.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, which corresponds to 0.7 to 1.5 percent compared to human emissions." (s. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/uebersehen-die-klimatologen-die-vulkanischen). So if volcanoes permanently cause 0.7% to 1.5% of the emissions that humanity has been emitting for about a century, then in the last 100,000 years volcanoes have emitted at least 700% to 1500% of what humanity has produced in the last 100 years by burning fossil fuels. Anything else would be math denial. The fact that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has fallen at the same time indicates that nature is consuming huge amounts of CO2, probably mainly to form limestone deposits (including shell limestone). Entire limestone mountains make it clear what quantities we are talking about. The climate neutrality that the green movement likes to talk about is pure fiction and has nothing to do with reality.
Humanity should be careful not to let reality deniers take away our freedom to shape the future.
Hello Dr. Aßmann,
Please report any adverse vaccination reactions - even suspected ones - to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut via the safevacc 2.0 app.
Hello Verena,
Thank you very much for the tip.
I took a look at the app. It seems to be designed to report experiences with your own vaccination to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The report is anonymous. So the app doesn't seem to me to be the right way to go for several reasons:
1) Both the name of the app and the introduction by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut cast doubt on its neutrality:
"SafeVac 2.0 - Smartphone app for assessing the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines -
Vaccines against COVID-19 are an important tool for overcoming the pandemic ......."
As can be seen from this introduction at the time of publication, the further wording suggests: "The nationwide vaccination campaign will start before the end of the year. A very large number of people will be vaccinated with newly approved COVID-19 vaccines in a very short time. It is therefore important to record the tolerability of the vaccines promptly and on a broad data basis.", is quite a mystery to me. It seems that the Paul Ehrlich Institute was dictated what the results of the tests should be.
2. as I work internationally, four of the six cases concern non-Germans. I can imagine that the Paul Ehrlich Institute is not interested in this.
3 I would never report health data of third parties to an authority.
4 In addition, one should actually assume that the cases are all already known and recorded.
The most effective approach would probably be for serious journalists to carry out traditional research. They could then investigate each case with the necessary journalistic diligence. With the best will in the world, I can't imagine that these are isolated cases if it was possible for me to gain indirect knowledge of six cases of potentially serious vaccine damage without any special research.
However, if journalists deal with the subject in this way, it should come as no surprise that the full truth will never come to light: https://www.merkur.de/lokales/erding/dorfen-ort28598/erding-dorfen-schlaganfall-nach-corona-impfung-90856958.html
Excerpt from the report very appropriate to the topic: "Stroke after corona vaccination: single mother would be vaccinated again -
The good news is that the single mother has the best chance of not suffering any late effects. However, she is still feeling the effects of the vaccination at the moment. Nevertheless, she would get immunized again - but with a little more caution. Under no circumstances does the team assistant in a hotel and catering information technology company want to encourage conspiracy theorists."
Or another press report: https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2021/03/tag-suedtirol-coronavirus-impfung-schlaganfall-todesfall-impfgegner-1de5ed64-0d9b-481f-b117-86feed39fbfd.html
Excerpt from the report says everything about the motivation of the journalists in question:
Immunologist Bernd Gänsbacher welcomes the procedure. "The EMA has made it a condition for the approval of all three vaccines that all serious side effects and deaths must be reported to the authorities and investigated. This will ensure", says Gänsbacher, "that clarity is also achieved in this case and the public is informed accordingly."
But Bernd Gänsbacher can already say something about the case of the doctor who died of a stroke:
"The probability that this vaccination is directly linked to the death is low: we know that the corona infection itself causes clotting disorders or thrombosis. With the corona vaccination, however, there has been no evidence of this in the 200 million people vaccinated so far," says Gänsbacher.
The list of documented "individual cases" goes on and on. My 5 cases of stroke and 1 case of life-threatening lung problems would hardly change the basic attitude of those responsible.
However, there are also more honest statements: https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/gefurchtete-komplikation-schlaganfall-durch-corona-infektion-1.11049324
Excerpt: "Cerebral venous thrombosis - a rare special form of stroke, so to speak - occurred through this mechanism both in Covid patients and after corona vaccinations, especially with the Astrazeneca vaccine."
My personal conclusion: It is best to stay away from both Covid-19 and the coronavirus vaccination. Based on my personal experience with coronavirus, a healthy lifestyle and a good immune system seem to be the best way to avoid the former. The fact that our current Minister of Health neither promotes nor accepts this says a lot about his motivation as a pharmaceutical lobbyist.
Best regards
Roland Aßmann
of course...all one sauce: "Reichsbürger-Corona denier-conspiracy theorists" ....landen after Mr. M.Groß all in court...?
It may be that officers who have to take detainees to court need specific training.
But how is "corona denier" actually defined? What criminal offence should lead to arrest when one observes that the state spends 5 billion on rapid tests carried out without indication, whose positive rate is between 0.3 and 15% and the hospitalization rate was only slightly higher last autumn (5% of those tested positive) than it is currently (1.3%)...apart from the fact that Covid-19 is a serious disease with a pandemic spread that really nobody needs. The hospitalization rate of intensive care units (end of October 2020 1.3% of those tested positive: ~5% of tests carried out were positive) in relation to the number of tests carried out gives the extent of society's media-fueled fear...(this could also be converted into € and distributed to taxpayers). Anyone who doesn't resonate is a conspirator - and also a Reichsbürger and denier...is that still possible?....
PS: the relativization of the corona hysteria - pushed into the extreme right-wing corner - is equated with the undignified, cruel, systematic killing machinery and mass murder of National Socialism?
As if National Socialism and the Holocaust had been a pandemic disease...can this be called coming to terms with the past? Hardly.
I would like to end with a quote from Martin Luther, which may also help some of you:
"You can't stop a flock of birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from nesting in your hair..."
It is interesting that judges are no longer trusted to find the truth. Is the truth as perceived by the government perhaps not even discoverable? Or can it be refuted by arguments? Are people with a law degree, who have exceptional qualifications, unable to recognize facts and the resulting legal consequences? Or is this rather an encroachment by the executive on the judiciary?
Very interesting Mr. Langemann!
The groundwork of Ms. Angelika Merkel's personal agenda seems to be bearing fruit via the instrumentalized Mr. Stephan Harbarth.
Any criticism of the rule of law (from any side) must be stopped preventively using its instruments.
That is my personal interpretation of this invitation.
Democratic discourse? Was yesterday...
Good night Mattes
At the question "How can they be recognized?" I stopped reading. It reminds me too much of leaflets or posters from the Third Reich: "The Jew - how do you recognize him..." It's unbearable!
This is not the only parallel. Then as now, a section of the population was or is denied participation in social life at dinner for completely irrational reasons: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article234291942/Kanzlerdinner-Verfassungsgericht-gab-Anstoss-zu-Corona-Rede.html
The highest representatives of the government and the judiciary should also be aware of how the whole thing ended. But what can you expect when a CDU godfather is given the highest judicial office in the state - certainly not independence. In this respect, the judiciary and the ÖRR no longer differ. Under a Chancellor who was socialized in the GDR, we are moving ever closer to a totalitarian state. The various constitutional powers in the state are increasingly merging into an all-encompassing power in which criticism (and critics) once again have no place.