The Future of Humanity

Rational Beings maintain Sovereignty over Nature by educating their feelings, not wanting to act free of them. An 18th century poet who became a 19th century icon. Plus: Phages. What do you know?

This is a follow-up to the previous piece about the need for sovereign, reasonable thinking in the face of mind control operations and subversion.

Why the Question of the Color of Snow is most important

I am avoiding the term “rational thinking”, for though it is important, it is not enough to think rationally. Why? Because rational thinking leaves no room for emotion. Reason, on the other hand, is the product of using rational thinking in combination with emotional intelligence.

It was the German poet and philosopher Friedrich Schiller who — after studying the disaster of the French Revolution — had come to the conclusion that only the combined development of both essential human capacities, for feeling as well as for thought could bring about “the most perfect of all works of art, with the construction of true political freedom”.

Five years into the operation which started with lockdown and mask mandates, and which is still stuck in an argument about “Gain-of-Function”, “Lab-Leak” and “unmet needs for countermeasures against the Big One” on the one side, and “No Virus” on the other, the perpetrators seem to have managed to get “us” where they want us to be: in a state where few are able to think reasonably.

Whilst some readers of mine have chided me for going “a very long way around calling Fuellmich a fraud”, others have taken issue with Dr. Couey for including Dr. Yeadon “in a photomontage of alleged crooks”.

Clearly, these are emotional issues, as is Couey’s disappointment with some prominent figureheads for lack of support. You can’t argue about these, rationally. All one can do, which is what I do, is put on a beautiful piece of music (today I played the Concerto for Clarinet No. 3 by Carl Stamitz) and read Schiller’s text “On the Sublime”.

In it he writes:

“All other things must; man is the being, who wills. (…) For everything, the proverb says, there is a remedy, but not for death. But this single exception, if it actually is one in the strictest sense, would annul the whole notion of Man. By no means can he be the being, which wills, if there is even but a single case, where he absolutely must, what he does not will. (…) [H]is boasted freedom is absolutely nothing, if he is bound even in a single point. Culture shall set man free and help him, to fulfill his entire notion. It will make him capable, therefore, of asserting his will, for man is the being, who wills.”

It may seem as a provocation to some readers. “Get them iron shackles on your limbs, and preach then,” read another comment on the previous piece. I am sorry for those who feel offended. No offense intended. Quite the contrary.

In fact, it is my own experience that classical art, be it music, poetry or another form of beautiful art, did help me in regaining composure (which was needed, sometimes), as well as a sense of dignity and even pathos (the , which we have been conditioned not to access anymore in “the postmodern society.”

Especially those who are called upon to lead, but also those who follow, benefit from a mature and sound moral character, which is the result of a classical education (and that can be gained in more than one way). All classics have in common a foundation in Natural Law, an understanding of the cardinal virtues, wisdom, justice, valor, and temperance. Plato first discussed the cardinal virtues in the “Republic”. Confucian virtues are benevolence (ren. 仁), righteousness (yi. 義), propriety (li. 義), wisdom (zhi. 智), and trustworthiness (xin. 信).

Freedom and Sovereignty (“the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle [one people]”) were at the heart of the American quest for independence, which reached a climax 250 years ago. The Founding Fathers of the United States did not only draft important historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (which are loathed by the oligarchical forces behind the drive towards totalitarian “One World Government” and towards a “New World Order”).

The Founding Fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, were also profoundly aware of the importance of reason, dignity, and the sublime for the success of the American Republic and its safeguarding of the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. And, it is not very much known today, that also at the time of the Founding Fathers, one major criticism against the government had been the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny” by, amongst other things mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, “fatiguing [their people] into compliance with [tyrannical] measures.”

The fact that a power of a tyrannical force (maybe it is governments, but probably it is power of a different kind, evil force, which is being exerted over governments) is pulling the strings behind the scenes today, and one can only approximate the source of evil, rather than see it directly, seems to be a shared feature in the view of all of those who are “fighting for freedom” within the “movement” shall be taken as an indicator of “fear” being a motive for all those individuals, be they Reiner Fuellmich, Jonathan Couey, or Mike Yeadon. Even Robert Malone seems to be driven by fear, if what he says about the “unmet need for countermeasures” against “the big one yet to come” shall be taken as a genuine concern of his.

This, in my view, should serve as an invitation to look at what Friedrich Schiller had to say about how to attain “freedom”. Schiller urged his contemporaries (but not only his contemporaries only, as he knew the task at hand was a job “for more than a century”) to not give in to fear (or other sensual motors), nor to seek to merely act cold-blooded, from any emotion, but to educate (‘ennoble’) one’s character through beauty to the highest level (that of a beautiful soul) in which the senses can be trusted to act upon the will in ultimate liberty by chosing an action that is both, rational as well as reasonable. In which fear (or anger and rage) have been overcome. This is when a truly moral character has been achieved.

“As the mind in the intuition of the beautiful finds itself in a happy medium between law [the rational solution] and necessity [the action taken in survival mode], it is, because it divides itself between both, emancipated from the pressure of both.”
— Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetical Education, XV

Whilst it may appear to be a little off-topic at first sight when challenged with the frictions and emotions within “the movement”, please bear in mind that even though the movement may be divided in fractions, all of them say they have one thing on their mind primarily: the Future of Humanity, no less! Therefore, take a look at how Friedrich Schiller proves how beauty is essential in overcoming emotional limitations of thinking, as well as in avoiding the dangers of “barbaric” scientism:

“[A]s soon as we remember that freedom is taken from man by the one-sided compulsion of nature in feeling, and by the exclusive legislation of the reason in thinking, we must consider the capacity restored to him by the aesthetical disposition, as the highest of all gifts, as the gift of humanity. I admit that in his potential he possesses this capacity for humanity already, before every definite determination in which he may be placed. But indeed, he loses it with every determined condition, into which he may come, and if he is to pass over to an opposite condition, humanity must be in every case restored to him by the aesthetic life.

It is therefore not only a poetical license, but also philosophically correct, when beauty is named our second creatoress. For, even though she only makes it possible for us to attain and realise humanity, leaving this to our free will, she thus has this in common with our original creatoress, nature, which has imparted to us nothing further than the potential for humanity, but leaves to our own determination of will the degree to which we make use of it.”
— Friedrich Schiller, Aesthetical Letters, XXI

Mind you, dear reader, these lines are written not to lecture any of those who are fighting on the stage. I am merely sharing personal observations about changes I noticed within my own thinking over the past two and a half years. I myself was suffering from deep fears about where the world was going. I thought it was a unique situation in human history, which we faced. Evil perpetrators winning because people were “too dumb to get it.” My preservation-drive was in charge of me, and all I thought I could do was research even more, get more data “out there” to turn the tide. Of course not only was the tide not turning, I was getting more emotional, more desperate, more aggressive without getting anywhere. Today, I know that what we are dealing with is new in its appearance, but old in its essence.

Courtesy of Through A Glass Darkly by Cynthia Chung.

In the Spring of 2023 I got introduced to Schiller. Funny, isn’t it? I am German, but I didn’t know Schiller. Sure, I knew his name. But I needed to be introduced to his thinking and principles of work: beauty. This happened whilst I was researching for a joint project with Vera Sharav which is responsible for the name of this substack, ‘Never Again Is Now’. Vera and I were very much afraid of the evil behind such things as eugenics and transhumanism. And it was a lecture I watched, given by Cynthia Chung on the issue of transhumanism, which confronted me with Schiller’s quote about beauty being the way out.

Why H.G. Wells' World Brain and Yuval Harari's Hackable Human Will Not Succeed

It sounded nice, I wanted to believe it so badly, but at the same time it seemed so naive. Which is when I decided to sit down and study Schiller (and the classics he taught, and had been taught himself by people such as Moses Mendelssohn or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz — who, by the way, was a key thinker for the Founding Fathers, and who had thought and published extensively what the pursuit of happiness was all about. It is from people such as Leibniz that the Founding Fathers got the idea!).

Anyway, I eventually came to understand that I had to come to terms with “suffering”, and get out of the preservation-drive which creates fear, that, if it persists over anything but a very short period of time, becomes very debilitating. One doesn’t even notice that debilitating effect, but it drastically reduces one’s creative, human capacity. Beauty and the sublime, instead, nurture the soul, and enhance creativity.

“[I]t is the judging subject, who produces the conception of suffering in himself, and transforms the given subject matter through reference to the preservation-drive into an object of fear, and through reference to his moral person into a sublime one.”
— Friedrich Schiller, Of the Sublime

So, in essence, what Schiller taught (and what is contained in every line of his poetic and philosophical writings) is not at all naive romanticism. It is, instead a precondition to maintain and improve one’s rational capacity, independence, or… FREEDOM!

“The sublime subject matter gives us firstly, as beings of Nature, to feel our dependence, while secondly acquainting us with the independence, that we as rational beings maintain over Nature, within ourselves as well as without ourselves.” — Friedrich Schiller, Of the Sublime

In closing, I will now recommend you, maybe, take a short break and immerse yourself into some classical poetry or music, before you take a look at these three videos:

Why? Because, as rational beings, most of us want to understand (better) what is going on, and what did go on. In this respect, Mark Kulacz has put out another important show recently about the Biology 101 which Dr. Jonathan Couey is continuing to work on.

Now, I am aware that some people have issues with Kulacz as much as they have with Couey. I get it. I, too, wish both would understand that bitterness and strong language is not conducive to what both of them clearly continue to want to get out there as a message.

The reason I am sharing these videos is simply that I believe that the subject discussed, phages, is highly relevant for a better understanding of what went on. I am grateful for the work which both, Couey and Kulacz, have done, and continue to do. Which doesn’t mean I subscribe to all they are saying, nor how they are saying it. However, the general content is - as far as I can tell, being a layperson - better than most other stuff which I have come across (happy to receive suggestions if you should know other sources).

Therefore, this is something, which I would like you to watch and take note of its essence.

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“That’s what you would use if you wanted to make SARS-CoV2”.

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“Pleolipoviridae. It actually starts to look an awful lot like SARS-CoV 2. … Under the electron microscope this would just look like SARS-CoV2. Wow. Isn’t that interesting. … Instead you have Andy Kaufmann … say ‘you can’t isolate it’.”

Above excerpt from: Follow Biology 101 (phages, archaea, injection, more); We get back to the Germs book (Ep 1235)

“‘Viruses. The kind that make you sick.’ They are not going to talk about the 99.999% of viruses [and phages] that help you.”

“To review: Thomas Brock, PCR. Read the letters between him and [Joshua] Lederberg… everything goes back to phages… Phages, phages, phages. That’s how the make synthetic viruses. Thats how they use CRISPR. CRISPR uses phages… If you want to use a single cell organism to make some type of synthetic virus, which could infect and cause a transfection, you would use [a phage] that looks like SARS-CoV2!”

These clips, in my view, are highly relevant, because they seem to suggest a very plausible biological description for a) the high number of positive tests during Covid being due to known but unspecified background noise from such [phages]. And also, b) a possible explanation of “symptoms” in some cases. DISCLAIMER: this is what I get from these clips. It doesn’t have to be an accurate understanding. It may be an accurate understanding of what was said, but not what actually happened. However, this should be given very close scrutiny by the larger public. I would like to see “experts” debating these hypothesis (by Dr. Couey, if I am not mistaken).

In any case, it is indeed striking how the whole issue of “phages” should not have been more present in the public over the past years, if not decades. The difficult distinction between “phages” and “viruses”, together with the overall rationale of mere RNA-viruses causing the pandemic, or of injection behind the barrier of exposure to immunize against infection, when biologists such as Couey contradict that something like a pandemic could result from it, all of this together requires a very thorough examination. All the more so since the overlap between prominent scientists on both sides of the “us/them divide” is very concerning.

Thank you for reading this piece the whole way! I will now go and listen to some Beethoven!