Hermann RochholzGermany's FreefallHow Ideology Destroys a Country a Second Time

Even if everyone agrees,everyone can be wrong.Bertrand RussellPhilanthropic people lose all sense of humanity.It's their distinguishing characteristic.Oscar Wilde

1st Edition 2021: 2021/09/03(coincident to 2nd German edition)Text and Cover:© Dr.-Ing. Hermann RochholzFreefall_202109_A1_epubV51Typesetting: LibreOffice WriterDiagrams: LibreOffice CalcCover: LibreOffice Draw(epub converter: Calibre)

Everything’s just fine in Germany, isn’t it?

Everything’s being converted to organic. People want to live healthy, long lives. That’s why all herbicides are being banned from our farmlands. Somehow we’ll manage without them. The fields are being “re-naturalized” through reforestation. Moreover, corn is being planted in order to produce biodiesel. Food will surely come from somewhere.

The climate problem and environmental protection can be easily solved simply by installing wind power plants, expanding photovoltaics and shutting down those coal and nuclear power plants. At the same time, people are protesting against wind turbines, power lines and new storage power stations for the sake of preserving the environment. Electricity will soon be used to charge the batteries in electric cars, produce hydrogen or, better yet, “liquid fuels” – something that should have been done a long time ago. No problemo!

The plastic in the oceans can be dealt with by banning plastic straws, and many “celebs” are campaigning against plastic waste on television. We simply dump our plastic waste free of charge in China in order to explain environmental protection to them. Wow!

Innovators like Elon Musk are promising a wonderful future: Mars flights, “hyperloops” and electric cars will revolutionize life. Just what everybody needs! Artificial intelligence will help – somehow. Air taxis are regarded by visionaries as a future means of transport because in five years’ time we’ll all be surely flying out and about in them. They’ll help us save the world!

Well, a few tiny problems persist. Germany’s railways have punctuality issues with their ICE (Intercity Express) fleet of high-speed trains. The opening of Berlin’s Brandenburg Airport was delayed by nine years in November 2020. There’s the “Stuttgart 21” railway project, the Hamburg opera house, and the Gorch Fock (tall ship) overhaul – all more than 10 times as expensive as estimated. The G36 light rifle shoots around street corners. German ammunition depots only have enough in reserve for one week at most. And the car industry is cheating on its reported 2003 to 2017 emissions figures. Replacement windows cost €10,000 each in public buildings. Refurbishing the federally sponsored swimming pools is taking a bit long at eight years, and big newspaper publishing houses are telling stories that have been completely invented as fact.

But even that’s very easy to get a grip on: The EU simply passes a regulation to ensure that cars produce almost 40% less CO2 from 2030 onward – problem solved! After all, star journalist Claas Relotius was fired. “DER SPIEGEL” magazine is doing proper reporting now. Starting today, Volkswagen is honest once again, as they declare that they only want to build electric cars. Starting today, the managing directors of Berlin Brandenburg Airport LLC are telling the truth as they assure us that the airport will open “by the end of the year”. All problems are solved! Wonderful, isn’t it?

The unemployment figures are as low as never before, and that just happens to always be the case prior to every election. Great!

This is what the “quality” press is reporting. It now boasts a “Fact Finder” that guarantees not to report false stories because it’s a “Fact Finder”, after all; and journalists who find facts can easily judge what is indeed a fact or what’s nonsense due to their excellent technical-mathematical training. Down with the fake news!

We simply ditch all our pesticides and everything’ll be solved! For centuries, farmers only wanted to support the chemical industry and poison the population and, of course, themselves, too. What morons!

You get the feeling that everyone in Germany nowadays carries the surname Baerbock, Habeck (Green politicians) or Longstocking. Mrs. Longstocking is, of course, a Swede, who, as Pippilotta Långstrump, is acting as a certain role model for her young audience.

And never has anyone ever come up with the idea of running transport vehicles in a vacuum before. Elon Musk is certainly the very, very first to do so; and fires have never existed in Australia before: Even 1,000 years ago, the Aborigines had boasted an army of volunteer firefighters who arrived immediately on the scene with their fire flappers and water-filled bladders – or was that an alien fire brigade? I’m not sure anymore.

This is the revision of a book that has not yet been published in the English language. It has been updated and restructured. The introduction was shortened, diagrams were added and, among other things, the chapters “Manipulation Instruments of a Democracy”, “Framing”, “Fact Finder” and “Press” added as well. Calculations were moved to the appendix, which is marked using curly brackets or braces {}. Examples of journalistic reporting are depicted in a magazine that sold fairy tales as facts, and there’s a glossary.

I hereby thank all those people who provided me with material and with constructive criticism. I also thank my Internet discussion partners who opened my eyes. Some “visions” were far beyond what I could have imagined myself as an engineer.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Evaluating the System

Opinion versus Facts

The Other Point of View

Statistics

Statistical Errors and Statistical Abuse

Imagination

Consequences

Physics, Technology and Math

Efficiency

The Last Percentages – Cutting Losses

Standards and Guidelines

Technical “Spoilsports”

Wind Turbines

Electric Scooters

Outer Space Transporters

Carbon Fiber Concrete

Elbow Pads and Citybike Frames

Summary of the “Spoilsports”

Perfection Mania

“The Good Old Days”

The Terrible New Times

Fashion – Perfecting the Body

Delusional Causes

Religions of the Modern World

Plastic Waste

Burning (Plastic) Materials

Consequences

“Side Effects”

Our Luxury Problem: Food and Toxin

Toxins in Food

Organic – What’s That?

Poison – What’s That?

Psychological Tricks and Manipulations

DDT – Modern Colonialism Included

The Good German Chlorine Chicken

Gene Food

“Superfoods”

Measuring and Detecting Poisons

Argument s …

Energy and Supply

Systems

Unit of Energy

The Energy Requirement

Origins of Energy

Energy Demand of Humans

Society, “Devourer” of Fossil Energies

Germany’s Energy

Power Plant Types

Nuclear Power Plants

Coal and Gas Power Plants

Renewable Energies

Installed Power and L oad P eaks in Germany

Modern Energy Problems

Fossil Energy – Unanswered Questions

Population Density

Mobility

The Efficiency of Internal Combustion Engines

Electric Cars

Comparing Combustion Engines and E-Cars

Additional Power Plant Capacity for E-Cars

Hydrogen

Network Overload from Electric Cars?

Charging Stations

Positions of Professor Quaschning

Science and Faith

Conspiracy Theories and Their Parallels

Technical (Il)logic

Methods and Psychology of Conspiracy

Faith or Knowledge

Modellings

Limits of Knowledge

Knowledge of the Basics

Delusional Believers

Nuclear Power is Cheap. Safety makes it Expensive.

The Risk is Small, but Present.

Compromises

Compromises vs. Private Interests

Normal Insanity

Elon Musk

Flight to Mars

Starlink

Hyperloop

Electric Air Taxis

Japanese Trains

“Carbon Dioxide Fans”

Rezo’s “Evidence”

Green Counterproductivity

Nuclear Power Plants

Raccoons, Wolves, Beavers and Other Invasive Species

Dying Bees

Killing Weeds with Heated Steam

Grain, Corn and Organic Potatoes

“Renaturalization”

Australian Bushfires

Causes

Kant Sends His Regards

Self-Deception

The Modern Trade in Indulgences

Implementing Demands

Anti-Logical Psyche

Cognitive Dissonance

The Addiction to Conformity

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Backfire Effect

Secondary Effects

Creating Personal Truth

Opinion, Prejudice and Conviction

Affect Heuristics

Hand-Picked, Universally Valid Standards

“The Normals”

Normal Pathological Traits?

The Addiction to Please

Asia

Europe

Computers

Professorships

Shortage of Skilled Workers

Real Work

Non-Knowledge

Volkswagen (VW)

Planned or Unplanned Obsolescence

German Press Strategies

Manipulated Unemployment Figures

Expropriating the Elderly

Manipulation Instruments of a Democracy

Pseudo Solutions

“Coffin Nails”

The G36 Rifle

Fire Protection at Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER)

Soft Skills Are Not Hard Skills

Insider of German politics

Education and Training

Education

The Education-Suicide Society

Official Denigration of Science Education

How Do You Come Up With These Ideas?

Dissemination

Lack of Frustration Tolerance

The Fun and Happiness Society

Analyses

If You Want It – Then Do It Skillfully!

The Circumstances

Smartphones and Computers

One-Dimensional System Analyses

Results of this Policy

Abuse of Education for Political Purposes

Anxiety-“Education” of the Germans

Germans “Democracy”

The Error Unculture

Politically Opportune Lies

Idealized Frauds?

Intelligence and Profession

Pigeonhole Arguments

Framing

Additional Communication Unculture

“Application Example”: A Discussion about CO2

The World of Politicians

The World of Journalists

Framing Manuals

Analysis of Journalistic Opinion Making

Examples of Journalistic Morality

Incompetence at its Finest

The “Fact Finder”s

Democratic Press Censorship

Summary

Calculations

Glossary

Quotes

Bibliography

Introduction

How can you spread a doomsday mood when everything’s fine and the quarterly figures of the German Federal Government regularly promise a surplus? Even former East Germany, the GDR, had only disseminated positive things to say about the state. Conversely, people in the west of the republic had mainly heard about the bad things happening in the east. Why should that be any different today? Most facts are freely accessible. However, they have to be interpreted and put into context. It’s not necessary to recount a lot of new material. You have to know, interpret, link and possibly even compare information. Only then can it be evaluated. It was known, for example, that the automotive industry alone intends to lay off at least 50,000 workers in Germany in 2019. “Socially acceptable” this was called to make it sound upbeat. But the jobs are gone. “Economically viable” this ain’t. It’s, after all, the economy that has to bear the burden of a social system that pays the unemployed.

I’m not a clairvoyant – nor am I a futurologist. If that giant volcano erupts under Yellowstone National Park before this book is published, then the predictions made in this book will be false. But that’s unlikely to happen.

Some people think they know what the world will look like in 100 years, wavering between their idea of utopia and dystopia. When I was growing up, one utopia could be found in the book “The Basics of the 21st Century”. The author was Mr. Gustav Schenk. He extrapolated technology and physics to the present century. The approach was a technical-physical one. To him, as a scientist, it was obvious: Any development will follow logic, which it did at the time.

Great famines still existed forty years ago; reports on the “Biafra children” went around the world. This was taken up in the dystopian movie “Soylent Green”, a portmanteau of “soy” and “lentils” – dyed green. It wasn’t veggies but human flesh as it turned out. By the way, nutrition won’t be a problem since a continuous yield increase and yield security could be achieved through the development of highly specific equipment. However, this is being slowly eliminated in Europe now.

The title of the book is “Germany’s Freefall”. When you jump from the 30th floor of a high-rise building, nothing will happen to you during the fall because you’re weightless. It will, however, become “slightly problematic” when you hit the ground. When I predicted the opening of Berlin Brandenburg Airport in 2013 (planned for 2011) to be 2022/23, it merely elicited a head-shaking response. Unfortunately, I was pretty correct (It was late 2020 now – a 9 year delay). If only 4% of the defects there could have been eliminated by 2012, then it would have been completely unrealistic to achieve the remaining 96% by 2013. Mathematics is real and has nothing to do with “pessimism” or “optimism”.

In mid-May 2019, a headline from the German newspaper “Die Welt” declaring “Why the German Prophets of Doom are Wrong” asked: “Where does this German Angstlust (or “delight in fear”) come from?” The first sentence of the article reads: “The unemployment rate is lower than ever before...” But this isn’t correct: Germany has renamed more than half of its unemployed in a law: All those over the age of 58 who have not found employment after one year are to be dubbed the “underemployed”. Why was such a law passed, and why does an article with this kind of information start with the word “unemployed?” Exactly this kind of thing demonstrates that things are going downhill because these sorts of arithmetic gymnastics should normally not be necessary. In a separate chapter, I will unravel exactly these kinds of statistics in detail because it shows the care used to manipulate them. By the way, this seems to be what Germany does best. Other statistics also reveal that an enormous amount of effort was put into presenting figures in a way that achieves an optimal manipulative effect.

The above reports, which gloss over current politics with “crooked figures”, were published just prior to the German elections. Nobody cares two hoots about them. In contrast, bogus slogans and pseudo-arguments to be found in YouTube videos (“Rezo”) “The Destruction of the party CDU” virtually trigger a government crisis.

When you, like me, predict company bankruptcies (“Cassandra syndrome”) and back these up with the facts (losses in the millions combined with technical incompetence) you aren’t taken seriously. A friend had predicted another bankruptcy with these words: “All he does is jet around the world – that can’t go on very much longer.” The company owner had later declared that he “had trusted the wrong people”. I could have told him that beforehand. I knew some of them personally: managers who just blew a lot of hot air (wind power).

Therefore, you can predict the future with relative certainty when you look at it from a neutral, critical point of view and without prejudice at the current time. The sense of reality of the people involved doesn’t change. It allows you to conclude how things will continue. Incidentally, this company owner is starting all over again now and is blindly trusting in his Chinese counterparts. People don’t change and, apparently, they can’t be helped.

I was wrong predicting the insolvency of another company (it occurred 10 years later). It had squandered millions in the triple digits. This exacts its revenge when the company doesn’t happen to be Volkswagen. An insolvency at VW could place the German state of Lower Saxony, which holds large blocks of its shares, in financial straits. That’s a risk we know from the banks: Whenever a company is in really bad shape, the taxpayers have to foot the bill. How big this risk is yet to be carefully assessed. To date, people assume something like this won’t happen – which is what we thought regarding the banks.

“Stupid German money” is making the international rounds. Germans can now be sold all kinds of junk because when you lack the necessary expertise you’re forced to rely on other people. That’s why Germany is increasingly becoming a state of consultants [33]. The stupid thing is that consultants have to sell themselves and, in most cases, deliver (consulting) results that a client exactly wants to hear.

This “fall” is progressing ever faster as follows: Europe and Asia are swapping places. Asians will soon be telling the Europeans what to do. They’re doing so already today, which everybody’s noticing but nobody has fully realized yet. That’s also why the Asian and European systems are being scrutinized. China, by the way, will be the second country to have humans landing on the moon. They’ve already landed on the dark side of the moon with robots. This was an innovation because any data transmission to and from it requires a satellite to orbit the moon.

In summary, it is apparent that the system has become unstable. However, the local systems are still stable, therefore the swap cannot be halted at this point.

When it comes to the facts, this post-factual and quixotic point of view and German politics and industry are all working hand in hand for the purpose of maintaining power. The press uses pseudo-competent reporting to direct the focus onto the wrong things. This is obviously their usual practice and an expression of “political correctness” or “morality”.

The press must sell itself, and problems don’t sell. This word, “problem”, isn’t supposed to be used anymore anyway; it’s a no-no or “No-Go” in new German speak/Denglish. The strategy of the press is to predict a golden future while reporting indignantly about the “idiots” opposed to this future. This allows their readers to feel “educated”.

Below is a brief analysis of educational systems, as the prosperity of any industrialized society is built on qualified education. Nobody seems to have properly understood this yet, although China, in particular, has demonstrated that its prosperity and food supply have improved significantly through education, despite its rapid population growth. At the same time, I will reference our political system, parliamentary democracy, an open, neutrally informed society and how the thinkers of our time assume that this will all work out in the long run.

The challenges resulting from technical and scientific progress

and its associated globalization are mounting like never before.

The issues are manifold: Education (this deficiency is etiological), German notions about the environment (these will get Germany into the biggest trouble regarding its own energy policies and food supply), and liberal do-gooderism (currently dividing society over the migration issue in the belief in the superiority of one’s own ethical views and economic might). It all interlocks (one system). It’s a vicious circle with a self-reinforcing, escalating effect.

The topics vary in complexity, so let’s start with a relatively simple subject that reveals the mindsets and their paradoxical effects. Germans like to be engaged in ecological discussions. Ancient Rome had bread and circuses to keep the populace happy. The “educated” German is more demanding in this regard with endless discussions about bottle and can deposits, glyphosate, dying bees, wicked pesticides, acrylamide and nitrogen oxides. It gets tricky when it comes to wind turbines because these were first touted as the “savior of the system”, but then made the bogeyman as their danger to birds, bats and, finally, insects became apparent. Year-long discussions were the result. The perfect occupational therapy.

Even when you were happy to have despaired and given up early on your science lessons back in school, these days you nevertheless want to join in and express your displeasure about “wicked German industry”. Some may indeed be wicked, no doubt, but they are, in fact, happy about any arguments made at this superficial level because these can easily be debunked. Environmentalists do a disservice to the real environmental sinners. One side effect is that farmers, for example, no longer find it worthwhile to farm in an environmentally friendly manner: They’re pilloried across the board by the media anyway.

The logic from large sections of the population seems questionable. The works council is bribed with hookers. Efficient cars are sold with magnesium tailgates and lead on the rear axle. Entire countries are defrauded on a professional scale. The entire German (and German only) clientele is left out in the rain when an entire series of improperly designed small engines is produced that breaks down in winter while diesel engine technology was being taken down the wrong road for an entire decade. You then commit yourself 100% to electric mobility and – poof – it’s “the good guys” again, i.e. those who’re doing everything right, even when these vehicles are supposed to be charged at 350 kW. Not even the Americans can “manage” something like that.1

This makes Germany look ridiculous. “Baizuo” (“White Leftist”) is the Chinese derogatory term for a morally superior and naively arrogant white person.

Notes on my own behalf:

The book doesn’t primarily deal with climate and climate change. Certainly humans have their fingers in that pie, at least as far as the course of events is concerned because its rapid progression. However, climate change is often used to prove that the move towards alternative energy, i.e. “the energy turnaround”, will work out. Any causality that the move towards alternative energy will work out just because climate change is real, however, is not given. Apparently, it’s assumed that a solution is basically available for every problem. That’s certainly incorrect. Moreover, environmental protection first and foremost costs money and must be driven forward with a lot of technical knowledge. There are no “patent solutions” in this regard. Therefore, this book mainly describes subjects that can be evaluated on a scientific basis.

This book will most likely include (a few) false facts as well. If the author knew where to find them, he would have avoided them. But this is no proof that this book is only written with a lot of nonsense. If one were to argue in this manner, as is common practice these days, a person like Immanuel Kant would have been no where in sight: He thought to darken his room to keep out the vermin, a common plague at the time. No one would think of condemning Kant just because of a single weird, erroneous judgment, especially since he had created the Categorical Imperative that we (would like to) employ today (see Kant Sends His Regards).

When I speak about “the journalists”, for example, the author means the predominant part or their average. Reasonable journalists exist, too. Who these are can hopefully be assessed by the reader once he or she has read this book. The world is not as simple as it is made out to be. That’s why this book begins with a few chapters on possible strategies in how to evaluate the systems that abound around us.

Evaluating the System

How did I come up with the idea for writing this book? It will probably not sell well because people love positive news. A popular saying is: “The bearer of bad news will be shot!” The author must “somehow” be able to evaluate the systems around him and simultaneously be sure of the truth of these claims. That’s arrogance, too, isn’t it?

I evaluate the facts here using the laws of nature (see chapter Physics, Technology and Math) When you try to violate these laws, things will go wrong. It’s therefore not arrogant, but pragmatic to use these. Natural laws, to be specific, don’t care about politics. They hold true for all social systems, democracy and dictatorship alike. Incidentally, many laws, rules and regulations are based on the very laws of nature.

Using electric scooters as an example, which have since been approved for road use, I would like to demonstrate the manner used to evaluate systems: First, these must be examined carefully. The center of gravity of a scooter is high and its wheelbase short. Furthermore, systems should be transferable as well: We know from bicycles that when you pull the front brake – which is most effective – you’ll roll over. This is where geometry and physics play an important role. A concrete evaluation is possible when you calculate things to make them analogous: deceleration is at 3.9 m/s2. A bicycle brakes almost twice as well at 6-7 m/s2. The conclusion is that e-scooters are unsuitable to current traffic conditions.

So it’s of little use that these scooters are regarded as “innovative” and that you want to save the world with them. They were approved for road use despite that fact that they brake much worse than other means of transport and, therefore, do not correspond to the state of the art. By the way, motor-driven scooters existed 100 years ago already. But that’s no argument: Back then the brakes in all means of transport were miserable by today’s standards. Bicycles had “stamp brakes”. Today they have disc brakes, which are partially as good as motorcycle brakes.

In order to evaluate systems (We do this all the time: Is it good? Is it bad?), the ability or art of drawing a plausible conclusion with only limited available information and time is important. It’s called “heuristics”.

All arguments are essential when making an evaluation, especially those that are unpleasant – those are the most important.

They require you to consider how to refute them.2

Even texts without information (these do exist) provide clues: Years ago I stumbled across a newspaper article in which a millionaire reported on an airport and its importance. If you looked for any supporting evidence in the article, you would not discover a single argument on the entire half page. That made me wonder: half a page of text without facts and only assertions. That was an indication of his personal stake in the matter, otherwise he wouldn’t have written the article in the first place. If you did your research, you would’ve discovered how the wind was actually blowing: The author was a pilot and owned a small airline with business jets stationed at a different airport that was scheduled to be closed because Russian oligarchs didn’t want another airport in their vicinity in order to be able to fly more convenient to them.

Many things (unfortunately) you “just” have to know. But if you have to know something, you can’t know that you have to know it: If you don’t know, for example, that things like “pyrophytes” exist and that they are particularly commonplace in Australia, you can’t get the idea of finding out about them on the Internet. More on this later.

If someone tries to make knee pads from carbon-fiber reinforced plastic, you have to know that this material is “impact sensitive”. You also have to know that the argument stating that carbon fibers are “stable” is a nonsensical argument because the colloquial word “stable” is unknown in the world of technology. Definitions like “tensile strength”, “pressure resistance” or “impact resistance” exist, but not “stable”. If someone uses it in an argument, you can thus conclude that this person knows next to nothing about technology.

Millions are being invested in “innovative” aircraft having tiny engines, but the engines in commercial aircraft are becoming bigger and bigger. “Propulsion efficiency” is describing the physics behind it. You don’t need to understand that because to do so you must’ve studied the subject. Stated more simply: Everyone (Boeing and Airbus) has been building larger and larger engines for decades now. Suddenly, someone comes along who uses mini engines and wants to power these electrically. Is somebody smarter than the rest of the world?

Statements made by people have to be seen in context: A German chancellor once declared “one does not spy among friends” when accusing the NSA of espionage. But you have to know: Twenty-three years earlier, they had bought a new (French) telephone system which recorded all the telephone conversations of the German government and the State Department (using a so-called “backdoor”). Chancellor Helmut Kohl freaked out in that meeting on a friday afternoon. The consequence to be drawn from this is that statements like Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “wir schaffen das” (“we can do it”) cause bellyaches because one apparently just wants to sit out the problems and never get to their root cause.

Sometimes one comparison suffices: If two things must look the same but don’t, then an error must be involved.

Nowadays, making assessments is more difficult because everything is international. One of the most difficult questions in this regard is how much sense does it make to do something when all your neighbors don’t do it.

One indication of the validity of arguments is also given by examining how things were done in the past and why things were done this way. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools, was consistently against the spraying of pesticides. During his lifetime, selective toxic agents did not exist. Heavy metals were used, which contaminated the soil, as they cannot be broken down chemically. At the same time, vegetables had themselves contained many more natural stomach poisons (cf. Toxins in Food), which have been bred out long since then. Thus, 100 years ago he was correct in rejecting the use of pesticides. The question is to what extent this can be transferred to the present day.

One therefore needs a neutral comparison to evaluate

whether and how progress or even any regression looks like.

The situation is similar when it comes to technical systems: A hydrogen car is good if liquid hydrogen is available. Hydrogen propulsion was propagated 35 years ago. At the time, energy seemed to be readily available in unlimited quantities through nuclear power. But times have changed. Japan is taking the path of nuclear power and is therefore promoting electric propulsion.

Electric cars are a wonderful means of transport in Sweden and Norway. There, traffic is almost CO2-free because plenty of nuclear and hydroelectric power is available. Now the question arises whether these conditions can be transferred onto a German context.

Last but not least, it’s worth examining the sense of reality people apply to cope with their tasks: Someone who is neither able to make frigates swim, airplanes fly nor guns shoot is certainly not suited to master any future challenges.

Opinion versus Facts

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any democracy. So, you may be of the opinion that when you drink two beers and then two more that this totals three. Opinions thus have nothing to do with facts. Nevertheless, when it comes to technical matters, people often argue: “That's your opinion, mine’s different!” This is a confusion of terms: Most of the time physics is at fault: If you can demonstrate (usually with mathematics) that something does not work, you can have as many opinions as you want: They are irrelevant.

The Other Point of View

Germany is considered a “high-tech-country”. Everyone has their own view of things, even the author because he is an engineer, and every profession has its own particular point of view. When a non-engineer “stumbles” over a press release reporting that something was not working or that the matter is 13 years behind schedule, then he will simply accept it. In particular, he can’t evaluate it – how could he anyway?

Then there are those people who want to know what contributed to the failure or the exploding costs because the advantage of mistakes normally is that you can learn from them – both your own and other’s. Nothing is more stupid than repeating a mistake. Unfortunately, it is not possible to learn anything nowadays most of the time because college taught you how you would have done it the right way; or you learned it during the course of your career. The fact is: high-tech is being touted everywhere, but grave mistakes are being made when it comes to the fundamentals. This is a cause for concern because mistakes in the fundamentals are, above all, one thing: extremely expensive.

That took its toll on my former employer: wherever your looked, all you heard about were the losses running into the millions. A lot of money had been spent on advertising. Top-level positions were filled by people who distinguished themselves with their incompetence and who had fallen for “pied pipers” who had sold them their visions. Slogans had been bantered about on how great the company was doing and how great its products were. Critics were sidelined: “We have the Bavarian state as guarantor – nothing can happen to us”, they declared. In hindsight, the company failed because of the sum of all the little things. A few days before the insolvency, the company wanted to rivet 0.8 mm sheet steel to the (aluminum) wings, as the torsional stiffness3 of these wings had proven to be insufficient. Problems were known long beforehand, but had been swept under the carpet over the years, and none had been solved at the root. People had just “tinkered” with the symptoms. In the end, everything converged upon itself.

German politics is nothing more than a “flashback”.

Statistics

“Don't believe any statistics you haven't faked yourself” – is the consensus of many people who don’t have a high opinion of statistics. This isn’t surprising since statistics is a branch of mathematics and not very much appreciated. You are more likely to reject what you do not understand. This is human nature. At the same time, you search for arguments in favor of this attitude in order to confirm your own personal prejudices. That, too, is human, but not effective.

However, this doesn’t make any sense because statistics create facts that can be used as evidence. On the contrary, in today’s society you are surrounded by statistics for any items because these are made of materials backed by statistics used to determine their material properties.

The validity of DNA expert opinions is pure statistics. Although a match between two DNA samples can thus never be 100%, it is on the order of 99.999995%, depending on the case; or a probability of 1 in 20 million. When you reject statistical evidence and wish to “argue” polemically, as at the beginning of this chapter, you then become inevitably in favor of abolishing DNA evidence and releasing sex offenders in particular. Does anyone really want that?

All scientific studies must be evaluated statistically. This is necessary to demonstrate to what extent the results of the study yield any valid results. When a study reveals a statistically significant result, this means that the result is not random but can instead be taken as “evidence”.

In the introduction to one of his books, the biostatistician, Bruce Weir, shows that the statistics of the discoverer of the basic principles of heredity, Gregor Mendel, are too good: The latter had let some “inappropriate” results fall by the wayside. It's indeed possible to validate statistics with statistics.

Statistical Errors and Statistical Abuse

Statistics only provide valid results when they don’t include systematic errors or false basic assumptions. This, in turn, refers to “statistics one has faked oneself” (cf. previous chapter).

Statistics thus open the door to manipulation: If you assume a minor thing to be false, then the statistic is false. If you deliberately assume it to be false, you can then “generate” almost any result using statistics.

An article was published about seven years ago on the drastic increase in the proportion of “grave defects” found in motor vehicles after car inspections performed by TÜV (German technical inspection agency). An outcry rippled across the automotive world. You should sit up and take notice to press reports like this because if 1/4 of the inspected cars had exhibited "grave defects” over decades, and 1/3 of these cars exhibited the same in the following year (these are theorized figures), then this would mean a sudden increase of 32%. That alone is statistically unlikely. The “cause” was to be found elsewhere: TÜV had hitherto distinguished between a “defect” and a “grave defect”. A new regulation had categorized all defects detected by TÜV as “grave defects”.

German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) has issued instructions to prioritize its express trains over its commuter trains. Doing this would make its ICE (Intercity Express) trains statistically more on time. Commuter trains are not covered by the press. This is something you need to know. You find out about it from the “petty” railway official. Presumably, the salary of the Deutsche Bahn CEO is linked to the punctuality of its ICE trains: His contract, for example, would then contain the clause that every percent the ICE is not on time would cost ½ million annually in salary or bonuses.

How about a more current event [76]? In mid-April, the “Tagesschau” evening news had reported on an “above-average number of deaths in Germany” in its “Corona Live Blog”. They compared the average from the past five years with the average from the year 2020. To prove this, they evaluated data between March 23rd and April 12th. Correct: The mortality rate during this period is higher than the average of the past five years. Does this necessarily mean that the mortality rate in Germany is higher due to Corona? Conversely: Is manipulation possible using correct statistics? Of course. You just have to choose the right period: The 2020 mortality rate was lower prior to March 23rd. If you examine this figure between January 1st and April 12th (January 1st is, of course, arbitrary as well!), then 8,300 fewer people (!) had died by 12 April than the average of the previous years.4 Almost exactly 1 million people die in Germany in any average year, meaning 2,750 per day. Early June saw less than 9,000 deaths caused from or with Corona, thus less than 1%, or less than those who normally die in two days. These figures cannot be used to make a valid statistical statement.

The press is reporting on a high share of electrical consumption covered by renewable energies in June of 2020. Electricity consumption has decreased during Corona. So, it is of no surprise that the share of renewable energies is on the rise.

Reports circulated about “particularly sensitive” medical detection methods with a “high hit rate”. The problem is the “false positives” since these are “particularly sensitive”. These had also recorded hits in many where they should not’ve done so at all. To put it oversubtly: Had the detection method identified all examined people as “positive”, then it would have resulted in a 100% hit rate. But this is of little use, since it would have identified nobody as negative in this case.

Another example are the aforementioned unemployment statistics. How exactly this is being accomplished is shown in the chapter “Manipulated Unemployment Figures”.

No positive proof is possible in principle in individual cases. For example, the television talk show rounds introduced young people who never went to school but still managed to get by in life. We can hence conclude that this kind of lifestyle can work. Nothing more. If one were to invite those 100 people who had never attended school and who are now hooked on the needle or struggling through life as petty criminals, for example, it would immediately become clear that the statistics are being manipulated here. School students like these kinds of TV broadcasts. Their obvious interpretation is: “School is redundant”. But they would need the education of a school to realize that they are being badly manipulated now.

It’s obvious that a “school system” cannot be ideal for every student. It's supposed to help most students receive a good education. A compromise. This, too, is statistics.

Unfortunately, statistical manipulation is increasingly common in scientific publications, where results can be evaluated only partially and which continues to depict what is en vogue or, in particular, contradict political correctness: Nutritional science is to be mentioned here, but publications on environmental toxins and gender studies are affected by this as well. Sometimes the analyses are even “sound”, but the results are formulated in a way that is “officially desired”. Otherwise, funds are cut off from the institutes. Research at universities is no longer free of charge because they are more and more forced to finance themselves. Due to their dependence on companies, they have to provide “appropriate” results. Politically incorrect results are sometimes not published at all because the journal reviewers either don’t approve or otherwise prevent their publication. Various indirect or direct methods are available in such cases.

Imagination

The human imagination is interesting when it comes to evaluating facts: Much can be imagined, much not. One can imagine traveling to the nearest star in a spaceship. Star Trek provided a taste of this. But this is not possible. The same applies when it comes to exceeding the speed of light.

In contrast, one cannot imagine the distance of one light year, although the entire solar system is only one light day in diameter. Even one light day (25,900,000,000 km) is unimaginable. This order of magnitude is completely normal to an astronomer. This does not mean, however, that an astronomer can imagine these distances.

Nobody can imagine a war either, especially since most Germans have never held a weapon in their hands that would provide an indication of the destructive power of a single projectile. To them, war and the terrible suffering it causes is something abstract and not imaginable: A few years ago, a journalist on a TV panel discussion “demanded” a “military intervention” (the positive “framing” term for “war” (see chapter Framing)) in Russia. Mrs. Krohne-Schmalz (a Moscow correspondent) had made this comment with a frozen demeanor. Refusing military service, it seems, makes it easier to call for war. Paradoxical, isn’t it?

When the Bundeswehr (German armed forces) was sent on a mission to Afghanistan, one could not “imagine” that mines would be used there. It's certainly traumatic to see the consequences of this lack of imagination, and frustrating to know that it could have been avoided.

The same applies to power blackouts. If these were to happen, even electric garage doors wouldn’t function, making it difficult to leave your house by car. First, your telephone would fail (the Internet is dead), and, after two to four hours, cell phone masts would then start to fail. Failing traffic lights would lead to a series of accidents, but no ambulance could be called. Production lines would stand still and machines stop producing expensive parts. Milking machines would not work, cattle would die, and oil heaters would need electricity to pump heating oil. If the power were to fail any longer, these same heaters would burst. This is because a blackout would first occur when it’s cold, as more electricity is needed then. This was the case in South America in June 2019 because it was winter there then and many people heat only with electricity. Hospitals are only able to operate using emergency generators (their real problem is the lack of pure water caused by the lack of electricity). Lifts and cable cars would get stuck. However, no rescue helicopters could be refueled anymore because the kerosene pumps are electric. Since the radio has failed, they wouldn’t be allowed to take off anyway. Therefore, one must assume that people would lose their lives indirectly.

“DER SPIEGEL Online History” reported on the 1977 [41] blackout in New York, where looters and arsonists had roamed the city. This can be expected in social hotspots.5

The above depicts a few of the consequences involved, not to stir up fear, but to get a practical idea of the consequences. A risk exists and one should consider whether or not to take it. In case of a nuclear accident, this (sensibly) goes without saying, but (senselessly) not in the case of a blackout.

This chapter argues that things should be evaluated completely regardless whether they can be imagined or not since people tend to evaluate things as “wrong” or “not possible” because they cannot imagine them.

One should abandon this approach because

it leaves no room for a neutral discussion.

Consequences

One can conclude from the sum of these “trifling matters” in all areas that the shit will hit the German fan.

Iceland had gone through a national bankruptcy that went relatively smoothly because Icelanders have no energy problems due to their hot springs. They grow bananas in greenhouses.

In the event of this kind of a collapse of the energy supply, no catch-all system is available, as society isn’t prepared for it. Similar to the just-in-time delivery approach used by the automotive companies: When a small parts supplier fails to deliver a single important screw, all of the assembly lines will come to a standstill. This case isn’t foreseen in the system.

When it comes to energy, the system in Germany is therefore vulnerable, but not so in Iceland. That’s why the effects are difficult to foresee in their entirety.

Physics, Technology and Math

Everything that happens around us is according to “natural laws” that can be used to describe everything around us.

These refer to the physical limits such as the speed of light, which represents the maximum speed at which information can move. Or the absolute zero point. Nothing can get colder than -273.15° Celsius (-459.67° Fahrenheit).

For example, the law of conservation of energy is an immutable law of nature which states that the sum of all types of energy remains the same everywhere and at all times. Another part of the energy theorem states that all processes in nature are subject to losses. However, this energy is not lost but converted into heat. For example, every engine gets warm.

The laws of nature are interlinked and interwoven into a system. Physics has systematized them in such a way that things can be calculated and thus evaluated.6 Humans know many of these laws of nature, but not all. Laws of nature that are still being discovered may not contradict those that are valid today. All laws of nature are the same across the entire universe.

Since the laws of nature can’t be violated, as is possible with legal laws, they act as the “spoilsports” of visionaries, of whom two variations exist:

 The first tries to violate the laws of nature directly, for example, by ignoring the law of conversation of energy.

 The second ignores physically predefined efficiencies, which are usually significantly smaller than 100%. I take up this subject in detail on the following page.

First, I use general examples to illustrate the complexity of technical problems. Some of these have little to do with the contents of this book. If I were to discuss the efficiency of hydrogen cars right off the bat, the brains of a hydrogen proponent would then kick into “strike” mode. The “backfire effect” sends its regards (see Backfire Effect).

Efficiency

Efficiency is the ratio of what comes out at the back to what is put in at the front. Efficiency in all technical processes is less than 100%.7 When, for example, an electric motor converts 80% electrical energy into rotational energy (see chapter Energy and Supply), it is then 80% efficient. The remaining 20% of this electrical energy represents the incurred “losses”. According to the law of conservation of energy, these are not really lost, but converted into another form of energy: heat loss. If this isn’t properly dissipated, the engine will break down.

When you connect several technical processes in series, you can easily calculate their overall efficiency by multiplying the efficiencies (not the losses!) of the individual processes. If, for example, the efficiency of a coal-fired power plant is 40%, i.e. 0.4 (correct on average), the efficiency of the electric motor intended to drive something is then 80%, and the efficiency of the electric grid is then 92% (8% losses). You calculate this as follows: 0.4 × 0.8 × 0.92 = 0.294. In concrete terms, this means that 29.4% of the combustion energy of coal is converted into the rotational energy of this electric motor.

Efficiency is close to 100% only in a few technical processes. These are pure combustion processes, electrical processes and processes with incompressible fluids (water).

In all other technical processes (mostly so-called “circular processes”), which have to do with gases or where combustion is associated with a mechanical drive (gas turbine, internal combustion engine), efficiency is significantly below 100%.

This is a physical and not a technical limit.

Improvement is not possible.

The Last Percentages – Cutting Losses

“Nach fest kommt ab!” (Tight is followed by off!) says the German fitter when tightening a bolt. This means nothing else than that anything overdone makes no sense and is even counterproductive.

This can easily be illustrated: When we assume that a large electric motor has a connected load of 100 kW (it needs 100 kW from the electric grid), but the mechanical load is only 50 kW, it will then have 50 kW in losses (which are usually lost as heat). If you want to improve this motor and make it produce 1 kW more mechanical power, then you have to reduce the losses by 1 kW. 1 kW better at 50 kW corresponds to a 2% improvement. In doing so, the losses must be reduced by 2%. This seems simple.

Technical devices are better nowadays, however. Efficiencies are much closer to the maximum achievable value. Assuming that a modern motor with a 100 kW connection load converts 80 kW into a mechanical load, this means 20 kW are lost. If you want to improve this motor by 1 kW, this means a 1.25% improvement. The difficulty here: Any losses have to be reduced by 1 kW from 20 kW to 19 kW. That’s 5%. That’s a lot.

It’s therefore much more difficult to achieve any improvement when trying to optimize systems that are highly optimized already. Most of the time this kind of thing is associated with a lot of effort. It’s easy to reach an explosion in costs. That’s why you have to find a financially acceptable compromise most of the time.

Standards and Guidelines

You are constantly being confronted with new rules and guidelines. Technicians and engineers have “standards” for this. This is currently getting out of hand. Standards and guidelines aren’t the same in every country since the conditions aren’t the same. The purpose of standards is safety. Road traffic regulations are also written for safety’s sake.

In order to draft standards and guidelines, experts convene in order to discuss these. The difficulty is that as these experts try to prevent accidents, rules must be formulated in such a way that they don’t lead to an incapacity to act. This is even stated in the standards. Expert knowledge is therefore necessary to draft them. By the way, standards must always be adapted to the “state of the art”.

Not every innovative technology is beneficial everywhere. For example, aeronautical engineering is “conservative”, and innovations find their way into the market only very slowly. The failure of a single component can mean hundreds of deaths. That’s why computer-only control of an aircraft is prohibited (every processor is faulty) and why it’s mandatory to install important sensors twice (called redundancy). Electric airplanes designed for passenger transport are difficult to make because each battery must be monitored individually, since an airplane will crash in case a battery catches fire. Boeing can tell you a thing or two about this after they installed new types of batteries solely to power their instruments, and these had started to burn. The planes were “grounded”, just like the Boeing 737Max today. Even a Tesla car had posed insurmountable problems in Austria for several weeks because it wasn’t possible to transport the burnt-out vehicle wreckage. Electric cars had been approved, but nobody had considered the fact that this kind of a car could catch fire as well. Incidentally, 50 years ago, the German “NSU Prinz” automobile was dubbed “a lighter on wheels”. The registration authorities do know that cars can burn.

It took Airbus a long time to obtain the approval for components that weren’t made of aluminum but of fiber-reinforced plastics. Such a thing wasn’t permitted at the time, but was already standard in glider construction. Many tests proved that the components would be able to withstand the imposed loads. Then certification was assured and everything seemed fine. One was astonished to find that these airplanes were becoming heavier and heavier. The reason was that plastics soak up a certain amount of water (~1%), demonstrating that even the experts sometimes fail to consider the little things like this. In this case, it was of no critical importance, but in an airplane with a structural weight of 30 t, 1% also means missing a payload of 300 kg.

All in all, these rules and laws exist to make life as free as possible from any danger. However, these must be written in such a way that the limits are not too stringent in order for any action to be possible at all.

Furthermore, laws mustn’t conflict. For example, measles vaccination has become mandatory in schools. However, if a student refuses to get vaccinated then this means a conflict with Germany’s law of compulsory education.

Technical “Spoilsports”

The following lists examples showing that expertise in the respective area is required in order to be able to report on or evaluate these. Other examples show that supposed trivialities can bring down entire concepts.

Both can only be met with knowledge and competence.

Wind Turbines

This section applies the chapter entitled “The Last Percentages – Cutting Losses” to wind turbines.

The most efficient wind turbines achieve an overall efficiency of 50% (including all electrical and mechanical losses) at certain operating points. About 59% is the maximum that’s possible, as the scientist Betz had already calculated in 1919. This is the physical limit; more is not possible. Compared to the maximum achievable, these systems thus have an efficiency of 0.50/0.59, which corresponds to 83%. That’s darn good.

The press reports that new wind turbines “which are 2 to 3 times more efficient” have been developed. This means that the engineers who had developed them up to now were, according to these journalists and reports, both ignorant and stupid.

But if up to 83% efficiency is being currently achieved, then “twice as efficient” would mean 166% efficiency. Therefore the authors of these articles report about a perpetuum mobile.

Electric Scooters

Electric scooters, as mentioned before, are considered to be “innovative”. Some young guy had simply screwed a motor to a scooter and mounted some batteries on it. A few years ago, the marketing newspaper “Brand Eins” had lifted the young “inventor” into stardom. Nowadays, “young” and “innovative” are used synonymously. This kind of thing caters to a certain “pigeonhole thinking”.

When riding a bicycle, you know that it is easy to roll over when you pull the front brake too hard. This is worse on a scooter, as its wheelbase (the distance between front and rear wheel) is shorter. An article about these scooters can be found in a “Autobild” German car magazine issue from 2019. It had commissioned DEKRA, an official German technical authority like “TÜV”, to measure the braking performance in several models: Most electric scooters have a braking distance of 4 meters starting at 20 km/h. The deceleration can be calculated from it, which is only 3.9 m/s2, and is slightly more than half as much as that of a bicycle.8 Electric scooters therefore do not fit into current traffic conditions, as they do not correspond to the state of the art.

An article in the German car magazine “ADAC Motorwelt” [63], reporting on these electric scooters on over a three full-page spread, is indicative. It particularly mentions the high accident rate of their riders. The deceleration of 3.9 m/s2, the figure that would establish this relation to the state of the art and represents the main causes, is not mentioned.

Before making them street legal, you could also have examined the problems that other countries (like Israel) are having with them, or you could transferred these problems from the time when inline skates were so popular: Ten wrist fractures were being admitted to every hospital of any major city on any fine weekend in Germany.

I’m getting ahead of myself: Why were these scooters still allowed on the road? The reasons are several: First of all, we want to get our young people on the side of politics. The latter also knows that the “energy turnaround” cannot work. These days, communicating politically incorrect facts is not permissible: In this case, everyone, including the politicians, would otherwise be “shredded” by the press. So, you bow to the pressure. This also gives you a stage that you can use to demonstrate to the public that you are an “environmentalist”. “Electro” sounds good and is “politically correct”. That’s the way German decisions are made.

However, cost-intensive wrist operations are no “environmental protection”, but instead counterproductive: these accident victims are being sacrificed to preserve the power of the respective party in power.

Outer Space Transporters

Some thirty years ago, a European research project was launched to compete with the Space Shuttle. It was called “Sänger” (The inventor was Eugen Sänger) and consisted of a sub-stage that was supposed to fly as an airplane up to an altitude of 30 km. On top of it sat “Horus”, which was supposed to separate with rocket propulsion at this altitude and fly into space. Sänger looked like a pointed triangle and was flat. Attached to the bottom were engines that looked similar to those on a Concorde airplane.

Sänger always had to be flown at exactly one angle of attack so that the engines would deliver the thrust that the engineers had actually calculated to the third digit. Let’s say it was 8.735°. The angle of attack is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the air flow. The Sänger project was developed further over several years with this in mind. A professor said it had involved “computing orgies”.

An engineer then had the “stupid” idea to ask how this 8.735° could exactly be maintained. Not at all! Because an aircraft never flies straight ahead, but always slightly high/low-high/low. This is called a “phugoid”. Every aircraft engineer learns this when studying “flight mechanics” in college. This is movement is similar to riding a bicycle through the snow and seeing that you are always zigzagging. Going straight ahead is impossible.

The engines thus had no longer delivered any thrust at this angle, and the Sänger project “died”. They didn’t advertise it, but let it sink into oblivion instead. It was a little embarrassing.

Carbon Fiber Concrete

Considered a “major innovation” in Germany a few years ago: carbon fibers that had been cut into small pieces were added into concrete to produce a concrete that is not only pressure-resistant but tensile-resistant as well. But you should know that fiber-reinforced concrete is nothing new. Metal fibers and (special) glass fibers were known at the time. Glass fiber reinforced concrete can even be used to build thin-walled boats.

One had now mixed carbon fibers into the concrete. This certainly works excellently, but it has one big disadvantage: Carbon fibers are about 5 times more expensive than glass fibers. It therefore makes more sense to mix twice as many glass fibers into the concrete in order to create the same material properties. This concrete thus contradicts the basic principles of mechanical engineering: Concrete is a cheap material. Carbon fibers are very expensive. But it is pointless to combine cheap and expensive things because the disadvantages of the cheap material (concrete) cannot be outweighed by the advantages of the expensive material (carbon fibers).

Since being awarded the prize, no one has heard anything more about the material. Experience has shown that, unfortunately, even professionals are now impressed by things like “carbon fibers”. It’s synonymous with “high tech”. Incidentally, cost-conscious people try to avoid high-tech materials as much as possible because these demand big compromises most of the time, which is not to say that they’re superfluous everywhere.

Elbow Pads and Citybike Frames

The same was true for elbow protectors. The “idea” had been born to build these from pure carbon fiber reinforced plastic in order to be “innovative”. But this material is sensitive to impact, shattering almost like glass. The formula “carbon fibers = great = innovative” was applied in this case as well.

Bicycle frames in citybikes frequently suffer from impacts or blows. Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic breaks in the process from “delaminating”. But some people also got the fine idea to build citybikes with frames made from carbon fibers. Research funds are granted for this kind of nonsense.

Summary of the “Spoilsports”

The examples show that no matter how promising a project or new idea may be: When physics provides a single “striking” argument demonstrating that the thing does not work, then you have to accept it. These can be arguments that even professionals haven’t taken into account even though it belongs to their core canon of knowledge, as this aspect isn’t taken into account in the concrete case. It's thus not as in normal life where you are able to circumvent certain problems and difficulties.

The following applies in this respect:

Physics is ruthless.

You cannot negotiate with physics.

Good intentions don’t help here either.

Aramide fibers would have had to be added to the elbow protectors, as is very likely done in the case in Formula 1 cars with their monocoque shells that protect their drivers from accidents.

In the case of carbon fiber concrete, the cost calculation will always throw a monkey wrench into the works. Otherwise, it’s interesting to see that when it comes to these kinds of technical matters, psychology or “positive thinking” or “visions” often stand in the way of a reasonable solution (see chapter “Anti-Logical Psyche”).

Exactly this, i.e. “positive thinking”, is being placed on a pedestal these days. But this doesn’t help any when the laws of nature stand in the way.

A chapter with similar examples is presented in this book in chapter “Normal Insanity”. “Visions”, among other things, that are currently circulating through the press are examined in a critical light there. It can already be said with certainty that these will fail because the reason for their failure lies beyond the designers’ imagination, and partially in other areas: An all-encompassing view is lacking, and the insight that technology is not only about one’s own area of expertise.

“Monocausal thinking” has taken hold everywhere.

Perfection Mania

Large parts of the European population are uncompromisingly against nuclear power, against black coal, against brown coal, against carbon dioxide, against glyphosate, against killing animals, against pesticides anyway and, of course, they are against wind power plants because these shred bats, insects and birds, against new high voltage power lines, against plastic waste, against diesel fuel, and you eat a vegan diet. Of course, you do sports and prefer “healthy” food. Anyone who deviates from this “forced optimization” is verbally abused and insulted. These kinds of threats are often made in social media. For someone who feels morally superior, this somehow doesn’t seem to be a problem at all.

The press spurs on veganism by portraying the appalling conditions that animals are partially being kept under. Some animals have been truly maltreated in the past. People were fewer at the time, and the animals were fewer. Many things used to be normal. Most things became better – some, unfortunately, worse. Probably many older stables are still being operated under the “grandfather clause”. The conditions under which cattle are living in the stables built according to the latest EU standards are not being portrayed. This kind of thing doesn’t generate ratings or attract readers. It’s certainly very important to address any deficits, but the world doesn’t consist of deficits alone. This is where “selective perception” kicks in (see chapter Selective Perception). The fact that animals don’t fare well when it comes to factory farming prompts you to conclude that factory farming is fundamentally bad.

The press reports about castrations without anesthesia. The marginal notes tell us, however, that the EU was not ready for a regulation here. One would have been forced to administer medication first. This, however, contradicts other regulations concerning the pesticides or drugs permitted on the market.

Let’s take a brief look at those “good old days”. Everything was much better back then, wasn’t it?

“The Good Old Days”

Some time ago I read from a journalist: “In the past, everything used to be organic.” My response to this at the time was rather clumsy: “Beating women used to be standard. Animals used to be petted?”

Kings had died from their beautiful red and green wallpaper. The colors of these had been made with mercury salts in combination with lead or copper. At some point people had realized that these bright colors were poisonous. They were then used as insecticides and fungicides. Today, organic farmers continue this beautiful tradition with copper.

Washing clothes was a challenge. You washed them with soap and a washboard – a thing with a metal sheet in the middle that was folded in a zigzag, and an insane hassle to the housewife.

Less than sixty years ago people had used a radioactive radiator with a shield affixed on top of it. People used to put their foot and their new shoes into it and could directly see the space left by their toes in the shoes. This wasn’t done at the hospital, but in the shoe store. It was considered progress when you could immediately see how your new shoes fit.

Fifty years ago, people who ate schnitzel received the same dose of hormones as from a birth control pill.

There were no nicotinamides for insects and no glyphosate. Smoking wasn’t harmful to your health. “Better reach for an HB (cigarette) - then everything will work out like a charm” was the motto. Beriberi was on everyone’s lips (which is why we should always eat “whole grain” food). Copha (“Palmin”) closed the pores of the meat. Scurvy was caused by a vitamin C deficiency, and the power of Omo detergent “went through the knot”. All this, by the way, “allegedly”.

What’s more, “innovations” hadn’t existed yet. These were dubbed “progress”. In the past, people moved forward, today everything is new.

Wikipedia reports that potato varieties were still being cultivated in the Third Reich (variety “Forward!”), which had about ten times as much solanine, the poison of the nightshade plant, as today’s varieties. Times back then were so good because less poison had to be sprayed because the poison was in the potatoes. One small disadvantage: If you ate 1 kg of potatoes you were dead. Rudolf Steiner (philosopher and founder of the Waldorf schools) said: “Eating potatoes makes you stupid”.

Since people knew about such things, no one would ever come up with the idea of doing something like that. The purpose of food was to get calories into your body – in contrast to today where we avoid calories in order to chase after an ideal of beauty.

No decent drugs were available. Women had a hard time: They died of childbed fever, or their children did, or both together.

Many people died of syphilis, which usually ends in dementia in its final stage. The first effective drug against it was called “Salvarsan”. It was a mixture of heavy metals. The Farbwerke Hoechst chemicals company produced the toxin during the Second World War. Local residents were often forced to shut their windows, as everything often became covered with the yellow factory dust. Near blast furnaces, on the other hand, the factory dust was red. Epidemics abounded as well as children’s diseases that resulted in permanent damage or death. Letterpress printing letters were made of lead, which is why many printers died of lead poisoning. Sweetening was done with lead sugar. Cars were operated on leaded fuel. The lead dust was blown into the environment. Water pipes were made of lead as well, but this was regarded relatively uncritically.

Plants were fertilized with excrement. It's well known that it can be toxic. EHEC sends its regards.

Since no insecticides existed, every household was plagued with insects such as cockroaches and the like. Windows had no glass – only the upper class had glass windows. The English word “window” comes from the word “wind-eye”. It was for ventilation purposes so that you didn’t die of carbon monoxide poisoning when heating your quarters. As mentioned before, Immanuel Kant was also plagued by vermin in his study and certainly in bed as well. It would be interesting to know how many people suffered from arachnophobia, i.e. a fear of spiders. I almost wrote “arachidophobia”. No: Peanuts were unknown in Europe.

To stay with the subject: The old railroad trains used to be pulled by beautiful steam engines. The ride used to be quite ramontic – excuse me, I meant “romantic”. Apart from the fact that many stokers in locomotives went stupid because they suffered from continuous carbon monoxide poisoning (tunnels...). In December 1952, 12,000 people had died from the smog in London.

Romantic relationships were uncommon in earlier centuries. “Romantic love” was promoted in poetry, by the theater and the media. Marriage was for convenience and only had to do with “love” in exceptional cases. Children were needed to feed you in old age.

Five droughts were recorded in Germany around the year 1240, similar to that in 2019. This is evidenced by “Hungersteine” (“hunger stones”) that served as famine memorials in rivers, which had showed up again for the first time in 2019. There were no trucks and no water pipes. Thousands starved to death. First, the old people were left to starve and then the children. Survivors were marked for life.

In contrast, about 1600 people had experienced a cold period. The sun was at its “Maunder Minimum”, as sunspots had become extremely rare. The result was the Thirty Years’ War. This war may have triggered by the Defenestration of Prague and different political and religious objectives within and outside the territory of the Reich at that time, but the cause was certainly the migration of people as well, which was triggered by the cold temperatures. As a result of the effects of the war and the associated epidemics, famines and rabid wolves, the population was so decimated that no one believed in a possible recovery.

The Holy Roman Empire had no bathing facilities. In the Middle Ages, communal bathing establishments did exist in urban areas, but these were closed again for moral and hygienic reasons. Even in baroque castles you had to search a long time to find any bathing facilities. These were the high times for Europe’s perfume makers. The ordinary citizen in town or out in the countryside had to resort to the wooden tub. Travelers to Italy were not welcome there because of their body odor. Showers had not been invented yet.

When the farmer and his wife went to church, they came from the fields and often had to march to church for hours. That’s why the churches stank. Pastors often burned incense as a remedy. The social elite could already afford a lot at that time. Incidentally, the Native Americans employed the same method after the Spanish sailors had invaded America and brought their deadly diseases with them.

As far as the economy was concerned, most people worked in the fields or raised livestock. One farmer was able to sustain about five people. There was no social security and there were no kindergartens.

Colicky kids (“Schreikinder”) existed even back then. While their parents worked in the fields, their kids had to be kept quiet. Probably some of them had to be tied up. Another method was common as well: a pacifier trenched in beer or poppy extracts/opium was put in the mouths of children – lethal, but highly effective and certainly “organic”, even by today’s standards.

As far as education was concerned, compulsory schooling was introduced at the beginning of the 19th century. Learning meant multi-class, teacher-centered teaching. The cane was the means of choice when teaching discipline and the curriculum to students. This was the “pedagogy” of the time.

Until the introduction of forensics through genetic fingerprinting (DNA detection) a few years ago, it was not possible to convict many criminals, especially sex offenders.

Now to our terrible present time and its “plastic waste”.

The Terrible New Times

Regulations and rules can be found wherever you look. Only rules, standards and guidelines abound. It starts with vehicles, where “dual-circuit braking systems” have become mandatory. Even bicycles require two brakes. If you happen to question whether or not to allow those new electric scooters on the road and where and how – you’ll certainly be slapped with an anti-innovation tag!

Only officially permitted seeds are allowed to be grown, too. Vacuum cleaners as well are subject to an EU regulation that they mustn’t consume more than 900 W of power. The new EU regulations on factory farming define exactly everything when it comes to new barns, even the minimum amount of light required. Statics must be created for every house. The electrical system must be installed by an electrician. You aren’t allowed to do it yourself. Smoke detectors must be installed in every house. A mechanism is required for a window to open whenever a kitchen hood is operated together with a chimney. Cucumbers are normed according to their curvature and length. Carrots, too. Acrylamide is prohibited – very dangerous!

Tons of plastic are floating in the ocean. That’s why plastic straws and plastic bags have been banned (no joke). Cars have become more confusing to operate than ever before. Nicotine is toxic. Of course, nuclear power plants have been banned to avoid their nuclear waste. Now high-voltage lines are to be erected again, but these weren’t necessary in the past. Wind power plants are just standing around and blocking the view. They’re killing the birds, bats and insects. We have HIV. We have to get vaccinated for many more diseases than in the past. Car companies are constantly cheating on their fuel consumption figures. By the way: How come you don’t use “real” tires? The wicked automobile lobby’s to blame!

Everything everywhere is toxic. Roundup, nicotinamide, everything. Away with it all! To compensate, just blow your dog’s excrement around with your leaf blower. Dangerous when that stuff gets into your lungs as dust.

Everything is being genetically manipulated. Laundry detergents, dish washing detergents and basically everything else. Bioplastics are, of course, only possible thanks to that wicked genetic manipulation.

Trees are allowed to grow “naturally”, even grafted ones. Man must interfere with everything. Every farmer nowadays sustains far more than 100 people. This must be stopped! The best way to do this is with three-field farming. It's being taught in school again these days that this is best way to do it.

In the past fifteen years, bedlam has become commonplace in the classroom. The cane may have become extinct, but now some teachers only dare to enter their classroom with their cell phones in order to avoid being beaten up. There’s a shortage of teachers and suitable classrooms as the population had grown again. 700(!) teachers have resigned in Germany in Berlin in 2021, especially in natural sciences and math. The introduction of digital media has become an attempt to remedy these deficits, i.e. no discipline and incoherent teaching content. However, this has lead to a syllabus overload.

All you see is gridlock. The train’s never on time, too. The Hamburg opera house now officially costs € 850 million instead of the initially projected €77 million. The Berlin Brandenburg airport should already have been completed by 2011 and finalized in 2020 (for a standard flight traffic already too small). Train station “Stuttgart 21” has become a financial disaster. The military projects NH90, A400M and the Eurofighter were completed more than ten years too late. Actually, there’s no project in the recent past that hasn’t already experienced delays like this. Anti-nuclear protests and climate protests abound wherever you look.

And you have to get vaccinated and take stupid drugs. All stupid coertions! Homeopathy is much better!

At school you have to deal with physics and mathematics. The law of conservation of energy – for what purpose? Statistics – what nonsense!

Fashion – Perfecting the Body

In the past, food was used to get calories (or joules) into your body. Today, people chase an aesthetic ideal by avoiding calories. In ancient Rome, slender was by no means the aesthetic ideal. Obesity was probably the fashion. Prosperity was seen in “love handles”. Having a “noble pallor” was the fashion two hundred years ago, as this indicated that you didn’t have to work in the fields. Later, the tan became fashionable because it demonstrated that you could afford a vacation in the sunny south.

The latter, or “toasting” yourself in the sun, had been taken to such an extreme that skin cancer had become the inevitable result. A noble pallor had, in contrast, presumably resulted in a vitamin D deficiency.

Fashion is something that would most certainly ruin

your health whatever the time you lived in.

It’s the ideal that changes over time.

Delusional Causes

In order to be able to evaluate these kinds of systems like modern agriculture, which has undergone a centuries-long optimization process, you have to evaluate them and, to do so, understand the approach taken. As already mentioned, systems are becoming more and more complex. Since you don’t have any real chance to evaluate them without studying them in depth, you look to stay on the “safe side”.

This is because systems that aren’t understood trigger fears.

In order to avoid fear, you believe in being able to solve the various conflicting goals this way. The fact that even the (supposedly) safe side almost always involves negative repercussions can’t really be determined since you would have understood the system in order to be able to do so.

You’re thus caught in a typical dilemma.

Religions of the Modern World

The saying goes: “Man’s calamity is God’s opportunity.” As things are going downhill in Europe, and the “normal” religions are losing members, a new faith is finding more and more followers: Faith in the ideal per se: Nothing must include toxins, plastic, nuclear waste, and CO2. Let’s examine the reality, starting with plastic (waste), moving on to environmental pesticides and then by examining energy and mobility.

Plastic Waste

Plastics have been around for about 100 years. That’s not quite correct because natural plastics have already been produced in the past. Cheese is actually a plastic as well. However, the triumphal march of plastic commenced when it could be synthesized from oil.

In early 2018, one press release shocked Germany: “The Chinese are no longer taking our plastic waste!” What nerve! By now it’s probably being incinerated on garbage dumps in Africa or Bulgaria without a toxin filter. Out of sight, out of mind.

With press releases like these, people wonder why the waste is there in the first place and how it got there. In Germany, you have to pay money into the “Dual System” (called the “Green Dot”) in order to recycle any used packaging materials. This system has nothing better to do than ship this stuff, which an environmentally conscious person has already neatly sorted into the “yellow bag”, to China with a lot of effort and energy. No outcry here – not even from the Greens. In circumstances like these, you realize that the psychologist Manfred Lütz intended the title of his book “The New Crazy – Why We’ve Been Treating the Wrong Ones” exactly as he wrote it.

Many press reports chronicle the pollution of the world’s oceans with plastic waste and the wretched way it kills the animals that inhabit these. Of course, without examining the causes, a German immediately feels compelled to come up with ideas on how to reduce this kind of waste. An alternative solution? No idea. Anyone who has ever stepped on a piece of glass in the ocean or by a lake and almost amputated his or her little toe in the process will realize that sometimes glass is not the end-all solution.

Soy Plastics

In the past, plastic was made from plants. Car bodies were made from soy plastic, paints from soy oil. Soy was used as green manure – until the petroleum came. The toxic soy plant was first “fed” to pigs and then to the health-conscious European. You can find out more about this in chapter “Superfoods”. Since then, everything has been made from petroleum: Plastic racing car bodies, synthetic resin paints, plastics themselves and a whole host of other things.

Now plastics are supposed to be recycled. The magic word here is “sort-clean separation”. This may sound great, but it’s technically or physically difficult. Compare it to separating metals: Steel weighs three times as much as aluminum, is magnetic, in contrast to aluminum, and has a different melting point, which makes it easy to sort. All plastics are non-magnetic, have the same weight per volume (called “specific weight”) and sometimes don’t melt at all. So, you have to sort them by hand.

A particularly bad thing is that the specific weight of plastic is similar to that of water. It neither swims on the surface nor sinks to the bottom, but floats in water, harming marine life.

People get absurd ideas when it comes to recycling plastics: For example, some people wanted to add plastics to cement bricks in order to improve their thermal insulation properties. Even then you get the feeling: Just get rid of the stuff! This is even counterproductive since plastic has a property called “creep”. Plastic yields under continuous pressure. These houses will sink 2 inches after twenty years when you put too much plastic into the bricks.

When an engineer has to design something from recycled plastic, his hair will inevitably turn gray because the product’s manufacturer must guarantee its quality. To do this, the designer must be able to rely on its material properties. But if the plastic can’t be properly sorted, then these material properties will be fraught with uncertainties. Therefore, too much material is used so that the component won’t break, thereby destroying the world of the person who admired the thought of how great recycling plastic is.

That’s why recycled plastics are usually used to make kitchen chopping boards or similar products where the strength of the material is virtually irrelevant.

Over 95% of all packaging plastics produced in Germany are recycled, making Germany the world champion of recycling. That’s a good thing. However, why plastic should be banned on the grounds that marine animals are dying from it, the causality, i.e. the causation of this reasoning, isn’t given.

Plastic nanoparticles have been discovered now. This sounds dangerous: Nano. Nobody really knows what to make of it, and it can be used to stir up fear. ”Nano” means 10-9 meters or 10-6 mm, i.e. 1/1,000,000 mm. These small plastic particles are hydrocarbons, which means they’re made up of carbon and hydrogen and maybe a little oxygen. Plastic decomposes at some point to produce particles of this size. Every plastic entirely decomposes in the long run, but nanoparticles decompose particularly rapidly because their surface area is especially large in relation to their volume. In mathematics this is called the “area rule” (Glossary). They’re not toxic. Furthermore, bacteria that feed on plastics have been discovered, and the larger the surface area, the faster these can decompose the plastic.

If it were arsenic, mercury, lead or chlorine compounds, you may understand the concern. Of course, you can find (politically correct) scientific articles ad hoc on the Internet demonstrating that fish are being harmed from nanoparticles deliberately being added to water [42]. However, how much nanoplastic is in seawater couldn’t be found anywhere on the Internet. Normally, you check whether a problem exists in the first place. More about the nature and aim of this kind of an approach later.

Fig. 1 A typical street scene in India (author’s picture)

How does the plastic find its way into the ocean? India, for example, has regions that have not been developed for tourism. Every square meter of land can count one shred of plastic. A photo of a normal street scene in India (2011) is shown above. These plastic shreds are seen flying around everywhere because no garbage has been collected for a long time. The plastic is blown into the ocean and ends up in the stomach of animals. So, before creating a fuss in Germany, you should ask if you can give India a helping hand when it comes to disposing waste.9

But when the German “Green Dot” ships its plastic waste to Asia it looks strange when the German government pledges its support in finding the most clever way to dispose of the plastic waste of other countries.

After almost a decade spent on “bombarding” the population with images of suffering and dying marine animals, publications appeared in 2019 analyzing the composition of this waste.10 The majority of plastic floating around is fishing equipment, such as nets and the like. The origin of this waste was analyzed as well: Everything, in fact, is Asian. For a long time, Asia didn’t know how to dispose of its waste. Thus there’s little to no sensitivity to this problem among Asia’s human population. German politics is therefore able to solve non-existent problems in a media-effective way because the disposal of packaging materials is regulated very well in Germany.

Pseudo-Solutions

The envelope next to me is advertising donations. It’s filled with various “items” made from plastic – factually plastic waste. The following is written on the envelope: “A nice gift set with ballpoint pen in a practical gift bag is enclosed with this letter.” Above it reads: “I appreciate the extraordinary commitment from the many volunteers of the DLRG. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President of Germany and patron of the DLRG (German Lifeguard Association)”.

The main point is that the German parliament banned plastic straws and bags by law. This is a classical example of the expediency of German politics. These “pseudo solutions” (electric scooters, plastic straws) do not contribute anything to the real solution of the problem and even hinder this by pretending to be solutions that they’re not.

It seems to be important to act in a media-effective way without the marine animals having anything to gain from it. Officially, however, one is working for the “welfare of animals”, of course.

Burning (Plastic) Materials

Burning plastic is like a red flag to environmentalists, something like blasphemy. Hence, everything has to be recycled – an energy-intensive process because you have to invest energy in order to recycle plastic. When it comes to expensive carbon-reinforced plastics, however, it may make sense to reuse these kinds of fibers. Otherwise, plastic is itself energy because it’s solely made up of hydrocarbons and, hence, solely of petroleum.

Combustion is an issue that we will examine later in terms of “energy” and the “energy supply”. When being “burned”, as we call it in colloquial German, plastics produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) and burn atmospheric oxygen. By-products, such as hydrochloric acid, or other products, such as nitrogen oxides, can be created. Hydrochloric acid can only be created when the plastic contains chlorine, for example in the case of PVC or polyvinyl chloride. Nowadays, a whole host of waste gas filters is placed on top of each chimney of the waste incineration plant. This has been the case for the past thirty years. Of course, pollutants can be detected in exhaust gases. No argument there. Everything can be detected with today’s measuring methods. If you were to examine the exhaust gases that any normal person exhales, you would probably have to shut these all down. It’s harmful to the environment, which is a real problem in cemeteries because corpses are hazardous waste, especially after a cancer therapy or with amalgam fillings.

Plastic has about half the calorific value of coal and petroleum per kilogram weight. About half of the energy can be produced during combustion. The carbon dioxide it emits is probably better since plastic has a higher proportion of hydrogen and thus not produce that much carbon dioxide during combustion. Instead, more water is released per energy produced. In chemistry lessons, the keyword here is the “stoichiometric ratio”. By the way, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well. This is often glossed over because it doesn’t fit neatly into any pro-green argument.

Naturally, waste incineration plants emit pollutants. Naturally, not everything has to be burned. But recycling everything and shipping it abroad doesn’t seem to make much sense either.

Everything overdone is no good.

Consequences

Waste that can’t be recycled is transported abroad using a lot of energy to be recycled there. That’s how people in Germany live according to the principle: “O Holy St. Florian, please spare my house, set fire to another one.” What’s so abstruse about the entire situation is that Germany has almost perfect control over its waste separation: Used paper and plastic packaging are sorted. Residual waste, such as kitchen waste, vacuum cleaner contents and similar waste combusts poorly. As a result, the last plastic waste is shipped to third world countries in order to be sorted there. Petroleum or other substances must be used in German waste incineration plants to increase waste combustibility. Single-variety plastics not used for packaging, such as old plastic buckets, end up as residual waste.

“Side Effects”

I once witnessed where I used to live how five containers of plastic waste were transported by truck to the Czech Republic. Why was this done?

Plastic packaging material is a relatively good fuel. Yet burning these is prohibited. The enterprising politician gets paid to dispose of the plastic by driving it to the Czech Republic using diesel fuel, thus increasing overall traffic congestion, and then burning it there in order to produce energy. Yet the politician in the Czech Republic gets to enjoy another salary.

Something like this is still relatively simple, contributing at least to a three-digit million Euro deficit for Germany every year, all the while making Germany look ridiculous to its neighbors, who aren’t that stupid either. Yet Germans are convinced that only they know the golden path. Now to something more complex.

Our Luxury Problem: Food and Toxin

Nothing can illustrate the tendency towards “self-optimization” better than the perennial subject of nutrition and toxins. This gets really complex now since both are closely intertwined.

The philosopher, physician and theologian Manfred Lütz points out in the introduction of his book “Lebenslust” (Lust for Life) that this is both a religious and a political topic, and satirical reality as well.

How susceptible nutrition is to Voodoo reporting can be demonstrated with the subject “margarine”. A study was published over fifty years ago that warned of the dangers of cholesterol. The company Procter&Gamble, was advertising margarine since butter and the cholesterol contained therein were regarded as bad for the heart. This “insight” was based on a single study. This resulted in “mountains of butter” in Germany, which had preoccupied the media for months on end. So much butter was not eaten that it was given away to East Germany. East Germany then sold it back to West Germany to obtain foreign currency.

The problem was that the study had been rigged: Twenty-two countries were examined, but the results from only seven countries, which produced “correct” results, were published (it was even called “The Seven Countries Study”). The author, Ancel Keys, had admitted in a 1997 interview that there had never been a connection between dietary cholesterol and cholesterol associated with heart disease.

One single fake study had caused billions of Deutschmarks in damage and only because people wanted to “believe” things and cared about their health. Strangely enough, no one has come up with the idea that the situation could be the same today, just concerning other matters. This behavior can, I think, be called “naive”.

Coincidentally, forty years ago I had personally attended a lecture by a nutritionist who was already complaining about the margarine hype and who preferred butter. He demonstrated how unnatural the production process of margarine can be. It was thus known. Facts were already being ignored back on those days. Furthermore, the expert warned against the traces of catalysts present as heavy metals in cheap margarine as a residue from the manufacturing process.

But “health pills” or pills that make you feel better have always existed, even 200 years ago. These couldn’t have been vitamin pills because vitamins weren’t known yet, but were heavy metals. Yes, in low doses, but heavy metals nevertheless. These are toxic.

Why were these pills sold as “health pills”? People at the time had suffered from “uninvited guests” like tapeworms, and they didn’t like heavy metals. The parasites departed. Humans can partially excrete heavy metals through their sweat. What’s more, they have an antibiotic effect, but are toxic at too high a dosage. Two-hundred years ago, many great minds like Beethoven died from heavy metal poisoning: Wine was sweetened with lead sugar, and arsenic sulphur was used.

Understanding the above logic with the “health pills”, which is incomprehensible from today’s point of view, is necessary in order to understand the relativity of “a healthy diet”, which therefore doesn’t exist.

Rice Wafers

In 2015, rice wafers came under fire as they were shown to contain arsenic. Apparently, the process of expanding the rice makes the heavy metal bioavailable. The rice came from China. Rice wafers: Those are those round things that come in a stack of about fifteen pieces with a diameter of about 10 centimeters (4 inches). It’s a popular food for babies or toddlers. By the way, they taste just how I imagine cardboard tastes.

Even venereal diseases used to be combated with drugs containing heavy metals. Their antibiotic effect was used for this purpose. The drug was called “Salvarsan”. That was less than 100 years ago. Of course, people died during this therapy; many thousands more than what we would call a “side effect” today. Penicillin is used these days. Penicillin is, by the way, a mycotoxin or mold-poison.

Whether heavy metal usage is still commonplace in China or whether the metal in rice wafers occurs naturally is something I can’t judge. However, this is of no importance.

Conversely, when we examine the nematodes in fish it’s exciting to see how people can mutate into “thrill seekers”. You eat raw fish (Sushi) and then complain about fish tapeworms. Since you want to be hip, you are willing to take that risk. Normal people cook meals. This shows that today’s diet has nothing to do with “common sense”.

The highlight are “black smoothies”, which contains finely dispersed activated carbon. The inherent “logic” is obviously (?) derived from activated charcoal tablets, which bind toxins in acute cases of poisoning. How these activated carbons want to “know” which substances are toxins and which are nutrients is a mystery. Apparently, drinkers of this kind of smoothie apparently attribute more intelligence to them than to themselves.

Smoothies are a “modern” food. Bacteria live on every plant and on

every fruit. This isn’t bad because they protect themselves with their cell walls. Leaves often have a layer of wax, making it very hard for bacteria to penetrate. When you put everything into a mixer, the cell walls will break up allowing the bacteria to multiply quickly because the surface that these bacteria can attack has increased one thousandfold (again, the area rule applies here; math is the same everywhere). To keep the temperature low, you add ice because 10° Celsius (50° F) more will double their growth rate. In the middle of summer, a smoothie is thus a proven way to get food poisoning if you let it sit for a longer period.

Toxins in Food

Somehow, toxins are being continuously detected in food these days. Surely we can do without them, can’t we?

One thing is clear: Pests and fungi propagate better in monocultures than in the wild. That’s statistics – the distance to the next identical plant is shorter. What’s more, they have to reproduce in a reliable way. To do this, they have to make sure that their seeds ripen. Conversely, if they do not have this mechanism, these plants wouldn’t exist. The astronomer Harald Lesch says: “One shouldn’t be surprised that cat fur has holes where the eyes are”.

Plants have “built-in” mechanisms that prevent animals from eating their fruit prematurely. Some fruits have hard peels. Apples have a peel with a wax layer.11 Most, however, contain toxins, so-called “stomach poisons”.

Humans invented several methods to render these poisons harmless: e.g. when making sourdough, poisons are rendered harmless by bacteria. But the most important thing is: to cook them!12 Humans are clever, too: When cooking beans, the housewife pours away the soaking water. This gets rid of some of the poisons. She knows that beans are quite toxic.

Another part of these poisons is rendered harmless by cooking them. In the course of evolution, humans have accustomed themselves to the remaining poisons.

Of course, different peoples tolerate different amounts of poison. Some people aren’t poisoned by raw beans. They need to have a genetic defect to do this, and they eat this type of bean to prevent tropical diseases. There are people who die from these beans as well. Perhaps they would have died much earlier from the tropical disease. This is a pure optimization process that selects the least evil.

Then humans began to cultivate plants. They did this to increase the yield, but also to reduce the poisons inherent in the plants that prevent them from being eaten. This protection was then acquired by humans. People know that the bitter tips of cucumbers should be cut off. The same is true for zucchini. Bitter areas show that they’re toxic: A German amateur gardener accidentally killed himself a few years ago on his own home-grown zucchini: His wife had refused to eat the bitter soup and survived. That’s why regulations exist for the seeds. If toxic varieties are created, things can end up badly, as the amateur gardener demonstrated in his self-experiment. The case was reported by the press. Unfortunately, not on what something like this implies and what it means to our modern system.

Humans perceive the taste as “bitter” or unpleasant precisely because evolution has arranged things in such a way that humans can survive life’s struggle against poisons. If humans were to perceive poisons as sweet, then they would’ve died out long ago. Basically, no animal would ever think to say: “I'm going to eat this now because it tastes particularly nasty so I can get healthy.” Animals are smarter than humans.

Which isn’t to say that the system can overregulate itself sometimes. Experts and the people who write the rules also pretend to be on the safe side because they know what happens when you don’t write the provisiions correctly. I refer to the poisonous zucchini.

Now there is a perception that poisons, like the ones used by farmers, are bad and you have to do away with them entirely. How are plants supposed to “defend” themselves against predators? This is especially impossible because the stomach poisons have been bred out of them. Seen this way, insecticides and pesticides are necessary. By using modern technology, i.e. weather forecasting or other methods, it’s possible to minimize the use of poisons. Plants don’t have this option; they have to carry the poisons permanently with them because they don’t have a built-in weather forecasting computer.

It takes on religious traits when people want to use “natural poisons only”. They think that “naturally” extracted poisons are more harmless than the same poisons made from petroleum.

This is when you notice that the line of causality has been abandoned and that demons and gods have found their way back into modernity – post factually. Giordano Bruno probably would’ve never imagined, 420 years after being burned at the stake, that he would’ve been burned the same way by some people in order for them to practice their religion.

This nonsense becomes damaging to society when these same people get at each other’s throats: Normal people argue based on the current state of science and technology (which can change, too, but only within the valid laws of nature). Others do so according to the state of their religious convictions. Each only wants to discredit the other. Both sides nearly act the same.

During the Crusades, people were burned, murdered and raped in the name of Christianity. This doesn’t mean that the other religions are any better; just as all religions will at some time or another have to come to an end. But, no – with ours, the one we’ve got now, something like this doesn’t happen of course.

Meaning and Abuse of Religious Views

Religions provide valuable information on how the coexistence of people in the respective culture can proceed without conflict, as is the case with the 10 Commandments, for example. Furthermore, they serve to ensure the survival of the religious group. However, they’re also subject to a certain evolution. Might makes right here, too.

When it comes to the abuse of religious views, the arrogance of people who believe in God over non-believers or people of other faiths is currently in the spotlight. This attitude is pronounced among fanatical believers. This leads to their alleged right to subjugate and physically destroy unbelievers and people of other faiths. All you need to do is recall the persecution of Christians in Africa by Muslim extremist groups, the expulsion of Muslim minorities by the Buddhist Burmese, the constant clashes between Buddhists, Hindus in India, and Islamists and Hindus in Pakistan. Last but not least, there’s the perpetual conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, which always claims a large number of lives – all in the name of Allah.

Individual groups of non-believers (atheists) are not sparing in their arrogant remarks about believers who don’t regard the life of man as limited to any earthly existence. Atheist-oriented leaders have proven to be hostile to religion. For example, Stalin persecuted Christians, and Christians had to endure substantial disadvantages in East Germany.

However, it’s particularly reprehensible to persuade people with promises of paradise to drag other people to their deaths as living weapons for the sake of faith.

Armed conflicts between the different Christian communities and the crusades against Islam in ancient Palestine are a thing of the past. Yet they’re threatening to erupt again in the Irish conflict in the course of the Brexit.

But the focus should be on the discussions between the spiritual leaders of the various religious communities and atheist groups in order to counteract the abuse of religious views and to promote interpersonal tolerance.

Organic – What’s That?

Organic – is in most cases nothing logical: First of all, you have to know that toxicity thresholds are in reality often set in a quasi arbitrary (!) manner. Sweden has high dioxin thresholds for Baltic fish. The dioxin content in the Baltic Sea is high. Organic chickens are contaminated more with dioxin than battery-caged chickens. But even this dosage can be completely neglected because nowadays everything can measured, even micro traces. These can always be found if you look hard enough.

Conversely, some people think that even the smallest amount of poison is harmful. A 2017 special issue of the German issue of “Spectrum of Science”, entitled “The Mysterious World of Poisons”, had questioned this: According to the current state of science, minimal amounts of poison have a positive effect. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that children who grow up with cats, dogs and horses have fewer allergies. Hydrogen sulfide has a healing effect. If you consume too much, it’ll be poisonous. So it’s not as simple as it seems. People have learned to live with poisons. Caffeine is the stomach poison of the coffee plant. It protects against intestinal cancer and has a mood-lifting effect.

It’s unscientific to claim the existence of “natural” and “unnatural” poisons: When the chemical formula is identical, the substance is too: The origin is irrelevant. The cultivated plants have to be sprayed with some kind of poison because the poisons that originally protected the plants against insects and fungi were “bred out” of them. So, they have to be applied externally (see also chapter “Grain, Corn and Organic Potatoes”).

That’s why prehistoric people ate much more meat because it doesn’t require stomach poisons. Most animals have other mechanisms to protect themselves from being eaten.

The advantage of organic products may be that poisons aren’t used as carelessly as in conventional cultivation. However, the disadvantage is that instead of spraying “artificial poisons”, things like copper are sprayed instead. This sounds more “natural” than “wicked chemistry”. In the long run, however, the soils will become enriched with the heavy metal copper. Metals are elements that, unlike hydrocarbons, i.e. modern poisons, can’t be broken down at all. Is this “idea” really that good?

A gastric and intestinal therapeutic agent is currently under attack. It contains celandine as its active ingredient. It’s a “natural” substance, but may, in some cases, lead to liver failure. This was known, but not mentioned on the package insert [43]. The Bayer company (producer of Roundup) probably wanted to sell it as a “natural medicine”.

You should beware of foods like stevia, soy or goji berry the next time you visit your local health food store. Their effects aren’t conclusive and humans have not had time to adapt to these substances during their evolution.

By the way, “Kamut”, a cereal that you can buy in any health food store, is a patented wheat. There’s nothing “primordial” about it because if grain were primordial it couldn’t be grown at all, as the yield would be so miserable that every organic farmer would be forced to file for bankruptcy. Organic knows marketing, too. But this does not mean that this grain is somehow “bad”.

Poison – What’s That?

The dose makes the poison. It’s a well-known saying. Dihydrogen monoxide can also be fatal, although the lethal dose isn’t recorded anywhere. It’s readily available and considered completely non-toxic. When ingested in quantities over seven cubic decimeters, however, it can be fatal. This is especially true if you avoid the simultaneous intake of supposedly harmful sodium and chlorine ions.

Too high? Dihydrogen monoxide is also called H2O or, colloquially, “water”. If you drink too much water, the salts are flushed out of it and you suffer from “hyponatremia”. “Hypo” means “too little”. “Hyponatremia” thus means “too little sodium”. In extreme cases, this causes water to be stored in your lungs or brain (“edema”) and can lead to death. In 2015, a man who only drank tap water died this way during a heat triathlon.

An acquaintance used to drink about five liters of fluid each day. She fell down regularly – for years. A new family doctor prohibited her from drinking it and she stopped falling down. Unfortunately, even older people are often told that they have to “drink a lot of fluids”. When they fall down, they often suffer a fracture of their femoral neck, which often has fatal consequences in old age, especially since their weaker hearts have a hard time coping with the amounts of water.

Many poisons (hormones are something else) can be easily broken down by the adult body at moderate amounts as long as the organ (e.g. the liver) that breaks down these toxins isn’t damaged. Former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt reached a very old age. I don’t want to know how many poisons he had absorbed in his lifetime from countinuous smoking. Cigarette smoke not only contains nicotine, but fine dust, tar and arsenic as well, not to mention nitrogen oxides. It’s therefore relatively difficult to poison smokers with arsenic because their bodies get used to it. These people are called “arsenic eaters”.

The raspberry is a rose plant. If you were to take a blender and examine it for poisons in the laboratory, its sale would be prohibited because it exceeds any poison thresholds [80]. Strange, isn’t it?

The subject of poisons is complex, both from a legislative and a chemical point of view. Actually, you need a chemistry degree to evaluate these. For example, the press wrote that glyphosate was discovered in milk and even in breast milk. An indignant outcry was the response. What I was told, however, was that’s there’s no way (i.e. no metabolism) that glyphosate can get into milk. The mistake, not to overexcite you, was in the detection method: it hadn’t detected glyphosate but its breakdown product, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid). AMPA is an industrial cleaning agent as well. AMPA was detected in micro traces and was thought to come from glyphosate. Milk contains phosphorus as well (by the way, it has more phosphorus than Coca Cola, which is allegedly poisonous from the E150 dye). Hence, a measuring error may have possibly been involved. The detection methods had to be developed first.

How do you arrive at AMPA?

Normally – not at all. This crazy logic is stunning when it comes to abdominal fat: For years, people theorized that the fat that you ingest is deposited directly into the body as abdominal fat. But when you eat something, it first passes through the digestive tract (stomach, intestine) where it’s broken down by enzymes, absorbed by the intestinal wall, then enters the blood to be finally stored as abdominal fat when the energy isn’t required. There’s no metabolism of how glyphosate gets into milk because it would have to float around in the blood and then get into the milk from the mammary glands.

Meanwhile, glyphosate can, as far as I know, be detected directly. Since then, nothing has been detected in milk. No press release corrects these false reports.

As a “normal person”, you have to trust the press releases, which do not report that you can end up in hospital after two glasses of goji berry juice. The “normal” name of the goji berry is “common wolfberry”. That’s a bad sell, like the kiwi. When it began its triumphal march from New Zealand forty years ago, my father exclaimed: “I know that one”, then checked his “Parey” horticultural dictionary and stated: “You see – it’s called a prickly fruit!” A kiwi is a bird. It’s certainly edible, too. But that wouldn’t be politically correct.

The “Poison” Glyphosate

The German press reports that Monsanto was convicted of using glyphosate in America. That’s incorrect: Monsanto was convicted because the company failed to warn the American public in time about the dangers of “Roundup”.

Roundup contains glyphosate as the herbicidal active ingredient. According to Wikipedia, the lethal dose in rats is up to > 5 g per kilogram body weight.13 An 80 kg (176 lb) man would have to consume 400 g (almost 1 lb) to kill himself. In order for glyphosate to be better absorbed by the plant, it needs a wetting agent. The wetting agent, tallowamine, which is only found in the original, American Roundup, has a lethal dose of about 0.9 g per kilogram of body weight. It’s thus about six times more toxic than glyphosate itself.

It’s obvious that excessive use doesn’t make sense because the weeds will become resistant as well, like penicillin. Since glyphosate has a slight antibiotic effect, any excessive use will destroy soil life as well. But this is probably the case with any fertilizer. Glyphosate is an alternative to plowing. This, in turn, is not optimal for soil life either. No system is without its disadvantages.

The German Railway uses tons of glyphosate to keep its tracks free of weeds. It’s the last approved highly effective herbicide. But a problem crops up even here: Applying glyphosate to sealed surfaces isn’t allowed. For example, it’s prohibited to apply glyphosate to paved cycling paths, which develop slits through which a lot of weeds can grow, especially on street corners, which become hazardous when it rains. This increases the risk of falls for cyclists who are on the road in an eco-friendly manner. In track beds, however, glyphosate is only sprayed on the stones. The ban on applying glyphosate to sealed surfaces doesn’t apply here.

The opponents of glyphosate don’t ask what to use instead when it’s prohibited. Since about 2010, when the Monsanto patents expired, it had “become” a poison. In mid-2017, it was discovered that the Deutsche Bahn is its biggest single customer in Germany. On South Tyrolean cycle paths, the agent is used to suppress Mexican grass that destroys the asphalt surface. The choice here is between using glyphosate and re-asphalting the paths every fifteen or eight years – without glyphosate. German vacationers can be seen taking pictures of the apple orchards there. Often, no green stems can be found under these trees. It’s all sprayed away with glyphosate.

Glyphosate hasn’t killed a single person yet in Germany; the risk of cancer is theorized here without one single piece of evidence, although many other substances are considered “probably carcinogenic” as well, and hundreds of people had died from the insecticide E605 in the past.

Psychological Tricks and Manipulations

The following is an example of the methods being currently applied. Science is being misused since valid scientific results are mixed with opinions and psychological tricks. This can be seen in the case of the environmental protection association “Bund e.V.” when it discusses the subject “glyphosate” a.k.a. “Roundup”. The difference isn’t quite clear, which is probably intentional.

The Bund e.V. writes (April 2019):

»What is glyphosate? Glyphosate is the world’s best-selling weed killer and a so-called “total herbicide”. It kills any plant that has not been genetically engineered to survive its use as a herbicide.«

That’s not correct: plants do exist that are not genetically manipulated and don’t react to it.

»Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Germany and the world; it is used on 40 percent of Germany’s arable land.«

That’s correct. But the argument implies that only farmers use this herbicide. It fails to mention that others like Deutsche Bahn is using it to keep the tracks clear.

The statement that glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide has “wicked industry” undertones. Since glyphosate is the last cheap herbicide ever approved, it should come as no surprise that it’s the most widely used. The passage implies that real alternatives are available, which isn’t correct.

»70 percent of Germans are in favor of a ban on glyphosate. It can be detected in the urine of over 70 percent of Germans.«

Prevailing opinion is of no relevance whatsoever for the evaluation. In a technically oriented society, decisions must be based on facts that represent the best compromise. The argument that 70% of all Germans would be against glyphosate is therefore a pseudo-argument. Glyphosate has not been detectable for a long time, only its degradation product AMPA. It’s a cleaner as well, and a drug against osteoporosis. False reports are thus disseminated in order to argue with public opinion.

Urine is relatively rich in phosphorus. The first synthesis of phosphorus took place with urine when alchemists wanted to produce gold. They discovered the element phosphorus. In AMPA, the “P” stands for phosphorus. This indicates that something incorrect may have been measured here since micro traces of a simple phosphorus compound are supposed to have been detected in urine with its inherently high phosphorus content.

»The German authorities lack the necessary critical distance to the pesticide manufacturers.«

The line of argument against glyphosate was duly explained. It starts with “...it kills every plant that hasn’t been genetically engineered to resist it...”, which is incorrect. Anyone who sprays a cactus can test this. Exactly these people are accusing the German authorities of “failing to maintain a critical distance to the manufacturers”. Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.

»Scientists regard the negative influence on the fertility of people who come into active or passive contact with the glyphosate-containing pesticide “Roundup” as conceivable.«

Which remedy do you mean: Roundup or glyphosate? American Roundup contains relatively toxic tallow amine, the European variety does not. Everything is used interchangeably.

At the same time, glyphosate “mutates” into a contact poison. What’s more: What kind of “scientist” does Bund. e.V. mean? Even a social scientist may think something like this is possible.

»Even the smallest amounts of a harmful substance can cause great damage; especially substances that have an influence on the endocrine system«

Correct: The endocrine system is at risk. This is especially true for children because they’re particularly at risk for everything.

1 Why doesn’t the federal government take action against soy products containing hormones? Causalities can be proven here: Zoos had problems with their offspring until they stopped using soy.

2 The sentence is kept general and the statement is correct. Since glyphosate was previously reported on, the reader is supposed to conclude that glyphosate is an endocrine poison, but this isn’t the case. Manipulations like this are analyzed later in the book (see “Manipulation Instruments of a Democracy” et seq.).

Correct: As with conspiracy theories (see “Conspiracy Theories and Their Parallels”), a large part of these arguments are fear-mongering in order to stop the proper function of the brain.

In a similar vein, the Environmental Institute Munich e.V. writes (14/05/2019) on a social networking site:

»Glyphosate: Next defeat for Bayer-Monsanto

Bayer-Monsanto must pay more than $2 billion in damages to a married couple suffering from cancer who had used the glyphosate-containing agricultural poison Roundup for decades. This is already the third judgment in which a US court established a direct connection between the use of Roundup and cancer of the plaintiffs.

Another 13,400 or so similar lawsuits are still pending in the USA. In Germany, meanwhile, glyphosate is still allowed to continue to be used in agriculture and private gardens.«

Again, “glyphosate” and “Roundup” are used synonymous. Whether an American judgment is comparable to a European judgment cannot be determined a priori because the legal systems are different.

On the subject “(Anti-) Glyphosate Lobby”, see also “Lobby vs. Lobby”

DDT – Modern Colonialism Included

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is an insect poison that was banned around 1950. The (correct) justification for the ban is that it accumulates in the tissues of humans and animals at the end of the food chain because of its chemical stability and good fat solubility. This was used by nurses (Red cross on the cap) around 1945 to spray children gram-wise with a pump (Wikipedia). Of course they exhibited symptoms of poisoning as well. If it had been highly poisonous, then those children who would have reacted particularly sensitively to poisons would have died.

DDT was used to make the Upper Rhine Trench mosquito-free. It was banned afterwards. The reprehensible thing is the way things are handled with self-evidence, thus bypassing reality: People in Africa suffer and die from malaria and other insect transmitted diseases. The evil of contracting malaria is much worse than any accumulation of the poison in their fatty tissue. This is similar to Germany 200 years ago when the intestine was cleaned of bugs using heavy metals: Heavy metals were a lesser evil.

The Good German Chlorine Chicken

The vegetables in France are chlorinated. In Germany, the Greens would immediately start climbing the barricades (“chlorine chicken”). Yet there’s no risk involved, especially since you already have hydrochloric acid in your stomach. You otherwise risk EHEC, for example. It can rear its ugly head again because countries are globally oriented and vegetables from abroad are allowed to be fertilized using fecal matter. Although it’s prohibited, it can’t be ruled out. The “chlorine chicken” was used to take a stand against TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

Humans can tolerate a lot of toxins since they used to sit in caves in prehistoric times and grill their food over a fire. Acrylamide was produced as a result. Charred food was certainly not thrown away. Those who couldn’t tolerate it can’t survive, are “de-Mendelized”. Say no more when it comes to the European Union’s new acrylamide law. So much for that law. Of course, one or two people out of one billion people won’t tolerate it, but that’s true for every substance (if you ignore the vital substances like water and table salt). It’s likely that someone can’t tolerate it: Where there are effects, there are side effects. The two can’t even be distinctly separated. Yet it seems to be life-prolonging for the rest. Any publications on it are ignored.

Gene Food

“Gene food” is a popular catchword these days as well. One of the first things that humans did was to cultivate things. Cultivation has three goals:

 to reproduce the foodstuffs,

 to increase their yield and

 to reduce the stomach poisons contained therein.

For thousands of years, the only approach used was “trial and error”. Mutations were sought and cultivated further. Contemporary Chinese planted their rice seeds next to the “hot core” of nuclear power plants in order to produce these mutations faster. They, too, failed in this attempt to create new rice varieties, which required too much water. This attempt was then canceled.

BeriBeri

When I was young, people were harangued by “BeriBeri”. Sick Chinese children who had allegedly contracted a vitamin deficiency disease were shown eating peeled rice. That’s why we were always told to eat “whole grains”. The explanation for the origin of the disease was incorrect: the rice that had triggered the disease was infected by fungi. It was thus a storage-related problem. Quality assurance was improved and the problem went away. This false report, too, was never corrected.

Intervention is selective. The fact that the risk would be higher than with conventional cultivation. Why’s that? Nonsense, too, can result from random experimentation.14 What the Americans are doing with their genetically modified corn is unacceptable in part because it provokes resistance to glyphosate. Anything that is overdone is no good. However, this does not speak against genetic manipulation per se. Genetic manipulation (CRISPR) allows to react much more quickly to changing conditions, for example when fungi or pests begin to multiply in an explosive manner.

Everything you do involves risk.

But the risk of not doing something is

never considered. That’s absurd.

What’s more, neither modern laundry detergents nor dish washing detergents are conceivable without genetic manipulation. Phosphates have largely been banned for environmental reasons. This is technical progress, especially since washing at lower and lower temperatures is desired for energy related and environmental reasons.

Dish washing detergent

The dish washing detergents used to wash dishes at low temperatures (it can be assumed that the same applies to laundry detergents) are not completely safe. These low temperatures can cause black molds, which are hazardous to health.

This is especially true since phosphorus will be one of the first elements to be “depleted”. This represents a high risk to mankind since it is needed as a fertilizer.

“Superfoods”

I already mentioned that superfoods like goji berries can be toxic in medium doses. These berries are mostly imported from China and are sometimes relatively highly contaminated with harmful substances. But this example is not the only one: soy, for example, is a high-quality fruit. It has high quality proteins and oils. To protect the fruit from predation, it contains highly effective toxins: these are thermally stable hormone toxins (normal cooking is of little use) that prevent predators from reproducing. Zoos therefore had problems with heir offspring for decades. Asian monks were given it in small quantities. The soy sauce alone, which isn’t drunk by the gallon and fermented for months at a time, had found its way into Chinese cuisine. It arrived in German healthy cuisine two decades ago. Children, by the way, are particularly sensitive to these kind of poisons.

Measuring and Detecting Poisons

There’s a simple reason why new toxins or poisons are always being discovered: their methods of detection have significantly improved. Today’s press releases that report on certain poisons found in food would never have been possible twenty years ago because the detection methods were simply lacking back then.

It could never have been proven that Cyclist Lance Armstrong had doped during his career. However, samples of his blood were frozen and were then unfrozen years later to reveal that he had doped himself with EPO (erythropoietin). He was consequently stripped of all of his Tour de France victories.

The measuring instruments required to determine the composition of vehicle exhaust gases used to be stationary devices. Because these were so large, measurements could only be made on a test bench. Measuring methods have since improved more and more as the measuring devices became smaller and smaller until it was possible to create these the size of a car trunk. That was the point when the deception by various automobile companies came to light.

Twenty years ago, the astronomer Harald Lesch said in an Alpha-Centauri video, that “gravitational waves” will be detected in 100 years. These waves represent 1/10 proton diameter (= 10-10 m) from the earth to the sun (150 million km = 1.5 × 1011 m). This is a wave with a distortion length of 1 to 1021 or 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 1 meters. Mr. Lesch misjudged this somewhat because it became possible to prove this five years ago.

A statement like “It was proven” says exactly nothing in general since these traces are most often micro traces. This becomes apparent whenever how much was detected is not mentioned. That this kind of information is lacking indicates that “manipulative forces” are at work here because the dose makes the poison.

By the way, the most important things for a long life expectancy are clean water and sanitary facilities.

Arguments…

One example of how facts are being ignored in order to be able to indulge in your own personal “faith” can be illustrated by the case of “Mals” in the Vinschgau Valley of South Tyrol, Italy. The situation demonstrates how far a post-factual worldview can go. Conflicts are provoked from all sides by all means. This may have happened in Italy, but Germany has become involved since then.

In the town of Mals on the Resia Pass, a referendum was held in which the citizens had decided no longer to use any pesticides. The local organic farmers had hitherto been forced to sell their produce conventionally as their produce had received too much insecticide from the “drift” (the toxins are blown onto neighboring properties). In the meantime, the “South Tyrolean War” is being fought out via the Munich Environmental Institute, which has been on the offensive against conventional farmers with its posters. Things have deteriorated to such an extent that the parties involved are spraying each other’s fruit trees with glyphosate.

Mals lies on the Resia Pass, where the wind blows relatively hard, which is why wind turbines were built there. This makes the area special. Furthermore, the pass is often used by cyclists who aren’t exactly thrilled about riding through toxic clouds. The argument made by the farmers who are aware of the spraying sequence is: “nothing toxic at all is being currently sprayed”. The response to demonstrate the absurdity of the arguments made by this side would have been: “Unfortunately, I don’t have a chem lab in my pocket to determine that”.

This was preceded by threats against the referendum’s initiators. After the ban passed, it was declared invalid and the spraying resumed. The situation is also such that the farmers must maintain several feet distance from the boundary of their property when spraying. In South Tyrol, however, farmland is so expensive that these regulations are being ignored.

Regardless how useful “organic” may be, it is still unacceptable for conventional farmers to dump the poison they don’t want onto the plants of organic farmers no matter how they do this, just as nobody really thinks about spraying their neighbor’s white car with red paint. The following year, these organic farmers used plastic sheeting to plant their plants. The apparent reason for this extreme measure was the drift.

The organic farmers claim “we’re the poor ones”, which they explain with the “drift”. They use this to justify the referendum because a considerable financial loss is involved when things are grown organically, but can’t be sold as such.

Now, it’s possible to admire the “spraying operations” of these farmers. The apple trees, usually the subject of the discussion, are about 2.5 meters (8 ft) high. But even those farmers who spray correctly in completely calm wind conditions (most of them) are forced to suffer from these spray mists, which can reach heights of 7 m (23 ft) and more. Hence, a technical problem is inevitably involved. Some farmers have even realized this themselves and deactivated the topmost nozzles (about 10 nozzles in a row from bottom to top).

The spraying equipment use a blower to generate an air stream that carries the spray mixture. This air stream, however, doesn’t only move to the side, but upwards as well. Hence, many are poorly designed. Even on the poster of the Munich Environmental Institute denouncing the “spraying” in South Tyrol, you can see this equipment spraying into the sky and that some technical defect must be involved.

The faulty design was documented. The construction could have been altered and the drift thus halted in order to settle the dispute between the conventional farmers and the organic farmers. I sent the report to all parties. The mayor of Mals and the Greens had received a copy as well. But the facts didn’t interest them: I received no response and no further inquiries. Obviously, the report ended up in the trash.

As a last resort, I contacted a “person of public interest” close to the organic farmers (who therefore considered himself an “intellectual”) by telephone. He explained that “his actual objective was to abolish unnatural poisons”.

But “unnatural” and “natural” poisons don’t exist because how these are produced is irrelevant. When the chemical formula is the same, so is the poison. Moreover, not all poisons found in nature have been discovered yet: Some time ago I read that a poison had been detected in mushrooms that had been used for a long time in the agricultural sector. Perhaps he had meant “naturally produced” poisons, but the same applies here, too: Why should these be more harmless than the poisons made from “unnatural raw materials” (petroleum)? Whichever way you see it: Assertions are made, which can then be taken ad hoc to absurdity.

This instance shows that it’s not a matter of eliminating defects or deescalation. Rather, you want to indulge in your own world view or post-factual world view as an “environmental religion”. Since you’ve established your own view of things as the only valid one, you want to impose it on others. But in a democratic society this cannot work out in the long run because a democratic society is based on mutual understanding and objective, factual, critical and, above all, tolerant discourse.

The German Greens acted in a similar manner regarding nitrate readings in water: measuring stations were installed directly under farmsteads on a slope in Poing, Bavaria. Extremely high nitrate concentrations are recorded at this measuring point. Not a single other measuring point exists within a 20 km (12 mile) radius. By the way, there is no European-wide standard on how these measuring points must look like. Furthermore, each country is free to decide how it evaluates the measured values statistically:

 One option is to add up all the measured values and thereby calculate the mean value.

 Another option is to incorporate the geographical distribution of the measuring points. This would give greater significance to the single measuring point in Poing, which has high measured values, since no other measuring points exist in the vicinity.

No method is “right” or “wrong”. However, the mean value can be influenced by the choice of positioning and evaluation of the measuring points.

However, the same laws valid throughout Europe are created on the basis of this non-standard evaluation. The only justification for this socially damaging nonsense can be to want to measure the highest possible pollution in order to justify taking action against “environmental pigs”, in this case the farmers, in order to be able to enact new laws. Since they consider themselves to be “such good people”, they think they have the right to argue with manipulated statistics.

Since everything is now only being played out from all sides on this level, Germany and the rest of Europe are in free fall. People will only wake up when everything is being properly regulated “according to your feeling”. But by then it’ll be too late as other countries govern based on the laws of physics or the natural sciences according to the current state of the art.

Everything else must fail.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.