III. A “Lancer Needs To Know” Priniple

Lan|zer(s) m. Sing./(Plu,) simple soldier or private

At the beginning of 2014, I had reached emotional ground zero. My long-standing relationship had broken down, which was a moderate catastrophe in itself. To top it off, hidden occult forces were threatening to drive the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Now that sounds extremely dramatic and, for most people, probably also downright wacky—potentially even “pathologically conspicuous.”

Nevertheless, if you want to understand how I came to such radical assessments, you can’t blame a single event for it. Instead, it was a complex process that occurred in waves or spurts. Fundamentally, this grim reality was due to a transformation of my consciousness. The world looked so chaotic because my being was in upheaval. The inside was always projecting itself into the outside world – that’s how I would psychologically break down my perception at the time today. Yet I had once been such a sensible and down-to-earth person. But certain key events had permanently destroyed my old solid worldview. Only where had it all started?

Indeed, there were always smaller or larger shocks in life that put my view of the world into perspective enormously. For example, there was the moment when I realized that Santa Claus was my mother in disguise. This deception might sound like a banality, but this disturbing revelation was, for my childlike consciousness, comparable to the realization that Osama Bin Laden was only a CIA puppet, which served the same scheme as the henchman in red.

This is the principle of conditioning and subtle steering through the pretense of an illusion. In my case, the figure of Santa Claus was more like a kind of spendthrift reward system. According to the motto, this is also a form of conditioning: If you are cooperative, you get something. Not so with my relatives! Their dramaturgical interpretation of Santa Claus resembled that of a terrorist prince and thus did much more justice to the al-Qaeda leader in question.
My cousin was terrorized by intra-family propaganda 12 months out of the year with the idea that a chubby torturer would get him at the end of the year. Santa Claus would initiate the Last Judgment to retaliate for all his accumulated transgressions in an orgy of rod strikes. This figure had godlike powers and saw everything! In case of serious misconduct, my uncle would sometimes let Santa’s face mask peek out from behind some corner, which would send my cousin into sheer panic. Ergo, it did not have to be necessarily (un)holy evening for the horror to strike. Therefore, terror level 3 was a common condition for cousin Mario for 12 months.

As usual, I do not want to judge whether this form of pedagogy was really sensible or morally justified. After all, my cousin has become a pretty good character. I am more interested in the patterns and mechanisms with which people bring other individuals under manipulative control. Specifically, I would like to explain the instrumentalization of mirages.

With the help of such illusions, individuals, as well as the entire human collective, are conditioned and consequently controlled by the authorities. I will discuss the terror prince with turban later, but its image is also pure fiction. These fantasies create an artificial fear, and the System can use dread to control people effectively.

Basically, in my opinion, it should be the case that we gain experience throughout our lives. This process includes recognizing patterns and programming that are used to manipulate us. However, it looks like the learning curve for the majority of people slopes flatter and flatter with age. In the end, it even seems to buckle rapidly. Individuals thus become incapable of overcoming their worn-out beliefs, and fictions retain its power. But this is not obligatory.

After the great childhood revelations, I already had a quite solidly established worldview. Nothing moved about it for a long time. I think I had a relatively “reasonable” idea of reality. However, when I entered basic military service in 1999, my flattened awareness curve was able to register the first new impulses.

I was still serving in the Bundeswehr from the end of the following year. After my basic military service, I was now stationed in Sarajevo as part of the SFOR contingent. I was a willing servant of the System because it knew my acute weakness: It lured me out of everyday life, and I had a thirst for adventure! Admittedly: The luxuriant payment had waved likewise. I was young and needed the money. To express it a little differently, and from today’s perspective, I would say that I was stupid enough to fall into the first best trap of the System.

The System had lulled me, and so I prostituted myself beyond regular military service. Similar to the first years in the career of a port hooker, it was a time when many naive notions went overboard. The most decisive episode took place in Mostar. My company was transferred to this part of Bosnia at that time because riots had broken out there.

There was only scanty information about what was going on in Mostar for the ordinary soldier. By “chance,” it happened that I became the driver of a major. This officer was the direct liaison between the French General Staff, which was in command in the sector around Mostar, and the German units. Since the major and I harmonized quite amicably, I got hold of information that generally never reached my military ranks. After all, I was only a plain lancer, as they called a lance corporal with 3 “fries” on his shoulder in internal Bundeswehr jargon.

The situation presented itself to me as follows: Mostar was dominated by ethnic Croats, but the city belonged to Bosnia. Since Croatia itself had suffered little from the war in the Balkans and tourism was booming again in 2001, the spiritual home and wealth for the majority of the inhabitants lay on the other side of the nearby border. No wonder many citizens would have liked to integrate their city into the neighboring country.

The people on the other side obviously felt the same way, which, according to the senior SFOR leadership, was catalyzed by ample financial support from Croatia. Accordingly, “radical separatist groups” that were causing turmoil in Mostar were receiving monetary contributions of unknown amounts and were thus endangering the peace. This situation brought the UN into play, drawing an unfavorable borderline from the Croatian perspective.

In the meantime, the UN had tracked down the groups of troublemakers and their accounts. In the summer of 2001, they were determined to turn off the money tap finally. All they had to do was walk right into Mostar’s central bank and end the spook.

Unfortunately, the “radicals” got wind of this, and – according to the SFOR leadership – these subversive elements ambushed the UN officials in the bank. Thus, they stopped any intervention in the accounts and immediately took the UN people hostage. That was the official narrative within the NATO forces. We were dealing with a bank robbery, so to speak, in which the UN’s most official bank robbers themselves became hostages of the robbed. It was, therefore, a morally tricky situation.

Many Mostar citizens surrounded the bank building to complicate the situation further, precluding any classic action by international law enforcement forces. The French units in the sector were overwhelmed by the case and called in reinforcements from other parts. This situation was the beginning of a confrontation that led to my company being drawn into this drama.

The following day, a massive convoy was assembled in Sarajevo to drive to Mostar in 4 hours. The aim was to settle the matter quickly, but this was not to happen that day. The deployment of this substantial military armada naturally did not go unnoticed. No sooner had we left the barracks in Sarajevo than the change in the situation was reported by sympathizers to Mostar. On the spot, the citizens reacted quasi with military logic. In front of the bank, the ring of demonstrators was reinforced accordingly.

Reports reaching us spoke of a tripling of the human shield. Among them were women and children. It was not possible to march through bluntly at a goose step.

In the end, we drove back to Sarajevo. This cat and mouse game continued for over a week. In the meantime, our cell phones were collected – on a volunteer basis – because outgoing calls, e.g., to families and friends whom we regularly informed about our situation, were intercepted and used against us.

At the time, I swallowed the story. With distance, I understandably see things in a more differentiated way.

Eventually, all the SFOR units involved hid in the mountains around Mostar to strike on a rainy night. It was highly uncomfortable, and there were devastating downpours, which were somewhat unusual for this region. The perfect time had come. Only a hardcore of demonstrators continued to brave the rain outside the bank. The civilian defense ring became increasingly thin, and there were hardly any women and children left on the ground.

The SFOR units struck. The desperate citizens of Mostar hastily tried to bring in new forces from outside, but it was too late! The trap had snapped shut. The German troops formed a ring around the city and in the immediate vicinity of the bank. The action was in line with what we were historically best at: We took the designated enemy by surprise, blitzkrieg style. The last remaining sympathizers were beaten up by Italian carabinieri.

It was the same tightly organized force that had impressively demonstrated its capabilities at the G-8 summit in Genoa only a short time earlier. The unit brought a delicate reputation with it from there. A young anti-globalization activist died in Italy right in front of running cameras. He was shot at close range with a Beretta 9mm in the head. This incident was supposedly a slip! The guys were considered the créme de la créme in the art of violent suppression of belligerent crowds. They were flown in, especially from Rome, for the operation.

Before the carabinieri could bludgeon their way to the bank entrance, the Germans had to cordon off the battlefield. German forces used barbed wire and warning shots to thwart any attempt by further demonstrators to advance to the scene from outside. There were isolated exchanges of fire with radical individuals. The operation as a whole, however, was highly surgical. Armed individuals or groups were scouted early by American Kiowa helicopters and “neutralized” by German snipers entrenched in the mountains around Mostar. As far as I could tell, everything was going as usual. Special forces eventually stormed the bank, and English troops removed extensive documentation from the building.

The curious thing about the whole story was that, except for the French general, no nationality could say with certainty what was going on as a whole regarding the evening described. Even the German major probably only knew about the outer ring. This part of the operation was no witchcraft. It was exclusively a matter of blocking various significant roads and defending them with the use of force. Even the major had no clue what was going on in the bank at that point. He knew the plan’s essential elements, but whether the operation was modified or how the procedure went in detail was virtually irrelevant to accomplishing his task.

Were there any dead or injured? What happened to the hostages, and what kind of stuff was taken out of the bank by the truckload? These details were irrelevant to the German troops.

There may have been an extensive “debriefing” with all the details days later, but by then, I was no longer the major’s driver, and whether he would have told me about it, I dare to doubt. I bet he never got any more information either.

De|brief|ing noun sing. final mission analysis

By sheer coincidence, I had temporarily arrived at a forward information point. Thus, I was allowed to experience how a major military operation is conducted at close quarters. The realization was sobering and fascinating at the same time. There was no factual information—no all-encompassing picture! Even the mission description before the military operation could have been completely fabricated.

At what point is a person a radical combatant to be eliminated? Is it possible that most citizens were quite plain individuals defending their libertarian rights? Of the thousands of military personnel involved, only a handful knew what was really going on. The rest of the troops focused only on their individual roles in the whole spectacle.

Others, more simple-minded, focused solely on their first official “kill” for the fatherland. Yes, this attitude was also not uncommon there. I often encountered the premise in the troops, the credo propagated downwards by higher ranks, that one does not have to think for oneself. A decent lancer has not to judge but only to act! Indeed, this mantra was softened by various courses on military law and the importance of the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, the clear message dominated that very own rules would always apply in case of emergency.

Despite all the tension and excitement, two profound realizations stuck. First, the deeper implications of the “Need To Know” principle were conveyed to me without knowing it. So, suppose anyone should wonder how serious crimes can be conceivable by states of law and military, or even covert false flag operations, without hundreds of internal witnesses and potential information leaks. In that case, all I can say is, “Need To Know Principle!”

No one asks outside their area what is going on. In the military, everyone knows that they only have to know what they are told. If it is not relevant to the task, the principle of secrecy always applies. Only a very few people ever see the big picture. These people, in turn, have been handpicked over a long period and indoctrinated to be absolutely loyal.

So if one seeks clarity about what is happening in complex covert operations in the world, one should hardly play with the hope that any soldiers will come forward with the truth, e.g., because feelings of guilt plague them. This is unlikely to happen because a clear image of the enemy is drummed into every unit of troops. It took a few years for me to begin to wonder whether the citizens of Mostar did not have a legitimate reason to rebel against the UN. It was only with slowly growing empathy that I realized that Mostar was perhaps a kind of Gallic village that bravely stood up to the superior power of the Roman Empire. Only the point of view was decisive.

The ultimate disappointment of possibly having acted on the side of the oppressors can be an unpleasant experience. The regular lancer does not usually ask himself these kinds of questions. On the other hand, I was often penetratingly conspicuous by unsoldierly behavior. One reason for this was my habit of questioning delicate matters. Another reason was the general military incompetence I displayed. Some former comrades can still tell illustrious stories, but that should not be the subject here. I tried to come to terms with authority somehow. However, there were 1 or 2 skills made me a necessary evil to my superiors. For example, only I could speak English fluently in my platoon.

Coming back to the quintessence of Bosnia: There was a second important insight from the operation in Mostar, which falls into the context of secrecy: Since the military structures hardly say a word about sensitive details, even in the internal sphere, not much is revealed to the outside world either. Thus, it is only logical that one cannot expect any press releases of substance. Therefore, only the third pillar of democracy remains – the press itself.
One has to imagine that I was highly fascinated by the size and violence of this military operation on the edge of Europe. I was sure that such an event would have to produce headlines everywhere, even if the invasion would not necessarily appear on page one of the Bild newspaper – a dim-witted read popular with lancers. Yes, I read it often.
Publications like the Bild newspaper suggest to me that no banality in the world, no matter how moronic, can happen without a raving reporter writing a report about it. That was so simple-minded of me, and my disappointment was correspondingly great. It shook my worldview permanently that these incidents in Mostar were not noticed by the media at all. In my reality, a massive demonstration of power was carried out. People died and were injured. Regardless of this, a whole city was messing with the System! Why was no one interested in this?

Naïve as I was, I always thought that a host of journalists would have to appear on the scene at any moment to bring up-close pictures of the showdown in Mostar. Total coverage was supposed to hit networks at any moment. Fiddlesticks! Nobody was there! When two Portuguese soldiers were shot, this resulted in an official press release, which was printed in some daily newspapers.

Against many expectations, there were no concrete details. Moreover, there were no pictures, and the press mentioned only the injuries. That was all my friends and relatives learned from the press, despite intensive research. There was no remark about hostages, and the article did not mention the bank either. The Internet was certainly not a mass medium back then as it is today, but there was nothing to be found there either – at least nothing concrete in the German language. Could this inadequate reporting be related to the fact that our phones had been collected? Did all the other nations involved do the same?

Was there an information embargo, and if so, how often does something like that happen? These are questions that had not yet been clarified for me.

None of my comrades let on. No one seemed to find the procedure or the circumstances strange. Why were there so many unanswered questions floating around in my head? Were they simply more detached than I was? The fact was, there was an all too atavistic spirit within the military. The philosophy seemed to claim that a professional does not ask questions.

Some apparent contradictions with my previous worldview became clear while I was still in the country of assignment. Other aspects needed more time to diffuse to the surface. A certain amount of peace and quiet was also needed to be able to reflect more accurately on what I had experienced. I did not have the necessary relaxation on-site – quite the opposite. The mission in Mostar was not even fully completed when we were immediately given a follow-up assignment.

I was dead-tired from the exertions of the last weeks and drove the Mercedes G-Class – called “Wolf” – only in semi-trance to a Bosnian army barracks near Mostar.

II: New beginning shortly before Armageddon

The realignment took place insidiously. I sat on the couch in the living room, as I often did. Only now I lived alone in the apartment. I clearly squatted there far too often in the last 12 months because the job situation had become increasingly precarious for the past year. My old employers from the alternative media scene went through hard times, and my efforts to shoot classic commercials for the mainstream came to nothing. The reasons were probably indirectly mine. I lacked the inner conviction for many topics that brought money, which I probably also radiated unconsciously during the acquisition process.

The fact was that even before the official separation from Amelie, my savings kept shrinking. Of course, the money also reduced any belief in becoming a responsible father, which at some point became the most important parameter of all for Amelie. Consequently, the pressure on the relationship, specifically me, also increased. This, in turn, had a fatal interaction with my career. It was an endless cycle of suffering, which killed any form of autonomy already in the bud. In early 2014, I was even forced to slave away in Barcelona, building trade fairs. It was a grind that reminded me too intensely of my time in the Bundeswehr, even in light of the casual environment.

Now that Amelie was gone, she didn’t put any more pressure on me. She temporarily let me have her condo and moved out. This grace gave me a window of a few months to rearrange my life. That was a lenient move—a sign of her unconditional love. But still, the situation was not that uncomplicated.

For many people, a relationship breakup would have been upsetting enough. However, various other parameters were not normal because I was still living in a theatrical reality in the global sense. There were substantially more terrible prospects in the spectrum of my existence—fears that reduced my partnership drama to a footnote.

I was firmly convinced that the chances of an all-encompassing, transformative process in the form of a 3rd world war stood at far more than 50%. No question about it – by this time, a dramatic deterioration in relations between Russia and NATO had occurred. I would describe the escalation of tensions as a “landslide.”

Just the year before, the US was well on its way to flattening another country after Libya. This time, they were targeting Syria, but the Russians put a whole armada up against the American aircraft carriers in the final act.

So I don’t know how the rest of the World assessed that, but that development made me cringe. I was also utterly susceptible, but I will go into the reasons in detail later. Anyway, in 2014 – the year of my separation – an open conflict broke out between the two systems on the edge of Europe when a chirpy color revolution, steered by secret service offshoots of the West, split Ukraine. This, in turn, led to Crimea being annexed by Russia. 

In the Western media, the annexation was portrayed as an illegal and almost belligerent land grab. Although I am not an expert in international law, this assessment may well be correct. But the moral high-mindedness displayed by the West was so marked by a blatant double standard. This hypocrite was outrageous, especially when the NATO intervention committed a similar breach of law in Kosovo.

One should not forget that the majority of the Crimean inhabitants traditionally and ethnically felt that they belonged to the Russians. The Crimean peninsula became part of Ukraine when the country was still a part of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev drew an internal border quasi-arbitrarily, which was illegal even under USSR law but had only purely legal consequences. It should be mentioned that the Russians had taken Crimea from the Crimean Tatars not so long ago, but that is not to be a history lesson here. 

The bottom line for me was that the Western account was a form of exaggerated propaganda. The tendentious interpretation became more and more evident as it became clear on closer examination that a broad majority of Crimean residents had no confidence in the puppet government in Kyiv and honestly preferred to crawl under the skirt of Mother Russia.

Of course, I was not there physically, and depending on the source or propaganda ear, one could certainly come to the opposite opinion. As far as my intuitive perception was concerned, it was clear what kind of production was being played out there on the big stage and what possible scenarios could result from it.

Nor was I alone in my concern about a global conflict of biblical proportions. In Germany, a spontaneous counter-movement was forming in many cities: the Monday demonstrations. A form of spontaneity in the ranks of the population that, in my opinion, is rarely found. Looking deeper into history, you learn that many revolutionary movements were promoted or even directed by forces in the background, secretive groups, and occult institutions. Today, the World’s governments have official organizations for this purpose, which have their task in their name: secret services. A closer look reveals that hardly any political movements still exist that have not been controlled or infiltrated at some point by some three-letter agency.

Before returning to the Monday demonstrations, I would like to elaborate further here. Secret services have the word “secret” in their root word. It is rarely straightforward what operations they carry out and what sub-organizations they have working for them. The biggest mystery probably remains the question of the personal agenda behind certain operations. The clandestine nature of such intelligence actions always provokes speculation in my mind about an all-encompassing global plan by powers outside of state structures. It is a search for a possible overarching agenda of an all-encompassing system.

Let’s just think of Prescott Bush. This is the father of old George Bush, the former president of the United States who flattened the Iraqis before his son. This Prescott Bush was a great supporter of the Nazis with the help of the Union Banking Cooperation. What interest did American bankers have in promoting America’s enemies? Did the US perhaps need an enemy?

Or remember how the CIA built the Taliban and al-Qaeda and how American foreign intelligence helped breed a conspiratorial network of radical religious warriors. Background politics knows plenty of cooperation and symbiosis between diametrically opposed organizations—sometimes groups that we were officially at war with each other. Intelligence warfare knows no boundaries.

Enough books deal with this topic alone and how Western intelligence agencies use left, right, or religious extremists to push their agenda. The range of credible sources with robust evidence is all-encompassing. I had extensively studied publications from this context, which is why such clandestine machinations were, for me, a fact in global geopolitics.

The quintessence from it is simple: One rarely finds a gathering of people with a deep inner concern, without which secret services, mostly steered over relevant NGOs, do not have their fingers somewhere in the play. For example, I would like to cite only the many V-Mann scandals in Germany that have surfaced regularly. Also, the current events in Ukraine showed clear signs that via NGOs of George Soros and the CIA massively intervened in the revolutionary events on the Maidan. The patterns are always the same! Also, all other color revolutions, such as the “Arab spring,” were initiated by the same “global players.”

I had not seen a genuine revolt from the middle of the people without manipulation by secret services for a long time. The same is valid in the future also for terrorist attacks! If one looks more exactly, intelligence services have almost always contributed to it. That fact made the Monday demonstrations a real unicorn. The mass movement seemed to me to come from the middle of society. Any external institution did not steer it. At least that’s how it looked in the early stages.

Let’s stay for a moment with the all-encompassing manipulation of the masses. Besides the many exposed machinations of certain institutions of a secret power structure, there are enough successful operations so perfectly staged that they tangent at most to the realm of conspiracy theory. There is, ergo, no evidence of external influence. However, in such cases, it helps to ask, “Who does it benefit?” It takes a lot of digging to see a systemic picture of the overall extent of global conspiracy reality. From my perspective, it was apparent that the explanations of political events fed to the masses rarely illuminated the factual backgrounds.

The conspiracy theory is such a realm that it behaves similarly to quantum physics—a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Many connections can no longer be proven conclusively or even objectified, but clear patterns emerge by looking at the larger context. At some point, a complex structure becomes discernible. The perception and interpretation of these indications of a global conspiracy vary in the different “truth movements.” One does not always have to accept alternative explanations. It is often enough to question the official announcement seriously. All skeptics of the mass media eventually realize that something is rotten in the global system. Still, each individual develops their own explanation of who and what might be behind it.

The consensus or central point of criticism that most of the “truth movement” agree on is the manipulative practices of the mass media. Some media groups are part of larger consortia closely intertwined with arms corporations. Other leading media outlets are downright mouthpieces of NATO. One should not mistake viewing NATO as a purely defensive alliance. It has become increasingly evident that tendentious reporting has artificially fanned the flames of conflict. We experienced this case relatively obviously in 2014 with the topic of Ukraine. Only this time, it wasn’t about some revolution in the Middle East, where people could argue at the dinner table about whether it was about weapons of mass destruction or whether the West was, after all, more interested in natural resources. As a result of the events in Ukraine, growing tensions developed between the two nuclear powers. That worried people.

Let’s not even talk about what these political puppets contributed to the escalation. Here, a war was to be sold to us. Many people in Germany felt this, although it was done relatively subtly. The well-known scheme of how to legitimize a warlike confrontation is PRS – Problem, Reaction, Solution. It is an ancient principle for mass control.

Basically, PRS is an intriguing ploy to make an idea palatable to the people, which in principle cannot be in their interest. The elite uses this bizarre trick since no new laws or political decisions can be implemented by the ruling system against the people’s will – certainly not in a democracy. No people in the World want war or more surveillance, for example. So how do you sell something like that? 

If, for example, the system wants to spy on its citizens better or simply wants to study their consumer behavior extensively. It will always have difficulty arguing for a corresponding law that undermines privacy. A critical mass would quickly form to oppose such an agenda. However, it is a different story when these measures seem to make sense in a particular context, or the spin is turned so that the people believe that their own safety must be monitored.

Ideally, to achieve that, you create insecurity or even a threat to society. That is the “P” in PRS. The system artificially establishes a problem through the work of intelligence agencies, e.g., by infiltrating, founding, or promoting and controlling terrorist organizations. With terror and fear, you can manipulate sheeple virtuously. They are traumatized and thus made docile. The traumatization or fear is the desired reaction, hence the “R” in the equation.

In the end, the sheeple themselves cry out for more surveillance. Maybe you have to make the idea more palatable to them through the mass media, but that’s how you get people hooked. At this point, the system has to be quite careful. A critical mass may become suspicious at this stage because they smell a rat. The best thing is to make it look like an open debate.

Ideally, the sheep themselves come to the supposed realization that it would make sense to add a few more sheepdogs to the troop. If it works out perfectly, they’ll throw their precious privacy overboard. That’s the solution they’re after, and the PRS formula is in full effect.

If you want a war, it’s similar. You just have to ensure that the other country shows apparent aggression first. The best way to do this is to push it into a corner by driving it to economic ruin through sanctions. Basically, it works like in the schoolyard, where the notorious thug is looking for his prey.

Suppose the designated victim does not want to give the first impulse. In that case, an occasion is artificially produced, as with the Gleiwitz transmitter, which started World War II, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which the US faked to better intervene in Vietnam. The CIA calls such tactics “false flag operations.” These tactics are planned and executed on a general staff basis. “Operation Northwoods” is a prime example. Fake terrorist attacks can be beneficial to provoke a conflict or push through new laws in one’s own country. For research purposes, I would like to mention in the context the bizarre background of the attack on the USS. Liberty and the bomb terror in Bologna.

Thus in the known history of humanity, enough abstruse communities, religions, and other gatherings of various radical elements were used. All kinds of unholy alliances were knitted clandestinely to manipulate in a much larger social paradigm. One should ignore the propaganda that economic or military interventions in the affairs of any sovereign country are about international law, democracy, or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. It is always about power and control. The system is primarily concerned with staging a new act on the global stage.

As a self-confessed conspiracy theorist, I could digress endlessly at this point. However, primarily only my observation should be somewhat substantiated that a natural emergence of a movement with revolutionary tendencies rather represents a rarity. This brings me back to the peace vigils in Germany.

This said vigil movement that formed in 2013/14 seemed, as I said, from my perspective to have grown spontaneously from the middle of society. Quasi as a manifestation of collective insecurity. Many people became aware of PRS manipulation by the mass media. This peace formation had formed mainly without the aid of established structures. An ideal state, which unfortunately was quickly sabotaged, infiltrated, and mass media mutilated.

I personally got involved in a group formed in Magdeburg at that time. Later, I also went to a significant event at the Brandenburg Gate. There were almost no guidelines or instructions from the principal organizers in Berlin. In Magdeburg, everything was free-style, as they would say. The people who came together were a colorful mix. A likable bunch of idealists with quite different approaches and convictions. But there was also a particular radical potential in Magdeburg.

In many activists, something burned that demanded a revolution. They were fed up with continuing to be so brazenly manipulated. Frankly, there was also a selective emergence of naiveté, which I could see. It is not meant to be a negative evaluation. I have outgrown many romantic ideas only because of my long past in the German “truth movement.” But some comrades-in-arms mirrored me 1 to 1 the own former attitude before I was disillusioned lastingly. I, too, clung to particular naive views before realizing what intelligence and agenda really hid behind the system.

The issues that were discussed among us had only recently gained significant populism. For me, they were primarily old stories. Some fellows had not too long ago begun to look a bit behind the curtain and were still half in shell-shock and overwhelmed by the micro-cosmos that presented itself to them behind it. The few landmarks they could grasp behind the curtain were irritating enough for them. I recognized in which developmental phases each person was in. I had lived through them myself and knew the phase-related patterns of emotional processing from my own experience.

Other people already recognized that politicians are mostly just puppets who have no real power, much as Seehofer once so aptly admitted:

“Those who were elected have nothing to say, and those who have something to say were not elected.”

That opened up a whole new range of possible villains. There were multinational corporations, for example, with the bankers and the FED at the top of it. Of course, everyone had their own suspicions and projections. Organized religions serve excellently as boogymen like the notion of an international Jewish conspiracy or a Jesuit infiltration of the World’s leadership to manifest a biblical Armageddon. Indeed, some already suspected the Muslim community, but this was to gain momentum only later—they would be given their own movement with the name ISIS, directly controlled from above. Strictly according to the principle: divide and conquer.

All the participants in the peace vigils had their reasons for blaming one group or another. None of them were completely wrong because the system uses every conceivable institution according to my knowledge. The intelligence that controls this power structure has created or infiltrated almost every major group or faith community in history. That was my initial point of view, but only a few of my comrades-in-arms could understand it.

The majority of the concerned citizens who gathered at the bus station in Magdeburg followed somewhat reductionist approaches! It seemed as if the masses were blind, sharing a small prison cell with an elephant. One felt harassed by the trunk, and the next got the tail in the face. Another feared being crushed by a giant foot. Everyone blamed an individual body part for the problems in the World. Only a few individuals had the skills to grasp the animal as a unit. Systemic thinking is unfortunately not sufficiently encouraged in school. Only a handful of individuals remained who had opened their eyes enough to recognize the tamer high up on the elephant’s back.

I don’t want to judge my brothers and sisters in spirit negatively. Quite the opposite! I was glad that other people were involved. Primarily it was about peace. Whether tail or trunk is the most significant war profiteer, in the end, should be irrelevant. At least, compared to the average sheeple, many participants recognized that there was the elephant in the room at all. I mean the famous “Elephant in the Livingroom,” which describes an apparent disharmony that no one wants to acknowledge. The elephant in the living room stands for a state of affairs that is, in principle, completely obvious but which all the inhabitants of the house either ignore or pathologically block out. This is the elephant that virtually everyone filters out of their visual perception.

The emergence of a global conflict, catalyzed by dark forces in the background, was that blind spot in society that we as a peace movement wanted to point out. The intention of all peace activists was good-hearted, and I was a part of this effort, even if I lost faith in success quite soon. However, other comrades-in-arms continued to fight, and perhaps they were a major reason we do not live in a post-apocalyptic world today.

It was difficult to unite the broad masses under a common ideology, as I indicated earlier. Any efforts were, in any case, massively torpedoed by the establishment and the mass media. A conspiracy of the mainstream press was running against us. All kinds of dirty tricks that the propaganda toolbox offered were instrumentalized. First, the movement was ignored, then the principle of “divide and rule” was applied.

That was relatively simple! Of course, there were also a few apparent “nationalists” among the participants. I would not have been surprised if the brown boys had been ordered there directly by the Verfassungsschutz (equivalent to the FBI). It is a long tradition that secret machinations have always steered radical right-wing sentiment in Germany—just think of those, as mentioned earlier, “V-Mann scandals” that came to public attention.

I am primarily convinced that the truth about the NSU will also come out at some point. The factual background behind the “terrorist organization” probably shows that this whole display, including the Paulchen Panther video, was an operation of German intelligence services. They probably wanted to kill several birds with one stone. The entire story was used to argue for data retention and various other restrictions on freedom. This is the well-known PRS formula. But I can only speculate about that.

We will have to wait and see what surfaces. But the mere fact that an ominous trio marauded undetected through the country for years, surgically eliminating lone individuals often linked to international drug trafficking, should give us pause for thought. If trivial xenophobia had been the motive for the murders, a rudimentary nail bomb in a Turkish nightclub would have achieved much more effective results. Something was fishy about the whole thing. Too many witnesses died in the aftermath. Even among the investigators, sudden deaths or critical individuals in essential positions disqualified themselves by having child pornography on their computers. All this bore the signature of secret services.

But back to the Nazis in the peace movement. Whatever their motivation was to appear there, it was perfectly instrumentalized. Already “quite” soon, the mass of peace activists was exclusively sorted into the drawer “neo-right.” A classic example of “Orwellian newspeak.” The neuronal-linguistic programming of the German population is exceptionally and profoundly anchored when it comes to the association with “right-wing” or “nationalism.” No average citizen welcomes being tossed into such a pigeonhole. Accordingly, this so-called “Nazi cudgel” is also insidiously used by the system to defame a movement and make it unattractive to the average Joe.

Accordingly, the “new right” label was destructive for germinating a critical mass that could have been dangerous to the system. The immune system of the matrix works mercilessly efficiently, and many of the white blood cells were not even aware of what they were propagating. The mainstream press kept the peace movement in check. The news controlled public perception, and the sheeple aligned themselves accordingly.

If I had been the chief of the unofficial system defense – subdivision Germany – I too would have sent every brown agent available there. This move would immediately give the movement the necessary coat of paint to make the peace vigil less desirable to the masses as possible. At the same time, I would have called over every agent of the left spectrum and all Antifa associations to troll on these meetings. They must draw attention to the new brown danger in the most media-effective way possible.

Everybody must be there! Punks, Antifa, and various left-wing groups should be shipped there. They all qualify if they are as extreme, passionate, and unreflective as their polar antagonists, or should I say “mirror images?” If I have already come up with such apparent ideas – why shouldn’t the system’s guardians should proceed less cleverly? Willing assets are available in abundance.

The principle is called divide and rule – “divide et impera” – a tool for mass control, which Lenin aptly put thus:

“Only a polarized society can be governed.”

Having to watch the system take the young seedling “peace vigil” through the wringer to ultimately crush it was one reason I removed myself from the process. I had lost faith that I could do anything about the collective fate in the form of a 3rd World War. I became fatalistic. Let the system do what it wanted. I closed my eyes and hoped that reason would prevail. But I wouldn’t have been surprised if the big bang had come in 2014.

Admittedly, I undoubtedly represented the archetype of a “paranoid conspiracy theorist during this period. However, the origin of this assessment, which was extremely real and present for me, could not be determined solely by the current situation. The cause for this clear perception was, meanwhile, quite far back. I guess it was about ten years ago. However, when I think about it more intensively, it all began much earlier.

I: Timeline shift due to end of a relationship

The year was 2014, but that’s basically negligible since time is not linear anyway. Besides, there seem to be certain junctures in life. At these points, it is possible to jump to an alternate timeline. This is a subjective perception of mine. These junctures, in my opinion, can be accompanied by high emotional amplitudes. The end of a long-term relationship is often a classic momentum of that kind.

Without recognizing it clearly at that moment, the separation was probably also such a transition from one multiverse into another. I was together with my then-life partner Amelie for about 4 years, and we had learned a lot from each other. She was virtually my current lecturer in the subject “Unconditional Love,” and I completed a Master’s degree with her.

I had already delivered the bachelor’s degree to another good-natured “professor” a few years earlier. By the way, the two faculty members did not always agree on the didactic methods of the other. This should only be mentioned in passing. However, in my opinion, both women had done an excellent job. By the end of my studies, I had learned not to confuse my emotional dependence with love. I had also realized that it makes perfect sense not to put your own needs ahead of your partner’s happiness. This is more difficult than one might think, and Amelie seemed to be my acute test in this regard.

Academic study can undoubtedly be compared to possible personality development within a relationship. Both learning processes correspond in the sense that they go through similar phases. For example, the “getting to know” stage: When you have met someone who can truly teach you something, you usually feel it very directly and impressively – just as with the right book on the first pages, the suitable evening class, or even the right course of study. Something deep inside us resonates, and we feel it.

When the study enters the final phase, it inevitably comes to the final exam. When one takes a course of study in “Unconditional Love” with a partner, it can sometimes mean the end of that partner relationship. It does not matter whether one has taken the trouble to certify the status as an officially married couple or not. If one implements it correctly, then a deep inner bond, at least on a platonic level, remains in the end.

Other people may have managed to have this learning experience with only one partner. It may even be possible to master the final test without separation. This may well be the case. I can only congratulate those who have realized this ideal. As far as I was concerned, I needed different approaches to experience with varying partners of learning.

I certainly don’t want to condemn it if someone decides to have a classic monogamous relationship for the rest of his life. It may even be possible to actually pull off this concept successfully without sacrificing significant steps of self-realization. In a universe of unlimited possibilities, anything is conceivable in principle. For me, however, in 2014, the situation was completely different. 

With the end of my relationship with Amelie, I was cured of the monogamous partnership model for the time being. I had tried again for 4 years with such a classical approach and had failed. It was an excellent lesson, but this model simply did not work for me. It did not even result in an engagement.

From my perspective, believing in the concept of marriage was just another invention of the system. This approach had undoubtedly made sense in earlier times to ensure our collective survival as a human race. But currently, we live in a new context – at least in the Western world. Nevertheless, even today, such outdated survival tactics are romanticized and propagated unilaterally by the leading mechanisms of the system. Executing bodies, depending on the era, were either various religions or institutions like Hollywood.

In all eras, influential institutions shaped and subtly controlled collective thinking. The system is like an invisible director pulling strings in the background. Marriage may have been an adequate approach to maintaining social order, but the concept no longer seemed contemporary to me. At least not for reality as I recognized it. It had long since ceased to be a matter of naked survival in my world. Nature was no longer the great challenge but the system itself.

The system is a multi-layered indoctrination program. In it, we are taught many concepts and moral patterns. Some of them we find beneficial, but other templates, on the other hand, seem to suppress our potential. One such program that I find inappropriate is religious marriage, followed by the rest of the mainstream spectrum of relationship concepts between men and women. They all have a common theme.

No matter which major religion, soap opera, or Hollywood Disney love story, they declare an individual to be another person’s property and attach conditions to love. It seemed to me that it would be more of a business arrangement in the long run. But that was not my ideal. I longed for a relationship paradigm without conditions attached to love. But that was hard to find in everyday society, so I had begun to question the system and its interpersonal concepts.

From my perspective, true love should always be free of conditions. This primal force cannot possibly be limited to the relationship with a single person. In any case, I had already rejected this convention for a long time. Hence, I was already looking at many aspects of life from the perspective of the “singularity of all things.” It’s a point of view to which I will come back again and again. Therefore, I wanted to outline this philosophy already from the very start.

From this perspective, love was a force that connects all living beings if one only allows it. In the ideal case, one makes no more difference whom one loves more or less because everything is an expression of the one higher self.

I had not reached that far in my consciousness development back then, but this approach was already actively anchored within my conceptual mind. Acutely, the separation drama of 2014 was for me primarily about mastering an inevitable unconditional surrender and, in the end, also letting go of Amelie. Breaking free of one’s emotional attachments can be a hell of an endeavor.

Whenever the end of a relationship has come, it makes itself known long in advance. Of course, the mind counters and tries to convince you that it’s not time to break up yet. You try to persuade yourself to work even harder on the relationship. Maybe there are still compromises to be found? Fortunately, I had already been through a few more extended partnerships. Among them were the experiences from the bachelor’s degree, as mentioned earlier, which saved me from the fallacy of continuing to fight windmills.

In my previous relationships, I had often realized that at some point in our individual development, we were only getting in each other’s way. Therefore, it was ultimately only sensible and logical to sever the bond. This renewed lesson became imminent for me. Of course, this is not necessarily a piece of cake emotionally. The majority of “Sheeple” is always more willing to maintain the status quo rather than make a clean “cut.”

Sheeple: This is a made-up English word from the context of the Truther movement. It is composed of “Sheep” and “People” – it refers to people who behave exactly like sheep in a flock. “Sheeple” lacks the individual will or is too afraid to express their individuality for fear of the system or judged by their immediate environment.

No question. I loved Amelie. I will always love her on some level, but it became unmistakably clear to me that essential ideas and goals separated us. I wanted her to be happy and flourish spiritually, whether that happened with me or without me. This challenge was the Master’s thesis in unconditional love. I cannot say how pure the intention was in my heart, but it felt “quite acceptable.”

The fact was: her vision of life conformed to a particular socially established blueprint – the usual program, that is: Have kids, build a house, advance your career, and grow old together. In between, they would visit a few exotic places and perhaps integrate a pet – of course, only when the children were out of the woods. At least that’s how it looked at the time. Admittedly, some ideas deviated from the usual path, but Amelie followed the Sheeple Standard Plan.

This socially established template no longer had any appeal for me. Or maybe I wasn’t ready to take on such a challenge. In any case, that was the accusation Amelie often hurled at me. It may be that she had recognized a blind spot in me! Whether she was right, only time would tell. At the age of 31, her internal clock had been ticking for some time, which put enormous pressure on us. Of course, we hoped for some time to find a common point of view. But unfortunately, that was pure illusion.

You cannot go against your own nature, nor can you escape life’s lessons. More and more, I understood what my task here really was. It was, as so often, about letting go of old ideas. I had to find out what could be the best for all involved and act consistently. Ideally, this question should be approached from a universal perspective. By this, I mean a holistic approach in which emotional interference does not distort insight – it is a sober discussion free of personal fears and egoistic desires that usually cloud judgment.

Of course, finding such a perspective is an entirely utopian endeavor. However, one can roughly aim at it as a visionary ideal for the time being and be happy with a grazing shot. I found it extremely difficult for a long time, but I came closer. The difficulty of being objective is that we humans basically act like drug addicts in romantic conflicts. The ideal image of unconditional love, which permanently recognizes the other person’s development as the highest priority first, is not necessarily the schema we were taught by Hollywood. In today’s Western society, the definition of love is primarily an emotional dependence based on passion.

This may sound a bit disillusioned, but that is how it has long presented itself to me. I had already sworn years ago that I would replace this convention with my own ethics. Especially since passion is always what creates suffering.

It was far from me to evaluate the way preferred by Amelies to plan her life in any form. On the contrary! I had long enough run after various outdated clichés of a life plan myself. At times I had even tried to adopt her draft and finally stood idea-less before an undefined quantum field, which represented my future.

The truth was undoubtedly also that my reality was too complex and, from Sheeple’s perspective, far too drifted for a standard concept of life to have been adapted. It would be like desperately trying to put an off-the-rack suit on an obese dwarf with hydrocephalus and expecting him to be comfortable in it.

The big difference between Amelie and me was that she seemed to be less free than I was – liberated from moral obligations, free from the opinions of others, free from patterns of belief and indoctrinated behavior. She was squatting in a mental cage that could not be seen, smelled, or even touched but unmistakably had its constricting effect. It was your own Matrix. Of course, I was not really free of such limiting programs either. However, her cage was subtly oppressive and more tightly meshed than mine. In this context, I always remember the saying of Goethe, who once said:

“Hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe they are free!”

Well, in the end, I had one more piece of freedom. I was single again. The separation was very peaceful. Amelie left the shared apartment and sought refuge with an old friend who had greater ambitions than me in every respect. On the one hand, I was pleased that she had promptly found someone who could offer her some emotional support and perspective.

On the other hand, unfortunately, I was equally subject to specific interpersonal patterns that viewed him as competition. My ego was quietly outraged, and my self-worth was bruised. I decided to look at it pragmatically and be grateful that it was in safe hands after all. I never said a bad word about them. My thoughts, too, mainly were benevolent.

Instead of lamenting the perceived loss, I focused on seeing new options, which weren’t long in coming. It is common wisdom about the more delicate mechanisms of life that a new door always opens as soon as another one has closed. In my world of experience, this is absolutely true. I was determined not to fall prey to the often apparent impulses to stare phlegmatically at the closed door or even try to force it down. 

Basically, I was once again profoundly disillusioned at that point. The illusion lay in the fact that I had believed that Amelie would become my partner for life. But I was disappointed.

 “Disappointment” – what a multi-layered word! It has such a negative connotation in our society. The typical phrase, “I’m so disappointed in you!” is something I think everyone has heard at some point in their lives. It is very unpleasant in its effect and usually triggers feelings of shame – at least, it was often the case with me. Also, almost always, my counterpart – the disappointed person – seemed to be as emotionally involved as I was. Disappointments seem to be the raw material for explosive dramas.

If I remember my youth, I am sure I used this phrase as well. However, I don’t know a specific situation. I only remember that I was rarely really disappointed whenever I used this phrase. The sentence served only one purpose: I wanted to trigger a feeling in my counterpart, with which I was also punished again and again. The manipulated person became a manipulator himself, so to speak. Presumably, I aimed it in most cases to emotionally retaliate against a perceived injury. It is a perfidious form of manipulation via the mechanism of guilt.

But what is disappointment in its essence? Objectively, this statement only shows us that we were always subject to a particular illusion up to a specific moment. In the German language, this deeper meaning becomes more than obvious.

This illusion seems to have suddenly come to an end. The deception has ceased! Isn’t that great? As a truther, I always strived to be disappointed, just when I suspected beforehand that the reality presented to me did not necessarily correspond to reality. Therefore, I prefer an uncomfortable truth rather than a comfortable lie. At least that’s what I imagined, but I can’t say that objectively since we humans are masters in the discipline of self-fooling.

So what does it mean that much of society doesn’t want to be disappointed? I think it shows a particular worrisome pattern. It describes our fear of opening our eyes and realizing that we have been living in an illusion. Basically, any higher realization that revises long outdated beliefs is relegated to an inconvenience with this attitude.

Admittedly, the idea that a disappointed person begins to rejoice at the moment of revelation is also a bit too idealized. It is undoubtedly an unrealistic expectation. Nevertheless, I believe that an acquired fear and subtle avoidance behavior contributes to why much of humanity can never break out beyond a determinate sound barrier of their Matrix. Learning de facto presupposes disappointment, which, however, we fearfully avoid.

Definitely, there were still plenty of residual fragments of such programming in me. Nevertheless, it had become clear to me – actually already felt decades ago – that every epiphany is initiated only by breaking with old concepts or resolving deceptions. Thus, the disappointment that my relationship with Amelie was not the striking “great love” was also accompanied by a certain satisfaction. It could be the inner satisfaction that I had realized something important, even if this understanding was accompanied by emotional pain.

I would argue that the separation from Amelie marked a classic crescendo in my individuation. I learned once again how to let go in this process. Having the strength to separate from an idea is an elementary skill to experience true freedom. In fact, it is an essential part of any creative process. I also practiced the art of unconditional love – even towards myself. Yes, insight has various gifts to distribute. Thus, from the beginning of 2014, completely new degrees of freedom opened up to me again.

At that moment, my life was able to take a brand-new path. Whenever I had a slight tendency to feel negative feelings of loss, I remembered this realization. The resulting possibilities and potentials triggered a certain euphoria in me. It is a feeling of high that only freedom is capable of bestowing.

Understandably, this is a dualistic principle! I traded a piece of tight security for new degrees of freedom—a deal whose general trend in society is more the other way around. However, suppose one has understood that the idea of security, as it is propagated in the western world, is also only an illusion – given karmic or even cosmic regularities – one recognizes that “freedom” is a much more significant parameter. It is a quality of life that needs to be respected and honored.

Even though at this point the events took me a bit by surprise and I was hard-pressed to make sense of them, I already had a very concrete inkling that the period marked an earth-shattering moment. Only with several years’ distance, I understand that I probably shifted on an alternative timeline in these weeks and months.

Intro AOAT

The first question you are probably asking yourself is, “What is a truther?”. It is such a graceful short Anglicism that unfortunately has no elegant equivalent in the German vocabulary. “Truthseeker” would possibly be the aptest translation, but this term does not adequately sum it up. It certainly doesn’t sound that hip. The “truther” is a person who has discovered that something is wrong with the world that surrounds him at an explicit stage of his life. What disagreement this triggers may vary radically from individual to individual. Ultimately, the “truther” senses that some fundamental truth is being held back from him.

I personally do not prefer to put people into socio-cultural pigeonholes. If it were nevertheless up to me to sort myself into a filing cabinet, then I would file myself away as a “truther.” At some point, I also had to realize that the world is not as it generally seems. Therefore, I began to search intensively for the truth. I would like to report about this process here because once you have seriously embarked on the journey of discovery, it can become incredibly entertaining. It is my desire to inspire you to initiate your own process. If you consider yourself a “truther,” then this book aims to set an example for you and could thus serve as a kind of guide.

If you are looking for concrete evidence in my autobiography or even expect an ultimate solution to the great riddle, then I have to disappoint you right away. No book will ever be able to do that. All I have to offer here is an excerpt of my personal truth. No more and no less. What this means and what you are getting into, I would like to clarify fundamentally here in the preface.

So what you now hold in your hands is, in the best, a science fiction novel with authentic backgrounds. Even if I would like to assure you, dear reader, that this book was written with the claim of an autobiography, this would not correspond to the whole truth. For one thing, I must admit that I have made many minor dramaturgical modifications. For example, I have modified most of the names and simplified all too complex facts. Still, the novel is based on my own subjective perception of reality. Already there is the catch! Ergo: The book describes only my individual truth.

One may assert confidently, I represent here only personal opinions. However, these views of me are no static constructs because they are subject to the permanent process of self-knowledge. Probably in a few years, I will consider some theses in this book as naive or incomplete. It would be an extreme pity for me if this would not be so – it would mean in return that my spiritual evolution would have experienced a standstill. Consequently, everything you read here is only a temporarily valid perspective on the phenomenon of life as I have understood it momentarily for me.

The modern psychology of perception is hugely obliging to me in this respect argumentatively. It helps me put this statement into a scientific context because it does not recognize an objective reality. A universally valid truth simply no longer exists in our modern paradigm. Did you already know that?

Objective reality may perhaps exist but is unreachable. Hence, the human mind is simply too limited to comprehend the full spectrum of our existence in a holistic and all-encompassing manner. There is only one truth, but unfortunately, we humans all have only slimmed-down versions of it.

Let me give you some analogies of what singularity is all about. Materialists, of all people, experience such a unity every day – since they structurally assume that any form of inspiration arises only in their physical brain. When they remember their last dream in the morning, they inevitably have to admit that all protagonists and objects of their nocturnal odyssey were their own creations. At least their subconscious – their higher self – created all the scenes. From the weather conditions to the forces of gravity, the dreamer made all details himself.

Even in a complex computer simulation, everything is part of the simulation. No matter how differentiated the forms and experiences are within this virtual reality, it arises from a singularity. Basically, even the modern big bang theory explains that creation unfolded from a tiny point of unity. What if I claimed that you are in some kind of computer simulation that you created yourself at this very moment? Or how does it feel if I tell you that you are instantly experiencing a sort of dream from which you cannot quickly wake up? That sounds radical, doesn’t it? You, me, and this book would then indeed be one thing – a singularity.

I would like to introduce you pragmatically to the view of the “unity of all being” with this book. How seriously can one take that thesis, and what are the implications of such a reality? These are the questions I would like to address here. I even speculate that I can animate you to think your way into such a philosophical scenario. At least contemplation should temporarily help you to better understand specific stories in my biography. I only hope you do not find the idea that there might be a spiritual organizing principle behind matter fundamentally unrealistic. If you do, I ask you to invest a little “provisional faith” and to temporarily put aside your own judgments concerning this.

Just look at yourself in the mirror! You are the harmonious interaction of billions of cells that obey a collective spirit. How many coincidences came together that everything functions so perfectly together? Yet even a single-celled organism is a million times more complicated than a Swiss automatic watch.

Now imagine in your mind’s eye a shoebox containing all the “elementary particles” of such a watch. I would like to indicate that I speak here of the gear wheels, cogs, and spring plates. What do you think how many billions of years you would have to shake now until the clock assembles by itself? Could there be a higher plan or an intelligent design behind it, which helped the “coincidence” there? Doesn’t it sound logical that there is a superior principle in the universe without having religious reflexes?

Basically, it doesn’t matter what I want to get at or what I am convinced of. It is absolutely up to you! You possess something decisive on the long journey back to the unity of all beings. You have free will!

With your free will, you can decide now whether you put this book away again. Ideally, I catch you just in time in the bookstore. Perhaps you are also a publisher and must decide whether this work fits into your portfolio. In any case, you should now have an idea of where you stand.

If you’ve already bought the book and you’ve just realized that you’re not really comfortable with this philosophical depth and would prefer to read something with sex, drugs, or romance, then give it away quickly. I’m sure you know a philosopher in disguise in your sphere of influence. 

To which I may say that this novel is also about drugs and romance. I’ll even throw in a good dose of sex. That sells quite confidently, as we all know. How does that sound to you? I take the liberty of inviting you to accompany me through significant stages of my life. This should be highly entertaining to you. Since 2001, I have increasingly been able to break away from the well-trodden paths of social conformity, and I have crossed the fringes of reality interpretation. I mutated into a Truther and conspiracy theorist.

Nevertheless, I would like to warn you! I must alert you emphatically that the madness, which resonates in this Machwerk, has a method and can be contagious. From long empirical experience, I have understood that people who have been continuously exposed to my presence have at some point shown signs of rub-off. This brings with it a considerable dynamic. Your perception of reality could also change acutely, and that should not be underestimated.

Experiencing a new perspective on everyday life sometimes means being disappointed. This is not always pleasant. You are confronted with your very own fears, and not everyone values that. If you prefer the status quo practically, then just put that darn book away now. Final warning! 

Are you still reading? Well, don’t worry – if it does get too wild, you can always tell yourself that it’s just a fictional novel. You may also consider the book simply as a case study of a twisted conspiracy theorist. 

According to the motto: “I’ve always wanted to know what makes those crazy people in the upper mind tick.” In the process, you get to be deliciously entertained and show how advice-resistant and firmly entrenched in your own worldview you are. On the other hand, I offer to be as honest as possible – even about my weaknesses and mistakes.

In the ideal case, I will open doors for you. Take what you can integrate into your reality and declare the rest as entertainment. In the best case, you learn how to surf time waves properly. The choice is in your hands. Have fun!