here a summary of some headlines in the news from the last days…
the last days since my last posting of a News Flash were unfortunately FULL of signs of war in every corner of the world.
Turkey mobilized 45.000 troops for the border of Armenia
Iran goes same direction with heavy tanks and more
NATO goes to Moldavia, same corner…
Estland mobilized their troops suddenly
Turkey telling openly their aim is to rule the world
Russia mobilized their troops
and this has happened only 3 times in history
before worldwar 1 in 1914
before worldwar 2 in 1940
1) July 18, 1914 (WW1)
2) June 23, 1941(WW2)
3) September 21, 2022
no more words needed…
U.S. urges their citizens to leave Russia at once
nuclear missiles brought into position
special weapons brought into position
Poseidon super tsunami weapon
super anti satellite lasers at work in Russia
and not to forget the sabotage of the European gaspipelines by the U.S.
and more and more and more
killing the owner of the company which maintained those pipelines 3 weeks ahead…
even on Mainstream they say it was the U.S.
on mainstream news:
Queen was already dead since 2018…
some more interesting pdfs for you
secret underground bases
Antarctica and more
record number of deaths more than normal in all over Europe
16% at the moment
that means, in the last few weeks more people died from vaccines
than in the complete time of 20 years of the Vietnam war
and the original Pfizer contracts with the EU have been leaked
on my channel to download
Australia again pressing forward
clima change “deniers” will be regarded as “mentally sick” and treated like that
new law already passed…
China not far behind…
no access to your own apartment without PCR test or Covid QR code
and believe it or not : Germany…: first supermarkets mount machines for QRcode based entries at their doors….
and now for something completely different…
as you already know, “they have lied to us about everything”
so about the invention of the bicycle…
here a picture from 2300 years ago…
same as for electric cars and busses
which were there already more than 100 years ago
some lesson in how to think for yourselve
written several hundred years ago
by Imanuel Kant
Er zieht alsdann allen praktischen Nutzen für seine Gemeinde aus Satzungen, die er selbst nicht mit voller Überzeugung unterschreiben würde, zu deren Vortrag er sich gleichwohl anheischig machen kann, weil es doch nicht ganz unmöglich ist, daß darin Wahrheit verborgen läge, auf alle Fälle aber wenigstens doch nichts der inneren Religion Widersprechendes darin angetroffen wird. Denn glaubte er das letztere darin zu finden, so würde er sein Amt mit Gewissen nicht verwalten können; er müßte es niederlegen. Der Gebrauch also, den ein angestellter Lehrer von seiner Vernunft vor seiner Gemeinde macht, ist bloß ein Privatgebrauch: weil diese immer nur eine häusliche, obwohl noch so große Versammlung ist; und in Ansehung dessen ist er als Priester nicht frei und darf es auch nicht sein, weil er einen fremden Auftrag ausrichtet. Dagegen als Gelehrter, der durch Schriften zum eigentlichen Publikum, nämlich der Welt, spricht, mithin der Geistliche im öffentlichen Gebrauche seiner Vernunft genießt einer uneingeschränkte Freiheit, sich seiner eigenen Vernunft zu bedienen und in seiner eigenen Person zu sprechen. Denn daß die Vormünder des Volks (in geistlichen Dingen) selbst wieder unmündig sein sollen, ist eine Ungereimtheit, die auf Verewigung der Ungereimtheiten hinausläuft.
Answering the question: What is enlightenment?
Enlightenment is the exit of man from his self-inflicted immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s intellect without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-inflicted if the cause of it lies not in the lack of understanding, but in the resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intellect! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the causes why such a large part of men, after nature has long since pronounced them free from foreign guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless like to remain immature all their lives; and why it becomes so easy for others to proclaim themselves their guardians. It is so comfortable to be immature. If I have a book that has understanding for me, a pastor who has conscience for me, a doctor who judges the diet for me, etc., then I don’t have to bother myself. I do not need to think, if I can only pay; others will already take over the annoying business for me. That by far the greatest part of people (among them the entire fair sex) consider the step to maturity, apart from the fact that it is arduous, also very dangerous, is already taken care of by those guardians who have graciously taken upon themselves the supervision of them. After they first made their domestic animals stupid and carefully prevented these quiet creatures from daring to take a step outside the wagon in which they locked them up, they subsequently show them the danger that threatens them if they try to walk alone. Now, this danger is not so great, because they would finally learn to walk by falling a few times; but an example of this kind makes one shy and generally discourages all further attempts.
It is therefore difficult for every individual to work his way out of the immaturity that has become almost natural to him. He has even become fond of it, and before hand he is really incapable of making use of his own intellect, because he has never been allowed to make the attempt of it. Statutes and formulas, these mechanical tools of a reasonable use or rather abuse of his natural gifts, are the legcuffs of a perpetual immaturity. Whoever would throw them off, would still make a precarious leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such a free movement. Therefore, there are only a few who have succeeded in winding themselves out of their immaturity by working on their own spirit and still manage to walk safely.
But it is more likely that an audience will enlighten itself; indeed, if it is given freedom, it is almost inevitable. For there will always be found some self-thinkers even among the appointed guardians of the great crowd, who, having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will spread around them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own worth and of the profession of every man to think for himself. What is special about this is that the public, which has previously been brought under this yoke by them, forces them to remain under it themselves afterwards, if they have been incited to it by some of their guardians, who are themselves incapable of all enlightenment; so harmful is it to plant prejudices, because they finally take revenge on those themselves who or whose predecessors have been their authors. Therefore a public can only slowly attain enlightenment. A revolution may perhaps bring about an apostasy from personal despotism and acquisitive or domineering oppression, but it will never bring about a true reform of the way of thinking; rather, new prejudices, just as much as the old ones, will serve as the guiding band of the thoughtless great multitude.
For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom; and indeed the most harmless of all that may only be called freedom, namely that: to make public use of one’s reason in all matters. But now I hear shouting from all sides: do not reason! The officer says: do not argue, but exercise! The financial councilor: do not reason, but pay! The clergyman: does not reason, but believes! (Only one gentleman in the world says: reason as much as you want, and about what you want; but obey!) Here is everywhere restriction of freedom. But which restriction is an obstacle to enlightenment? which is not, but even promotes it? – I answer: the public use of reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring about enlightenment among men; the private use of it, however, may often be very narrowly restricted, without therefore particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one’s own reason, however, I understand that which a scholar makes of it before the whole audience of the reading world. The private use I call that which he may make of his reason in a certain civil position or office entrusted to him. Now, for some transactions that run in the interest of the common good, a certain mechanism is necessary by means of which some members of the common good must merely behave passively, in order to be directed by an artificial unanimity of the government to public ends, or at least to be kept from destroying these ends. Here, of course, it is not permitted to reason; one must obey. But as far as this part of the machine regards itself at the same time as a member of a whole common being, even of the world’s civil society, thus in the quality of a scholar who addresses an audience in the proper sense by writings: it can, however, reason without thereby suffering the business to which it is partly assigned as a passive member. Thus it would be very pernicious if an officer, who is ordered to do something by his superiors, wanted to reason aloud in the service about the expediency or usefulness of this order; he must obey. He cannot, however, be reasonably precluded from making remarks as a scholar on the errors in the war service and submitting them to his public for judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the duties imposed on him; even a presumptuous rebuke of such duties, if they are to be paid by him, can be punished as a scandal (which could cause general rebellion). The same does not act contrary to the duty of a citizen, however, if he publicly expresses his thoughts as a scholar against the impropriety or even injustice of such tenders. Likewise, a clergyman is bound to lecture his catechism students and his congregation according to the symbol of the church he serves; for he has been accepted on this condition.
But as a scholar he has full freedom, even the vocation, to communicate to the public all his carefully examined and well-meaning thoughts about what is wrong in that symbol and suggestions for a better arrangement of the religious and church system. There is also nothing in this that could be laid to the charge of conscience. For what he teaches as a result of his office as a church official, he presents as something in regard to which he does not have free authority to teach according to his own discretion, but which he is instructed to present according to regulations and in the name of another. He will say: our church teaches this or that; these are the grounds of proof which it uses. He then draws all practical benefit for his congregation from statutes which he himself would not sign with full conviction, but which he can nevertheless presume to recite, because it is not altogether impossible that truth is hidden in them, but in any case at least nothing contrary to the inner religion is found in them. For if he thought to find the latter in it, he would not be able to administer his office with conscience; he would have to resign it.
The use, therefore, which an employed teacher makes of his reason before his congregation is merely a private use: because this is always only a domestic assembly, however large; and in regard to this he is not free as a priest, nor may he be, because he is carrying out another’s commission. On the other hand, as a scholar who speaks through writings to the actual audience, namely the world, thus the clergyman in the public use of his reason enjoys unrestricted freedom to use his own reason and to speak in his own person. For that the guardians of the people (in spiritual matters) should themselves be underage is an inconsistency that amounts to the perpetuation of inconsistencies.
that’s all for the moment.
I´ll keep you posted.