From Corona to Ukraine - The New Mass Formation.

Dear friends, followers, and critics,

We are at a pivotal moment. On one hand, we are witnessing the collapse of the corona narrative; on the other, we are seeing a new mass formation arising around the story of the war in Ukraine. These two phenomena are not occurring by chance at the same time.

What everyone who wanted to know had already long known, is now slowly seeping through to newspapers and news programs: we can stop blaming the bats from Wuhan. The coronavirus came from a lab in Wuhan, where, indeed, they were experimenting with coronaviruses. What is now emerging in the mainstream media is even worse than just the fact that the virus came from a lab. It is also becoming clear that (some of) those who promoted the measures always knew it came from a lab.

People like Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier warned from the start of the crisis that certain sequences in the virus’s DNA do not occur in nature, and that the virus was a so-called "gain-of-function" creation. He was dismissed by the media and by government-paid 'research journalists' and 'fact-checkers' as a charlatan and conspiracy theorist.

He was simply right. It shows something of the ruthlessness with which the truth was suppressed during the crisis. Be sure to also listen to Mark Zuckerberg's public confession with Joe Rogan. He explains there exactly why he wants to stop the fact-checking on Meta. The fact-checkers are primarily propaganda tools. They mainly serve to divert attention from the truth.

Does the origin of the virus ultimately matter? Yes, it does. It further demonstrates the dramatic failure of the entire technocratic and rationalistic approach to life and living together. Not only did the technological remedy for the disease fail (for example, the mRNA vaccines did not stop the spread of the virus), but this approach now also turns out to be responsible for the disease itself (i.e., it produced the virus).

Now that we agree the virus came from the Wuhan lab, the next question arises: what did virologist Anthony Fauci have to do with that lab? For those who want to know a bit more, click on this link to a document from the US Congress. Or read the last two books of that damned new health minister in the USA, the anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist Kennedy. Perhaps his mouth, like that of Professor Montagnier, generally speaks the truth on this matter as well?

And the media may slowly warm up to answering the following questions:

First question: What about the mortality rate of that gain-of-function virus? Why did the world go along for so long with mortality statistics that even the authors of them had stated in a hearing for ‘The House of Commons’ in 2020 were much too high?

Second question: Did the vaccines stop the spread of the virus? The assumption that this was the case led to the group of people who refused the vaccine being treated as second-class citizens. They were banned from restaurants, theaters, airplanes, and a few other things. They were pointed at by politicians worldwide as those who caused the pandemic. ‘The pandemic of the unvaccinated’ – you remember that if you were part of that group.

Who still doubts that this whole dehumanizing policy was anything but based on facts? The vaccine did not stop the spread of the virus. As for the question of how safe it was, we will wait a bit. We’ll be ready for that once the previous two questions are answered.

Despite the obvious failure of the corona policy, the proponents are preparing to apply the same strategy for the next virus outbreak (I wonder if it will come from a lab again). The WHO, for example, has already bought the corona-surveillance technology (the system with the QR codes and so on) from the EU to further develop it into a digital vaccination passport. It is to become part of a broader digital identity and a linked social-credit system and a digital currency (the so-called Central Bank Digital Coins).

To the extent that one is seduced in life by the idea of order and control, it is indeed a very attractive idea: to neatly reorganize the entire wriggling heap of society digitally, reduce the human ecological footprint by rewarding and punishing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behavior. Children have to be raised, don’t they? And aren’t we all little, irresponsible children? In a way, yes. The question is: which little child is going to raise the other little children?

Like any totalitarian system, the current technocratic system learns nothing from the disasters it causes. It sails blindly and fanatically on the ideological wind toward the rocks of its next failure. It sacrifices the next generation of its victims in anticipation of a technological paradise that will always remain a utopia on the horizon. Totalitarian systems always live on credit. Later, when the system is running perfectly, they will compensate for the disasters they are currently causing. And that’s why they will continue to cause disasters for the time being.

***

I could go into many other aspects of the corona crisis, but I will leave it here for now. I prefer to ask myself the question: why is the corona story collapsing now? Perhaps because insight progresses slowly and we are only now beginning to see what happened during those strange years?

I don’t think so. The appearance of the truth in the mainstream media has little or nothing to do with the progress of insight. Even a small child could see from the beginning that the story was falling apart in every direction. There were, therefore, other reasons for being blind to it than the insight not being far enough advanced.

The corona story is collapsing now because all the emotions that had found refuge in it – fear, frustration, aggression, the drive toward self-destruction of the completely isolated person – have slowly found a new refuge: the story of the war in Ukraine and the prospect of a new world war.

All the fear, frustration, and aggression that had been linked to the coronavirus and ‘the anti-vaxxers’ are now linked to a new object: ‘Putin’ and ‘the Russians’. The great vital forces – the true Masters of man – have found a new story to take refuge in. The corona house remains abandoned, shrinking like a house left behind by its inhabitants, to the point that even a small push from a small mind is enough to make it collapse. If the current series of crises teaches us anything about humanity, it is this: man is not primarily a rational being; he is a being governed by vital and metaphysical forces to which his reason is radically subordinated.

The new mass formation has the potential to be more intense and aggressive than the previous one. The reason, I have explained many times: the previous mass formation only increased loneliness and the fear and aggression linked to it. Mass formations seem to take away loneliness. Hence the bewildering enthusiasm we witnessed in, for example, videos of dancing nurses and doctors.

That enthusiasm is based on an illusion. In reality, the mass only makes loneliness and all the dark feelings attached to it greater. In the mass, solidarity and connection with fellow human beings are strictly forbidden. The only solidarity allowed is solidarity with the collective. And to that, every form of solidarity and connection with another person is radically subordinated. The dramatic endpoint of this is the mother who reports her child to the state and proudly receives a medal on the scaffold for her unwavering loyalty to the collective.

***

In Europe, the call for war is growing louder. Now that the great monster Trump no longer wants to protect Europe, the urgent need arises to mobilize a proper army and weapon system, it is said. President Ursula Von der Leyen goes so far as to say that she wants to use the savings of the population – a sloppy 800 billion – to make the war industry run at full speed.

Let me be clear: I have no need to tell a pro-Putin story. My opinion is neither pro nor con. My opinion is that the way of words, rather than the way of war, should be pursued. It is certainly not a matter of convincing you not to help Ukraine; it is a matter of thinking together with you about how we can truly help Ukraine. And that will not be by plunging the world into a third world war.

That Putin is no saint, no one needs to convince me of that. I have written a long article on Russia under Putin. Putin rose from street boy to director of the FSB, the successor of the infamous Soviet KGB. Anyone who has any knowledge of the workings and nature of that secret service knows that its director will not exactly be a sentimental soft-boiled egg.

Putin keeps a great power afloat. And he does that like leaders of great powers do. For example, the Moscow regime uses false flag operations in which hundreds of its own citizens die to create support for war in breakaway republics like Chechnya, and it eliminates journalists who speak uncomfortable truths.

That being said, the way the war story is now portrayed in the media bears the same absurd characteristics as the corona story did at the time. Russia is, in some respects, an expansionist nation. But its expansionism is small beer compared to that of NATO and the USA. Here is my modest opinion: Russia knows that in the great expansionist struggle it might lose, and if it comes to war, it is largely because it feels that it has a knife to its throat.

In this article from ten years ago – written in tempore non suspecto – you can read that the geopolitical maneuvers of NATO in the Black Sea region would inevitably lead to war with Russia. Those maneuvers were merely the point of the spear directed at Russia in a much larger expansionist USA project. Since WWII, the USA has, by most estimates, built between 700 and 800 military bases abroad.

To those who are so convinced that Russia is the only aggressor in the Ukraine story: try looking through the eyes of the Kremlin. How would Europe or America feel if, under the cover of many beautiful stories about ‘democracy’, Russia marched toward Brussels or Washington with hundreds of military bases? Or also, look at the history of the regime change operations of the USA since WWII. Anyone who takes the trouble to learn about recent history will see how South America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe were gradually politically and militarily subjected by the USA and/or NATO.

I have previously written an article on the historical context of the war in Ukraine. I will not go into it in detail here. You can find the article via this link. In short: it is not true that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was ‘unprovoked’. Since the American-initiated regime change of 2014 in Maidan Square, there have been roughly three reasons that drove Russia to start the war.

First, the Russians had humanitarian reasons. After 2014, the Kiev regime oppressed the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine (especially the Donbas region). This was not exactly done gently. Kiev even used cluster bombs in densely populated neighborhoods, which led to hundreds of thousands of refugees seeking safety in Russia.

I don’t know if Putin invaded Ukraine out of humanitarian concern. It is quite possible that he didn’t want to let his authority as a leader be undermined by allowing the regime in Kiev to commit atrocities against Russian-speaking Ukrainians. But this is enough to make clear that we cannot simply speak in black-and-white terms about ‘the bad Russians’ and ‘the good Ukrainians’. That much I know.

Second, there were economic reasons. Since 2014, Ukraine’s vast natural resource reserves (especially minerals) were at risk of falling into American hands. The pro-American regimes that came to power in Ukraine after 2014 lifted the law that stated that foreigners could only buy up to two hectares of land in Ukraine. In no time, American companies like Cargill, Monsanto, and Du Pont bought up a third of Ukrainian land, and investment giants like Blackrock signed contracts for the supply of weapons for the war (which they knew was inevitable) and for the reconstruction of the country after that war. Or how one can make a lot of money in a short time by throwing all ethical considerations overboard.

Additionally, there are important strategic reasons involved in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Think mainly of the importance of ensuring access to the Black Sea region for Russia. If Russia does not have access to the Black Sea, it will cease to exist as a great power in the near future. NATO knows this well, because they are using the militarization of Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region to apply the strategy Lord Palmerston used in the 19th century, which led to the first Crimean War. This strategy was revived at the end of the 20th century by Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard. It is well-known that the so-called neocons, who in many ways pull the strings in the USA and NATO, adopted Brzezinski’s strategy as their own.

I believe that any sober analysis of the situation will conclude that Putin and Russia had a choice: either they invaded Ukraine, or it was over for Russia as a great power. Moreover, Putin already made it clear at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest that Ukraine was the red line: if NATO made moves to annex Ukraine after the rest of Eastern Europe, war was the only outcome. He probably didn’t need to explain it to them, they knew it better than him. Any analysis of the historical data shows that the European and American leaders at that time realized that their maneuvers in Ukraine were almost inevitably heading toward a third world war.

So, we are witnessing a struggle between great powers. One is more expansionist than the other, one is more successful in the dirty military game than the other. Like all great powers, they feel threatened in their dominance. Great powers are subject to the law of the Ego: the more power one has, the more fearful and aggressive one becomes. Like all great powers, they use all the harmful strategic and military techniques of our rationalist time. Both thrive on propaganda, including false flag operations where, if necessary, their own citizens are sacrificed to influence public opinion. And both do not shy away from political persecution and murder.

The population should not so much choose between one of these two great powers; they must make it clear that a large-scale military and nuclear conflict is not an option, and that at least the way of words must be fully explored first. Putin is a human being, the Russians are human beings. And a human being wants to be heard. There are enough reasons to listen carefully to what the Russians have to say.

I do not want to say with this article that Ukraine should be left to its fate. Certainly not. What I do want to say is that the lead-up to a conflict and the intentions behind it must be assessed and portrayed as accurately as possible. And that we should certainly be cautious about fueling a war that, with diplomacy and a little bit of introspection, might be stopped. That is the only way we can truly offer the suffering men, women, and children of Ukraine a prospect of ending this senseless violence.

It is an illusion to think that a looming nuclear inferno, which threatens to wipe out all life on this planet, will wake the masses up from their mass formation. The mass is an organism that thrives on death drive. Its ultimate goal is self-destruction. The person who slides into mass formation has already chosen death; the death of all others and their own death.

The only thing that can stop this tendency is the courage to speak the truth by those who feel that something is wrong with the war story. A mass formation always develops under a growing veil of illusion, a one-sided and misleading danger that attributes all the misfortune in the world to one object. It is that illusion that must be broken with words, words that are spoken from the realization of the limitation of all knowledge, from the realization that the truth cannot and should not be fully said, from the realization that the one who thinks and is different is ultimately also a human being, from the realization that the Other is only our enemy in illusion.

Mattias