my diet

I have experimented a lot with nutrition and also know a lot about the science behind it. This is how I have come up with a diet plan, which as I personally find, is vastly superior to any other. One thing to note about ketogenic diets and meat-based diets is, that people often report magical effects such as a dramatic increase in mental clarity and decrease in tendencies towards mental and physical diseases, such as anxiety, depression, IBS or other autoimmune conditions. I can only confirm this myself. The most extreme difference I had was between the vegan diet, which fairs almost as bad as eating just fast food and alcohol. On the other hand the "standard diet" is very bad itself, which is why anyone should see substantial improvements. Most remarkably is the mental clarity, and why I originally started eating what I eat today since over 15 years. I don't think it is actually ketogenic, but almost.

Unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about nutrition, such as that meat is bad, which are simple non sequiturs and not actually supported scientifically. I wrote a seperate article about this.

basic principles of this diet

  • no processed foods (exception are traditional pure fermented foods as seen on this list)
  • only whole cuts and whole pieces of food (i.e. "not processed")
  • no simple sugars, little carbohydrates
  • a lot of meat
  • very strict "exclude most of everything" approach
  • increases physical as well as mental health and performance

This calculation is for a 180cm tall person. If you are substantially shorter, you need to eat less accordingly.


  • slice of pure whole grain rye bread with butter, slice of cheese (such as gouda) and ham
  • 0.2L of aged kombucha (sugar-free) or 20ml of apple cider vinegar

snacks in between

  • 0.2-0.5L self-made Kefir (supermarket buttermilk and kefir are not as good)
  • 65g soused herring (without canola oil, without any sort of sauce, just salt)


  • 500g of fresh pure muscle meat from large mammals (whole cuts, virtually no white parts) fried very briefly in olive oil
  • 50g chicory 50g other lettuce (or just 100g chicory)
  • 3 garlic cloves
  • 50g of potatos, sliced and fried
  • 50g of zucchini, sliced and fried
  • 1 onion, sliced and fried
  • 300g yoghurt

I put small amounts of vitamin C in my water, but you could also put lemon over your meat/lettuce.

This diet has all the micro nutrients you need, so you can eat it every day.

You must not eat other foods such as bread, cake, chocolate, noodles, etc. and not switch out anything, especially not the meat. You must check the packages if it is really a "pure" food. E.g. yoghurts must not have added sugar or aroma, and "pure rye bread" must only be made from rye without wheat added. This diet only really works if you stick to it 100%. If you were to e.g. eat less meat and more potatos, it might no longer be so healthy anymore, as you e.g. increase your gout risk by combining a lot of meat with a lot of carbohydrates (but not if you consume just either or). The herring contains lots of of vitamin D, much more than any other food. Leaving it out our substituting it with other fish would be a very bad idea. Similarly chicory contains vitamin A, which would otherwise be somewhat lacking (but you still get 30% of the RDA without it). If you leave out the kefir, you don't really get enough calcium and so forth. In short: don't change the plan, because you prefer to eat differently, or you have heard other things to be better. A lot of common wisdoms are misleading, such as that meat causes gout, and are actually not true if you follow a balanced and thought-through diet plan. If you were to tip the balance, because you follow conflicting simplifications and dogma about nutrition, which would only be true within a different diet scheme, then it will not work out well.

Ideally you should not eat for 5-6 hours before the large meal in the evening, so that you feel quote hungry for 1-2 hours before. Feeling hungry cleans the liver, at least a little bit. Eat at most 3-4 hours before going to bed.

After 3 days you should already feel much much better in general. But it might take up to 7 days for you to adjust, especially if you have never eaten large meals and if your diet before relied heavily on carbohydrates, or if you have medical issues such as IBS. It takes time for your fat metabolism to ramp up and your body to derive energy from fat, rather than sugar in your diet. If you do a lot of physical activity you might feel low on energy at first or get cravings for bread, candy and such. This goes away after a while. If you do extreme sports, such as running marathons, you cannot just eat this diet, as carbohydrates are necessary for extreme amounts of physical activity. Most people however should already feel much better after just the first day.

Other foods that are safe to eat for me and healthy: tomatos, peppers, most fruits (up to 200g at a time, ideally 100g), zucchini, pumpkin, other kinds of unprocessed meats, certain nuts and seeds but not all. If you want to try this diet for health reasons, ultimately after a few weeks you could try out other foods multiple times and see if they make you feel worse again. But don't do this right away. There is no need to eat tomatos or anything else, it would be just for the taste. This diet is absolutely complete with just the 3 meals listed, and can be eaten indefinitely without any sort of malnutrition.

Another important thing is to source high quality and fresh meat. It should be tasty if eaten raw, not apprehensive or slimy to the touch, not smelly in any way, that's how you know. It is always best to buy pieces sold inside oxygen-removed atmosphere, not loose pieces without proper packaging. I found that vacuum packaged and frozen meat is often very old for some reason, hence rather something to avoid. If you want to get into eating liver and kidneys, those should never be bought from the supermarket and need to come from animals which are not farmed industrially. Some countries have very poor meat quality, such as the USA, and you might need to pay a little extra to get somewhat reasonable quality. However in Germany, you can find common supermarkets which sell high quality meat regularly at half the price, so that you only pay 4-5 Euros per Kilo.


  • low energy, fatigue -> wait at least a week for metabolism to adjust, do more exercise on the long run to get more competent at metabolizing fat rather than carbohydrates
  • dinner is somehow too stressful/painful to digest -> might be a sign of very poor health if it persists beyond 7 days. In this case, divide the meal into two or cut out 1/3 of the meat from your plate and eat it the next day as snacks.
  • meat too fatty chewy/dry if fried -> fry on maximum heat and only for 90 seconds each side
  • heart issues after eating -> meal contains too much fat, choose even leaner cuts, work with less oil - or poor health -> divide meal
  • too much weight loss -> drink more kefir, buy slightly fattier cuts for dinner, put more butter on bread, eat more herring, or worst case fry bacon as snack food

This page or post was last modified on 2023-05-26 .

understanding nutritional science - a personal 3000 meter overview

Thanks to Sci-hub, its predecessors and open journals, I have had the opportunity to read far more than just the abstracts in thousands of medical studies in my life, if not tens of thousands. A fair share of them were about nutrition and other personal interests, such as being able to recognize the shortcomings of science and the current zeitgeist. Although I am just a layman, the extreme amount of studies I have read in detail far surpasses that of most practitioners, and puts me into a rather strange position.

If you want to understand nutritional science, you have to understand a bit about how medical science works. In medical science you have something called placebo controlled randomized double-blinded trials and prospective cohort studies, without which the greater whole of medical science would essentially be discredited and an unreliable nightmare, where no one really knew what was true or false to begin with. Unfortunately such trials don't exist in any form or shape in nutritional science and cohort studies are also very different. For double-blinded studies, you would have to force-feed people all the food they consume for decades with feeding tubes. And if you had placebo groups, the people in it would just starve to death. In prospective cohort studies on the other hand, people are rarely if ever force-fed strict diet plans the same way as if taking a certain type of drug, and this kind of study is much less commonly done than it is in medicine. So there are clearly huge issues with how studies are conducted, and due to the complexity of food compared to just single substances and pills, the conclusions we derive from them are not the same as we can derive from scientific studies in other fields.

Ok then if we so to speak can't really have reliable or robust scientific studies, we do still understand something about metabolic function and nutrients to be able to make conclusions? Yes this is true, but what we understand is very limited as well. Vegan studies and fasting studies for example have shown, that even if people consume wildly insufficient amounts of vitamins and other micro nutrients, at least most people's bodies get very very efficient at budgeting whatever little is left and still made available almost indefinitely, such that no hard physical signs of malnutrition will manifest. What other effects this budgeting has on mind and body, we don't really know. We also do not understand the gut microbiome much at all, which is at the heart of good health and nutrition. We do not understand what individual differences in people exist, that make semi-essiential amino-acids more essential in one group of people but less in the other. We do not really understand how an abundance or relative shortage of substances such as DPA, EPA, tyronsine, Q10, creatine, carnosine, B vitamins, choline, carnitine and so forth influence health on the long run, and how much people are individually constituted to metabolize them from one food source or the other. In summary, what we understand on a cellular and metabolic level is so limited that you hardly can draw any if any at all concrete nutritional advice from it, and individual differences between people due to genetics or old age can be enormous. Often even worse, due to scientific reductionism (aka scientism), whenever people attempt to argue on this basis, the conclusions can be misleading and wrong (e.g. about dietary cholesterol being harmful, or fructose as a better sugar alternative), as they do not factor in the whole picture that you can factor in if the scientific understanding wasn't as fragmentary and incomplete as it was or is at the time.

But then how do observational nutritional studies work at all? Often people are essentially given questionaires about what they ate the last 20 years, and then studies make seemingly outlandish findings, such as that eating more than 2 eggs a week is associated with adverse health outcomes just as much as smoking cigarettes. Or that eating white meat is associated with better health than red meat. Or less meat with better health. It is not that those studies are wrong, too small, or have methological problems. It is just that we cannot draw any actually useful conclusions from them. People who do this, or suggest that this is possible, commit to various non sequiturs, such as the converse error and that correlation does not imply causation. In actuality, people might simply crave to eat eggs if there is something wrong with their cardiovascular system, because they crave cholesterol which the body needs to patch damaged endothelium inside the blood vessels. Also people might recall what they ate wildly incorrectly, and they may not adhere to strict diets much at all, despite stating so, especially if they are very strict and very complicated. Or the methodology has issues, such as categorizing or not categorizing fast-foods and food preparations as "eggs", simply because they contain eggs as a minute ingredient. This is indeed one of the main drivers how we have meat studies that associate meat with adverse health outcomes: meat is everywhere, especially highly processed foods and "meat" such as burgers or sausages. But this is by no means the same "meat" you would eat inside a healthy diet scheme. People who choose chicken wings (white meat) and salad at Burger King, instead of the big Double Whopper with cheese (red meat) and icecream, are the people who end up driving those kinds of statistics. Someone who is health-conscious however, eats lots of vegetables and naturally avoids take-away fast-foods, because of whatever dietary constraints, will often be the one who is counted as someone who has "reduced meat" in their diet. On the other hand, people who don't think about what they eat, aka eating "the standard diet", will be counted as "meat eating" or "not meat reduced" in studies. And people who eat more meat when trying to be more health-conscious, do hardly exist at all.

But what exactly is "the standard diet" in research? If you were to go to a supermarket and grab one piece from every shelf, this is more or less the standard diet: A pack of flour, a pack of sugar, a pack of bread, a banana and an apple, a yoghurt with sugar, a pack of cheese, milk or milk with cacao and sugar, sausages, a jar of pickles, a can of beans, a pack of noodles, a pack of rice, a sack of potatos, a bottle of wine, a sixpack of beer, a bottle of gin, a pack of bonbons, various pieces of chocolate and candy, two packs of chips, prezels, a six pack of mountain dew, a pack of pizzas, chicken wings and lasagna. Plus everything you can buy at fast-food chains such as McDonalds or Pizza Hut. In short: The standard diet is to simply mindlessly consume whatever you feel like and what sells cheap, because you just don't care and think about what you eat. Regardless if it makes sense or not, this is "the standard diet" (also called "meat-inclusive" or "meat diet" in vegetarian studies) and the actual scientific baseline to compare anything in nutritional science to. Obviously it isn't hard at all to find a diet style that shows some kind of measurable improvement to it (such as reduction in obesity or cardiovascular issues). Even if this diet style would fair worse than following some other healthy diet plan, which it will be never compared to.

But this also escapes common sense: We don't need science to tell us that eating crap like a mindless idiot somehow is unhealthier than thinking about what you eat. Or that processed foods and fast foods are unhealthy. But this is sadly what a lot of people are trying to sell when advocating nutritional science by overstating or oversuggesting what research findings can really tell us. At least insofar as that we don't suffer from certain severe medical conditions to begin with, which do warrant greater concern and might be subject to greater medical insights.

Also many other issues need to be factored in when analyzing studies. For example the government might be very keen on funding lots of studies on how people can live healthier lives while eating a diet of corn syrup and insects, algae and other cheap dirt - so they have more farm land to support their biodiesel and bioethanol scam. But no one ever funds any studies on how to live healthier on a diet that is mostly made up of wild grass fed water buffalo, phesants, whale liver oil,  truffels, Nakazawa cows' milk and Manuka honey - which might or might not be wildly superior somehow. In fact little research has been done even just about ketogenic diets (i.e. diets that mostly rely on meat, and fat for energy), although it has been scientifically known and suggested as an option for decades to address a wide range of problems, such as obesity, mental health issues and diabetes. Funding bias and lack of research due to selective funding is one of the single most biggest problems in science we face today.

Red meat (pork & beef) requires over 6 times more feed and much longer timeframes to produce the same amount of meat as white meat (poultry, fish). It also produces about as much more emissions plus other costs. This has put the industry and government on a hunt in tandem, to manufacture data that associates red meat with adverse health effects. Conversely no one funds studies to the contrary. Red meat studies that do not include processed meats equally do not exist.

But not only science is affected by heavy bias. Considerable lobbying efforts exist on the internet that distort nutritional information, such as the vegan and vegetarian lobby, who create a large portion of nutritional blogs and Youtube videos. This is not only because of advocacy, but in part also because it is just so complicated to follow their diet scheme, and the amount of information put forward is just orders of magnitudes higher than in any sane diet style. One that you can entirely explain on essentially just one page, or with just a few uncomfortable bullet points, that no one really wants to hear. Vegans and vegetarians however do not eat food for health reasons, but for ideological reasons, i.e. for animal wellfare or to save the climate. This alone should make you question if their advice can be taken serious at all. And the same problem leeches into research as well, as prescribing veganism and environmentalism is somewhat of a bigger fad amongst highly educated people. To the contrary though, studies have found that the majority of vegans suffer from malnutrition in western countries such as Germany, UK or US. Yet this research is buried and denied so much that it will strike most people with total disbelief, and of course the people affected somehow manage to remain totally oblivious of the fact. It might be that one out of a felt one hundred people is genetically constituted to naturally cope with vegan nutrition. And this is the guy you see on Youtube advertizing it. But for the rest of us, essentially anyone who has ever seriously tried, it will not replicate this experience and be a total nightmare, which studies reflect and acknowledge to some major degree, with very high drop-out rates and people showing concerning blood markers.

The amount of distortion you have to face in science even with placebo controls and rigorous prospective studies is staggering. But if you don't even have that, it is all just a huge confounded mess.

The only diet plan that is somewhat scientifically well-supported in its positive health effects is the "mediterranean diet". This is not actually a diet that people eat in the mediterranean region, but it developed from a fantasy that scientists had about it in the 60s (olive oil, red wine and fruits) and it just was spun further and further within scientific circles over time to support research findings. Now it denotes an entirely different style of diet, that doesn't really have much of anything to do with mediterranean cousine. Even if the research about its health effects seems solid, it is still very important to consider, that this research was initially and mainly done with sick people in mind. This automatically means, that it includes or targets mainly old people, since the older you are the more chronic health diagnoses you get. Old people also make up a major part of the population nowadays. It might make perfect sense that the average 67 year old with diabetes,  arthritis and high blood pressure, is much more likely to become incompetent to digest normal healthy meals, because of impaired organ function. Thus of course in those kinds of people it will show substantial health benefits to e.g. reduce the amount of protein in the diet or even cholesterol, and this truly makes sense for them. However if the same is done to healthy subjects, at least in animal studies, often the reverse turns out to be true. This is why we simply don't know if it truly makes sense for normal healthy people to reduce the amount of meat in their diet. But likely at a certain low threshold of reduction, normal people can just easily cope with it while old and sick people would certainly not, without dietary intervention. Hence studies show significant benefits from reducing red meat by some 30% over average. The government obviously just loves it as well, and it is put forward everywhere as a one size fits all advice. But if you are not old and frail to begin with, you might just be the one trying to save at the wrong end and don't do yourself any favors. Especially so the younger you are.



To summarize all this, I have drawn this cartoon on how you can think of the capabilities of nutritional science to draw conclusions about certain diet styles. I am not exaggerating in that most of the why and hows in research findings still remain a mystery. And everything you hear in blogs and official health advice must be questioned and taken with a grain of salt. Most diets will lead to improvements, simply because anything is better than not thinking about what you eat. Even if it makes no sense at all, such as eating only red foods on Monday and only green foods on Tuesday, yellow foods on Wednesday and so forth (hence excluding a lot of fast-foods most days). In the end what is best or not cannot simply be bought by listening to opinion pieces, or following government advice. But only with critical thought, common sense and by reasoning about it outside of the current paradigms.

What is important to recognize however is that strict and sophisticated diets, such as my diet style, are simply not researched. We only know from anecdotes, be that scientifically with "ketogenic" diets or sites like, that people not only experience health benefits but often even impossible improvements, such as curing type 1 diabetes, IBS or ADHD, by eating essentially just meat and nothing else. People don't seem to report such extreme improvements on such a comparably large scale for a fringe minority, with any other food or diet style. So it shows what potential this one single food has.

Also meat and animal products contain many substances that people have never even heard of, and that do not occur much or at all in plant sources, but which exert surprising health benefits if consumed in excess quantities. Some of which do remarkably increase physical fitness, athletic or mental performance or longevity. For example: choline, 4-hydroxy-proline, DHA, DPA, EPA, carnitine, creatine, vitamin K2, vitamin D, calcium, B12, and even extremely potent anti-oxidants such as carnosine, anserine, coenzyme Q10 and taurine or cofactors to antioxidants such as selenium, zinc, or vitamin E. Research about those endogenous substances is often very sparse and new, while research of exogenous anti-oxidants is "somehow" extremely abundant and overwhelming. So there is not telling how many substances and their astonishing health functions are yet to be discovered.

With the advent of agriculture and the adoption of an unnatural deficient nutritional style, average body height has decreased dramatically, and has still not fully recovered to the heights of mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies, despite recent abundances of food and increases in meat consumption.

For certain it can be said, that meat is much much closer to what our body needs, simply because our bodies are mostly just made up of it. It might be possible for our bodies to go the extra mile to convert plant material to meat material, because of extreme evolutionary adaptation. However there is a certain logic to it, that cutting out the middle route might come more natural and easy to our metabolic systems. With less challenges involved, such as metabolic conversions, fighting anti-nutrients, endocrine disruptors and other latent plant poisons that were developed over time against us. Those things might not work properly anymore in people with poor gut health, or who are just genetically constituted differently. Or they never worked that well to begin with, because the biochemistry and microbiology for it just has to be too complicated to yield great results. Those are all big unknowns when considering whether it is better or worse to reduce or increase meat in your diet.

While I don't think that eating just meat and nothing else is really a good diet style, the new "carnivore" internet phenomenon, with some scientific background, challenges everything we thought of as substantiated before in nutritional science, and what we believe to be healthy. First it illustrates that meat contains virtually all the micro nutrients that the body needs (although it is obviously lacking here and there especially on certain electrolytes), while plants only really contain single nutrients, such as lemons containing just vitamin C, with certain seeds being somewhat of an exception to that, which most people don't commonly know of. But it also shows at numerous examples, such as vitamin C requirements being reduced by orders of magnitude when not eating any sugars, that it is the particular combination of foods that matter. And that we can likely attribute this to simply evolutionary adaptation. I.e. that our ancestors were forced to survive on meat and nothing else for months at a time during winter. Most of what we understand scientifically often only holds true to the "standard diet", which consists mostly of wheat products, refined sugar, and to some extent also meat and alcohol. On the other hand, conflicting information such as from the carnivore diet or different diet schemes, is simply by far and large ignored in nutritional science. If I were to drink a beer or two in the evening, like a lot of people after a meal with a lot of meat, I would certainly get gout and kidney stones. And this reflects in scientific studies as meat being associated with gout. Although we know now that meat alone does not cause gout. But how does that make sense for me personally to draw smart conclusions from for my own life? Should I cut out the meat, or should I cut out the beer and potatos?

If you live very health conscious, and are not careless in what you eat, then you will find that nutritional advice is often very limited, single-minded, simplified and misleading. We actually don't understand a whole lot about the body, gut and metabolism. What is good or bad is still best addressed by common-sense decisions, and just personal experience and trial and error. Don't eat just what tastes good, but what makes you feel heathier. Experiment what works best on your own body. Try one radical style, such as veganism, and then try another radical style, such as carnivore and find the in-between that is best. See what difference it makes. Reason and guess why it makes sense to eat some foods and not others. For example evolutionary speaking, wheat is still quite a new thing for the human race, and there are countless minorities who still have issues with it, because they lack the genetic adaptation. Some things like alcohol and refined sugar are just bad. On the other hand people have survived for hundreds of thousands of years on mostly just meat in winter times. Eggs and fruits were only available during certain times of the year and in limited quantities. This reflects in the science. We now find that too much fructose consumed all-year around will lead to detrimental liver changes. And maybe you really should not eat an egg a day. But 30 years back, science was advocating fructose as a healthier sugar. We could have seen this coming, with simply common sense, and thinking about what our ancestors ate.

When science is limited, appealing to scientism makes you blind and is more often than not ill-advised and misleading. Nutrition can certainly benefit from scientific insights, however it would be very premature to root it in science entirely. Especially so if the people advocating scientific findings, do themselves not understand them properly, or have ulterior motives that do not have your best possible health status in mind. This could affect your mental performance, emotional or physical wellbeing all alike.

Some people do really fine by just eating fast-food. Most people just think they do. For others it has more serious consequences, and even crippling disease. It is important to experiment and find a diet style that is healthy and works best individually.

At the end, another little story about a mushroom called paxillus involutus. It was eaten for hundreds of years, and not recognized as poisonous. Most people didn't experience any issues from it at all. If you had conducted studies on it, it would have shown that it is a healthy food for most people, and only small minorities would show sensitivity reactions, similar to how only very few people experience full-blown Celiac disease (gluten sensitivity) or Chron's disease when eating wheat. So this is a healthy food right, if most people are fine, there is no reason for concern? Wrong. We now know that this mushroom gets more poisonous over time, sometimes many years, because it stimulates autoimmune reactions and it can eventually lead to organ failure. But it took hundreds of years of science to advance to the point of being able to recognize this. From just people's observations, the mushroom was really fine to eat. You could have asked 10 people if this mushroom was good, and 10 would have said yes. This is not to say that wheat can be deadly, but similarly it has been associated with immunological processes that can have detrimental effects on health to various degrees that only really develop over long timeframes. Food is just a very complex thing in nature. As there are hundred of thousands of chemicals in food, hundreds of foods, hundreds of microbes, proteins and enzymes involved in digestion, it stands to reason if there aren't just as many points of failure. Small minorities go entirely unnoticed in scientific studies and natural observations. With food we might face a situation where most things work out for most people and some things just don't work out for most people, we just don't know what the latter are, because it is so individual. It is up to you to conduct some science on your own, to see what works out for yourself.

This page or post was last modified on 2024-06-14 .

how to approach censorship

Censorship goes against basic fundamental rights guaranteed by our democratic constitutions and thus against democracy itself. Just like you need free elections for democracy, you need a free press and absence of censorship. This is why the German constitution states in article 5:

"Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinion in word, writing and image and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through radio and film are guaranteed. Censorship does not take place."

However in practice this is far from true. Modern laws such as the Media State Law and the NetzDG grant undue powers to the government to remove any sort of information in an almost arbitrary fashion, without trial and without any effort. They do this under the pretense of removing information that does not meet journalistic standards, or is to be considered hate speech and other illegal forms of opinion under highly subjective criteria, that do not consider what is actually said, but rather how it might be received. The extreme and wild abuse of these laws have been documented during the Covid pandemic, and the Ukrainian war, where entire news outlets were shut down simply due to reporting in a different style of narrative. Journalists had their bank accounts frozen and were put on criminal charges. Novel laws like the Media State Law have been explicitly engineered to target individuals who somehow have a large public reach, but make exceptions for small outlets like this blog (insofar as that it is disconnected from public channels such as Youtube and Facebook) which don't reach a certain amount of viewers, to give off the false impression of a free democratic society. A very common scheme of censorship in Germany would look like this:

Due to reaching a certain amount of viewers, e.g. more than 20,000 per month, a blog like this one will be put under the same scrutinizing laws as a large media outlet such as the New York Times or Facebook, and any claims made and information put forward needs to be proven and triple checked, even if it is in the form of interviews and reader comments and even if it is run by just one person without financal backing, with a disclaimer about it, who cannot possibly put in the same effort, legal fights and standards held by billion dollar companies. Those laws also demand that whatever opinions are disseminated, must not contradict the opinions of authorative sources, such as the WHO or other government agencies, to be not classified as "misinformation". If for example an independent source, such as it has happend in the case of Julian Assange, states that war crimes have been commited by the government by proof of classified documents, this source is to be considered invalid and as misinformation, as classified documents do not constitute a valid source in the standards of journalistic conduct.

Another important pillar in censorship is deanonymization, which is heavily enforced and ensured by German law for people who publish any sort of content online. Once people start speaking about important issues, it is bound to create controversies and hate in some minority of those who are either in agreement or disagreement. This is just the very nature of public discourse. Some of those people with a more radical attitude then start various attacks on the speaker, such as threats against their lives and family. But most popular are unrelated fake criminal accusations by anonymous phone call, such as child pornography, drug dealing or fraud - which can be done without effort to someone who is required to have their full name and address listed right next to their publications. If the outcome is in line with state agenda, the police then starts acting on those fake accusations, however dubious and nonsensical they might be, by confiscating all computer equipment such as phones, servers, USB sticks, harddrives or notebooks for at least 1.5 years or longer. This is possible because in Germany probable cause is not required, and any sort of utter nonsense can be acted upon once a state attorney issues a search warrant. In the recent years, this has happened to some journalists and peace activists every few weeks dozens of times in a row, which crippled their ability to speak online. But it doesn't end there. In Germany it is also common to detain people for extended periods of time (half a year or longer) without trial, so again bogus charges have been used against peace activists to imprison them and shut them down. Which is arguably not only totalitarian censorship but a violation of their very human rights.

Furthermore double standards and undue outlandish scruteny will be employed at the arbirary disgression of the government to take down dissenting alternative news outlets. For example, the New York Times might publish hundreds of articles, such as on victims of  institutionally discriminated groups, such as black people or disabled people, without any cited statistical backing by the CDC, police or other authorative agencies. But as soon as alternative news outlets interview people who are as equally affected by discrimination on a topic that the government does not approve of, such as vaccine damage, the government will put anyone who defies their narrative at gunpoint to prove their position by backing of a wealth of authorative sources. In Germany, the goverment has all the legal powers to instantly remove this unwanted information, and laws like our constitution that gurantee freedom of the press are ignored, by the logic of being superseded by other laws. We know from the covid pandemic, that even expert politicians on pandemic outbreaks, who have been employed by the government in the past for precisely this matter, are discredited by the government, and not accepted as "valid sources" to give opinions on such topics, according to state institutions and censorship laws. Thus if interviewed, the government has the power to arbitarily choose what sources are acceptable and which are not, regardless of the qualifications of interviewed experts and regardless of how they have been employed and accepted in their fields of experitise.  To say then that those laws are designed to be used in a reasonable and appropriate fashion, is simply ill informed and naive. As it has already been proven to to not be the case multiple times, and all warnings about potential ill effects and abuse have long become a reality. No one has any idea about the true extent of this censorship, due to self-censorship and under-reporting.

What can you learn from this?

There are a couple of very easy answers to this:

  1. The censor is always wrong. It does not matter at all why censorship takes place. But if it does, the censor always loses the argument. It is not important why someone censors, or what their motives are, only that they do. If for example, the government feels like censoring holocaust history, or the Ukrainian war - by whatever personal interpretation - then whoever gets censored wins the argument. There is no middle-ground in this. If you feel like punching someone in the face, because they offended you, then you lose the argument. No one cares if they did beat first, did beat your wife, if they burned small children or an angry mob wanted to lynch them. As the arbiter of justice, you simply lose due to gross misconduct, no matter the circumstance. The same must be true in  the case of censorship as well. Trying to look for a quick fix in censorship is harmful, because it destroys democratic foundations. If we have granted voices undue credit, due to censoring them, then we can fix this situation by removing the censorship and having an open discussion. If there are laws in place which provide loopholes to censor free speech, such as misinformation laws, then we must fight and abolish those laws. Many people are censored because their content is unpopular or apprehensive, and the government hides those amongst them who were censored for illegitimate reasons. Censoring people only suggests that there is truth to what they are saying, which the government and powerful groups are not able to deal with, if that truth became widely known. We must not give people who make illegitimate claims undue credibility, by censoring free speech and public debate, such as it happened in the case of Zundel. Now with censorship running rampant, and government and large institutions discrediting themselves with 1984 style actions, we only erode trust and empower large groups of people capable and willing of critical thought, to question all kinds of other established historic facts in retrospective. The only sane way out of this is to censor less, not more.
  2. Protect yourself from censorship. Use search engines like Yandex for political searches, don't use Google (as of 2023 the censorship is extreme). Don't put blind faith into herd mentality and large institutions. Use alternative platforms first.
  3. Put your content into censorship-resistant and decentralized alternatives to big-tech outlets, such as Facebook or Instagram. Use Pixelfed and Mastodon instead. The software we elect to use is just as important as the political parties we elect. You don't want to vote for the NSDAP or the communist party, just because it gives you certain benefits and is more comfortable for whatever reason. You want to vote for and decide for what is best for society. Also consider alternative anonymous networks, such as LokinetI2P and TOR.
  4. Governments are the single biggest source of disinformation, and this disinformation is replicated without critique by large media institutions. It does not matter if that is foreign media or domestic media: both sides do this. You should therefore either rely on primary sources or on friends and people of trust to determine what is going on in the world.
  5. Misinformation is a ruise to justify censorship - People in power try to sell the idea that being misinformed warrants censoring those who provide poor infromation. But what information is "poor" or false to begin with? Many stories such as the Hunter Biden Laptop or the inefficacy of the Covid vaccines and various measures, later turned out to be true by no mistake, regardless of whether or not large institutions like the WHO or CNN have put forward conflicting viewpoints. In the end, without a 1984-style ministry of truth, no one has the authority to say what is true or false. If they did, we would live in a totalitarian state. In the end, misinformation laws can only exist as so far as they violate our freedom of speech, which makes any cosideration or discussion about "misinformation" in a legal context invalid and inherently anti-democratic and dangerous.
  6. Protect democracy - by not voting for large established parties which have proven to trample on our rights and are undermined by lobbyists and fools. In many places of the world, the elites have managed to steal people's votes by not making them vote for anything at all, but simply against the other party. Defy the system, reclaim your democratic sovereignty. Don't fall for tribalism, polarization and false promises.

I want to encourage anyone to study the history of soviet Russia and China as well as Nazi Germany. The parallels to nowadays shift towards totalitarianism are absolutely mind-blowing.

Further reading:

JACOB SIEGEL - Thirteen ways of looking at disinformation
"Medienstaatsvertrag" - Zensur freier Medien?
Zensur durch die Hintertür via neuem Medienstaatsvertrag
Apolut - Zensur russischer Sender und Gegenmaßnahmen

This page or post was last modified on 2023-10-25 .