Skip to main content

Free Journalist

What ruined democracy?

Posted in

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

After I arrived in Austria I realised, on the basis of many years of research work, that my product, the anti-cancer preparation UKRAIN (NSC 631570), which is the first and currently the only preparation with a selective effect, could bring very great benefits not only for all cancer patients but also for the whole of Austria. According to the law in force at the time a preparation should have immediately been registered if it was produced on the basis of already registered starting substances and if it demonstrated a therapeutic advantage over those substances. If this preparation were registered in Austria it could bring the country at least  2.8 billion Euros per year in tax revenues and create jobs for more than 2,000 Austrian citizens. I therefore turned to the Austrian government to help me with my work, emphasising that this preparation would be Austria’s most prestigious export product. Proof of the efficacy of this preparation is that, as its inventor, I have twice been nominated for the Nobel Prize. I have also been invited as honorary speaker to the 5th World Congress on Cancer Therapy taking place in Atlanta, Georgia (USA) in September this year. Proof that the Austrian Ministry of Health had no doubt whatsoever about the efficacy of UKRAIN is the following extract from a report devoted to the preparation drawn up by the ministry back in 1992. In that year the Pharmaceutical Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Health, Sport and Consumer Protection stated in a document entitled “Final Report (GZ 21.405/1011-II/1/8/92)”written by Prof. Dr. H. Hitzenberger and department head Dr. G. Liebeswar that: “There have been numerous works on Ukrain published over the last 10 years and more.” “It emerges that it must already be a developed preparation.” “The final product ‘Ukrain’ is declared to be consistent with the pharmacopoeia and must consequently be dependable.” “Immuno-modulating and malignotoxic activity have been attributed to it.” “More than 400 patients in many countries of the world have so far been treated in Phase III studies… The tolerability of Ukrain has evidently been judged to be good.” “Clinical reports state that patients showed the following reactions: 1) standstill of tumour growth without further metastases; 2) partial remissions; 3) total remissions and 4) total remissions with no recurrence over several years (up to 10 years).” “Ukrain accumulates in tumour tissue within minutes and this can be demonstrated by its autofluorescence under UV light… This enables good encapsulation of tumour tissue from surrounding tissue, which could be important for surgical operations.” “Ukrain has also been tried with HIV patients in individual cases. They felt better both subjectively and objectively.” “The substance Ukrain has been repeatedly put to the test in Austria since the summer of 1983.” “Examining all statements it can be said that a clinical study in Austria can still be approved because the substance ‘Ukrain’ is obviously very well tolerated.”

(http://www.ukrin.com/docs/Zitate_Abschlussgutachten_1992.pdf)

In 1993 a highly toxic anti-cancer preparation, TAXOL, from the American pharmaceutical concern Bristol-Myers was approved and registered in Austria on the basis of only 17 submitted case histories and without a comparative study.

 (http://ukrin.com/docs/Taxol_de_93.pdf,http://www.hormonselbsthilfe.de/angebote/literatur/krebs-besiegen-ohne-nebenwirkungen.html- S. 87).

The suspicion arises that the pharmaceutical industry, which makes billions in profit from the treatment of cancer patients with chemotherapeutic drugs all over the world, gives money as donations to organisations which could be seen as a legalised form of bribery. This is why the anti-cancer preparation UKRAIN has still not been registered in Austria - in fact unlawfully and with breaches of procedural regulations.(http://www.ukrin.com/docs/im_namen_der_republik-1996.pdf)

Instead of receiving help I experienced a real horror, described in the books, “Anti-Cancer Preperation UKRAIN: a Story of Criminal Obstructionby Dr. Eleonore Thun-Hohenstein and the recently published book, “The Unwanted Cure for Cancer. The Fight Against a Patent”by the same author which is the continuation of the story of the preparation.

I have been left wondering how all this this could happen in our democratic society. Perhaps we are also at fault for the fact that some people do not use their power for the benefit of society?

Corruption is a great evil. At the end of the Second World War each country developed quickly. This can be explained by the fact that the old corruption was destroyed by the war and nothing had yet emerged to take its place. New people came to power in post-war Europe and reconstructed the totally destroyed economy.

But do we need war in order to create a new state without corruption? Of course not. This article lays out my thoughts on this subject along with some constructive suggestions that could perhaps be interesting and helpful in combatting such a social evil.

Please find enclosed my article entitled, “What is Ruining Democracy? Power structures must be changed more often so that they do not become corrupt”along with some documentation relating to the criminal obstruction of my anti-cancer preparation UKRAIN.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Wassil Nowicky

Is the Nobel Prize Losing its Prestige?

Posted in

In 2000, in what is perhaps the most famous specialist journal in the world, the American “Science”, we read with great surprise about an open letter from 269 scientists protesting that the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine had not been awarded to Oleh Hornykiewicz. (1)
At the time we were sceptical about this protest because it seemed improbable to us that the Nobel Prizes – the greatest scientific honours in the world – could be unjustly awarded.

However, later a news item perplexed us.
In January 2004 Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, announced that the American President George W. Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. (2) At first we thought this was a joke. A legitimate question – what for then? For the Iraq War, which the two politicians had begun with the help of bogus evidence?
People throughout the world were against this war. The Iraq War was the first war in the history of humanity to be preceded by protest demonstrations before it had begun, and millions of people took part in the demonstrations. On 15 February 2003 approximately 9 million people worldwide participated in the biggest peace demonstration in history.(3) The protests were particularly strong in the USA, where people demonstrated daily against the planned war. International inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The UN had passed no resolution for military action in Iraq. The large majority of the world community was against this war and almost all European governments had rejected military intervention.
This war had no ethical or judicial grounds and no justification under international law. However, all the protests did not help. The invasion of Iraq began on 20 March 2003.
By the time Bush and Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ten months had passed and Iraq already lay in ruins.
Since the beginning of the war at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of violence. (4) At the same time there are approximately 2.5 million internally displaced persons in Iraq, 1 million of them from before the war, the others since 2003 with a dramatic increase since February 2006 with around 1.3 million internally displaced persons. Added to this there are more than 2 million refugees outside Iraq. (5)
On 8 September 2004 the number of American fatalities passed the psychologically critical mark of 1,000. Until now a total of 4,792 coalition soldiers have been killed, 4,474 of them American. (6) In addition more than 8,000 Americans have been severely wounded. The total number of wounded US soldiers amounts to 32,159.

And Bush and Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for these deeds? What does this have to do with Alfred Nobel’s will?

We take the liberty of quoting the conditions for the award of the Nobel Peace Prize from Alfred Nobel’s will: “… one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.“ (7)

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to personalities like Mother Theresa and organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières completely on merit.

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama in 2009 leaves many open questions. The fact that he had been nominated was kept quiet until the last minute and the award was a surprise for everyone. The award itself could only be seen as being given in advance and as a signal – the president should end the war. 
However, the war is still going on.

These events have compelled us to see the Hornykiewicz story from another angle.
“269 renowned scientists at prestigious universities in Brazil, China, Germany, England, Finland, France, Great Britain, Guam, Hawaii, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Canada, New Zeeland, Holland, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, Hungary and the USA, in fact all over the world, cannot all be wrong at the same time,” we then thought. We are not experts in the field of Parkinson’s disease and cannot judge whose research is more important in this area. But these people are not journalists or similar laymen in medicine, they are specialists in this field. They use Hornykiewicz’s discoveries in their research and most certainly know that he deserved the Nobel Prize. 

We asked the publishers of the journal “Parkinsonism and Related Disorders“ for permission to publish the letter from the 269 scientists. On 23 August 2011 we received permission and are very grateful to the publishers. This letter will certainly help readers to assess the importance of Hornykiewicz’s research.
The people who signed the letter see the benefit of Hornykiewicz’s discoveries in their daily work. And they write that it was precisely in his work that the decisive link between dopamine and the mechanisms of the evolution of brain disease in humans was determined. However, what appears no less important is that his observations were the basis for the modern treatment of Parkinson’s disease, which is of the greatest significance for millions of people. However, this is not all: his research gave the impulse for countless similar studies of many other neurological and psychiatric disorders. 

It clearly emerges from the scientists’ open letter that Oleh Hornykiewicz made a decisive contribution to decoding the development mechanisms of Parkinson’s disease as well as the establishment of the modern treatment of this widespread neurological disorder. The fact that despite being nominated around ten times he was not awarded the Nobel Prize does seem questionable, is not consistent with Alfred Nobel’s will and represents a dangerous precedent.

From these examples it can be seen that the social tendencies in today’s world have taken an ominous course which must finally be stopped.

We have given much thought to why Professor Hornykiewicz did not receive the fully deserved Nobel Prize but have found no satisfactory answer. We live in a time when all people have the same rights irrespective of skin colour, religion or gender. The Nobel Prize Committee should explain why the prize was not awarded to the Viennese pharmacologist.

It would in any case make sense to examine where and when these questionable tendencies have their origin, how many people have undeservedly been awarded the Nobel Prize and who has not received it despite deserving it. Perhaps a group does in fact exist – so-called lobbyists who present second-rate discoveries to society as first-rate and honour certain scientists with the Nobel Prize. At the same time some first-rate discoveries disappear from history and outstanding scientists are left empty handed. Such a tendency is destructive and must be stopped because it disrupts the development of society. 

It is incomprehensible why of all Parkinson’s disease researchers the Nobel Prize was awarded to Arvid Carlsson. He did not completely understand the importance of dopamine and even wrote in 1965, “…it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the relative importance of dopamine and noradrenaline for the central effects [incl. parkinsonism?] of reserpine.“ (8) .

Dopamine was synthesised for the first time in 1910 by George Barger and James Ewens at the Wellcome Laboratories in Herne Hill, London. In the same year, and also in London, Henry Dale (later Sir Henry Dale) examined the biological effects of dopamine and defined them as a weak sympatomimetic effect. Many years later, in 1952, this same Henry Dale gave the name dopamine to the substance with the chemical designation 3,4-dihydroxyphenelethylamine.

Levodopa, or L-Dopa is the natural L-isomer of the amino acid dihydroxyphenylalanine. Levodopa was first isolated from broad beans in 1910-1911 by the Italian Torquato Torquati. (9) In 1913 Markus Guggenheim determined the chemical formula of this substance. (10)
Over the next 30 years after the synthesis of dopamine nothing special happened in its history or the history of levodopa. Only in 1938 did the German pharmacologist Peter Holtz discover the enzyme dopa decarboxylase and showed that this enzyme produces dopamine from levodopa in the tissue homogenate of mammals. (11)
Based upon this discovery, in 1939 in Cambridge, Hermann Blaschko postulated the synthesis chain for catecholamines, which have still not lost their significance. At the time a modest role was reserved for dopamine as an intermediary product in the synthesis of adrenaline and noradrenaline.
At the beginning of the 1950’s reports appeared that dopamine is present in small quantities in many tissues: adrenal glands, heart and nerves among others. These findings in themselves brought nothing new but led Blaschko to an important idea which he expressed in a talk to the members of the Swiss Society of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology in autumn 1956: dopamine could have its own physiological role.
At the same time Oleh Hornykiewicz was in Oxford, in Blaschko’s laboratory at the Institute for Pharmacology. Blaschko suggested to Hornykiewicz that he should search for dopamine’s distinct function. Hornykiewicz carried out a study on guinea pigs and showed that both dopamine and levodopa reduced blood pressure. This meant that their effect was contrary to that of noradrenaline. It was thus confirmed for the first time that dopamine has its own distinct function.
A short report from the British scientist Kathleen Montagu, which  appeared in Nature on 3 August 1957 (12), attracted Hornykiewicz’s attention. She had discovered a new substance in the brain and suggested that it was dopamine.
Around a month later Holtz reported on the central stimulating effect of levodopa in rodents and conjectured that dopamine could be an active metabolic product from levodopa in the brain. (13)
Six months later in February 1958 Arvid Carlsson reported that he had found the presence of dopamine in the brains of rabbits with the help of a new, more accurate method. Reserpine reduced the dopamine content in a similar way to the concentrations of noradrenaline and serotonine, and levodopa increased the reduced dopamine content and, to a lesser extent, that of noradrenaline.
However, the neurological community regarded these findings exclusively in relation to the heated argument of the time: is the calming effect of reserpine to be attributed to its effect on noradrenaline or serotonine? Even Carlsson wrote at the time: “Dopamine… in the high concentrations observed [in brain after L-dopa] may be able to function as noradrenaline.” (14)
Hornykiewicz was carrying out research in a completely different direction. It was clear to him that the decisive step should be the transition from animal experiments to patients with functional disorders of the basal ganglia, especially Parkinson’s patients. Hornykiewicz began collecting brain tissue from dead patients with his colleague Herbert Ehringer. It should be mentioned that at the time this tissue was regarded as absolutely unsuitable for tests on such instable substances such as catecholamines. Many older colleagues advised him to waste no time on “such dirty material”. Another problem was of a completely different nature: the laboratory did not have a sufficiently sensitive spectrometer, so Hornykiewicz had to adapt other methods for his experiments.
After the first tests on his own control samples in April 1959 the first study of a Parkinson’s patient’s brain finally took place. The result was already clear before the analysis: no dopamine!
The next step was the idea to restore the lost dopamine reserves in Parkinson’s patients. Levodopa was an obvious candidate for this role – the natural precursor of dopamine. An important partner was won over after protracted and difficult negotiations – the well-known Viennese neurologist Walther Birkmayer declared himself ready to participate in the clinical study. In July 1961 levodopa was administered intravenously to Parkinson’s patients for the first time. The effect was incredible: “The bed-ridden patients who could not sit up, the patients who could not stand up once they had sat down, and patients who could not walk when they were standing were easily able to carry out these activities after L-dopa administration. They walked again normally and were even able to run and jump.” (15)

Thus it was Oleh Hornykiewicz who demonstrated the decisive connection between dopamine and Parkinson’s disease in humans and also established the basis for the modern treatment of this disorder, which had a direct effect on the lives of millions of patients. The huge significance of these discoveries was quickly recognised and Hornykiewicz was nominated for the Nobel Prize several times, for the first time at the beginning of the 1970s. Since then thousands of publications and daily medical practice have proved the extraordinary benefit of Hornykiewicz’s discoveries. The great importance of Hornykiewicz’s work is also emphasised by the 269 neurologists from all over the world in their letter to the Nobel Prize Committee. They see the benefit of these discoveries in their daily work. Hornykiewicz was also nominated together with Carlsson for the Nobel Prize in 2000. Carlsson received the prize. Why was Hornykiewicz not honoured with the Nobel Prize? This question has remained unanswered until now. We tried to find a satisfactory answer, talked to a number of people and heard a strange explanation: if Professor Hornykiewicz had carried out his studies in the USA or Israel, he would certainly have received the Nobel Prize. Incidentally, in Israel he was honoured with the highest scientific award in 1979 – the Wolf Foundation Award.
We are living in a time when all people have the same rights, irrespective of skin colour, nationality, ethnic origin, religion or gender. The Nobel Prize Committee is now obliged to explain why the prize has not been awarded to the Viennese pharmacologist.
The question arises: what is more important – the quality of the work or the place where it is done?
The non-award of the prize to Hornykiewicz is similar to the situation with penicillin when the Nobel Prize was only awarded to Fleming while Florey and Chain were left empty-handed. Without the work of these two scientists the world would perhaps not have been able to correctly judge the benefit of penicillin until now. This is the reason why the scientific community was so outraged and why 269 scientists addressed the open letter of protest to the Nobel Prize Committee. 

Another example.
The 2004 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose, “for their research into the basis of the ubiquitin system at the beginning of the 1980s,” as the official statement puts it.
What did Alfred Nobel in fact bequeath in his will? The prize is to go to the person who has made “the most important discovery or invention” in science. (16) Very quickly after its establishment the Nobel Prize became the most important scientific award and the Nobel Peace Prize became the most important political award. Its award represents the highest recognition of achievements and an extremely important signal for the further development of science.
The significance of the Nobel Prize for further research can be seen from the example of ubiquitin. In the seven years after the award of the Nobel Prize to Rose, Ciechanover and Gerschko one and a half times so many publications appeared on the subject of ubiquitin than in the thirty years previously: the number of publications rose from around 400 to 2,500 per year.
The story of ubiquitin is in any case rather strange. This protein had already been discovered and decoded by other scientists in the mid-1970s. Why just these three shared the Nobel Prize remains a mystery. The first publications of these authors on the subject of ubiquitin only go back to 1980.
For example, J.W. Hadden published an article about ubiquitin in 1975. (17) At the time when Gerschko and Ciechanover published their first article about ubiquitin there were already 154 articles on the subject by dozens of other authors, including in such renowned journals as Nature, Science and Journal of Immunology. At the time J.W. Hadden had already published 70 articles.
Thousands of publications appeared about ubiquitin after the award but brought about no decisive breakthrough. This discovery did not result in any really great advances.
In addition, no new medicament has been developed thanks to ubiquitin. This means that there was no justifiable reason to describe this work as “the most important discovery”. Hundreds of new proteins are being discovered, or their functions decoded, all the time. Every dissertation contains something new but they still remain far away from meriting a Nobel Prize. With very few exceptions these research works remain of pure academic interest and have only little – if any – influence on medical practice. Why the 2004 Nobel Prize was awarded to and shared by these three scientists – Rose, Ciechanover and Gerschko – remains incomprehensible.

Another case is particularly shocking. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a politician who is waging a war of occupation. Every country has the right to freedom and independence. Young patriots fight for their country and the politician who allows war to be waged against them is honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Such tendencies lead to this high honour losing its prestige. They should be analysed and, if necessary, revised.
Cases in Germany can be mentioned as an example, where, when it was proved that a doctoral thesis had been copied from others, the PhD title was revoked. Such a practice should also be applied to the Nobel Prize. We hope there are courageous investigative journalists who will concern themselves with this interesting and important subject. Because the awarding of the Nobel Prize is slowly becoming a farce.
It should be clarified whether these incomprehensible stories with the non-award of the Nobel Prize to Oleh Hornykiewicz, who fully merited it, and the award of the prize for a discovery that is of no special importance are individual cases or whether they already represent a dubious tendency. It would be most advisable also to investigate other awards.

However, since there is currently a 50-year obligation to secrecy with regard to information about the nominated and those nominating them as well as to opinions and investigations on the part of the Committee (18) (which seems rather questionable since it completely contradicts the spirit of Alfred Nobel’s will) journalists can only research and reassess the award of the prize from its inception until 1961. It would in any case be worthwhile in order to discover where these unfavourable tendencies have their beginnings.

Dr. Wassil Nowicky


(1) An open letter to the Committee on The Nobel Prize in Medicine. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 7 (2001) 149-155.

(8) „… not possible to draw any conclusions about the relative importance of dopamine and noradrenaline for the central effects [incl. parkinsonism?] of reserpine”. Carlsson A. Drugs which block the storage of 5-hydroxytryptamine and related amines. In: Eichler O, Farah A (eds). 5-Hydroxytryptamine and related indole alkylamines. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol. 19. Springer, Heidelberg, p. 529-592.

(9) Torquati T. Sulla presenza di una sostanza azotata nei germogli del semi di vicia faba. Arch Farmacol sper 1913, 15:213-223.

(10) Guggenheim M- Dioxyphenylalanin, eine neue Aminosäure aus Vicia faba. Hoppe-Seyler’s Z Physiol Chem 1913, 88:276-284.

(11) Holtz P. Dopadecarboxylase. Naturwissenschaften 1939, 27:724-725.

(12) Montagu KA. Catechol compounds in rat tissues and in brains of different animals. Nature 1957, 180:244-245.

(13) Holtz P, Balzer H, Westermann E, Wezler E. Beeinflussung der Evipannarkose durch Reserpin, Iproniazid und biogene Amine. Arch Exp Path Pharmak 1957, 131:333-348.

(14) „Dopamine… in the high concentrations observed [in brain after L-dopa] may be able to function as noradrenaline”. Seiden LS, Carlsson A. Brain and heart catecholamine levels after L-dopa administration in reserpine treated mice: correlation with a conditioned avoidance response. Psychopharmacologia (Berl) 1964, 5:178-181.

(15) Birkmayer W, Hornykiewicz O. Der L-Dioxyphenylalanin (= DOPA)-Effekt bei der Parkinson-Akinese. Wien Klin Wschr 1961, 38:1236-1239.

(17) Hadden JW. Thymopoietin, ubiquitin and the differentiation of lymphocytes. Clin Bull 1975; 5(2):66-7.

Sex as weapon in political games

Posted in

The whole world has been shocked by publications on the internet platform Wikileaks, which show clearly how politicians manipulate people.

We have found out from these documents about the real actions of politicians all over the world, about their secret deals and how they make laws and decisions solely for their own benefit and not that of the people for whom they are supposed to work. They even sacrifice human life to achieve their greedy aims. We have, for example, found out that the Saudi king asked the USA to attack Iran. We can see from the example of Iraq what devastating consequences this could have: in order to take revenge on a single man the whole country has been ruined, the population has shrunk by 10% and thousands of young Americans have lost their lives. We have seen that the Afghan president is a psychopathic personality and the whole government in Kabul is marked by incurable corruption. Also that the notorious gas company RosUkrEnergo did its dubious deals with the blessings of both presidents Putin and Yuschenko. That the Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash had no access to gas businesses until he asked mafia boss Semen Mogilevich for permission, that the US military was prepared to bomb the Ukrainian ship Faina if the weapons delivery reached Sudan, that the Chechenyan president Kadyrov made a present of a 5 kilo gold ingot at a wedding and fired shots wildly around him with a gold pistol, and his country is lying in ruins – men like this become presidents in the Russian republics. We also discovered that the Russian Prime Minister Putin has a fortune of billions and conducts his business deals via a barely known Swiss company while Russia slips deeper and deeper into economic crisis and millions of Russians are suffering from hunger. Also that Russia blackmailed the Aserbaijani president with Nagorno-Karabakh so that his country did not recognise the Ukrainian famine as genocide. And much, much more…

Why is the wish to liquidate Mr Assange so great? Because he has shown the real character of politicians, and it diverges radically from their duties and the pretty pictures in the popular press.

Perhaps these revelations will force us to think about the fitness for purpose of our current democratic system which functions in practically all more or less developed countries with marginal variations: the election is won by whoever has better access to the media, that means whoever has more money. And if someone really wants to represent the people and even has the ability he in any case has no chance of being elected if his ambitions are not backed by strong financial support. Such support is naturally not provided for charitable reasons – whoever pays the price can choose the music.

Politicians should serve the people and all of their activities should be transparent. This is the prerequisite for the prevention of corruption and for the development of a country in general. The greatest progress is made in countries where corruption is at its lowest.

Generally, corruption is the greatest evil of any society. Society develops and overcomes obstacles where the exchange of energy between people works fairly. And where laws against bribery and corruption are bandied with the country perishes. This can be clearly seen from the corruption data of various countries brought together in a study by the famous Transparency International. At the top of the corruption list is Somalia, in last place – Denmark. Both countries have very few natural resources and climatic conditions are not the best in either of them. However, Denmark is a highly-developed European country which successfully meets the challenges of the modern world. Somalia is a country where people are driven to desperation, state institutions no longer exist and piracy is the most successful (and often the only) business. 

Taxpayers have the right to know what their money is being spent on, politicians are paid with this money. Politicians should occupy themselves with the welfare of their own citizens and not with their own pockets. The exchange of energy between people should work so that it serves to benefit the whole country and not merely individuals.

The greatest asset of any country is a clever exchange of energy between its people. This is easily seen from the example of Denmark. This is also the main duty of politicians. However, they only talk about this before an election, afterwards all promises are forgotten. As a result  unemployment is growing and the economy is being ruined. With the fine concept of “globalisation” companies are closed and production moved to the east where it is cheaper. China is flourishing and will become the most powerful country in the world while Europe suffers one serious blow after another and cannot extricate itself from its permanent crisis. But politicians do not want to hear protests against the real reason for this crisis – globalisation.

Corrupt politicians pass laws which benefit only themselves or their sponsors, they are not interested in the people. The most important thing for them is to (ab)use power for their own purposes. Documents may only be kept secret at time of war, in peacetime the activities of politicians should be as transparent as possible. Then it would not be necessary to search for secret bank accounts throughout the world.

This is why the publication of numerous American documents on the Wikileaks website has brought politicians together. And once again sex is being used as a weapon. Journalists are also partly to blame for this ignominious story because they use sex as a weapon. Who has the right to eavesdrop on what is going on in someone else’s bed without an invitation? It is a pity that journalists do not interest themselves in the actions of politicians but rather in their sexual preferences. The best example is the story with President Clinton. At the moment when he wanted to counteract destructive energies the scandal with Monika Levinski was brought to life to a degree never seen before. However, reporters were not interested why Ms Levinski had left the stained dress lying around for three years. If this affair had not been manipulated, we would until today have found out nothing about the real origin of these stains – whether it was ice or another organic substance. However, someone was very interested in blowing up this scandal to enormous proportions. This scandal made a lasting change to American politics – home affairs and especially foreign policy – and demonstrated the power of these destructive forces to the whole world. And the role of the press in all this is obvious – it was completely clear from the beginning that the whole story was staged and manipulated but no journalist asked who benefited from it. When freedom of the press is only seen as the freedom to allow oneself to be conned it throws a very embarassing light on the character of the western press today. Incidentally, I offered the article “Sex as a Weapon” to several newspapers but none of them dared to publish it. No western newspaper wanted to look at the Clinton story from this perspective. 

In order to be able to manipulate people more easily after the period of sexual freedom sex – one of the basic human needs, like eating and sleeping – is now seen as a crime. Sex has been turned into a weapon, as I wrote previously (“Sex as a Weapon”, Ukraina moloda, 19 November 1998).

Julian Assange’s actions were not criminal, whatever laws are applied. In Australia, whose citizenship he has, the public expression of political views is not a crime. And because no crime could be proved against him it was decided to use the modern weapon – sex. Assange was invited to Sweden to give talks about Wikileaks. After a lecture two young women invited him to spend the night at their home under the pretext of saving hotel expenses. They only had one bed each in the flat. Both were completely happy with the acquaintance, accompanied the Australian to the station and said goodbye as the best of friends. However, after a few days doubts arose in them about the quality of condoms past their use-by date which had already been stored for quite a long time. And they asked for help – but not a doctor, rather the police!

Just as no real diplomat ever says “no”, no real lady ever says “yes”.

Under Swedish law there are three types of rape and even the least serious “unlawful coercion to have sex” (without physical violence) still carries a penalty of 4 years. In the view of the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, rape has also taken place when a woman feels uncomfortable or exploited after sex. Careful men therefore ask for a written and notarised request from their partners before having sex.

The damage that such legislation has brought to the country is shown by the statistics. During the 1960s the birth rate in Sweden was 18 per 1,000, now it is only 10 per 1,000. The figures for mental illnesses have also risen. According to the Swedish National Institute of Public Health 24% of women (every fourth woman) and 16% of men (every sixth man) were affected by mental disorders in 2004.

Globalisation has caused the growth of unemployment throughout Europe. Sweden has also not been spared – a typical result is the sale of Volvo to the Chinese. The country probably wants to solve the problem of unemployment in its own way – in Sweden legislation has been passed which catapulted the country to number one in rape. Incidentally there were almost no rapes in Sweden in the 1960s. Perhaps the “leftover” men who attempted to convince women to sleep with them are in prison and probably with this third point of Swedish rape law the legislators want to solve two problems at the same time: reduce the unemployment figures and divert the attention of society from the results of globalisation.

The lawyer of these two women dedicated himself seriously to the matter and doggedly bombarded the court with complaints. And although Assange himself went to the police in London he was immediately arrested and put in solitary confinement like a dangerous criminal.

The fear of revelations forced dishonest politicians to close ranks. They could find no real crimes Assange had committed so they invented sexual offences. The innocent man was arrested. The attempt of his lawyer to have him released on bail was rejected by the court for a long time. Even more: Switzerland rejected his application to open an account, the world’s biggest internet shop amazon closed his server for hosting Wikileaks and the credit card companies Visa and MasterCard refuse to accept donations for Wikileaks.

This whole story with the sexual allegations against Julian Assange can hardly be surpassed in its absurdity and horrendous legal inconsistencies. It is an especially hot topic because the charge has been made in Sweden – in the country which was once an example to the rest of Europe in the matter of sexual freedom.

Sex has once again been used as a weapon at a critical time in modern history. It demonstrates what a dangerous direction society has chosen for its development.

We see from the example of the harassment of Wikileaks and Julian Assange that democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of the press are by no means so unlimited and stable. The whole freedom of the press ends when and where those in power feel that power threatened. The arrest of Assange brings to mind a situation in which the policeman is charged after arresting the criminal.

Dr. Wassil Nowicky

What is God?

Posted in

Since long time ago people tried to find an answer to this question. They have been filling that between them and the world there is a kind of power, which invisibly unites all living creatures. Attempts to understand and to explain this power created the ground for the development of religions. Different nations explained in different ways the existence of God. That is why there are a lot of religions, different cultures, but they differ only in nuances.

In Hinduism, which has millions of Gods, we can find: „To whom you ever pray, you pray to me“.
In Judaism they say: „Nobody has ever seen God. That’s why nobody can make a picture of him“.
In Christianity we find: „We are all God’s children“.
Islam says: „God was not born and He can not born“.
Buddha says: „Everything what exists, comes from Spirit, has Spirit as the fundament and is created by the Spirit.“

All these interpretations are based on a mutual ground: Indications for the existence of energy.  The availability of original energy is undenied. A part of it is to be found in the whole cosmos, also in human beings. Human mind is also a part of creative energy. Her we may find answer to the question: What is the sense of creation? There is life on earth for over millions of years, developed from only one cell to the highest stage of development, the human being. We have the creative energy in ourselves, this is what distinguishes us from other living things. God’s creative energy is fulfilled by human beings, we may build houses, churches, factories or plant trees. Through our creative possibilities we represent the sense of his Creation.

Due to this ability we could create paradise on earth. If one is believing is rebirth, it is easy to understand, that the partial energy man will reflow back to the original energy after his death in order to get converted again in a partial energy, it means to be born again. No one knows in which part of the world it will happen. You may be President of United States today and tomorrow you will be born in Iraq. If all people will understand that this process can not be interrupted, they will carry for good living conditions everywhere in the world, they will get a chance to create the paradise on Earth.

The energy is not appearing or disappearing, it exists for ever, it can just change is form, it means it can change, concentrate or separating. We cannot see energy, but we feel it. God, himself, cannot be seen, but we feel him. God is the creative energy which exists everywhere.

The Eastern religions came most closely to the understanding of God as energy. Even in their traditions they use the connection between the internal spirit of a person and the space energy.
This forms  the base for meditation which gives to individuals some superpower. It is interesting that the Eastern religions are most tolerable towards other religions. No one of these religions is making aggressive propaganda against others or promising paradise to those who kill the members of other religions. These religions understand that the base of the religion is he Spirit or Energy, which exists everywhere. The man’s greatest wealth is this kind of energy, it should be used sensibly. There is nothing more foreign for the God as the sacrificing of life in His name or religious wars.

There is a such story:“ A farmer says to the priest:“ I will give a coin if you show me where is God.“ The priest answers:“ I give you two coins if you show me where is no God.“

By Dr. Nowicky, published in the newspaper „Public Defender“ N 13, March 5-11, 2007

Love Must Be Earned

Posted in

Why is the discussion of some historical facts seen as an expression of antisemitism? The question is far from rhetorical because on the one hand, as we all know, it was not least financing by the banks of the Rothschild family that helped Adolf Hitler come to power and on the other hand, thanks to the financing of Leiba Bronstein-Trotsky, the Rothschild Bank also made possible the existence of "Communism covering one sixth of the Earth's surface." The overwhelming majority of the first soviet government were Jews and this government thought up, as a world first, the construction of concentration camps for the isolation and liquidation of opponents of the communist regime. In his famous novel "The Gulag Archipelago"  Alexander Solzhenitsyn tried to show the inhumane cruelty prevailing there and he was immediately branded as an "antisemite". The totalitarianism of the Bolshevik regime cost the lives of millions of people (including millions of Jews) in the Soviet Union and throughout the world. But so far nobody has called upon the Rothschild Bank with demands for compensation for suffering or loss of property.

After the Second World War only the GDR clearly distanced itself from the Nazi regime and identified itself with the resistance movement. This is why the GDR also decidedly rejected all claims for damages on the part of Israel. The Austrian government and that of the Federal Republic of Germany did not do so and have been paying regularly until today, which lays the foundations for bad associations.
It is difficult to find a logical explanation for these payments. How could such an obligation come about at all? No people is responsible for the actions of its totalitarian government. Such a people is de facto the victim of its government. This can now be seen very clearly in Ukraine. A couple of billionaires have popped up and the government is protecting the well-being of these profiteers who have appropriated the property of the people. Pensioners can hardly live on their miserable pensions, the cities are full of homeless children and the people are once again the victims.

It is incomprehensible to me why today's Austrian and German governments feel guilty towards the Israeli people and make compensation payments. It is one thing to pay targeted compensation to the victims of the Nazi regime (also Ukrainians) – concentration camp inmates, forced labourers etc. – but a completely different thing (totally incomprehensible) to be paying until today for crimes against Jews during the time of the Second World War. Why do we forget the crimes of the National Socialists against Sinti, Roma and other oppressed ethnic groups? Why is the USA not paying compensation to the Vietnamese people for their use of chemical weapons and napalm?

Stalin was to no extent a less brutal criminal than Hitler. But let us ask ourselves: since he was Georgian, should the Georgian people feel guilty about Stalin's atrocities and buy such an invented, inherited guilt from other citizens of CIS countries? Or perhaps the Corsicans should atone and pay compensation forever for their countryman Napoleon, who almost burned down Europe? Or should the Americans still strew their heads with ashes for the annihilation of the Indians?

And who will be held responsible for the terrible famine in Ukraine in 1933? The initiative of Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich led to the starvation of millions. To oblige Stalin he even had his own brother sent to a concentration camp.

Almost 60 years have passed since the Second World War. Those people who participated in the terrible events of the time are either dead or very old. People born after the war were not involved in those crimes, they bear no responsibility for the actions of their older generations. That would be unjust. Injustice and outrage can engender no love and respect.

I am an Austrian citizen and diligently pay tax. Incidentally, as a child I was also carried off to a German concentration camp. I can thus in no way be a supporter of Nazi ideology and also do not want to be pushed into that corner. I do not feel responsible for Nazi crimes. However, if politicians feel guilty, they should pay Israel from their own pockets. I am convinced that many Austrians and Germans share my opinion.

I do not believe that one people was chosen by God, as is customarily claimed. When one looks with an open mind at this world populated with thousands of nations and ethnic communities, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that all people are God's children and have the same right to life, respect and justice.

In every nation there are people of good and bad will. Every people has, or has had, criminal leaders. The Jewish people is no exception – let us think of present day Israel or look at this nation's past. Let us bring to mind those awful murders of men, women, children and even babies which are handed down to us for example from the Old Testament. "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." These words could be seen above the entrance to the Kunstlerhaus at the time of the exhibition "The Land of the Bible". In the Bible this was the call for revenge on a people that had dared to offer resistance to Jewish aggression. This revenge was demanded 400 years after resistance had been broken. It is astonishing that the organisers of this exhibition did not select a different, more "humane" quotation from the whole Bible for the entrance. The exhibition was opened by the Israeli Minister President at the time, Benjamin Netanjahu. A few days later he said in his speech at Mauthausen, "We will never forgive and forget." Interesting – on whom does he want to take revenge? After all, there are no more Nazi criminals in Austria who were involved in transports to concentration camps.

Injustice generates dissatisfaction in every people, which can then turn into outrage and hate. And sometimes the hate knows no limits. Love must be earned. Today all of us should take care that there is no longer any reason for hate. Let us endeavour not only to believe in justice but to strive to remove injustice from the world as far as possible.

The process of the world continues, development does not stand still. I am convinced that today it should not be as it was yesterday and the day before. Each nation must be preserved, have equal rights and not strive for world domination. The third millennium has come. We must think differently because love must be earned.

Dr. Wassil Nowicky

Translation of the article published in the largest circulation Ukrainian daily newspaper
"Silski Visti" Wednesday, 10 March 2004, No. 27 (17548), 6 million readers www.silskivisti.kiev.ua/4_027/315.htm

Sex as a Weapon

Posted in

Author: Dr. Wassil Nowicky
Published in „Ukraina Moloda“ (Young Ukraine) 19.11.1998

For more than a year the mass-media have been claiming, and forcing the opinion on American society, that the president does not have a right to be a gentleman.

European public opinion was outraged and shocked, not so much about what Mr. Clinton did but much more about how appallingly the so-called moralists have been enjoying the story. Obviously America has no other problems and concerns. Perhaps the question of whether oral sex is real sex is really more important than social injustice, rising crime levels and natural disasters.

John F. Kennedy is now America's national hero and streets and squares are named after him. He has received a whole series of awards. At the time he narrowed the catastrophic gap between rich and poor in America. However, there were also people who were irritated by this. After all, it is much easier to rob the poor and oppressed than the prosperous and self-confident.

In Kennedy's time – the time of student demonstrations on the eve of the sexual revolution – the president's love affairs could not have been sufficient reason for his removal from office. They would not have stirred up the necessary public reaction for his enemies. Thus a different method was chosen – he was simply assassinated. However, experience has shown that assassination causes too many problems for its instigators. A tried and tested method has demonstrated itself to be much better: to manipulate people with the help of sex. In order to be able to use this weapon one must first stop the liberalisation of sex. One must explain to people that sex is not a natural feeling and source of joy, but rather something obscene and demonic. Naturally in every society there is a group of people for whom the feeling of sexual pleasure is alien. The dominance of double moral standards is introduced into society with the active support of such groups. In this way, people who should otherwise only inspire pity are stylised into role models and even almost heroes and those who do not only have exceptional intelligence but also above-average sexuality find themselves in a bitter conflict with double standards. Those of them who cannot give in to aggressive Puritanism and double moral standards frequently end up in psychiatric institutions.

The manipulation of human consciousness has always been one of the most important features of totalitarian regimes. It is most successful when a basic natural instinct, the sex drive, is exploited. In the USA the laws and social rules are gradually being changed and in the view of the American mass-media sex is now the greatest crime, a real taboo. Paying a compliment to a pretty woman is categorised as sexual harassment. A friendly gesture such as laying a hand on a woman's shoulder has already cost some men millions in compensation "for moral damages inflicted".

Like his great predecessor John F. Kennedy, President Clinton is also continuing the policy of political and economic progress. He is also making an effort to combat poverty in his country. This obviously does not please everybody. There is no doubt that somebody wanted to take over power and destroy President Clinton as a political figure.

Is it ethically justifiable to force a gentleman to divulge details of his intimate relationship with a woman in public? If Clinton had given in to the demands made by the powerful of the world, nobody would have found out the origin of the stain on Lewinsky's dress. The careful planning of the whole affair is striking even for someone who has no insight behind the scenes of events.

The author of this article has often been in the USA and discussed this topic with many people. Also those who did not vote for Clinton in the presidential elections were shocked by the dirty campaign waged against him. However, all efforts of the author to have a letter on the subject published in the American press have been to no avail. 

Perhaps this only concerns Europeans and Americans are of a different opinion? If not, then perhaps they simply do not dare to publish their opinion in the mass-media. If this is also not the case and it is simply due to the American newspapers which are not prepared to publish the letters of citizens who do not share their opinion, what is then going on with the American press? Is this whole dirty story not evidence of the real condition of press freedom in the USA?

Syndicate content