The German government is going after Dr. Bhakdi
You could be Jewish and still be labelled anti-Semite in the new Germany
The Persecution of Sucharit Bhakdi
Hans Vogel discusses the controversy surrounding renowned microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, who has faced backlash from the German government for his outspoken views on Covid-19 and related policies.
During the Great Covid Show, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a world-renowned microbiologist and emeritus professor at Mainz University, incurred the wrath of the German government. Professor Bhakdi emphasized that Covid was far from being the lethal threat to humanity that governments and “health authorities” the world over wanted us to believe. If that was not bad enough, Professor Bhakdi warned against the vaccines that those same governments, health authorities and assorted “experts” were urging us to take.
Together with a number of other distinguished physicians, microbiologists, immunologists and other scientists, both in Germany and in many other countries, Professor Bhakdi made it abundantly clear that the official Covid narrative, sustained by governments, big pharmaceutical companies and their hired hands from among medicine and science, was an elaborate lie.
In modern Western democracies, despite the appearances to the contrary, under normal circumstances, it is already dangerous for a citizen to openly challenge the state. After all, one is inclined to consider a democratic state to be more understanding, more humane and more gentle towards dissidents. However, in the eyes of state bureaucrats, to oppose the state when it is carrying out a vast operation such as the Great Covid Show is equivalent to high treason. All the more so when the state is in the process of abusing science.
After all, abusing science (both its method and its name) is precisely what the German government and all other governments have been doing since 2020. Abusing science is one thing, but abusing it allegedly for the greater good of mankind is adding insult to injury.
When science is harnessed and manipulated for political ends, it ceases to be science. The more a distinguished scientists raises his voice to oppose such state policies, the greater his danger to the state. Thus, while Professor Bhakdi continued to be a truly conscientious scientist, criticizing government policies on the basis of scientific evidence and using purely academic logic, in the eyes of the state and its servants, he made himself an enemy of the state.
However, this could never be openly admitted. Therefore Bhakdi and others like him all over the world were being censored by the media, most of which are either under state control or utterly corrupt. If ever the names of Bhakdi and his courageous fellow scientists were mentioned, it was in a pejorative sense, as enemies of common sense, science and humanity! All critics of state Covid policy were depicted as dangerous to society and as a threat to public health. The higher the professional reputation of such critics, the greater the danger to the state and the more pressing the urgency to silence them.
Since it was impossible to silence them with logic and scientific arguments, the most effective way to do so was by means of slander and character assassination. In France, Professor Didier Raoult and Nobel Prize laureate Luc Montagnier were silenced by these methods, while in Germany Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg was accused of spreading “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories.”
Sucharit Bhakdi was a tougher nut to crack. As a distinguished academic researcher with impressive achievements and one who would not be silenced, more powerful weapons were needed to cut him down to size.
Therefore, on one single day, 14 July 2021, three different charges were filed against him for Volksverhetzung, which in English would mean something like “public incitement,” but it contains also an aspect of what would be called “hate speech.” In a video interview he gave to German photographer and video blogger Kai Stuht during the spring of 2021, Professor Bhakdi explained his utter disappointment over how the Israelis, traditionally given to the pursuit of wisdom and beauty, had learned evil and turned their country into a living hell. Sigmount Königsberg, one of those denouncing him, is a noted public figure and member of the influential Berliner Ratschlag für Demokratie (Berlin Council for Democracy), with ties to movers and shakers of the local and federal government.
Later that same summer on 24 September, giving a campaign speech in Kiel with a few hundred people attending, Bhakdi qualified the worldwide anti-Covid vaccination campaign, which was being pushed by the WHO, Bill Gates and governments worldwide, as a “second Holocaust.” As a matter of fact, Bhakdi merely echoed the opinion of We For Humanity, a group of Holocaust survivors that one month earlier, on 25 August 2021, sent an open letter to the European Medicines Agency EMA, stating that “another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes.”
In early November, the regional state prosecutor in Schleswig-Holstein, who had opened a case against Bhakdi, decided to close it for lack of merit. However, three weeks later, upon the insistence of two Jewish organizations, it was decided to reopen the case. This time Silke Füssinger, the newly appointed prosecutor for antisemitism, was leading the investigation. In early 2022, she added the charge of “trivializing the Holocaust” to Bhakdi’s statements at the campaign rally in Kiel.
It may not be surprising that a public prosecutor tasked specifically with handling enunciations deemed offensive to a small minority within a population of 85 million should find fault with Professor Bhakdi’s statements. She might even have a personal and institutional interest in pursuing the case against Bhakdi. Such a famous defendant, if successfully charged and convicted, will no doubt help build up her own reputation. In addition, Mrs. Füssinger may also be subject to a negative impulse, for if she were to drop the case, she might get accused of being soft on antisemitism. Therefore, whatever the intrinsic merits of this case, she is compelled to push ahead merely because of her job description.
The case against Professor Bhakdi consists of obviously trumped up charges. Anyone can see that he is not an antisemite. Quite the contrary, he is a philosemite who is disappointed that the people he loves and admires for their intellectual and artistic achievements have learned evil (from whom else but from gentiles, from the Germans?) and ruined their country. This is exactly what he says: “The Israelis, this people that I admired more than any other people in the world, I was an admirer of Jews, yes, you know I’m a music lover, art lover. The greatest spirits were the Jews. (…) They, the people who fled from this land, from this land where arch evil was, and have found their land. Have turned their own country into something even worse than Germany was. So unbelievable. (…). They learn well. There is no people who learns better than they do. But they have learned evil now. And implemented it. And that’s why Israel is now ‘living hell.’”
Only a supremely paranoid mind or a dimwit could understand these utterances as antisemitic. From a linguistic point of view, there is nothing wrong, reprehensible or illegal here. Moreover, Bhakdi himself denies he is antisemitic. In these times, when the German government and other EU governments give full legal recognition to any woman who considers herself a man and vice versa, and merely because they say so themselves, certainly Professor Bhakdi must be given full credence when he affirms he is not an antisemite.
The case against Bhakdi seems based on absolutely flimsy evidence, but I am afraid this will not guarantee his acquittal. The quality and integrity of EU judicial systems certainly do not warrant much confidence in the fairness of the trial at hand. Moreover, this will not just be any trial, but a clearly political one.
The trials involving Dutch anti-vax activist Willem Engel may be a good indication of the outcome. In spite of the wealth of evidence supporting Engel’s case, he was declared guilty but given only a very light punishment. My sense is that Professor Bhakdi will also be duly handed a guilty verdict but only a suspended prison sentence.
Well, such is justice in the EU today! However, for obvious reasons I shall refrain from making any comparisons between today’s judicial practices in Germany and those of a not too distant past.