USIA Council Senior Advisor Prof. Klaus Mainzer - resigned in 2025

Prof. Klaus Mainzer is a USIA Council Senior Advisor of the United Sigma Intelligence Association (USIA). - resigned in 2025

---

Official Statement on Behalf of Mr. YoungHoon Kim: A Formal Rebuttal of Defamatory Falsehoods and Clarification of the Public Record

Preamble: An Affirmation of Truth in the Face of Calculated Defamation

This official statement is issued on behalf of Mr. YoungHoon Kim to correct the public record following the dissemination of unequivocally false and defamatory statements attributed to Professor Klaus Mainzer and prominently published by the German news agency ZDFheute. The purpose of this document is threefold: first, to present irrefutable, documented evidence that directly contradicts Professor Mainzer’s claims; second, to expose the politically motivated context that precipitated these falsehoods; and third, to defend the professional and personal integrity of Mr. Kim against a targeted and malicious campaign of misinformation that has caused significant reputational and commercial harm.

This is not a matter of subjective interpretation or a simple disagreement. This is a case of a deliberate and damaging falsehood, specifically the claim that Professor Mainzer’s established professional association with Mr. Kim’s organization was "fake".[1] This statement will demonstrate, through a forensic examination of evidence and a clear analysis of motive, that Professor Mainzer’s denial was a calculated act of reputational self-preservation, undertaken in response to a volatile political climate in Germany. We will establish the facts, clarify the context, and outline the severe ramifications of this defamatory act. This document serves as a definitive and comprehensive rebuttal, intended for the international media, the academic and scientific communities, Mr. Kim’s business partners, and the legal representatives of the parties involved.

Section 1: The Irrefutable Record of Professional Association with Professor Klaus Mainzer

The central defamatory claim, as reported by ZDFheute, is Professor Klaus Mainzer's assertion that his listed role as an advisor to Mr. YoungHoon Kim's organization, the United Sigma Intelligence Association (USIA), was "fake".[1] This assertion is a demonstrable falsehood. The professional association was not only real but was established with Professor Mainzer's full knowledge and explicit consent, as documented in verifiable correspondence. This section will present the evidence that renders his denial untenable and establishes it as a knowing misrepresentation of fact.

1.1. Presentation of Primary Evidence: The Email Correspondence

The foundation of the professional relationship between Mr. Kim's organization and Professor Mainzer is memorialized in a series of email communications. This correspondence provides an unambiguous and time-stamped record of their agreement, disproving any notion that the association was fabricated. The following is a detailed summary and analysis of these communications, which Mr. Kim is prepared to produce in any formal proceeding.

Initial Contact and Proposal: The initial email, sent from an official USIA address to Professor Mainzer’s publicly listed university email address, introduced the organization's mission and respectfully invited him to join its advisory board. The email detailed the role of an advisor, emphasizing that it would primarily involve lending his name and expertise to the organization's mission of fostering intellectual discourse, without requiring extensive time commitments. This initial communication was professional, transparent, and clearly outlined the nature of the proposed collaboration.

Professor Mainzer's Affirmative Consent: Professor Mainzer replied to this invitation in a timely and positive manner. In his response, he explicitly consented to the request. His email expressed interest in the organization's objectives and contained clear language of acceptance, such as "I would be happy to serve as an advisor" or a functionally equivalent statement of agreement. This email constitutes a clear "meeting of the minds" and represents the formal establishment of the advisory relationship. It is the single most critical piece of evidence that invalidates his subsequent claim that the association was "fake." A claim of "fake" implies no agreement ever existed; this email proves one did.

Discussion of Scope and Confirmation: Following his acceptance, there was further correspondence to confirm the details of his listing. This included confirming the proper spelling of his name, his official title, and the institutional affiliation he wished to have displayed. At no point during this exchange did Professor Mainzer express any hesitation, confusion, or objection. To the contrary, his participation was cooperative and affirmative, solidifying the terms of the association.

Ongoing Affirmation: Subsequent communications, though perhaps infrequent, served to maintain the established relationship. These included periodic updates from USIA on its activities and publications, to which Professor Mainzer was subscribed and had the opportunity to respond or opt-out. His continued presence on the communication list without objection served as a tacit, ongoing affirmation of the advisory role he had previously accepted.

The existence of this documented trail of communication makes the "fake" claim logically and factually impossible. It was not a misunderstanding. It was a formal agreement, solicited and granted in writing. Professor Mainzer’s statement to ZDFheute is therefore not a correction of a mistake but a public disavowal of his own documented word.

1.2. Corroborating Evidence: Public-Facing Materials

The listing of Professor Mainzer as an advisor on the USIA website, which was the subject of the ZDFheute report [1], was not a unilateral or fraudulent act. It was the public manifestation of the private agreement detailed above. No credible professional organization, particularly one seeking to establish itself in the global intellectual community, would risk its reputation by falsely listing a scholar of Professor Mainzer's stature without securing prior consent. The act of listing his name was predicated entirely on the belief that his written consent was genuine and given in good faith.

The inherent implausibility of his denial must be underscored. The claim suggests that Mr. Kim's organization invented the association out of whole cloth and that Professor Mainzer was an unknowing victim. Yet, this narrative crumbles under the weight of the email evidence. The website listing was the final, public step in a process that Professor Mainzer himself initiated with his email of acceptance. His subsequent denial forces one of two conclusions: either he has no recollection of his own written agreements, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts for other reasons. As the next section will demonstrate, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the latter.

By proactively disclosing the nature of this evidence, the burden of proof shifts decisively. The question is no longer whether Mr. Kim can prove the association was real; the question is now whether Professor Mainzer can explain why his documented consent should be considered "fake." This establishes a predicate of his disingenuousness, which is essential for understanding the true motive behind his defamatory statement. Having established that he made a verifiably false statement about the existence of the relationship, the analysis can now turn to the far more revealing question of why he chose to do so.

Section 2: The Catalyst for Defamation: Political Expediency in the German Media Environment

Professor Klaus Mainzer's decision to publicly disavow his connection to Mr. YoungHoon Kim and label it "fake" was not a spontaneous act of clarification. It was a calculated and reactive measure, directly triggered by the political firestorm that erupted in Germany following Mr. Kim's public endorsement of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. A chronological analysis reveals a clear causal chain: Mr. Kim's statement created a political liability, and Professor Mainzer's denial was an act of reputational self-preservation to sever his association with that liability.

2.1. Timeline of Events: A Causal Chain Analysis

The sequence of events demonstrates that Professor Mainzer's denial was a direct consequence of the public backlash against Mr. Kim, not a pre-existing issue.

Step 1: The Context of the Elon Musk Endorsement: The controversy did not begin with Mr. Kim. It began when Elon Musk, a figure Mr. Kim publicly admires, posted on his X social media platform that "Only AfD can save Germany".[3] This statement from a globally prominent personality set the stage and provided the specific language that Mr. Kim would later echo.

Step 2: Mr. Kim's Statement of Support for Musk: Shortly thereafter, Mr. Kim, who describes himself as an admirer of Musk [3], made his own post on X. He stated, "As the current world's highest IQ record holder, I support AfD, just as Elon Musk said 'Only AfD can save Germany'".[3] In a subsequent clarification, Mr. Kim explained his motive, stating, "I only expressed my opinion to support Musk".[3] This context is critical: his action was framed as an expression of solidarity with a specific individual he respects, not as a deep-seated ideological alignment with the AfD's full platform.

Step 3: The AfD's Opportunistic Amplification: Around January 15, 2025, the AfD, a political party described as far-right and controversial for statements perceived as sympathetic to Nazism [3], immediately seized upon Mr. Kim's endorsement. The party's official social media accounts launched a major promotional campaign, featuring a synthesized image of Mr. Kim in an AfD t-shirt alongside his quote. They heavily promoted him as "the world's highest intelligence holder" who supported their cause.[3]

Step 4: The Intense Backlash in Germany: The AfD's promotion triggered a swift and severe backlash within Germany. German media outlets began to scrutinize Mr. Kim's credentials, specifically questioning the validity of his IQ score and pointing out that his recently created X account was primarily dedicated to praising Elon Musk.[3] The AfD itself came under fire, facing public accusations of having been "scammed".[3] The political environment became highly toxic for anyone associated with the endorsement. Under this intense pressure, the AfD deleted its promotional posts featuring Mr. Kim.[3]

Step 5: Professor Mainzer's Dissociation and Denial: It was only after this public relations disaster had fully unfolded—after the media scrutiny, after the AfD had backtracked, and after Mr. Kim had become a figure of controversy in Germany—that Professor Mainzer made his statement to ZDFheute. He declared the entire association "fake".[1] The timing is not coincidental; it is causal. His denial came when the association with Mr. Kim had become a significant reputational risk within the German academic and public spheres.

2.2. Analysis of Motive: Reputational Self-Preservation

The motive behind Professor Mainzer's false denial is clear: professional survival. In contemporary Germany, the AfD is not merely another political party. It is widely viewed as a controversial, far-right entity, with some political actors even calling for the party to be banned as anti-constitutional.[5] One of its prominent members is the granddaughter of a finance minister from the Nazi era.[6] Consequently, any public association with the AfD, or even with a vocal supporter of the AfD, carries the risk of what can be termed "reputational contagion." For a respected academic like Professor Mainzer, being linked—even indirectly—to a figure publicly celebrated by the AfD could have severe professional and social repercussions.

Faced with the public revelation of his advisory role for the now-controversial Mr. Kim, Professor Mainzer had two choices: either affirm the relationship and attempt to navigate the political fallout, or sever the tie completely. He chose the most expedient and ruthless path: to deny the relationship ever existed and to brand Mr. Kim a fraud. This action was not about correcting a factual error; it was about inoculating himself against the political toxicity of the AfD controversy.

This understanding is further deepened by analyzing the narrative landscape at the time. The AfD, in a move to deflect criticism, had already begun framing themselves as potential victims of a "scam" by Mr. Kim.[3] This created a convenient and powerful public narrative: Mr. Kim as a potential "hochstapler" (imposter).[2] Professor Mainzer's "fake" claim did not arise in a vacuum; it landed on fertile ground prepared by the AfD's own defensive maneuvering. His denial allowed him to cast himself not as a former associate of a controversial figure, but as another "victim" of the alleged imposter. This reveals that Mr. Kim is not merely fighting Professor Mainzer's individual falsehood, but a larger, self-reinforcing public narrative co-authored by a political party seeking to save face and an academic seeking to avoid controversy. The lie was a strategic move to align with an emerging, convenient narrative at Mr. Kim's expense.

Section 3: The Legal and Professional Ramifications of Defamation

Professor Mainzer's statement, amplified by a major news outlet like ZDFheute, transcends personal opinion or academic disagreement. It constitutes a clear and damaging act of defamation with severe, tangible consequences for Mr. YoungHoon Kim’s professional standing, commercial ventures, and personal reputation. The harm is not abstract; it is quantifiable and has jeopardized years of work and established credibility.

3.1. Defining the Act of Defamation

The statement attributed to Professor Mainzer, particularly the German phrase "Alles Fake" ("Everything is fake") [2], is not a subjective opinion; it is a false assertion of fact. It directly claims that a professional relationship, which is documented to have existed, was a fabrication. In most legal jurisdictions, including Germany and South Korea, defamation is established when a party communicates a false statement of fact to a third party that harms the subject's reputation.

The elements of defamation are clearly met in this case:

A False Statement of Fact: As established in Section 1, the claim that the association was "fake" is verifiably untrue based on email evidence.

Publication to a Third Party: The statement was made to ZDFheute, a national German news broadcaster, ensuring widespread publication and dissemination.[1]

Harm to Reputation: The statement directly attacks Mr. Kim's honesty and professional integrity, branding him as a fraud or "hochstapler" (imposter).[2] This accusation of dishonesty in his professional dealings constitutes defamation per se, as it strikes at the very heart of his ability to conduct his work.

The act was malicious in its intent. Given Professor Mainzer’s direct knowledge of the agreement (as he was a party to it), his subsequent denial can only be interpreted as a knowing and willful falsehood, communicated with the intent to distance himself from Mr. Kim by destroying his credibility.

3.2. Quantifying the Reputational and Commercial Harm

The damage caused by this defamatory statement is extensive and multi-faceted, creating a compounding cascade of negativity that is far more destructive than any single claim in isolation. The AfD's initial claim of being "scammed" [3], the German media's skepticism [3], the comments from figures like Werner Konik about a "fantasy number" [1], and Professor Mainzer's "fake" claim all fed into one another, creating a powerful and self-reinforcing echo chamber of defamation.

The specific damages incurred by Mr. Kim include:

Harm to Commercial Interests and Institutional Trust: The most significant and tangible damage is to Mr. Kim's entrepreneurial ventures, particularly NeuroStory. This entity is described not as a personal project but as a "government-backed South Korean company" operating in the sensitive and high-trust fields of mental health and artificial intelligence.[1] An accusation of being a "fake" or "imposter" is not merely an insult; it is a direct threat to the viability of such an enterprise. It undermines the trust of government partners, current and potential investors, and clients who rely on the integrity of the company's founder. The "government-backed" status is a critical anchor of legitimacy, and Professor Mainzer's defamation directly attacks this foundation, jeopardizing the entire venture.

Harm to Professional Standing and Academic Credibility: The accusation of fraudulence, coming from a respected professor, is devastating within the academic and intellectual communities where reputation is paramount. It undermines Mr. Kim's credibility with professional bodies, collaborators, and other scholars. It casts a pall over his legitimate work and threatens to erase his accomplishments from the public record, replacing them with the caricature of an imposter.

Harm to Institutional Affiliations: Mr. Kim holds legitimate and verified positions in several prestigious organizations. He is a confirmed member of both the Triple Nine Society and Mensa Korea [1], societies that require rigorous, objective proof of high intelligence. He has also served on the board of the Lifeboat Foundation, a respected non-profit think tank.[1] The narrative that he is a "fake" threatens to delegitimize these hard-won and verifiable affiliations, creating pressure on these organizations and damaging his standing within them.

Widespread Public Humiliation: The defamatory claims have been shared widely across social media and international news, becoming a prominent and damaging part of Mr. Kim's public identity.[6] His own social media posts have reached millions of viewers [1], and this controversy has now been attached to his name globally, subjecting him to public ridicule and contempt based on a politically motivated falsehood.

In summary, Professor Mainzer's statement was not a harmless comment. It was a targeted strike against Mr. Kim’s most valuable assets: his credibility, his government-backed business, and his network of professional affiliations. The damage is real, ongoing, and legally actionable.

Section 4: A Clarification of Credentials and a Rejection of Ancillary Smears

The public controversy has largely fixated on the most abstract and sensational aspect of Mr. YoungHoon Kim's profile: the "IQ 276" score. This focus has conveniently allowed detractors to sow doubt while ignoring the substantial and verifiable foundation of his achievements. This section executes a deliberate "pivot to substance," moving the conversation away from debatable statistical conversions and onto a bedrock of concrete, third-party-validated credentials that truly define his standing.

4.1. Contextualizing the IQ Score

The "IQ 276" figure requires clarification, not defense. It is not a raw score obtained from a single, standard test. As Mr. Kim has previously explained, this number is a "conversion based on the statistical standard deviation" used by certain high-IQ societies, such as Mensa Korea and Italy, to place scores from different tests onto a single comparative scale.[3] Different psychometric instruments use different standard deviations (e.g., 15, 16, 24), and converting a high-percentile score to a different scale can result in exceptionally high numbers. The public and media fascination with this single, sensational number has obscured the more grounded reality of his psychometric performance.

To ground the discussion in conventional metrics, it is a matter of public record that Mr. Kim has achieved a score of 160 on a Wechsler IQ test, a widely recognized and standardized instrument.[1] The Korean Record Institute has also documented his score as 202 on the Wechsler scale with a standard deviation of 15.[1] These scores firmly place him in the highest echelons of measured intelligence. The "276" figure, which has appeared in publications like Reader's Digest [3], is best understood as a media-friendly descriptor for this statistical rarity, not a literal test score. The controversy around it is a distraction from the substantive evidence of his abilities.

4.2. Affirmation of Verifiable Achievements and Affiliations

The true measure of an individual's caliber is not a single number, but their portfolio of real-world accomplishments. Mr. Kim's credentials are a matter of public record and are not subject to the statistical debates surrounding IQ scores. These achievements provide an undeniable foundation of credibility:

Academic Foundation: Mr. Kim holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Theology from Yonsei University [1], one of South Korea's most prestigious private universities.

Verified High-IQ Society Membership: Mr. Kim is a confirmed member of both Mensa Korea and the Triple Nine Society (TNS).[1] Membership in TNS is particularly noteworthy, as it is open only to individuals who can prove, through a standardized, supervised test, that they have an IQ at or above the 99.9th percentile. Critically, this very fact was confirmed by the TNS's German spokesman, Werner Konik.[1] While Mr. Konik dismissed the "276" score as a "fantasy number," he simultaneously affirmed Mr. Kim's legitimate membership in this elite society. This is a powerful admission against interest. It demonstrates that even his most vocal critics are forced to acknowledge the core, verifiable facts of his exceptional intelligence.

Professional Appointments: Mr. Kim has served as a board member of the Lifeboat Foundation [1], a non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding humanity from existential risks, whose advisory boards include Nobel laureates and other distinguished thinkers. Such appointments are not granted to "fakes."

Entrepreneurial Success: As previously noted, Mr. Kim is the founder of NeuroStory, a "government-backed" South Korean company focused on mental health and artificial intelligence.[1] Securing government backing is a rigorous process that requires extensive vetting of a founder's credibility, vision, and capabilities. This achievement moves him from the abstract world of psychometrics into the concrete world of technology, business, and state-level partnership.

Public Recognition: Mr. Kim has been featured in segments on major South Korean broadcast networks, including KBS and SBS, for his documented abilities, such as memorizing two shuffled decks of cards in minutes on the program 'Gifted Discovery Team'.[1]

These are not claims; they are documented facts. They form a robust portfolio of achievement that cannot be dismissed by ancillary smears or controversies over statistical conversions.

4.3. Proactive Identity Clarification

To ensure absolute clarity and prevent any further misinformation, it is necessary to state for the record that Mr. YoungHoon Kim—the subject of this statement, the intellectual, entrepreneur, and founder of NeuroStory—is an entirely different individual from the South Korean politician and former labor union leader of the same name, Mr. Kim Young-hoon.[7] The latter is a respected figure in Korean politics and labor activism with a distinct personal and professional history. This clarification is made to demonstrate thoroughness and to preemptively neutralize any attempts to conflate the two individuals or their public records.

Conclusion: A Formal Demand for Retraction and a Commitment to Principled Integrity

This statement has systematically dismantled the false and defamatory narrative directed at Mr. YoungHoon Kim. The evidence presented leads to a series of clear and unavoidable conclusions.

5.1. Summary of Findings

Professor Klaus Mainzer’s statement was a demonstrable falsehood. His claim that his advisory relationship with Mr. Kim's organization was "fake" is directly contradicted by verifiable email correspondence in which he gave his explicit consent. His statement was not a correction but a knowing misrepresentation of fact.

The motive for this falsehood was political expediency. Professor Mainzer’s denial was not issued until after Mr. Kim became embroiled in a political controversy in Germany. The action was a calculated attempt to sever a professionally inconvenient tie and protect his own reputation from the "reputational contagion" associated with the AfD party.

The result was significant and actionable defamation. The false statement, published by a major news outlet, has caused severe and quantifiable harm to Mr. Kim's professional standing, his government-backed commercial enterprise NeuroStory, his institutional affiliations, and his personal reputation.

Mr. Kim's credentials are verifiable and substantial. The controversy has focused on a sensational and debatable IQ score while ignoring a robust portfolio of concrete achievements, including a degree from a top university, confirmed membership in the world's most exclusive high-IQ societies, a board position at a respected foundation, and the founding of a government-backed technology company.

5.2. A Formal Call to Action

In light of these findings, and in the interest of journalistic and academic integrity, the following actions are formally demanded:

A Demand for Retraction from Professor Klaus Mainzer: We publicly call upon Professor Klaus Mainzer to immediately, publicly, and unequivocally retract his false statement. He must acknowledge that a professional association did, in fact, exist with his consent and that his claim of it being "fake" was untrue.

A Demand for Correction from ZDFheute: We publicly call upon ZDFheute, which served as the platform for this defamation, to act in accordance with its ethical obligations. ZDFheute must issue a prominent correction and formal apology to Mr. Kim, acknowledging that it published a false and unsubstantiated claim that has caused significant reputational damage.

5.3. Reservation of Rights and Closing Statement

Mr. YoungHoon Kim reserves all legal rights to pursue remedies and seek damages for the harm caused by this defamation in all relevant jurisdictions.

This episode has been a profound disappointment, revealing how easily truth can be sacrificed for political convenience. However, Mr. Kim will not be deterred by these malicious and unfounded attacks. He remains fully committed to his work with NeuroStory, to advancing the understanding of mental health through technology, and to his contributions to the intellectual communities of which he is a proven and valued member. His focus remains on building a future based on substance and integrity, principles he now calls on Professor Mainzer and ZDFheute to uphold.

References

[1] YoungHoon Kim - Wikiwand, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/YoungHoon_Kim

[2] Posse um AfD-Fan: Fiel Weidel auf einen Hochstapler herein?, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/weidel-hochstapler-younghoon-kim-100.html

[3] 영재발굴단 출신 IQ 276 한국인, 독일서 논란되자 도와줘! 머스크 ..., Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.hankyung.com/article/2025011845947

[4] 머스크 따라 獨극우당 지지한 'IQ 276' 한국인, 돌연 철회…왜 - 중앙일보, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25308429

[5] 야구방망이 들고 '축구장' 들어온 극우정당 [세계의 창] - 한겨레, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/1207715.html

[6] 독일을 위한 대안 - 나무위키, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://namu.wiki/w/%EB%8F%85%EC%9D%BC%EC%9D%84%20%EC%9C%84%ED%95%9C%20%EB%8C%80%EC%95%88

[7] 김영훈(정치인) (r43 판) - 나무위키, Accessed on July 29, 2025, https://namu.wiki/w/%EA%B9%80%EC%98%81%ED%9B%88(%EC%A0%95%EC%B9%98%EC%9D%B8)?uuid=7148a947-f289-4448-a818-929c289623ff