Some time has passed since I visited AirBasen regarding the RAF murders and distributed information about Pfizer’s Nazi past and its connections to the Islamist scene. Now the question arises: What happens next, and what perspective do we have?
It’s certain that all intelligence agencies were asleep at the wheel, and the sole blame cannot be placed on the Germans. The so-called “re-education” never took place, as research clearly shows. However, the big difference is that, compared to 1933, the Germans have now infected the entire world. As early as 1947, this could have been seen in the CDU’s election poster, which openly demanded a return to the Oder-Neisse Line. The party clearly had no intention of relinquishing the lost territories—like a petulant child. It’s thanks to the chancellor of this very party that the Americans allowed Theodor Pfizer’s résumé to be “polished,” enabling him to take over the foundation again. From this foundation emerged not only the RAF terrorists, who got along famously with Islamist attackers, but also the so-called “jurists” who crafted the legal theory of the continued existence of the Third Reich. Ursula von der Leyen’s father openly philosophized about this, explicitly referencing the “1937 Constitution.” However, Germany had no constitution in 1937—only the constitutional laws that Hitler amusingly referred to as “bulls,” thus proving the clerical undertone here as well. Point this out, and you’ll immediately have American and German Reichsbürger (sovereign citizens) on your back.

We already know that you owe Pfizer’s “graduates”—one of whom openly swore to achieve final victory over the Allies—to fringe issues like transgender rights, USAID, propaganda, Fridays for Future (FFF), Black Lives Matter (BLM), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and so on. But how should we evaluate this overall? In the end, the world will have to come to terms with the fact that Germany has been fooling it for 80 years. I’ll now provide some examples—though not all, as much of it becomes apparent on its own.

With the end of World War II, lawsuits for damages and criminal proceedings began. These proceedings were accompanied by well-meaning nonprofit organizations that collected donations for decades. Foremost among them is the “Claims Conference,” which for decades supposedly helped victims seek compensation—without noticing that the judges came from the same foundation established by IG Farben, first to cause the damage and then managed under Theodor Pfizer’s leadership. The victims faced lengthy, costly proceedings, while the so-called helpers stood by sympathetically, prattling on about justice. Who ultimately financed these proceedings? Exactly—the perpetrator network. I’m deliberately naming the Claims Conference here because, since 1951, it has been involved in these proceedings and its members surely noticed Theodor Pfizer’s non-“denazification.” How they simultaneously gaslighted the victims remains a mystery to me.

This foundation, which was ultimately the source of the evil, even extended its reach to Israel. Supported by Hannah Arendt, the highly celebrated philosopher, it used religion as a shield and embedded itself in all critical areas there. Meanwhile, the same Arendt philosophized with Schmidt about the right to revolution—while the RAF emerged from the foundation he “re-established.” It’s also worth noting that Schmidt is the source of the quote that the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is merely a “fragment,” a line often cited by the Reichsbürger movement. Although Pfizer, through his role in the management of “Operations East,” must have regularly been in contact with Eichmann, his “alumni” were welcomed with open arms and allowed to shape Israeli daily politics. How fitting that other alumni were already on good terms with the PLO. It’s almost comical that no intelligence agency noticed this.

Next, of course, is the fact that these alumni have entrenched themselves in global daily affairs. Setting aside Corona and their role at the FDA for a moment, judgments and decisions were made by ideologically driven individuals. What kind of image does this project onto the German legal system internationally? Insurance companies that claim not to have noticed this for 80 years? Countless court proceedings tainted by ideology, with insurers failing in their duty to investigate? These insurers have dedicated review committees to analyze cases and warn clients. The same applies to reinsurers—did the obvious really escape them?

Of course, one could take this further and argue that local court decisions on inheritance or guardianship matters could be blanketly called into question. I’m certain this undermines the legitimacy of the entire country. We now have all the information out in the open. The algorithm we’ve published can easily be used to track it down.