I would like to welcome a special guest to our studio today.
He is a very special person, a hero in my eyes.
In the darkest, most recent past of this corona pandemic period, where we were harassed by panic attacks, where we had to
experience endless restrictions, where we were forbidden everything possible, he founded the "Center for
the Reappraisal, Clarification, Legal Prosecution and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity".
When the facility-based vaccination requirement was introduced, he went one better and filed around 600
criminal charges with the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe on December 10, 2023.
His motto was: The state must not kill people.
This happened in view of this experimental so-called vaccination against corona, where
there were many side effects, including deaths.
His motto: The state is not allowed to do that. We have never authorized the state to do that.
This hero, who stood up for our country, who stood up for humanity as a whole, could often be
seen at demonstrations, alongside Michael Ballweg.
He also provided legal support to Michael Ballweg in his negotiations, his days in court,
and I would like to welcome Ralf Ludwig today.
Yes, hello, thank you for having me here.
Mr. Ludwig, the ZAAVV, this Center for the Investigation and Legal Prosecution and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity,
has just written a report to the UN - none other than the UN.
What is this report about? Why was there this report?
Why was it required by your non-governmental organization, ZAAVV?
Yes, we adopted the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in 1948.
The experiences of the Second World War and the Nazi era led to the introduction of universal human rights as individual rights.
And following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there were two more covenants.
The first is the Civil Pact, on civil and civil rights, and the second is the Social Pact, which further
substantiates and clarifies individual human rights.
And with regard to this social pact, it has been agreed that states must submit a so-called social
report every five years from the beginning of the 2000s.
This means that the states have to submit a state report.
They have to submit a kind of report on the state of human rights as defined in this social pact.
These are, for example, labor rights, equal rights, health, cultural rights.
States must regularly report to the world on these rights and on the situation in their countries.
Towards the UN?
Towards the UN. That's the UN Social Committee that does that.
So this is a sub-organization or sub-grouping of the UN.
And every five years, the status must be reported, so to speak.
What is the situation here with wages, equal rights and healthcare?
Is there basic healthcare or do people get the best possible care?
What about cultural rights? Because cultural rights are also individual human rights.
And non-governmental organizations, including individuals, can submit a so-called shadow report or
parallel report once these reports have been published.
In other words, you submit a report to the UN and say:
Well, here the state has reported very nicely on what it has achieved, but many things have been forgotten.
In particular, he also forgets things that he has not done or that he may even have done in violation of human rights.
And the non-governmental organizations are then asked to submit a so-called shadow or parallel report by a certain date.
That's what we did as ZAAVV. And now on September 18...
Excuse me - about this Corona time in particular?
The current report was, the state report of the Federal Republic of Germany was from 2018 to 2023.
In other words, how the social rights in Germany, the rights I have just listed, were observed during this time. And it
was during this time that the coronavirus pandemic occurred.
And that means that the Federal Republic of Germany somehow forgot to report on the measures it
took between 2020 and 2023 in the state report.
And now we, as non-governmental organizations, are being asked to draw up a so-called List of Issues... - in other
words, we are basically saying, what's not in this report?
What gaps are there? What have they forgotten?
And we at ZAAVV saw this as our task and said:
Okay, if the federal government itself does not report on the fact that schoolchildren are traumatized because they were not
allowed to go to school, because they had to wear masks when they were there, were constantly tested and
so on, then we have to report on this traumatization.
If the federal government forgets to report that they have carried out medical interventions against people
without paying attention to the medical standard, for example this compulsory vaccination, we must report this.
Yes, if the federal government forgets that the measures they have taken are essentially based on nudging and shock therapy,
which is a violation of human rights, we have to report on it.
Yes, if the federal government forgets that it allows a vaccination recommendation for pregnant women without there
being any scientific justification for it, i.e. vaccination recommendation with mRNA vaccination, we have to report on it.
And this is what we wrote in our parallel report.
Or, for example, cultural rights, that in the period between 2020 and 2023 there was virtually no culture in Germany, that
you were only allowed to attend concerts or go to the cinema if you were vaccinated from a certain point in time.
If the German government forgets to report on these human rights restrictions during this time,
we have to do so. And that is what we have done.
And this will be discussed with representatives of the German government and the UN in Geneva on September 18.
It is unbelievable that our politicians are completely silent in their report about these really scandalous restrictions, about
these massive - really - human rights violations and also, how should I put it, when children run around wearing
masks, about the traumatization that has taken place as a result. None of this has been mentioned?
None of this has been mentioned.
Unbelievable.
Exactly, you can possibly say: Okay, due to the pandemic situation and due to the dangerousness of this virus, we have restricted
the following rights to the following extent during this time.
You could have said that. But the federal government didn't even try to justify the measures they
had taken, instead they completely ignored them.
They didn't report on it at all. It says in a footnote that there is currently a problem with many traumatized schoolchildren.
And in this footnote, this then refers to another report, which then has another footnote where it is
said that it could possibly be due to these measures.
But that was really all. Apart from that - about compulsory vaccination, about vaccine damage, about vaccine deaths, about
the nudging and shock measures, about the cultural restrictions, about everything we
experienced from 2020 to 2023 - not a word, nothing.
Instead, the federal government is actually praising itself for having managed to introduce gender-appropriate language, for
preventing discrimination, because people who see their gender differently from the way it was registered at birth
now have the opportunity to change their gender and so on.
These were the successes or newsworthy items from 2018 to 2023.
Everything else is not included in the report, in the Federal Republic's state report.
Yes, that's incredible. And now on the 18th there's a hearing, if I've understood correctly -
from the UN itself, from this social committee?
Exactly, the process is, the states, all the states of the UN that are involved, that have ratified this social pact.
They report on these different areas.
Non-governmental organizations then have a deadline and have time - in this case it was until 30 June.
On June 30, I think we submitted it on the 28th.
So you can submit this so-called parallel report by 30 June, where you look at the report of the federal
government, i.e. the state, and then say as a non-governmental organization what is missing in the margins.
Around 20 non-governmental organizations from Germany have submitted their parallel reports.
None of the others mention anything about corona.
Unbelievable.
So you get the feeling that here, of course, these are all essentially state-funded non-governmental
organizations, so obviously more claqueurs than critical human rights organizations.
And they submit this up to this point. We did that too.
And then, over a certain period of time - I think it's from the end of August to October 3 - I think there are five states in our
area, except for the Federal Republic of Germany - a so-called briefing will take place before the UN Social Committee.
This means that we are more or less in a large hall, but it is closed off. Nothing is transmitted to the outside.
And then they report on these issues, which the non-governmental organizations bring in, so to speak,
and say, where is there still a need to catch up?
And then a so-called List of Issues is made.
This means that the UN is now giving the German government homework, so to speak, on what they need
to change in the future, what they need to improve.
And then it will be checked again in five years: Have they complied?
Have they improved the human rights situation or have they not?
So, if I understood correctly, Mr. Ludwig, then ZAAVV was practically the only organization that expressed criticism?
Well, just as it was during the corona period.
There were only a small number of critics, of people who criticized it.
Almost everyone was of the opinion that we have a serious pandemic.
And if we have a serious pandemic, we now have to blindly follow the state. In other words, quasi obediently.
These rules must not be questioned, was the motto back then. Do you have to obey it?
And yes, everyone continues to do that. So we are still in this narrative.
And an essential part of our parallel report is that we have worked out very, very clearly how this shock strategy was used.
People have been shocked, and this shock is still having an effect.
And one of the demands - so we also make demands in this report, you can then make demands that have to be implemented.
And one of our demands is that shock strategies are banned, that the UN virtually says that shock strategies are always regarded
as a violation of human rights, as a crime against humanity.
If the state with shock strategy, which was the motto here:
Your grandparents will choke if you don't follow the rules. Then it was on to the children and so on.
So if the state puts people under shock, like these pictures from China, the one picture from Bergamo, which has gone down
in history as the pictures from Bergamo, the claims that if you don't follow these rules, then many people will die.
Then the grandparents will die, then you will suffocate in agony and so on.
It's all a shock strategy. And if the state uses this shock strategy to influence its citizens - it's
called nudging - and pushes them in a certain direction, then people will naturally follow.
And, as we know, a reaction is generated in the brain, which then leads to people suddenly being obedient and more or less
no longer questioning critical measures and instead, as we have also experienced, suddenly following the critics.
So what have we experienced, with house searches, criminalizations and so on, and also with
public criminalizations in the media and so on.
And that happens through this shock strategy. And we have to ban it.
We must ensure that the state is no longer allowed to try to influence the population in this way.
And what prospects of success do you see for the state to change?
So what exactly is going to happen? Perhaps he will be given a catalog of measures to change in the
future? Or what will that look like in practice?
Exactly, there will be a catalog of measures where these critical points are described.
So we have already achieved a lot.
We have submitted the parallel report, the parallel report is recognized.
It is published on the UN website, so you can see it, you can read it there.
We were invited there as a non-governmental organization - in my opinion the only non-governmental organization
in Germany that campaigns for individual human rights.
Everyone else obviously doesn't.
We will be there in this briefing room, in this hall, where they are talking about it.
In other words, the federal government is effectively being confronted with our points.
This includes, for example, the fact that (Prof. Dr. Denis) Rancourt found in a study that 17 million people
worldwide will have died from the vaccine by the end of 2022.
That is an important point at which we have to say:
Something has been introduced here, even forcibly, which has demonstrably caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide.
I mean 17 million people - when in history have 17 million people died as a result of
government measures? Yes, you can't forget all that.
And that means we have arrived there. We are recognized there.
We can make our points. And that is another piece of the mosaic in the process of clarification and reappraisal.
Yes, so we are bringing it to the outside world, also via the UN.
The points we make, which are all backed up by science, must be recognized.
You have to discuss it with us. And at some point you can no longer put them aside.
And you said the sentence: The state must not kill people.
I still have a second set to add:
Crimes against humanity or crimes against humanity are never time-barred.
So what we are doing now is the next stage.
We had filed criminal charges. Of course, they were rejected.
We had assumed this, but it is also a necessary step in order to be able to file criminal charges in The Hague.
Now we are once again getting a scientific and political reappraisal and manifestation of the fact that these
acts took place and that there were also consequences.
And the next step will be to prosecute these acts and hold those who introduced them to account.
So we always go one step further. That is also part of it.
That's really hard to believe.
So the report by our government did not even mention, for example, the protocols from the Robert Koch
Institute, which have been released, that there was never a medical requirement for these measures.
So this is purely politically motivated, because it has not been mentioned at all.
The very fact that the Robert Koch protocols had to be released, that the government did not say on its own initiative,
look, here is our report, so to speak, on how we thought at the time, how we acted, what situation we found ourselves in.
And after they were acquitted, they were all blacked out.
So the ones we know, the Robert Koch protocols, have been leaked.
Yes, the ones that are unredacted, where we can really read what happened. And that's nothing to write home about.
You can see that... We've always been told: follow the science, trust the science!
The RKI protocols have also restored a bit of faith here, namely:
Trust in science, because science is discourse, is contradiction, is dispute.
And this has actually taken place at the RKI.
And it was then politically imposed that this dispute, the scientific dispute and the scientific findings
were not implemented, but political measures were taken.
Incidentally, we also see this in the... Part of this report is how STIKO, the Standing Committee on Vaccination, works.
The Standing Committee on Vaccination is basically a committee on which professors sit in order to be able
to show a certain standing or recognition in their CV.
We are on this permanent vaccination commission, but the permanent vaccination commission is a purely politically dominated
body where, in the end, decisions are not made on the basis of scientific knowledge, but on the basis of political knowledge.
And the RKI protocols have also revealed this.
And of course the German government doesn't want that in a report like this, because then you can see that these
human rights violations didn't even happen out of good will, but actually out of political conviction.
Well, from the citizens' point of view, that's the way it is.
The state is sweeping this whole past under the carpet.
The governmental and non-governmental organizations, I would say the twenty that submit their reports, there is only
one that has just held up its finger and said: Not like this!
A crime has taken place. It's more or less - let me put it this way - like a David versus a Goliath, isn't it?
A huge preponderance of dissenting voices or where you are, you have to work your way through.
How can a citizen like me support your work, so that it gains weight, so that there is more awareness of the need to
come to terms with this and also to prevent further crimes?
First of all, you can of course support us by becoming a sustaining member.
So we have many supporting members. We have set up the ZAAVV as a center.
There is a sponsoring association where you can become a sponsoring member and can then support the work financially
from, I think, ten euros a month as a sponsoring member.
Because, of course, there are always costs involved.
So going to Geneva now, for example, and being there in Geneva costs money.
Preparing a report like this, which took over half a year, sitting together again and again,
interviewing experts and so on, also costs money.
So one possibility is that you can actually support it financially and through a sponsoring membership.
Otherwise, we also have opportunities for collaboration.
So we have different committees, we have different organizations.
So we are building on four sub-areas in this ZAAVV.
You mentioned it earlier: clarification, reappraisal, legal prosecution and prevention.
We have quasi sub-organizations for each of these areas, which work in different areas.
For example, they create flyers, postcards, information, press releases and so on.
We have the opportunity to see this on the ZAAVV website : You can describe your own experience there.
You can virtually report cases yourself, what you have experienced yourself - whether you were followed at
demonstrations, whether you were not allowed to go to a concert.
All these things that you have experienced yourself can be registered there using a registration form .
Because if you go to The Hague... There is already a criminal complaint in The Hague, which the two human
rights defenders, who essentially wrote the report together with me, have already filed.
There is a file number, a criminal complaint has already been filed in The Hague, and we keep filing more.
So that means that whenever we have new cases, whenever we have more vaccine victims, whenever we have secondary
damage and so on, The Hague has to get the masses, so to speak.
This means that The Hague needs a lot of information, and we can provide it.
So you can give ZAAVV the information, you can send us documents.
We now have a wonderful server system where you can submit videos, where you can submit documents.
You are welcome to send everything you have experienced during the Corona period to the ZAAVV, simply go to
the ZAAVV website (www.zaavv.com), then you will see it.
Simply upload things there, upload files, or send them by e-mail.
And, as I said, we have a documentation system where we make everything readable. Every video is immediately transcribed .
This means that we can use a search function, so to speak, to enable lawyers and scientists to search through a
great many things that happened during the coronavirus period.
Videos, as I said, documents, files, information, of course all those nudging and shock strategy letters.
All of this will be collected, documented and put into a timeline so that we can process it for future
generations and have it available for scientific research.
And that means we can have all our own experiences.
For example, I once made an appeal. Anyone, including you, can do it.
Very importantly, take a video with your cell phone. Everyone has a cell phone these days.
Place your cell phone in front of you, record a video or tell someone your story of what you experienced between 2020 and 2023.
That's very important, because otherwise we only have oral history through what the mainstream media or
mainstream newspapers, television and so on report.
It is better if people (tell) themselves.
We know this from the times of National Socialism - we always see a lot of old people now
who have reported as contemporary witnesses.
And now, in modern times, we can all be contemporary witnesses ourselves, simply record it on video,
tell our own story and send it to the ZAAVV, upload it.
And every vote is simply a weight in your concern, in our common concern for reappraisal, prevention and, above
all, that something like this does not happen again. That also lends weight to the whole thing.
Yes, also for the future. Exactly, there is weight anyway.
So we are working towards the goal - which incidentally is also one of the other demands in our parallel report
- that we want there to be a so-called truth commission.
What is this, Truth Commission?
Truth Commission is a fixed term even at the UN.
In other words, we had human rights violations such as in Rwanda or in South Africa, where a so-called
truth commission was set up after apartheid was abolished.
A truth commission means that those affected sit down together. What are we experiencing now?
We are experiencing committees of inquiry, commissions of inquiry and so on.
This means that the perpetrators actually sit down together and discuss what happened back then.
Where do the sacrifices take place? Yes, there will be a few experts, but that's it.
But where are the people who were affected? Where is this taking place?
Because the people who are affected have experienced this on the ground.
And, in my view, we need a truth commission in every district, in every municipality, where things are dealt with.
What actually happened during this time? Who took part? Who took part and how?
The health authorities took part, the schools took part, the school administrators took part, the employers took
part, the police took part, the assembly authorities took part.
Everyone took part and discriminated against people, oppressed people who were actually just
critically questioning, is everything we hear here true?
And this must happen on the ground in so-called truth commissions.
So that means it doesn't have to be... - as I said, the committees of inquiry and the
commission of inquiry are all well and good.
But we need local commissions where perpetrators and victims sit around a table and discuss with each other, where we
really come to terms with what actually happened, where the perpetrators also report why they came to do what they did.
Then we're back to the shock strategy, to nudging, where they say that we believed it all.
And that you then develop new rules for living together and say, okay, where can I install firewalls?
Where can I make sure that this never happens again?
And these truth commissions, who initiates them? How do they come about?
Well, the truth commissions can be initiated in different ways.
We are now approaching the UN with the idea that the UN should make this a demand of the German government, so to
speak, and basically say that funds should be made available.
So in principle you can do this at state level, i.e. federal state level or even at federal level, you can
say that we are providing... - instead of investing another 15 million in promoting democracy...
It is precisely these NGOs that then stand up and say that we don't really have anything to criticize.
We get money from the state, everything is fine.
The fact that these 15 million, which are now to be increased, are not being used to continue investing
in democracy promotion, this so-called democracy...
It is not democracy that is being promoted, but our democracy - they are two different concepts.
That you take this money, for example, and say that it will be made available for organizations
or for people who set up a local truth commission.
And then you actually sit on site, you say, okay, we'll go to the town hall or the town hall, depending
on where there's room. And everyone can take part.
We are now making a program here and saying, okay, what have we experienced in these years?
What did I experience? How did I experience it?
What happened to me? What happened to my children? What pressure did I have to endure?
And then you sit together and not in the sense that you judge each other or anything like that, but that you first
say, let's report on what happened. How did we come to this?
And then it's just worked through. And then conclusions are drawn.
That would be a truth commission. And it would also take place under the auspices of the UN, for example, so that
the UN ensures that it is fair and not one-sided, along the lines of, well, we did everything right.
And ZAAVV has now also made a proposal to the UN in its report that there should be these truth commissions.
We can make demands. We can virtually say what we want to happen now.
And this includes setting up truth commissions. This includes an immediate stop to mRNA vaccinations.
This includes a ban on nudging. This includes a clear regulation that culture must never be banned again.
Culture always has this core of resistance.
So culture, art and culture always contain the idea of what could be and therefore always has something resistant about it.
I think there was a reason for it.
I believe you said at the beginning that these measures existed worldwide. That's not true.
So it was only limited, essentially to the Western countries, these measures, even these drastic measures, in other words,
to the industrialized countries. And it was very different.
In the Oxford Stringency Index , Germany has always led the way.
In Spain, for example, cultural events have never been banned because culture in Spain is
also written into the Spanish constitution.
And that means there always had to be concerts, and people always had to have the right to
attend concerts, cultural events, museums and so on.
And I think you can only build a totalitarian society if you ban art.
Or when people try to ban access to art. And that's what happened.
And that is why one of our most important demands is that art and culture should never again be banned in this form,
that access to it should never again be prohibited in the way that we have experienced in these three years.
Very interesting.
And, of course, education. Education has been restricted.
The pupils could no longer go to school.
And this so-called distance learning did not or essentially could not take place.
About school: The essential thing about school is the meeting of people and not sitting somewhere
at a device and absorbing some kind of education.
But it is also this coming together, the interpersonal interaction.
And something like this must never be banned again. It must never happen again.
And it is also part of the process to have this truth commission as a step, where, for example, the pupils can describe how they
actually felt during that time, how they still feel today, so that it becomes clearer for
society: We must never do anything like that again!
Yes, very interesting. Wonderful.
So this is also the key to coming to terms with the crimes and preventing further crimes, and is therefore also
part of these truth commissions that should now be set up.
And I think that our interview today, our discussion today, is also important information, also for the citizens.
That something like this should be introduced so that people know it is absolutely necessary.
Yes, the message must be. So the motto during the pandemic was that these rules must not be questioned.
And we oppose this - as you can see here on my T-shirt: freedom begins with no - rules must always be questioned.
You always have to say no. Freedom is where someone can say no without having to fear negative consequences.
Because everyone must be able to do that for themselves.
And people must learn that they have considerably more power than they previously believed.
People simply believe that we give power to our representatives and they will do the right thing.
And when such misinformation comes along, when such a nudging strategy comes along, when shock strategies come along,
then people simply follow blindly and are not even aware of the power they actually have in their hands to change things.
During the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen that people can steer politics and change social conditions
through demonstrations, through the Monday demonstrations.
And these truth commissions should also serve to make people realize that a state is always based on the
people, and the people actually have the power in their hands if they don't give it up.
And that means staying true to yourself and saying no when you realize that something is wrong and
saying, I'm not going along with this, I'm not doing this.
That is an essential message. And this can of course also be strengthened by these truth commissions.
And it's clear that a government, the representatives of a state, who now have power in their hands, naturally don't want that.
Because the biggest danger for the representatives is that people realize that we don't actually have to do this.
We don't have to go along with what you're telling us to do here.
And that should be the message. The message should actually be:
A state functions when the people in this state are aware of their power, their possibilities and also use these possibilities.
And that, by the way, is perhaps also part of our, this social, this parallel report that we have submitted...
As you may have noticed, attempts have been made to replace individual human rights, which
are enforceable, with the concept of ethics.
We have to be very careful not to use the term ethics.
You have ethics committees, and the ethics committees have suddenly dictated what you can and
cannot do and what is right and what is wrong.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and these two covenants tell us what is right and wrong.
Namely individual human rights that I have: I have the right to my life.
I have the right to lead my life freely.
I have the right to assemble. I have the right to property.
I have the right to choose the work I want.
I have the right to raise my children the way I want to raise them and so on.
Of course, the children in turn have the right not to be beaten. These are all individual rights.
And I can also sue for and claim these individual rights before various institutions and against the state.
Ethics is something collective. Ethics is suddenly the description - yes, it's just right to submit to state
rules because then we'll all be better off and so on.
And then suddenly the individual rights to education, to work, to everything I have just mentioned,
and especially to my dignity, fall by the wayside.
And that is why we have said, also in a demand in this report, that we should not replace
human rights, individual human rights, with ethics.
Yes, tell me, through dubious ethics, where suddenly individual rights or human dignity suddenly become negotiable after all.
At one time yes, exactly.
Good. I think that sums up everything that's on your mind.
We'll stay tuned together. We will also continue to report on your work.
Once again, thank you very much for taking the time for this interview.
Yes, thank you very much for having me here.
Every time you forward a Kla.TV video, you make a decisive contribution to exposing media lies and warmongering.
Humanity should no longer be left in the dark.