"Eighth-graders to Design a Brothel for Everyone," read the headline in the BILD newspaper on May 22, 2026.
During sex education class, the students—who were between 13 and 15 years old—were assigned the task
of exploring the following questions, among others:
"What kind of content should the new brothel offer everyone?"
And “What sexual preferences need to be accommodated and addressed in these spaces?”
Many parents were horrified.
But were the necessary lessons learned from this incident?
Or is this a plan that has been in the works for a long time and is already being implemented in daycare centers?
Who exactly is behind this?
Is this part of the gender-equitable curriculum on early sexualization titled “Sexual and Gender
Diversity as Topics in Early Childhood Inclusive Education”?
How did this “sex education” find its way into our schools and daycare centers?
What is the actual purpose of these newly created cozy nooks, exploration areas, and “masturbation rooms”?
These measures can be traced back to the sex educator Helmut Kentler, who died in 2008.
Like no other, he has influenced the German perspective on early sex education for children
with his scientifically unsubstantiated theory.
He said, “Children are sexual beings from birth, with their own sexual needs and fantasies.”
This disastrous statement has been arbitrarily presented as fact—and even elevated to a premise—by the successors of the
pedophile Kentler, Uwe Sielert, Stefan Timmermanns, and Elisabeth Tuider—as well as others from the academic ranks of so-called sex
experts—who present it arbitrarily as fact, even elevating it to a premise, and have been repeating it like a mantra ever since.
It also appears consistently in sex education programs at daycare centers and in school curricula.
These educational plans can be traced back to Helmut Kentler, the originator of the concept of
early sexualization, and his erroneous conclusions.
Kentler was implicated as a key figure in a Germany-wide network of pedophilic activities.
The network facilitated sexual violence against children and adolescents.
It institutionalized the abuse and protected the perpetrators.
Kentler, acting as the principal organizer and under the supervision of the Berlin Youth Welfare Office, had provided
children to offenders—some of whom had prior convictions—and had openly promoted and carried out their sexual abuse.
There are now three research reports that have also examined the Berlin State Youth Welfare Office’s involvement in
tolerating, supporting, and facilitating sexual violence.
"They were 'unspeakable experiments,'" said Berlin's Senator for Youth, Katharina Günther-Wünsch (CDU), during the
presentation of the final report by the University of Hildesheim.
She refers to it as the most distressing chapter in the history of child and youth welfare.
Nevertheless, all institutionally established—and thus mostly government-funded—sex education institutes
continue to be based on the theories of Kentler and Sielert:
The Federal Center for Health Education, Pro Familia, the Institute for Sex Education, the Society for Sex Education,
Merseburg University of Applied Sciences, the Institute for Sex Research, Sexual Medicine, and Forensic Psychiatry, etc.
As recently as 1997, these institutions explicitly acknowledged these principles at a joint
conference and continued to act in accordance with them.
The Federal Center for Health Education, an agency of the Ministry of Health, plays a prominent and key role in this regard.
Together with the WHO, which operates at the international level on behalf of nearly the entire world, it
committed itself to “comprehensive” sex education at the national level—that is, for Germany.
If one thoroughly examines both organizations—the WHO and the BZgA—one finds, at the leadership levels, a
number of members from influential pedophile circles.
The BZgA is also the source of the term “sensations of pleasure” in infants, which appears in some of the state programs.
In this regard, the Federal Agency uses arguments that are nearly identical to those of Kentler.
Conclusion: The Basic Law and the Criminal Code provide special protection for children, particularly against sexual abuse.
Under the guise of supposed child protection, however, it is precisely this safeguard
against abuse that is being maliciously undermined.
Controversial spaces designed to accommodate children’s sexuality—such as “cuddle caves,” “exploration rooms,” and
“masturbation rooms”—are some examples of these excesses.
In this context, child sex offenders are making a strong case for themselves, citing supposedly scientific findings.
The Kla.TV documentary *The Forefathers of Early Sexualization* exposes the pedophile masterminds behind the scenes.
But if politicians, government agencies, and the mainstream media are so willing to promote these pedophile criminal movements,
doesn't that indicate the existence of an entire pedophile criminal network in which one institution covers for another?