Maybe start the recording.
Yep.
So are we going now Julie?
Yes we are.
All good. Thank you. Give me a phone call, Stan, if you need me for anything.
But have fun everybody. Thank you.
Julie, can you make me a co-host?
Yes I've done that as well. Did that go through?
Oh thank you.
My pleasure.
Yeah. What are you going to do Tom?
We're going to throw them out when the...
I only mute, I just mute mics.
When our enemies come in.
Noisy mics. Oh that too, that's true occasionally.
Yeah the special artwork.
Yeah. Don't make any exceptions Tom.
Christine, thanks so much for coming to talk to us.
We haven't got the silky tongue of Charles, but I'll try my best.
And in any case you always generate a lot of interest.
In fact last time Christine you nearly broke the chat facility.
It was about 50 pages long from memory.
I think it was the biggest we've ever had.
But Charles is travelling around in Ireland and Hungary.
And as a result he's not sending out the invitations,
but he put the invitations on a website which nobody knew about.
I certainly didn't know about it.
It wasn't a website, it was some kind of link.
And so he said I've advertised it there.
And just hopefully I'll try and contact a few people in a few minutes.
But I have contacted the latest people who've been presenting to us.
So anyway, so the reason I asked you to speak to us Christine was because I was interested in
Europe's equivalent of MAGA.
And you're leading that aren't you?
Yeah we kind of are.
But there is other problems we are having to deal with right now.
Yeah there aren't too many creative people in Europe,
even though there are 450 million people.
Apart from you of course and a few others.
That's true.
Christian Therese, I like him.
But he's difficult to get to speak to us.
But anyway, so Christine I did ask you for a kind of summary of what you've done in your life,
you know, bio.
But I don't think you saw the email.
I think it was an email.
Oh yeah, I must have missed that.
Sorry.
Yeah, but everybody knows, most people know who you are anyway.
But maybe, do you have an introduction in your head?
Well, I mean, I can just say a few words.
So pretty much I've always voted liberal, conservative.
In Germany you have two votes, you kind of split them.
So that was always what I voted for ever since I turned eligible, 18 therefore eligible to vote.
And I still voted like that in 2005.
So I guess I did vote for Merkel when she came into power the first time.
But I no longer could vote like that in 2009 when we had the next elections.
What had happened was the subprime crisis in the United States
in its consequence then the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.
And that really got me curious.
People being kicked out of their houses left and right.
And the banks repossessed the houses and stuff like that.
And that was happening on a massive scale.
And that just got me wondering, what is going on there?
So yeah, I found out, the people have been literally, these mortgages have been literally
shoved down their throats.
And even to people that could never afford a mortgage.
But they've been coerced pretty much.
The houses were financed at like 150% and an SUV on top of it.
And hey, a new television set, why not?
We throw it all in there, but just buy this house.
So then the consequence happened that the people lost their houses
because they couldn't keep up with the payments.
And then we all know the bubble burst.
And it turns out it was just a fraud on a massive scale.
And once you start going down a rabbit hole, there is no stopping.
2007 was my waking up moment.
So in 2009, I didn't vote at all.
I went to vote, but I voted invalid.
And so because I no longer had any party that I felt represented by.
And that political homelessness that I felt at that time,
I would have never thought that it would get to me to the extent that it actually did.
But it was just horrible not knowing who you were represented by anymore.
And then in 2013, I heard television was watching TV
and they spoke of a new party being founded.
AFD was the name of the party and they were critical of the euro.
They were critics of the EU institutions.
And I was like, whoa, what is this?
And I'm like, that sounds good.
So I turned off TV, researched the party, and I was so glad to finally have found a party again
that I felt represented by, that I shared with most of their program points.
And in the beginning, it was a rather limited programming we had.
And I said, well, that's it.
This time, I'm not going to trust anyone to do the right thing.
I'm going to get involved myself.
So I filled out an application to become a member of the party the very same night.
And here we are.
So that's pretty much where I'm coming from.
Yeah.
So that's the first time I've heard that, Christine.
So that's good.
Because I think we've, yeah.
So what, so the subprime mortgages thing, I don't, I'm not a financial expert, but do you,
what's your understanding of the motive behind the miss-selling of those mortgages?
What were they trying to shift?
Well, it has to do, no, it has pretty much to do with our money system
because our money is built on debt.
And, you know, when people always say, well, of course you have to,
you have to pay back your debt.
But if everyone paid back their debt, then the money would be gone.
Right.
So if you're going to the bank wanting to take out a loan,
you're actually getting money that doesn't exist.
It's simply, you know, a transaction.
So the bank gives you, well, they don't really give you the money.
They just, you know, book it to your account as a positive.
But what they do on their side is, you know, you now owe them.
So that creates money by simply taking out a loan.
And like I said, our money system is based on debt.
So the money supply increases with debt.
And eventually every money system will get to a point where, especially after 74,
the cancellation of the Bretton Woods Agreement,
the currency was backed by gold.
Right.
So they cancel that.
But in theory, it's, you know, the money should be countered by the services and goods you have.
That actually backs the value of the money.
But like I said, when you take out a debt, you have to repay that debt.
But what is with the interest?
The interest wasn't created.
Right.
So you have to take the interest from someone else.
But it's not part of that money supply.
It's an imaginary kind of money that should be there but isn't there.
So when you have this cycle, you have to create new debt in order to increase the money supply.
But at the same time, you can't, at least not in a world with limited resources,
you cannot have an infinite amount of services and goods.
It's impossible.
Right.
So at a certain point in time, the money supply will increase the goods and the services.
So there is no backing of that currency anymore.
And like I said, you always need to have new debtors that go into debt
in order to keep up with that money supply.
Right.
And it's, but at a certain point, it's going to crash.
And that's what happened with the with the subprime crisis in the United States.
And like I said, they were looking for people who would take go into more debt,
would take out loans and mortgages.
And they've been, yeah, these mortgages have been shoved down their throats
because they actually had run out.
But Christine, why did they do?
Why did they go to such extremes in 2004, 2005?
Was it 2003?
Maybe.
Why were they?
Well, I mean, they're kind of sold it.
It's the American dream to own a house.
Yeah, of course, that is part of the American dream.
But the American dream, you can only achieve the American dream
if you can actually afford it.
Right.
So and they made it, they kind of lured these people into these mortgages
knowing they would never be able to afford a mortgage, not long term anyway.
So they kind of lured them in.
Well, we've had in the past, it was like that.
If you wanted to buy a house, you had to come up with your own money,
like at least 20 percent.
Right.
You had to put 20 percent of the value of the house down
and the bank would then be willing to finance the remainder, the 80 percent.
Right.
We'll finance that for you.
So but when you when you go in and you kind of curse these people,
trying to make them to take out a mortgage and you lure them in with,
oh, you don't need any, not only do you not need any down payment,
we finance your house at 150 percent, meaning we'll finance the house,
the total value of the house plus the 50 percent of the value
we'll give you in cash.
Right.
And we throw it in an SUV.
So it was really like a coercion tactic to get these people to take out these mortgages
because what the banks then did once they realized
we have so much mortgages on our our records that are likely to go into default.
We will not get the money back.
Then they started bundling up these packages.
Right.
It was fraud.
So packages.
So they had some, you know, high premium mortgages where I was pretty sure
they would get their money from.
Then they threw in, you know, more of the kind of the middle ground
where it was neither here nor there, whether or not they were going to be paid back.
And then they had like these rotten mortgages where it was clear
they would never be paid back on.
So and they took these bundles.
And then, of course, you had the rating agencies.
Right.
They looked at them and said, well, this is just great.
You know, we give it a triple A rating or whatever.
And then they were sold from one bank to the next bank.
Right.
Always under the impression, oh, this is like a really good deal.
We're we're doing here not realizing that these rotten mortgages
and the kind of like the medium kind of mortgages were most likely going to go
into default and we're not going to be paid back.
And once the bank started realizing that they once again sold it to yet another bank.
And the most stupid banks in the end were the ones that bought these triple A rated
mortgage packages and bundles just to find out that they were worthless.
And once that made the rounds that they were pretty much worthless,
you know, something started in kicked in that they're trying to get rid of it as quickly as
possible. And then the whole market just crashed.
Right.
Yeah.
Was the ulterior motive to create more debt than usual?
And they coerced people into getting into that debt because they knew that they could get their
money back from these people who couldn't keep up the payments.
They could, you know, they could repossess the houses.
So was it?
That's why I kind of say it was fraud.
Right.
I wouldn't say it was just for the purpose of creating more debt.
It was for them.
It's not debt for them.
For the banks, it's money.
Right.
They're increasing the money supply.
Right.
Correct.
So that was the motive behind that.
But of course, the first one, it's like what would you Ponzi scheme?
Is that what you call it?
Right.
The first ones, they'll get paid off.
They'll get their money.
Right.
But it trickles down.
And it's the last one, you know, will actually be the one that is not getting the money back.
And like I said, then the whole system crashed.
But what was really horrible about that, I mean, they were playing with
people's lives, right?
Sure.
Luring them into these mortgages.
And, you know, then they just been kicked out, you know, way in debt.
The house was gone.
Everything was gone.
So they were destroying lives.
So why were the regulators held to account, Christine?
Because they must have understood what was happening.
They must have known what was happening.
And they knew it was wrong.
That's just the thing.
The regulators were either in on it or benefiting from it.
Right.
Or there was such pressure.
I mean, you know, when you just look at the whole system that we have right now,
which I always call the globalitarian misanthropists, right?
They're all in cahoots with one another.
So either the regulators, the ones that were actually there to do a job,
didn't really look closely.
Right.
And then if an agency, you know, comes up, a rating agency, I forgot the names of them,
you know, if they give them a triple A meeting, who are they, you know, to say,
well, that's not really triple A because you did, they didn't even bother to check.
Right.
And yeah, once you get into that circle and you have the prospect of making millions and
millions even as a broker, right?
Well, you might not want to look that closely either.
Right.
Having said that, Christine, perhaps we can't expect much from the banks regulators, can we?
I mean, it's a bit naive to.
So a lot of people would say that we've got regulators for the banks now,
but I don't think they do their job.
The banks do what they want.
Good question.
Like I said, it's just they're all in, you know, in cahoots with one another,
whether it's the bank regulators, the banks or politics.
I mean, all of this, right.
They're so happy to finally belonging to the club.
That's what I always say.
Right.
Gosh, I made it.
I'm in the club now.
Right.
I get to go to dinner with such and such and I get to play golf with you don't know.
Right.
So they're so happy to be part of that club and they feel special.
Yes.
And they don't want to jeopardize that.
That's the same with the elected representatives in parliaments.
Right.
The majority of them, I mean, it's beyond me, the decisions they're taking.
If they took their job seriously, they would never take decisions like that.
But yet they do it.
And that's just mind boggling.
Why do they do it?
Well, the same principle applies here.
They are so happy to finally belong to that club.
And they really feel special.
Right.
So, I mean, getting an invitation by an ambassador, right.
You don't go to the ambassador and tell him off and tell him what he's done wrong.
No, you be kind.
You be, you know, you don't want to jeopardize your position in life.
And you look grateful.
That you feel special.
And that's why they do it.
Yes.
So a lot of people spend their time looking grateful with people of doubtful worth.
But anyway, I wanted to ask you, Christine, you were in America recently.
You went to CPAC.
Right.
And I actually, you told me what CPAC was because I had heard, but I'd forgotten.
And it's the conference.
So the sorry, it's an organization.
It's the World's Conservatives.
And they meet in America every year.
Is that right?
That is correct.
Yes.
Did trouble you?
There is a couple of other.
I'm sorry.
There is like subsidiaries of CPAC.
The original CPAC always took place in Washington, except the one year when this pandemic hit.
Right.
They had to move it to Florida because Florida was the only state that would allow a gathering
of such a magnitude.
Right.
I mean, we're talking thousands of people.
Which year was that, Christine?
That was, I think, 22.
What happened in 21 and 20?
21 or 22.
It was when, you know, the whole world was pretty much in lockdown.
And in Florida, Florida was the only state that said, now we're not going to do this
locking down.
I think it must have been 21 then.
That might have been 21.
Yeah.
And so anyway, the original is always in CPAC Washington, D.C.
Exceptional one year.
And now there are subsidiaries.
There is a CPAC Hungary.
There is a CPAC Mexico, I believe.
There is a CPAC somewhere in South America.
I forgot what country it was now.
So they have subsidiaries now and there's going to be CPACs pretty much in every country.
Australia, I think, is in planning.
So, yeah.
And it's called a conservative political action conference.
Christine, did Trump invite you?
I'm sorry?
Did Trump invite you?
No, Trump didn't invite me.
I was invited by CPAC.
The organization that said Trump was there.
He gave his speech.
It was a great speech, wasn't it?
Yeah, it was.
It really was.
Yeah.
Well, it wasn't so much a speech.
He was kind of talking to the audience.
And yeah, that's one thing about Trump.
He never gives like classical speeches.
He always talks.
He's telling stuff.
And it's more like a conversation.
But he is the only one speaking, pretty much.
How big was the audience, Christine?
Like thousands.
Like, okay, in that room, you can probably fit easily 1,000, 1,200 people in there.
But there is thousands there.
You just kind of walk around.
There's so much to do there.
Yeah.
And so what did you think of what was going on in America when you were there?
That was two weeks ago, was it?
That was two weeks ago.
Yeah.
I mean, CPAC this year was really fun.
And you could really feel there was a different vibe to it.
I mean, having won the election, right?
And virtually everyone that was there was a Trump supporter, Mara supporter.
So of course, we had lots to celebrate.
But it's always fun going there.
I always say, there's a saying in Germany, and it goes,
home is where you do not have to explain yourself.
And whenever I go to CPAC, I do not have to explain myself.
You just meet like-minded people.
And you just have a conversation.
And you are challenged on certain issues.
But it's not that vicarie kind of thing.
Oh, you hater, and you spread hate speech.
It is none of that, right?
So it's always great to go there.
So this is like a convention, was it?
Like how many days was it?
Three days.
All right.
And you said all kinds of...
Can you just describe it?
I mean, do they have loads of entertainment there and whatever?
Well, it's pretty much just talks, panels, speakers, you know?
So in the main room, you have some side panels too that you can go to.
And then you have like a media row where all kinds of alternative media is there,
whether it's radio or blogs or online, like I said, alternative media.
So you have Epoch Times there, for instance.
So they're all there just trying to...
Just speaking to people.
And of course, you have Steve Bannon there with his war room.
He's always there too.
And he's pretty much just putting on a show the entire day for like three days straight, right?
Did you speak to Steve Bannon, by the way?
I'm sorry?
Did you speak to him?
Yeah, of course.
Yeah. So he's very...
I saw a speech...
We had him as a guest on Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics, this platform.
And he was very sharp, I thought.
But I saw a video recently.
I can't quite remember where it was now, but he was extremely strategic.
So...
Yeah, he was very...
I think it sounded like he may have been the brains behind the kind of way that Trump came into office,
you know, completely obliterated the opposition in a blizzard of executive orders.
So they haven't got time to react.
So, you know, they wanted to react to one, say,
and then by the time they got around to reacting, Trump had done another 10.
Right.
Well, I don't know about Steve Bannon's role in the current Trump administration,
but I know that he, in his first administration, he was his advisor, his campaign advisor.
So he's close to Trump.
Yeah.
He was the chief advisor, wasn't he, at one stage?
Exactly.
The chief strategic advisor, I think, in 2017.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Something happened.
I can't quite remember what it was, but he was kind of banished from the White House, wasn't he?
I don't know what...
Do you remember what that was for?
He was banished from the White House.
At least I didn't hear about that.
But he just continued with his war room.
But I mean, when I was in Mar-a-Lago in November, he was there.
So it's not like that they, you know, had a disagreement or anything.
They didn't, you know...
Well, yes, but I can't remember.
Something happened.
Didn't Trump sack him?
But maybe that was for someone else's benefit.
I don't think so.
I mean, I would know if that had happened.
It might have had something to do with J6, you know?
Ah, yes.
And Steve Bannon, of course, Steve Bannon was in jail too, right?
Yeah, sure.
Right.
So I mean, there was like this lawfare going on against him too.
But there was no falling out between Trump and Bannon.
No, I think behind the scenes, they're still talking a lot.
But officially, I think Trump, you know, was required to...
Well, maybe because of the lawfare against him.
That might be the case, yeah.
Yeah.
So what did you pick anything up from the MAGA movement in the CPAC conference?
Or what was the main things in your opinion, if you can remember?
Well, like I said, it's just, you know, coming together with like-minded people
and just exchanging.
What I'm really, or have been trying the past year is
to get people to understand that this is not only a problem they're having in the United States.
It's not only a problem we are having in Germany or the English have in England
or the Italians in Italy.
We are facing the same difficulties everywhere, especially in the Western democracies, right?
And it has become abundantly clear during the so-called pandemic,
the infringement on fundamental rights or even the shift or reframing of fundamental rights,
how they are now privileges that the government can grant or withhold,
you know, depending on how you behave.
So this whole shift in paradigm, that is what we're seeing in,
like I said, every single Western democracy.
And, you know, that admiration, they all of a sudden head for China,
in the way they handled the so-called pandemic.
It was quite interesting to see.
But why did they focus on pretty much the Western democracies?
Or why do I stress it to the extent that I do?
It's very simple.
They didn't have to brainwash the people in China.
They didn't have to reframe fundamental rights into privileges because
that already is a totalitarian regime.
They didn't need to do any of that, right?
They just gave the order and, you know, people that didn't comply.
I mean, they literally bricked them in to their apartments to make sure
that they would not leave, right?
So completely totalitarian.
But in the Western democracies, they couldn't do that, right?
I mean, all hell would have broken loose if your government had showed up
and literally bricked you into your home that you couldn't even leave anymore.
Although, Christine, they did put fences around the Manchester University students.
I remember that thinking, wow, that's amazing.
They essentially locked them into their kind of student residences, you know?
I remember they had these metal, almost like a cage outside the students' buildings.
It's absolutely extraordinary, isn't it?
Yeah, but still, they couldn't pull through the way they did it in China, right?
So, you know, separating children from their parents, you know,
if you remember these images of like little tiny kids, right?
In these overalls, they were way too big, right?
They could carry them.
I mean, we're talking to one and two-year-old children, you know,
being escorted off to quarantine camps, having to leave their parents.
I mean, this is insane.
But they couldn't do that, like I said, in the Western democracies,
because all hell would have broken loose, right?
Here they needed to have a different approach.
And that was stigmatizing people, ostracizing people, shaming them, right?
And this propaganda, no one is safe until everyone is safe,
and the vaccine is safe and effective,
and then the built back better, remember that one, right?
So it was like the same message over and over and over again.
That was actually a brainwashing that happened there.
But like I said, they had to focus.
I'm sorry?
It was gaslighting for people like you and me.
Yeah, of course.
You know, when you're wrong and all this nonsense about no one's safe
until everyone's safe, what a ridiculous thing.
Yeah, I know.
You can understand why the populations might go along with that.
You know, at first look, it sounds OK.
But no, it's not OK at all, because it actually completely denies individuality.
By the way, I wanted to mention, it's interesting, isn't it?
You mentioned the Western democracies.
So exactly.
But Sweden didn't need a lockdown.
Yeah, that's what they had to focus on.
They had to erode our understanding of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, right?
So even freedom, individual freedom, it was now framed.
You were selfish, you know?
If you insist on your individual freedom, you are selfish.
And by the way, you're killing grandma.
So it was like, yeah, no, that was actually, I mean, to us, it may have been gaslighting.
But to the vast majority of the population, it was brainwashing.
Because they had no, what the government is telling us, this is just, you know,
they're just doing that for our own good.
So to that, it was literally brainwashing, right?
And yeah, that's what they had to do in order to get their way.
Christine Susan Downs is a doctor in America, but she's also a journalist, I think, or filmmaker.
So maybe she wants to make a film about you.
I don't know.
Oh, I would love to.
It would be such an honor.
But I want to hear about the salient issues in the EU right now, the Ukraine.
What's going on there?
Because you're such a wealth of information on that.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's like the big thing right now.
I mean, my head is just spinning, you know, ever since Friday,
ever since that conversation in the Oval Office took place.
And I have seen the entire 49 minutes.
And it is important that everyone watches the entire 49 minutes,
and not just the last 10 minutes, where it kind of escalated.
Because I mean, what the media is trying to make out of it is that
JD Vance and Donald Trump, they ganged up on Zelensky and, you know,
lured him into a trap and all of this.
But if you watch the entire thing, you will realize in the beginning,
it was just, you know, the usual sit down that you see,
you know, in Oval Office having so many times already.
But what was interesting, so Trump was
you know, they were rather amicable with each other.
They were, Trump was even joking, making, you know, jokes and stuff.
So it was just, you know, kind of like, we would like to do this and, you know, blah, blah.
But then when it was Zelensky's turn to speak,
it was quite interesting what he had to say.
He was agreeing, of course, with Trump.
But he found a way to criticize him, even in, you know, the first, like, let's say,
40 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes or whatever.
And he made it clear that, well, he didn't want to ceasefire.
What he wanted, and the wording is interesting here,
he wants not just the peace deal, he wants a just and lasting peace deal.
So, you know, if you stick these like, like, adjectives in front of a word,
what you're actually doing is you're, that's conditioning the result, right?
You put a condition on that.
And from what I got from that, when he was speaking like that, is,
he was also speaking about calling Trump like names.
He called him killer two times.
He called him terrorist.
He called him murderer, right?
And if you are out to get a peace deal with your adversary, you know,
you might not want to call him names.
That's always a bad thing to do, right?
At least if you're honest about, you know, wanting peace, you shouldn't do that.
And then he said something along the lines that, yeah, of course, we want peace.
But of course, we can't give this killer, we can't give this killer Ukrainian territory.
So it was already clear he is dreaming of getting the status quo of 22 back, right?
Which at this point, I think it's impossible.
Had they done, had they had negotiations, let's say in March, April, May, June,
even to the end of the year of 22, when it wasn't quite clear how this was going to pan out, right?
Yeah, it would have been achievable, right?
So Putin would have been told, look here, you cannot invade another country with military means,
which he can't.
And, you know, Zelensky is right as that.
Putin there is the aggressor in terms of invading Ukraine.
Totally fine.
But it might have been possible in 22.
But now, I mean, we're three years into this war.
And the way it's now, it's like, why should Putin, you know, surrender any territory?
He doesn't have to, right?
I mean, Ukraine is not going to win this war.
He isn't.
So and what the allies did, the European Union.
Oh, yeah, we're supporting Zelensky and, you know, Putin is a bad guy, blah, blah, blah.
But what did Germany, for instance, in that example, what did Germany do to back up Ukraine?
They sent 50 helmets.
50 helmets.
I'm repeating that.
50 helmets.
And they thought if we sent those 50 helmets, right, then Putin is going to, you know, just
roll over and play dead.
Yeah, well, that didn't happen, right?
It was ridiculous, wasn't it?
It was totally ridiculous.
So and the thing is this, all they did was talk, right?
They didn't back their talk up with, you know, heavy weapons.
They didn't do that, right?
So that's what got us in the situation we are in now.
And now I have to say, look, why should Putin have to surrender anything?
Right.
So if Ukraine was smart, but Zelensky unfortunately isn't smart,
he would just try to salvage as much of his country as possible.
But he is not in the position, and Trump said it, he doesn't have the cards, right, to make
any demands.
But this...
And Zelensky said straight, Christine, he said straight away, he said, we're not playing cards.
I know, I know.
But it's like, I mean, you know, he cannot make any demands.
And now we are in a situation.
So I mean, like I said, this whole conversation in the Oval Office,
Zelensky blew it completely.
He brought it upon himself.
He made major mistakes.
He should have never gone into a conversation like that, not with a translator.
I mean, his English is not that good, right?
Absolutely.
Yeah, he was arrogant.
So I mean, he had a translator there.
And from what I understand, he was the one that wanted to have this discussion in front
of the media.
It was him.
Why?
Because Zelensky, he was campaigning.
That's what he was doing in the White House.
You know, with the pictures.
Oh, can I show you the pictures of our soldiers, how they're mistreated by the Russians,
and he had before and after pictures.
And he showed him like, what, 20 pictures, right?
So it's like he was campaigning.
He was campaigning.
The American people give me money.
I need money, money, money.
That's what he was doing.
And Trump, he didn't want to have any of that, right?
So yeah, and they told him point blank, look here, you know, we want peace.
And you said you don't want to ceasefire.
And he said that repeatedly.
Repeatedly.
He doesn't want to have a ceasefire, not without security guarantees.
But this idiot, I really can't say it any other way.
He did not even get.
If the United States had an economic interest in the United States, they would find a way
to protect their interests.
That was the security guarantee, for God's sakes, right?
But it wasn't all good enough for Zelensky.
So anyway, here we are now.
And so Trump said what he did, you know, don't want to sign that deal.
Well, guess what?
You're not going to have that deal anymore because we're pulling out.
And then what do the European leaders do, right?
They back Zelensky, welcoming back in Europe like he was a pop star or a king of some kind.
And it's interesting to know how they are now finally.
There was like an interesting photo in the newspapers.
There was like a picture of all of them getting together in London.
And the caption read, the coalition of the willing are now coming up with a new strategy
or their own strategy, right?
Well, it's kind of interesting.
Well, it's not going to result in.
So I never understood, Christine.
How did anybody ever think that Russia would be defeated by Ukraine?
It was just ridiculous in the beginning.
It still is ridiculous.
It was always ridiculous.
I think Trump gets it.
But I know.
But the thing is this, I mean, you know, this coalition of the willing,
I mean, had it been a coalition of the able, you might have actually taken it seriously.
But like this, they're laughing stock.
They really are laughing stock.
And that's the other thing.
Zelensky knows perfectly well.
He will not get back the country that it was in 22 in terms of territory.
The only way, the only way he stands a chance of getting at least some of it back
or the most of it back is actually if the United States put boots on the ground
and as Stammer said, boots on the ground and planes in the air.
That's what he was trying to get the Americans to do.
Right.
The Americans will never do that.
Exactly.
But Keir Stammer said we put boots on the ground and planes in the air.
And like, what planes are you talking about?
You know, did you see when Trump said to Stammer?
So he said to Stammer because Stammer was talking big in the White House, you know,
and Trump was being diplomatic.
But he did say to him, so you're going to take on Russia on your own, are you?
Stammer shrugged his shoulders.
I know.
But it's ridiculous.
So they, you know, all back Zelensky and but even Stammer said, you know, yeah,
we put boots on the ground and planes in the air.
But that he acknowledged that needs a strong US backing.
But there is no US backing.
And in terms of that, forget it.
So Christine, many European countries, Christine, for far too long have,
without giving credit to America, depended on America for their security from Russia.
Yes.
There is no way that any European nation or any combination of European nations
could take on Russia.
And the point is that Trump's absolutely right.
The Europeans are very ungrateful to America and America's been taken for a ride.
I mean, America has got faults.
But as far as that goes, the security of Europe has always depended on the United States of America.
Right.
Since the end of the Second World War.
The Europeans were so freaking busy with ensuring that there were daycare centers in the barracks.
Right.
They were so preoccupied with making sure that all the transgender people had whatever they needed.
Their surgeries, cross hormone.
I mean, seriously.
And the point is just this.
By the time that the whatever German tanks they are left, by the time they are fully loaded,
because they probably threw them all out, the conventional tanks that now have E tanks, right?
By the time they are all filled up, the war is over.
And it's just ridiculous.
In a war, I mean, if you honestly want to fight a war,
you can't preoccupy yourself with what kind of pronouns the soldiers have.
Right.
This is all ridiculous BS.
But that's what they were preoccupied with.
So Christine, what I was thinking was, you know, Trump, whatever you think about Trump,
there does seem to be a large part of him which is interested in the truth.
He gets some things wrong, but he's pretty good actually as far as the truth is concerned.
In Europe, we've got leaders who are and politicians almost wholesale who do not pursue the truth.
And now you can see the difference.
Seeking the truth.
Look how strong you can become.
Look at Biden.
Very weak.
And Europe looks pathetic by America now.
Yeah, I know.
The thing is just this.
So a man that wants to negotiate a peace deal is being called a fascist and a Nazi.
And the ones that want to go to war are now, you know, the great Democrats.
The peace lovers, yeah.
Wow.
Seriously.
Very good, Christine.
So, oh, sorry, Susan, have you finished?
Did you have a good answer to your question?
I just want to know what's going on there because it looked like to me like Europe wanted
to start World War III and I'm just pulling out.
It does look like this.
Yeah.
And you know, the kicker is this.
Okay.
So they had their summit in London.
And you may know that Germany, we just had elections like two weeks ago
and a new Bundestag was elected, but the new Bundestag isn't in office yet.
Right.
So there is like another two weeks before the newly elected Bundestag will actually
get into power and get into office.
And guess what they're doing next week?
They're having a sitting of the Bundestag, of the old Bundestag, to vote on what they call
extraordinary wealth, something like that, extraordinary assets, something like that,
which of course is debt.
And they want to go into debt.
Now, wait for it.
Nine hundred billion.
That's what they want to do.
And they want to do it with the old Bundestag.
They can't wait for the new Bundestag to get into office because then they would not be able
to pass that package because the AfD My Party and the left who are also opposed toward the
left-left, we would have enough votes in the Bundestag to block it.
Right.
So the old Bundestag, even though we had elections two weeks ago, will pass next week.
A package for nine hundred billion euros to go to Ukraine.
Wow.
Can you imagine?
From which nations is that?
Germany.
Yes.
That's a trillion dollars.
Yeah.
So it's not entirely going to Ukraine.
It will also rebuild our military.
It will invest into infrastructure, military infrastructure and all of that that have been
neglected.
Right.
In the past years.
But like I said, this is insane.
This is insane.
Nine hundred billion euros.
And another thing about Zelensky, Christine, he once he kept going on about about Ukraine
joining NATO.
Oh, yeah.
Trump Trump just repeatedly said it's not going to happen.
Yes.
If they couldn't get into their heads that it's not going to happen that Ukraine
join NATO.
Yeah.
And now we are actually looking at a situation Trump might very well consider withdrawing
from NATO.
Yes.
Then what?
Right.
Well, then there'll be a panic.
But yeah, Christine, they're not going to be able to defend
themselves against Russia, not a Russia will attack, but because they don't they don't
want to know what the truth is about anything, not just the Ukraine.
I know.
So they are weak.
And you saw it with Biden.
Biden was totally directionless, except when it came to trans and all that nonsense.
But he was weak because he wasn't interested in the truth.
Trump is powerful because he is interested in the truth and he's got the truth by him.
I think that's the difference.
So yeah.
No, I think that's actually the reason why they hate Trump so much is because Trump is
simply doing what they have been telling us for decades that it is impossible to do.
It could it can't be done.
Right.
Like, for example, closing the borders.
It's impossible.
You can't close the borders.
It's impossible.
And Trump is simply doing it.
Now, look, I just did it.
Right.
So he's proving them liars.
And that's why they hate him so much.
He builds a 20 foot wall.
Yeah.
Anyway, so good for Trump.
So Trump may not be the real deal.
And he's, you know, we're hearing a lot about AI, which I don't like, and the mRNA injections,
which doesn't bother me quite as much.
But the AI really disturbs me because that's going to take our humanity away from us.
And that is exactly what they're intending to do.
But Trump doesn't understand that, unfortunately.
It doesn't seem to be anyway.
Mark Steele has got a question for you, Christine.
Hi, Christine.
Great to see you back.
Pleased to see that you're making headway in Germany.
One of the things what I'm going to state is that it'll be extremely difficult for
Western troops to be deployed in Ukraine due to the fact that they've all got track
trace termination technology antennas, graphite ferritic nanometamaterial antennas.
Most people in the EU do.
What we've discovered in the cityscapes, C40 cities,
is phased array electronic weaponry on traffic infrastructure.
I discovered it in London due to, I don't know if you've heard about them,
the bladerunners who chop these things down.
I've been an investigator, this electronic assault weaponry.
It's a joint venture between Thales, Siemens, D&D, Dab, just about everybody.
But the really interesting part about it, the controlling mind called Jamal,
it's Thales technology.
It's manufactured in China.
So we've got an illegal high speed modem which controls this whole weapons,
this electronic assault weapon system.
It's operated by an EI.
Is Stevens concerned about EI?
Well, I'd be very concerned about EI, especially if I had that track trace
termination technology injected.
And it's the operating platform is called Azure.
It's Microsoft's, and it's the collaboration between Lockheed Martin and Thales.
So we've got the whole military industrial complex planning a mass murder.
They've injected more soldiers.
The Russians have some very sophisticated electronic assault weapon, as I know.
It's never been used yet.
And what I'm going to suggest is if anybody deploys in large numbers in that battle space,
they're not going to last very long.
The equipment was developed by the DOD in DARPA to track trace and terminate
lost soldiers on a battlefield.
As a consequence, you can switch them off.
So it's going to be quite an interesting time, but I would definitely
take a look at a roundabout cityscapes for innocuous looking transmitters on traffic
infrastructure, because all to the same plants, all world economic forum, C40 city, George Soros
agenda.
It's all in connect.
So up to now, I would suggest it be very dangerous for Donald Trump to travel to London.
You can shoot directly through vehicles with this equipment.
There's not much things stop it.
It's what's called fusion technology.
It's a link between laser detection, ranging and radar directional weapons.
So we've discovered quite a lot of it in the London area.
Anybody, any diplomats, any foreign nationals who can be tracked,
trace, there'll be an awful lot who do and have, you know, the they've had the COVID-19
injection.
They are exhibiting the media access code.
I mean, I test them all the time with a blue.
I've got a blue to scanner.
I go into restaurants and I check and see how many people are exhibiting the media access
code.
It's quite, quite, quite interesting.
This is a project between the Ministry of Defense and the Bundeswehr.
So they're all involved in it.
It is quite interesting.
We have caught them.
And I think the fact that there's a war in Ukraine.
Actually can't pull the trigger.
And I'm just trying to find out, Christine, how many people do you think in the EU?
No, anything about this.
Probably pretty much like what five or 10 people at the most.
Yeah.
I mean, it's like that is the problem, you know, people enlarge, they completely lost
their critical thinking.
Right.
They don't they don't question anything anymore.
You know, if their TV tells them, you know, hey, you need to get an mRNA injection
because it's good for you.
You know, they run out and do it.
But there is like no questioning anything anymore.
So and that pertains to a lot of issues.
And what you've just been telling me, I don't know a whole lot about that.
I know about, you know, there is some technology out there to, yeah, possibly even
manipulate your mind.
Right.
But I don't know a whole lot about that.
I really don't.
There's a there's a unit that's a phased-area weapon system.
It actually comes that specifically that's a radar gun site.
It's actually got a gun site and it aim it into the traffic.
This piece, yes, a phased-area antenna.
All right.
It's what's called rad hardened.
How I know that you've got it, you've actually got your resistor plate here.
You've then got this aluminium block and the electronic piece plugs in here
because obviously you don't want the antenna to burn out your electronics.
So that's actually part of a weapon system which we discovered.
This piece of hardware.
There's the electronics and electronics.
You'll see how I know it's rad hardened.
What I mean by that is you protect the electronics.
You see the antenna design.
The antennas on this side of the block.
You've then got all that protection.
You've got a resistor plate here and then the electronics is on the back side.
She's the one to burn them out.
So that tells me and it's got enough capacitance, enough induction, enough capacitance.
It'd be really pretty, pretty powerful.
And that sits in a small unit on the top of your traffic lights with a gun sight.
You're not ready to kill somebody?
Yeah.
What do you say, Mark?
You want that?
What did you say then?
I missed it.
These are radar detection range and phased-area weapon systems.
I'm telling you the fact that they're not hardened, Stephen.
If this was a normal phased-area unit, you'd actually have the electronics on this side
because you're not going to run hot.
When it runs hot, you have to protect the electronics which are at the back side.
You've got an air gap plus a resistor plate to protect them plus that sink plate.
You've got this aluminium block.
You've got a resistor here.
That tells me that that piece of hardware is going to run hot.
It's a weapon system.
These are directional electronic assault weapons that are all over cityscapes.
Most cities in the United Kingdom, we've discovered this equipment and it works with
another part of a piece of equipment called LIDAR.
The LIDAR elements, what Transport for London told me,
these are laser detection range and technology.
So these work together.
It's called fusion.
So you've got two sets of antennas.
You've got a laser detection range in part here.
I've got a potential 174 watts and it's not killing you with four.
So this is a laser weapon.
It works with this antenna.
So it's basically unstoppable.
You've got this which can actually facial recognise the target
and then you've got this bit.
I can fire that through a vehicle.
Not a problem at all.
Got no safety from it.
Very good, Mark.
Have you got a question for Christine?
Yeah, I want to ask how many people in the European Union know somebody's planning to kill them?
Well, it's called NeuroStrike.
The weapons controlled by a piece of equipment developed by Thales called its Gemalto.
Gemalto is actually manufactured by Hewe.
Hewe was already banned in 2022.
So you've got a Chinese control.
The control and mind of the laser radar weapon is Hewe.
And Hewe is one of the big Chinese companies, is it?
It's the Chinese company that were banned in 2022.
In fact, there was lots of warnings by the intelligence
and it's about this particular type of equipment.
It's a high-speed modem and what they've actually done, they've rebranded it.
Thales have rebranded it as a brand name called Gemalto.
Now, obviously Thales manufacture electronic assault weapons.
Siemens develop electronic assault weapons.
So we've got two companies.
I mean, these transmitters, these are misoscopic.
So I can actually look down into the nanoscale.
Well, I know exactly what those nanoparticles are looking for.
It's what people have been injected with.
Very good, Mark.
So anybody else who wants to ask a question, please stick your hand up and I'll,
in fact, you can get on right now if you want,
because we're waiting for some questions.
So occasionally, Christine, people on this group get a bit shy.
I don't know, or lazy or sleepy.
And we try, oh, suddenly we've got some questions.
So Carrie, Carrie is a medical student.
Carrie, Carrie is a medical doctor in America somewhere.
And Carrie is very shy about asking questions.
And who could follow what Mark Steele just said anyway?
So I'm getting the ball rolling.
And yeah, anyway, I'm hoping to get Mark Steele's information to Elon Musk, Trump, etc.
And I'm a very persistent bugger.
Okay, so that's my job these days.
What I wondered, Christine, is do you think,
there are people clamoring for the US to leave the United Nations?
Now, I agree that we should leave NATO.
100% get out of NATO now.
It's an anachronism as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't form any kind of purpose for America at all.
So I am being my persistent bugger self and leave NATO, dissolve.
Because if US leaves, I'm sorry, but won't that just
all the World War Three thing will evaporate, right?
Yeah, what are they going to do?
I think that's the way out is just to leave.
And frankly, if I were Trump, I would go ahead and make that mineral agreement with Russia, frankly.
But that's me.
Okay, so I don't know about that end, but that's what I would do.
But leaving, you agree, leave NATO.
The whole notion that Russia wants to attack Europe, I think it's pie in the sky.
They've never been.
Russia is.
Our mission is the argument is that Hitler went into Poland to rescue the Germans in Poland.
Initially.
Well, that's true.
And yes, that's similar.
But that does not, you know, it's like, so that does not mean it's the same thing.
You know what I'm saying?
That's that's what I've heard from military people who are brainwashed that I know.
But he's another Hitler.
He's going he's taken Crimea and he's going to go on to the whole world.
Well, you know, he's not me.
It's not as if we need these little countries, is it?
Carrie?
Well, you know, even Germany, there are a lot of reasons.
I'd say Russia proved itself by not bombing the hell out of us.
Frankly, I thought we were all going to die.
I thought this is thermonuclear Armageddon, Carmageddon.
It's over with, you know, I don't know if you did, but I did.
It's like it's over.
I'm like, oh, God, I love and I was like, I even wrote Putin.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for being patient and not killing us.
You know, what a good Christmas present.
All right.
So that's me.
I mean, this man is he's got four hawks on his back, too.
So I'm thinking I don't care what he did.
KGB, whatever right now.
He's making sense to me.
All right.
A lot of what he's doing is making sense.
And the man didn't kill us all, didn't start World War Three, even though he's directly
provoked by the US.
I'm sorry.
You know, so anyway, that's my idea.
But you grew with Leave NATO.
Yay.
Let's just solve that garbage.
Now, my question to you really is the UN.
How dangerous is the United Nations?
And is that is there any good?
I wouldn't say move out immediately, but is there any good that can come out of staying there?
And or is it, you know, that's my question.
I guess you get it.
Yeah, I got it.
The UN, you know, may have started out as a good idea, but what it involved into at this point,
I'm even willing to say what is doing now.
It's exactly the purpose for what it was founded.
The United Nations is pretty much just another entity.
To get people used to the idea that there one day will in fact be a world government.
Absolutely.
That's like a first step, right?
The same we have the same here in Europe with the EU institutions.
So in Germany, it is or in Europe, it is more difficult to convince the Europe, the peoples
of Europe to come under a one world government umbrella because, I mean,
we live on this rather small continent with so many different peoples, cultures, history,
languages, you know, collective memory.
It differs from people to people.
And the peoples in Europe, they're proud.
They're a proud people, right?
So you could not have just walked in and said, well, look, we're just going to, you know,
come together under this world government.
No, in Europe, they had to pull in like a stepping stone, which is the EU institutions.
And now the European members, they've been stripped of their sovereignty,
stripped of their rights.
Democratic principles are being removed further and further away from the people
to now the EU institutions where there is no real political accountability anymore.
Right. And you have the same thing on a global level with the UN.
So the UN to me is just a part of what I call the globalitarian misanthropists.
Right. And so if they were to look out for, you know, to better poor people's lives or
whatever they claim they want to do, or, you know, if they claim they're going to take care
of refugees, right?
No, actually, they're perpetuating the situation that we are, you know, especially in Germany,
feeling with this illegal mass invasion.
Right. What is happening?
So you might remember 2015.
And fall, Merkel, she just ripped the German borders wide open.
Right. Everyone, there was no checking anymore.
Anyone that wanted to come in and claim asylum, come on in, come on in, come on in.
Right. So it was like, you know, just come on over.
And when she was criticized for that, she, you know, pretty much like a three or stumped her foot.
And she was like, well, if I can't show a friendly face at the border anymore,
then this is no longer my country.
That's how she countered the criticism for, you know, just letting just about anyone walk in.
Okay. But the point is this.
How did it even get to that point?
And when she's speaking about wanting to make a friendly face,
then we have to ask the question, where was her friendly face
in January of 2015?
What happened?
A lot of people don't know that.
What is happening when you have a war somewhere, a civil war or whatever kind of war it is,
you have war refugees.
Right. And it was always the UN, they put up refugee camps in the, you know, the neighboring states.
And they took care of these war refugees.
And all the nations around the world paid the UN $33 a month per refugee.
So they can feed them, they can put up, right?
So, I mean, the war community came up with that money, $33 per month per refugee.
So that the UN could, you know, do the camps and work with the camps and feed the people.
And in January 2015, what did the world community decide to cut those funds from $33 a month
to $12 a month per refugee?
So these refugees in these UN camps, they were literally starving because they no longer had
food. And that's what prompted them to then flee these refugee camps to seek a better life
somewhere else where they could get food.
And that's what, you know, got the ball rolling with this massive influx of these refugees.
Where was her friendly face when they cut down the amount of $12?
She didn't say anything.
No one said a damn word.
They just did it, right?
And that's how we are being lied to.
And to prove that, I mean, that was a deliberate setting into motion of that refugee crisis.
They deliberately set that into motion.
That's what they did.
I remember that.
I was in Hamburg visiting my German family and they pointed it out to me.
It was unbelievable.
They had this huge influx in 2015 and I saw this floating boat.
Exactly.
And the German people were standing on the train tracks and the stations and they were
throwing teddy bears at them, you know, to welcome them.
And I was just sitting there and I was like, how can you celebrate your own demise?
Because that's what we were doing.
Celebrating, welcoming even our own demise.
But like I said, that's what the UN does, right?
So just cutting the funds.
Like a third of what it used to be pretty much.
And then, well, you know, these poor refugees, now you have to take them in and help them.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you wouldn't miss the UN very much.
I'm sorry?
You wouldn't miss the UN that much.
Not only would I not miss it.
Oh gosh, the world would be a way better place if we didn't have the UN.
Just how the world would be.
I miss your fiery speeches.
Just how the world would be a much healthier place without the WHO.
Christine, I love you.
Yeah.
So Tom Rotman's next, Christine.
Well, hi, thank you for coming on.
So I'm not sure if I got this right, but I think it might have been Daniel Estelan went over.
He went over various spans of history and he covered Germany.
And, you know, I'm not very good at history, but he hit on 1945 through 48 as being a really dark
period where we sort of set the precedent.
Again, I hope I'm remembering it was Daniel doing the fire bombing.
And, you know, what it set the precedent for was taking out civilians.
I know that's a really dark, scary subject.
But I thought I'd mention that.
And then I wanted to mention to you on a lighter topic, the banking situation.
I have this image of Germany having a lot of small banks, which is small independent banks,
which is a good thing.
The banks in the US have been all bought up.
I remember around 2009, a lot of the state banks, we had all these independent
state banks and they've all been bought up and by Harris Bank, which became BMO Harris.
But related to this back in 2012,
Dennis Kucinich and Conyers in the US proposed this need act.
And I put it in the chat.
I hope you can save the chat.
If you don't know about that, it's a way of retiring the US federal debt
and issuing sovereign debt free money.
It's complicated, but really interesting.
And then I mean, you can comment on any of these things.
The other one, big one is how do you think is there any chance of,
is there any movement in Germany to address head on the Nord Stream pipeline?
The fact that it was probably the US that destroyed it.
And I think that's about all I have except that Estelan went over
World War I and World War II in Germany.
And I just think we just don't know.
And it seems like, yeah, that's a big can of worms.
I think the main reason I wanted to ask the question was about the Nord Stream pipeline.
And then to tell you about that need act, it's just spelled like the word need and then act.
You can find it on Wikipedia.
Thank you.
Okay.
About the need act you mentioned, that's actually the first I'm hearing about that.
It's really, it's absolutely crucial.
And then Stephen Sarlinga has written like an 800 page book on it.
Yeah.
Need act, okay.
I'm gonna have to look that up.
I've never heard about that, about these various independent banks that you spoke about in Germany.
It's pretty much the same as it is in the US.
They're merging and so we don't have that many independent banks in Germany.
They either belong to Deutsche Bank, Sparkasse or Commerzbank.
I mean, it's all these big banks.
And then he spoke about or wanted to know about Nord Stream.
That is actually quite interesting what happened there.
So, I mean, critical infrastructure of Germany was sabotaged.
You might even call it an act of war, right?
So they blew up these pipelines and you know what the German government did?
Nothing, nada, zip.
They were kind of like, oh, it's gone now.
You know, why cry over spilled milk?
That's the attitude they took to it.
So they weren't the least bit interested in finding out
who did that.
Of course, we were told it must have been Putin, must have been the Russians, blah, blah, blah.
The thing is this, had there been a shred of evidence that it actually had been the Russians,
we would have never heard the end of that.
We would have been fed that story all day long, 24-7.
We found this evidence, we found that, but they didn't have that evidence.
So they just claimed it was Putin.
They rationalized it must have been Putin, right?
But it doesn't make any sense.
So, but like I said, the German government, they were like, well, it's gone now.
You know, why cry over spilled milk?
And they just, you know, went and moved on to the order of business.
No one cared who had done that.
And the only thing I know, I don't know who it was.
I just know for a fact who it wasn't.
It wasn't Putin.
It definitely was not him.
Like I said, had there been a shred of evidence that it was him,
we would have never heard the end of that one.
But I mean, yeah, you get your, you know, critical infrastructure sabotaged
and the German government doesn't even care.
And the only explanation that I have why they didn't care to find out who it was
is they don't need to find out anymore.
They already know.
They already know who did it.
But they don't want to say that's why they just went over that.
Well, it's gone now.
Right.
Yeah.
So I think it was Hans Benjamin who suggested or at least agreed with the suggestion
that the whole thing about the disturbances in France, I seem to remember.
And so it was a US war on NATO, which would fit with the strategy of coming out of NATO,
of course, wouldn't it?
Yeah.
Well, no, that doesn't make any sense.
Because at the time when it happened, there was no war, US war on NATO.
Biden was in office.
Right.
He would not have, he would not fight NATO.
You know what I'm saying?
That doesn't make any sense.
So in terms of-
No, no, no, I remember that.
So it was a kind of coercion to increase the membership of NATO.
But I can't quite remember.
But it was double edged.
So actually it was-
I can't quite remember.
Anyway, the point is that Truss, Liz Truss in the UK, she was prime minister for three weeks.
Incredibly.
I know.
She sent a WhatsApp message or she said, we've done it on the day that-
Yeah.
So we, who's we?
Yeah, I know.
I know.
Anyway, they said it was Russia.
And then later they said it was a model crew from Ukraine.
But nobody believed that latter thing.
But yeah.
So what I think, Christine, is that-
The only thing that's for sure, we know who didn't do it.
That's the only thing we do know.
So what I think is clear about that, there was a massive incident at the very least,
but it was possibly a thermonuclear explosion.
And that happened in the center of Europe and everybody kept quiet.
And that's treason.
It was treason what happened in Germany.
It was treason what happened in the UK because again, nobody in the UK wanted to know.
Sweden.
They were the ones who detected the Chernobyl disaster,
maybe because they were downwind, but they've got very good detectors in Sweden.
They would have known that it was a thermonuclear explosion.
They said nothing.
And this was all going on on all these countries' borders, you know, in the middle of the sea.
And everybody kept quiet, including Russia,
who Hans Benjamin said approved in 11 different ways, was the target Kaliningrad,
White Russia, I think.
Anyways, I'm not absolutely sure of all the details, but that's a broad picture.
But there's certainly a lot to investigate.
There were no investigations, but guess what?
In the UK, even though Britain, and it was on, you could Google it at the time,
that Britain only got 2% of its energy supply from Russia.
The Nord Stream pipeline explosion was the driving force for the huge energy prices in the UK.
Yeah, yeah, the same in Germany, right?
And the thing is this, though.
So the German government told the German people,
well, you know, Putin is not delivering gas anymore, which is not true.
The truth is that after Putin had invaded Ukraine,
the German government, they were so principled, right, to punish Putin,
they told him point blank, we won't take your gas anymore.
We're not going to take your gas anymore.
Well, problem was, we were bound by contract.
So while we didn't take the gas from Russia anymore, we still had to pay for it, right?
So we are now paying the gas that we, since we're so principled, refused to take.
What does Putin do?
He probably hasn't recovered from laughing his butt off from that.
He took the gas that we already paid for, but not take.
He took the gas and then sold it to India,
which we then bought the very same gas from India, paid it again, and even put some money on top of it.
So we can buy it from India.
So not only did we pay the gas twice, right?
Not only got Russian, we didn't get the gas only once,
but Putin got paid twice for the very same gas.
And now they're trying to explain to us that this is really hurting Putin.
Yeah, right.
So there's absolutely no interest in the truth and then they all wonder what's going wrong?
No, none whatsoever.
Same with Biden in America for four years.
Had to put up with that nonsense.
Anders Brunstad is the next one too.
He's from Norway and he knows about Poland.
No.
Hello, Christine.
Yes, I'm Norwegian.
I lived many years in Poland.
I've also been almost 50 times to Ukraine and I speak German fluently, but that's not the story.
I have a couple of questions.
Number one, I'm aware that most people are not aware that these COVID jabs,
they are of course very bad, but we have now solid evidence that they are much worse.
If you live in a place where you have this 50-minute city with strong 5G
and there is a very strong correlation to excess mortality for those that is,
especially those 65 plus years of age and some comorbidities.
Second, there is now also a new research confirming that it's the same link to
reduction in fertility if you live in those places.
And thirdly, to turbo cancer, linked to all of this is linked to the nanotechnology,
graphene and other stuff in the jabs, which then correlates to radiation and the way
which makes it much worse.
And we are a team of researchers, including Dr. Oskar Stickeberger and some Norwegian,
some American.
And the question is, if there is a way for you as an MEP to get this into the agenda,
to the parliament to get them to look at this.
This is question number one.
Number two is, I'm sure you know about Ryan Othulmish.
He was a friend of mine and he was also doing strong research into 5G and coming that it would
be, it is even much worse than the vaccines and it combined with the vaccine.
And the third question is about Romania, that is it anything somebody can do like you,
the CPAC or somebody so that they can restore democracy, they are now robbed from it.
Yes.
Okay.
So if I understood you correctly about the COVID jabs, so you're saying that the effects,
the side effects of COVID jabs are much worse if you're living close to 5G towers
or where 5G is prevalent?
You can consider that you have a lot of nanoparticulate in your body if you took
two or three, especially three or more jabs.
And these nanoparticulate will be radiated and act as an antenna in the body, in the organs,
in the ovary, in the brain causing massive damage.
And this damage is then connected to excess mortality, to fertility and cancer.
Okay.
And I would be very interested in information on that because that I will definitely look into.
And since I'm on the committee of public health now, I might find a way, well, they don't even,
they don't really allow you here in the EU parliament to kind of like, you know,
set a point of point to the agenda, but I might be able to find a way to get that discussed,
but I will definitely look into that.
So if you can give me, get me more information on that, that would be greatly appreciated.
I will put my email address in the chat right now.
So let me just write this down, COVID jabs 5G.
Okay. Then the other thing was about Romania.
Yeah, that's a whole other story.
I mean, what they're doing there is, you know, it's got all the hallmarks of erecting
an authoritarian regime, if not to say a totalitarian regime.
So Ceausescu, he won the first round surprisingly.
And then they just, you know, kind of like they were really annoyed with that and panicking,
actually. And then they decided to cancel, and null that election pretty much.
And it was because someone had petitioned the court to have a recounting of the votes of the
first round. And that kind of like triggered that whole process, right? And they ended up
in nulling it. Then the next thing happened. So they weren't quite sure, do we just, you know,
proceed or whatever. So they called for new elections, scheduled new elections.
And now Ceausescu on his way to file the paperwork to declare his candidacy as president,
he was arrested. Arrested, he was detained for questioning.
So they questioned him like five hours. And this is exactly the type of lawfare
we've also seen that they launched against Trump. And so, yeah, that's really quite interesting what
is happening there. I hope that they will not get away with it. And what I've heard from Romania
this past weekend, there were like massive protests in support of Ceausescu. So we'll just
have to see. I think he was able to file his paperwork after all. So he will be running. And
I mean, the predictions for the second round, he was gonna slam dunk this at 73%, right? So I hope
he'll, I'm pretty sure he's gonna win the election. He might only need one round this time around,
right? So we'll have to see. But I totally agree. That is actually, yeah, once again,
the globalitarian misanthropists fighting back, right? And I always tell the people, I mean,
we are up against a lot. They will not just roll over and play dead. They will not just stand by
and see all of their accomplishments in their mind just go to waste, right? With stupid elections.
They will not allow that. That's it. So they launched any kind of weapon they have at you,
well, actually weaponizing of all kinds of things. Like we need to fight hate speech. We need to fight
disinformation. Now it's malinformation, what they want to fight. And the differences is
misinformation that is, is information, false information, and you spread it unintentionally.
You don't know better, right? This information is the deliberate spreading of objectively false
information. Interesting is with malinformation, malinformation is factually true information,
but it is harmful. And that's why you're not allowed to spread it. So an example for malinformation
would be if I were to say there is only two sexes, men and women. It is a factually true statement,
but it's harmful. Question is, who is it harmful to exactly? Well, it's harmful to their narrative.
That's what they mean with harmful. So they are launching all kinds of that stuff now.
And everything is just serving one purpose to shut you down, to silence you, and to just accept,
whatever good they're bestowing on you. Yeah, that's going on. And like I said,
it's happening in every single Western democracy to a more or lesser degree. This varies. And there is
different agendas there. They seem to be pushing in different countries. So in Germany, they're
pushing this whole mass, illegal mass invasion kind of thing. What they seem to be doing,
especially in Ireland and in the Netherlands, and even in Canada, is the disowning of farmers
seething their lands, culling their cattle, because we need to save the planet, of course,
too. And the cows fart and burp too much, right? They've been doing that for thousands of years.
Now it's killing the planet, right? So it's really they're robbing us of everything,
whether it's our food, whether it's our homes, our homeland, our culture, identity, even our sexual
identity. They're robbing us of all of that. And yeah, their ultimate goal, and I'm convinced of
that at this point, is they want to transform our liberal and free societies into this collective
where we are just part of a mindless, malleable mass that they can shift around any which way
they need us to be shifted around. A bit like China then. So yeah, exactly.
Exactly. Yes, China. This is our future. Yeah. One of the things that mystifies me, Christine,
it's just amazing to me, just like the Ukraine war doesn't make sense. So China, there are lots
of people in the West who are very exercised by defending China. They don't want China. What is
that about? I just don't understand. I don't think all these people are bored. I think it's a bit like
Ukraine war thing. Everybody has an opinion. Oh yeah, but all the people who know about China,
they all defend China. Why is that? What are they afraid of?
Beyond me. It's mind boggling. I do not have an explanation for that. I don't know.
So when you're talking about people defending China, what people are you talking about?
The people? Especially people who know China from having lived there, for example. But of course,
you could argue that they get their incomes from China or have got income from China.
But having said that, I do know that Chris Patton, who was in Hong Kong, the last governor of Hong
Kong, was a governor, a governor, whatever it was anyway. He was the top of Hong Kong before 1997
when they handed it over to China. And he was writing a book about his time in China and
and it was about 10 days or a couple of weeks, maybe. Yeah, something like that. Just before
publication. And the book was pulled by one of the major publishers in the UK whose name is
I can't remember now. But anyway, and the editor who had been assisting Chris Patton on this very
important book resigned because they pulled the book. And but it turned out later that the reason
they pulled it was because it was too critical. Chris Patton's book was too critical of China.
But it was I'm not a big fan of Chris Patton. He later became the the the chancellor, I think,
of Oxford University. But he was tipped to be the next prime minister of the UK. He was
undoubtedly bright. But anyway, after this book, he didn't do anything in the UK.
We'd never hear anything about him now. Very interesting. So China, you're not allowed to
criticize. That was the first time I understood that that was the narrative, you know, amongst these
people. And there are people in the US, as you know, who are China sycophants. And in I mean,
you know, Keir Starmer is a good example. And Lord Mandelson, who's the American ambassador, sorry,
the British ambassador to America, also connected with China, apparently. And did you get an answer
to your questions? Yeah, the second third question was about if she has any chance to do anything
in the case of Reiner Schulmisch, who is still in prison with the I guess. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. No,
I can't do anything about that, because I cannot really get involved with, you know, pending
trials or charges like that. The only thing you know, I can't do, of course, if there's protests,
I can join these protests. Right. But other than that, there is nothing really I can do,
because I'm sitting in the European Parliament. I can make a point of order here. But that wouldn't
do any good, other than, you know, getting the news out. But it's not really doing anything for
Reiner Fulmich particular. Right. Interesting that Reiner Fulmich, he was, I first knew of him
before Covid actually. So he won two massive cases, one against Volkswagen, and the other
one was against Deutsche Bank. Yeah. So maybe that's the reason that he's having a special
treatment in Germany. Possibly. Yeah. Revenge. Anyway, F. Nazar. I can't remember what F stands
for, Nazar. Hi, Fred. Yes, you have said, yeah. Thank you so much. Go ahead. So the first question
about Reiner, could you, as a member of the European Parliament, ask for a report,
for example, about the respect of human rights violated, like due process?
Technically, yeah. Theoretically, I can't do that. I will have to speak to my colleagues who are in
the appropriate, in the respective committees that deal with that. So I could ask her if we could
work on that. Yeah, that might be something. Report on the violations of human rights.
Yeah. You could go to your favourite organisation, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.
Yeah. Especially because it's pretty clear that the due process was violated. So
that would be a good point to follow. Yeah. Christine, I just had a thought. You might find
that, Reiner Fulmick, you might, one body, European body, that might be interested in that is the
Council of Europe. And the reason I think that they might be interested in this is because
they were very exercised by the 2009 pandemic fraud, but they also had an almost,
it was not publicised very well, you know, in the mainstream press. Julian Assange came from Australia
to the Council of Europe, and he was fated at the Council of Europe. So I think there are people
there who understand what's going on. So I've seen this, Julian Assange, they understood,
and they also understood what was going on about the swine flu pandemic, and thereby
the COVID, of course, both were frauds. And so, but they don't get much publicity. Maybe that's why
they like the publicity, maybe, but they didn't get much even for Julian Assange. And that was a
big, that's the only time he's appeared in public, to my knowledge. Okay. So,
I got two questions.
They might be interested in Rhino-Fulmic. And the other one is, you know, someone like you writing
to the United Nations, but the other thing is maybe you don't want to draw too much attention.
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and ask him to investigate what's happening to
Rhino-Fulmic. Yeah.
But we got two more questions or three.
Okay. The other question is, you know, you are aware that people who have been vaccinated with
all COVID vaccine brands, some are meeting a Bluetooth signal. And this signal was detected
to be recent by Android module to a website which belongs to the US Department of Defense.
Would you be able to get involved in any university or accredited institution to study this?
I wouldn't be able to make them do it. I could, you know, write and can suggest it,
but that seems to be, that should be done by people who are actually, you know, in touch with
the scientific community. You know what I'm saying? Like I said, I could write to universities.
Could you do a study here and there? The thing is they wouldn't get funding for it, right? Because
it goes against the narrative once again. So, but yeah, I could reach out to,
I could reach out to a group of people. So say that again, there was basically the COVID Japs
and how they rendered like a Bluetooth signal, right?
Yes. It seems like they're injected like a nano or micro router, which emits this Bluetooth
signal, which is easy to detect. You could download any application on Android and like a BLE,
Bluetooth Low Energy Tracker or sniffer, and you can detect it and you could follow the people
around. It's, there's a documentary about this called Bluetooth. It's called what Bluetooth or
Bluetooth? Bluetooth. It's a playing on the words. You can find it in Bit.chord, Rumble or DCI.
Okay. You can find it in Bit.chord, Rumble or DCI anywhere. It's made in Mexico.
And, but it's translated and they're making the part two, which is very interesting because
they have this mouse lab rat, which doesn't emit anything. Then they inject them
with Pfizer, I think. And then it starts emitting Bluetooth.
And what's even more interesting is that the Android module picks this signal up and resends
the data to this website, which is really amazing. I mean, they're using the data. It's proved that
they're using the data. Okay. And then there's another question. It's about money. We're very
worried about the scheme, about central bank digital currencies. And then there's a question
and we've seen how some legislators in the U S are emitting. They have gathered gold in the vault
and they're meeting these projects where they would have money. It's not money. Actually,
it's a gold certificate, but it works like money. And the Bundestag could do that also.
So, or the European parliament also. So if you're interested, we could get a detailed project to work on.
Yeah. Yeah. Send it to me. Oh, I wanted to put in my email address. Okay. Yeah.
So it's like, it's, um, yeah, I could hear someone typing then. It sounded like Trump with his,
with his pen, you know, you can hear scratching across. I actually wanted to put my email to all
of, all of you guys in the chat, but I directly messaged, messaged Fred now. So let's see.
It's okay. Well, okay. All right. Um, is that okay, Fred? Any, anything we finished?
The last question is, um, I've been studying a free majoring for like, I don't know, over five,
six years. I wrote, wrote three books about them. And it's really interesting how these,
all these secret societies work and are structured. Um, and there was, for example, in,
in the UK, there was this project that it would force all members of secret societies, which have
an oath of obedience, uh, to disclose their membership if they, they belong to,
to any position which could affect, um, the public, uh, for example, um, an elective position in,
in parliament or, or, or in a listed corporation. Of course, this project didn't, wasn't passed,
but, um, it's really, it would be really interesting at least to discuss it as a project
because you can't have a democracy where, uh, in all parties are infiltrated by the same mega party,
you know, it's like, it's a uniparty. Um, so I don't know if you're interested. I also have some
information on that. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Yeah. I put in my, my email address. So yeah,
just send it to me. I'll take a look. Okay. Yeah. Um, so thank you, Fred. Uh, where are you, Fred?
Which country are you in? Uh, I'm in Argentina, but I'm also Italian. Uh, yes. Okay.
Okay. Yeah. Um, so Jessica Richards is next. Um, Christine. I'm sorry.
Jessica Richards. Where are you, Jessica? I'm in the UK now. I just got back from Ireland. Um,
hi, Christine. Thanks for giving us your time again. It's greatly appreciated. Um, I've just
got a quick question really, um, from your point of view being within the EU, there's lots of stuff
coming up and opinions coming up, um, about the posturing of the European leaders and the
support for, um, Ukraine, et cetera. And of course, um, our prime minister is involved in that.
Do you feel or, or, or do you think from what you've seen there, that this is a real attempt to
create, as they've been wanting to do for a long time, in my understanding, uh, European military
and to involve the UK in that and how viable is that? Yeah. Um, yeah, of course. So there have
been plans for that. There've been talks about that. We need to have, you know, a common, uh,
military, uh, foreign policy, military strategy, but it was up until now, it was just really talk,
really, you know, for lack of money, you know, to realizing that, of course, um, because they're
spending money in all kinds of garbage. Um, yeah, but now it's like they mean business.
And of course, this is just the welcome, uh, pretext under which they now could possibly,
um, be successful in convincing the majority of the peoples in the European member states, um,
to actually, you know, applaud to installing a European army. But this is, this would be, um,
would be a grave mistake, uh, in the sense of that, um, then peoples, they would, would no longer be
able to fight back, uh, in terms of, so let's say, let's say the Romanian people are now, you know,
taking the streets protesting, uh, that they try to keep Ceausescu out of office.
If there was, um, a European army, of course, they would not deploy the Romanians to clean up
the Romanians pro protesting on the streets. They would send, let's say the French or the Italians
and they would have no, no qualms about, you know, shooting down Romanian people.
So this is the real danger, um, that I see, uh, if they do get, uh, whatever they want to call a
European army or whatever, but, um, yes, they will absolutely try to do that. Um, the only
thing that is saving us right now is there is no money to do that, right? Like they spend it on
everyone else. Um, with the U S still on board, um, they would definitely do that. Yes, absolutely.
Right. That's helpful. Thank you. What, what would be the viability as well of involving the UK in
that as we're technically not part of the European union anymore, but in everything?
That, that wouldn't change anything. I mean, see, they're trying to make us believe that the only
way you can have meaningful discussions and can have trade and can have, you know, contracts
is if you are a member in the EU, right? Which is BS. I mean, we kind of, the countries existed
before there was even in the U right. There was trade, we had agreements, we had contracts,
and yeah, it's a little more difficult, but that's, that's the other benefit that the EU actually
brings, uh, especially for like big corporations, globally operating corporations, right?
Now they no longer have to negotiate with 27 different, 27 different countries.
Now all they have to do is, you know, convince Ursula von der Leyen and boom, you have 27
countries, right? So this is just another step to globalizing the world and to bring it all together
under, you know, whatever globalitarian kind of a global order. That's what they're, what they're
doing. Yeah. So I guess I probably already know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
How aware are the other MEPs of the dangers of such a situation taking place?
Yeah, the majority are not aware at all. So I've tried to explain that so many times.
And I think you have like three types of people in the, in the parliaments, not only you parliament
and other parliaments as well. I think this holds pretty much true for every parliament. So you have
a group of people that are fully aware and are actively fighting it, right? But we're in a majority.
Then you have a group of people. They are fully aware of what they're doing.
But they, since they belong, finally belong to the club, they don't want to jeopardize that.
So they go along, even though they know what they're doing is not, is not correct. Right.
And then you have a third group of people. They're just so utterly stupid. They're so
incredibly dumb. They don't get it. They really don't. They really believe all of this BS.
You know, if you censored free speech on social media, you would save democracy.
Yes, absolutely. And a man, like I said, you know, wanting to bring about peace, of course,
is a fascist. Of course he is, you know, that's pretty much, you know, what the three groups are.
So someone early and you'll say from dying from old age diseases.
Yeah. Yeah.
So did you say that the majority of people there actually are aware and?
No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry. The minority. Yeah. These people are in the minority. If I said
majority, that's totally wrong. No, no, no, the minority, but this minority is growing.
So it's now more in the EU Parliament. We are now more ever since the last election in June of last
year, but we still don't have a majority. Theoretically, we actually, I would say the
right conservative side, we technically have a majority in house, but the Christian Democrats,
the Europeans, what they call People's Party, the EPP, the former Conservative Party,
they haven't quite made up their mind yet. And since they now won the elections in Germany,
they're probably convinced they're doing the right thing, right? But they still vote with the social
Democrats and with the Greens and the liberals and all of that. Even though the people want them
to change their course, but they won't. They simply won't. Right. So, and you know,
they simply won't. Right. So, and like I said, they won the German elections. So they're,
you know, thinking, hey, we must have done everything correct. They will not change.
So they're not going to change no matter what. Right. And did the people actually vote for that?
Or is it? Did the people actually vote for that? Or is it questionable, as you know,
some elections are? I would say they did come in first. They did win the elections
in coming in first. But even, I mean, we're talking now that they had, well, 28%.
Right. I remember times where they had like 48, 51, 52%. Right. When they were the actual
Conservative Party of my country. Right. But now it's like they are celebrating themselves
if they came in at 28%. So. Yeah, I understand that. Is that some of that a result of fewer
people bothering to vote? Well, no, actually, in the last German election, the participation
was actually quite high. It was like 87%. That is high. And the highest turnout ever.
So people are and I think it happened with COVID. People are more interested in politics now.
Because they realized or a lot of them realized anyway, that, you know, politics is not just,
you know, some, some kind of a theoretical nonsense that only the elites bother with.
It affects your daily life. Yeah, you were locked in your home. You had to put on a mask.
They almost mandated you to take an mRNA injection. They threatened you, you would lose your job if
you didn't comply. So they realized, wait a minute, it is actually affecting me directly.
Right. Yeah. And that's true. Yeah. Nature people normally don't react until it knocks on their
front door. Otherwise, they just ignore things. Yeah. Things have to get worse before they get
better. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to jump in here. I would really like lock off at like, well, it's
almost 11pm here. I kind of have an early morning. So I would take one more question.
Can you take one more question from Gary Hawkins, Christine? Thank you, Jessica.
I understand that in Germany, it is just paper ballots, correct? Yes.
And so... And voter ID and one day voting. Okay. So then there could have been still cheating in the
counting. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Do you have a sense that that may be? Yes. Yes. That did happen here and
there. What we're doing now is we're telling people, look, you have the right to witness when
they're counting the ballots, right, in the various precincts. And I think that's a good
and we've actually, you know, this camp, we've been doing that campaign whenever there is elections.
And a lot of people in Germany, they didn't even know that they were allowed to, you know, be present
when they're counting the ballots. So but there is still fraud going on. You know, here and there,
the people are caught cheating. So but generally speaking, is there is fraud? Yes. But they,
they really can't do it on a massive scale that it would have.
I think you're cutting out there, unfortunately. She's frozen. If you can hear me. I remember...
Gary, you're very faint. Your microphone is very low or whatever. I remember when I first saw you
Wow, there's a... Wait a minute, Gary. She's not with us because she's frozen. OK. She might not be
hearing me. Yeah. See, she's frozen. Well, maybe the Zoom heard her, the artificial intelligence.
So they helped her to leave. They didn't like to talk about possible... Hello, Christine.
Cheating in elections behind the scenes. Well, I'll just make... Your microphone is very low.
Yeah, I don't know why that would be. Well, normally your voice is booming around, but now it's...
What do they call that? I can't remember the thing down the bottom on the left. So Christine,
are you there? We'll let her go, shall we? Yeah. Can I just make a comment then? That's better.
Your microphone is better than now or the sound. So I did increase the input level. I remember when
I saw her first, I thought, wow, that's a human being. And I was worried about her safety.
And I was going to ask her what happens after she stands up and makes one of those
speeches. What about Trudeau, you mean, when she said, you are not welcome? Very good, Christine.
So Gary wants to know whether you're worried about your safety. He's worried about your safety and he
lives in America. Not really. So I don't... When I leave the house, I don't look over... I'm aware of
my surroundings, obviously, but I'm not really concerned that people might jump me or whatever.
That I am concerned about when we have party congresses and there's tens of thousands of
people hating AFD or a protest on T-Fah around, then I'm concerned for my safety. Yes. And
in 2015, they threw a stone at my head. It was this big. Yeah. It was split open my scalp.
Stuff like that happens, but generally, I'm not worried. No.
So you know Naomi Seid, of course? Yes. Well, I don't know her. I know of her.
Oh, well, doesn't she live near you? I guess not. Yeah, but she just popped up like a few months ago
as far as I... Right? So I don't know where she came from. I have no clue. I just know of her.
Remember what I read of her on X? She's been staying away from home, worried about her safety.
But then who's the leader of AFD, an alternative for Deutschland? Yeah, Alice Weidel. And then,
you obviously communicate with her a lot. Yeah. Well, not a lot. She's been campaigning,
been busy. So, yeah. So I was in Germany in 2008 or something, and it was the election season.
And they were on TV. I couldn't understand what they were saying, but I was fascinated watching
because all these candidates were sitting in a long form type program discussing things.
There are differences, very civil in a very civilized way. And I thought,
oh, I wish we did that in the United States. Yeah. Well, it's not that civil anymore.
Whenever AFD is there, of course, they get attacked. So it's not that civil anymore, actually.
So I take it that the media in Germany is as controlled as it is in the United States.
Yes. That accounts for why AFD didn't win, because people are brainwashed, right? Exactly.
Exactly. You don't seem like the typical brainwashed. That's why I keep iterating that point.
We are all in the same boat in the Western democracies. Everything that you don't think
is going right in the United States, we are facing the exact same thing, just as it is in Italy,
in France, everywhere. It's the same thing everywhere. How do you explain yourself? How
is it you're not brainwashed? Have you avoided TV over time? Well, I turned off my TV a long time
ago. That's true. It's like, yeah, I've always been a critical mind. I mean, even as a kid.
Oh, trust me, I was a handful. I mean, my teachers and parents, they were trying to do their best to
discipline me, but I would always come back with another question and question this, challenge that.
So I've always kind of been like that. But of course, I was also caught up in that whole,
I mean, the world to me was pretty much okay. I was busy all day long as they stay at home mom
with my three kids. So and they were a handful too, by the way. So but it was like, once I had that
waking up moment in 2007, it was like, yeah. And like I said, once you start going down the rabbit hole,
there is like you can't stop, right? And once you've seen it, you cannot not see it. So but I've
always been kind of critical. Yeah. Your time here today, I think I speak for everybody here
when to say we love you and wow, do I have respect for your bravery? Well, thank you. Thank you.
Christine, you forgot to mention that you're from East Germany, aren't you originally?
No, no, no, I'm not. My parents are from East Germany. I was born in Western Germany. But
so my parents were born in the 20s. They had me and my brother rather late in life.
So my dad fought in World War Two. I mean, that drafted him when he was 16. So when he came home,
he realized it wasn't communism, right? So he spoke out and, you know, went to these party
meetings on a rather small kind of town level, right? But he would, you know, ask questions,
difficult questions. And then he was arrested in 1950. So he was released as a POW or as being a
POW in the end of 46. And he was arrested then in 50 by the Russians. And he was sentenced to 25
years of hard labor as a political prisoner. They accused him of having for an anti Soviet espionage,
which was totally ridiculous, of course. So yeah, since 25 years of hard labor,
he luckily only had to serve five years. He was released in 55. And he still wouldn't shut up.
So then they wanted to arrest him again in 59. But then he was warned. And he fled the country
before they could arrest him. So then my mom followed him in 61 with my two older sisters.
And yeah, I was born in Western Germany. But I grew up in that household, you know,
having had a dad who was, you know, political prisoner, and 25 years of hard labor, that is
quite a sentence, right. And it was rather ridiculous what he had done, actually. I mean,
what they accused him of pretty much. So yeah, but that's pretty much how I grew up. So maybe
that explains why. So there's your answer, Gary. Yeah. Very good. So Christine, thank you so much
for coming on. And I think it's really important for people to hear you not least because you are
a politician and you give people hope, just like Trump does. And I was going to ask you, but we
haven't got time now. Or maybe we have a minute maybe for you. So did you think, were you a bit
surprised on inauguration day when Trump got into power and listening to his inauguration speech?
It was a bit of a turnaround, wasn't it? And then it was immediately followed by all those executive
orders. And I felt massive, for my part, personal part, I felt massive hope. Just and it was like,
you know, the last four years just evaporated and meant absolutely no, well, apart from it was gas
lighting for me and for others. But I was a bit, I was stunned about the difference of the feeling
was completely different in just a matter of days. And I thought, wow, things can change that,
they can change that quickly. I know. But I mean, that's what Donald Trump had said, you know,
from day one, there is going to be a new sheriff in town. And he certainly lived up to that promise.
When he was actually inaugurated, the very first emotion that I had, I felt utterly relieved that
we actually saw him getting inaugurated. My biggest fear was they were trying to do whatever they could
to prevent him from being inaugurated. Right. So I was relieved, you know, that was like, oh,
please make, let's make it to the 20th of January. Right. And just see it done. So I was was first
and foremost, I was relieved to see it happening. And how quickly it changed. I know I wasn't really
surprised. I just, you know, had a ball seeing it because he was proving everyone a liar left and
right. Right. And it's not a matter of not being able to. It's a matter of they don't want to bring
about that change. That is their problem. They don't want to. But if you want to, you can. And he
proved that. Yeah. Yeah. So I agree with you. So it made the European leaders look immediately,
totally irrelevant. And that was great. And he made them look like idiots. Exactly. And it is
continuing on the same line. I think actually it could have been planned by Trump and Vance that
they knew what Zelensky would do. They maybe had psychology advisors who'd been studying his
speeches. You know, they knew what he would do. They knew he would appeal to the American public
from the Oval Office. Yeah. Over Trump's head. And they were ready for it. And Vance started the
attack and Trump joined in. Yeah, exactly. But I think the big lesson for us, Christine, that we
shouldn't despair. There were many times during the last four years when I was despairing since
2020. And I thought, how on earth is this going to be? But things can change very quickly. Yes, they can.
Never lose hope. Okay. He's a one off. But yeah, even so, it was really interesting to see how
quickly things could change and how the feeling changed. And it wasn't just in America. Right.
So anyway, thank you so much, Christine. It's been a pleasure being with all of you again.
Thank you so much and talk to you soon. Thank you. Thank you. So important. Thank you. Bye.