So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International and to today's
discussion with our guest speaker, guest presenter, guest question answerer, Christine Anderson.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three years ago with a desire to pursue
truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health.
He has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
At this time I also note Reiner Fulmick in jail in Germany, Christine Anderson's country
where he's undergoing a show trial.
I shine a light on his case.
It is outrageous what the German government is doing to Reiner and he is, Reiner is a
fighter for truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health.
Anything that you can do, I can put an address in the post, address in the chat where you
can send him a postcard, but please do what you can to spread the word about what's happening
to him in the German court system.
I'm Charles Kovest, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur and we love passionate people in these meetings.
And by the way, I mention Reiner because he has presented twice to this group.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago and over the last 13 years
I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from
bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now many of us proudly say yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And again, I note the work of the recent article of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, known as the godfather
of childhood vaccines, who has now admitted that no vaccines ever in history were properly
tested for safety and efficacy.
Stanley Plotkin, and he published this article acknowledging that fact directly as a consequence
of the deposition by lawyer Aaron Ciri for nine hours orchestrated by Dale Bigtree's
ICANN network and the high wire.
And so all of us should be supporting the high wire.
But that is so important.
Anyone who says vaccines are properly tested are lying to you or ignorant or more or worse.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newslet or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written
a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and the medical science
battle is only one of 12 battlefields of this latest war.
There's no time to be tired.
I assess we're four years into a seven year war.
So gird your loins, get energized, do whatever you can to be in fantastic health.
So you're up for the fight.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax.
Some of us are on the fence and some of us consider that having a debate around the virus
is nowhere near as important as having lots of other debates.
And then we get attacked for being ignorant about viruses because if we had this debate
and proved that viruses didn't exist then all of this would go away.
So there you are.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to Christine Anderson, our guest for as long as Christine wishes to speak.
Normally very short because Christine loves questions and I used to be a lawyer.
I love questions as well.
So Christine if you just want to get questions that's let us know how long you speak to and
then people will throw their hands up so that they have it in order.
I've got lots of questions for you as well.
But anyway, I'll be patient.
Stephen Frost, however, by long established tradition asks the first questions for 15
minutes.
Is the free speech environment with appropriate moderating?
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We also reject the triggering industry.
Don't you dare say anything that might trigger somebody.
I call BS on the triggering industry.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you, enslaves you.
Love on the other hand expands you, liberates you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, if you're not having enough vitamin C, then you will not be well.
Pump vitamin C into your body as well as vitamin D as well as zinc.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
Now welcome to Christine Anderson, our guest.
We thank you so much, Christine, for giving us your time.
Christine has spoken to us on two or three occasions previously.
She is a member of the European Parliament and a great contributor in the fight for freedom.
So wonderful to have you here.
Stephen, say hello to Christine and then we'll listen to Christine for as long or a little
as she wants and then we'll have you start with questions.
Stephen?
Hello, Christine.
Sorry, I was a little bit late.
But I'm here now.
So over to you, Christine.
Well, I'm doing just fine.
So first of all, I would like to apologize for my rather casual appearance tonight.
But since I'm on my summer break, which Stephen saw fit to drag me out of to join you tonight,
I figured you guys just have to put up with my casual appearance.
That's who I am.
So deal with it.
OK?
And I think it's like the fourth or fifth time I'm on this call.
And in the past, it's always been really educating for me as well because I get to meet so many
brilliant experts in various fields.
And as Stephen knows, I mean, we have phone conversations.
And it's like, you know, just to clarify a single question.
And usually they end up being a conversation of like, what, an hour, hour and a half?
Because, you know, we get we go on and on and on and on and we cover areas that, you know,
most of the time I didn't even know that that should be covered.
So Stephen, thank you so much for I mean, you are an inspiration even, you know, to me
because you just light up my mind as well.
So thank you for that.
So, yeah, I'm on here today, not really knowing what to talk about, to be quite frank.
But whenever I try to prepare something, you know, and it's like what a couple of days ahead
of that particular event, eventually I, you know, end up throwing everything out because
something happened on that day.
Let's say I'm off to an event, I've prepared speech or whatever.
I'm not doing that anymore, by the way, because nine times out of ten, I do end up throwing it out
because there's something on the way I think about or something I hear or I get to,
I usually get to events rather early because I want to interact with people.
I want to speak to the people that came there, you know.
So and somebody might say something to me that just kind of really, you know, gets me
off somehow, you know, in an interesting way.
So I end up throwing out my speech and, you know, do something entirely different.
And this is one of those nights tonight.
Christine, I wonder whether you could speak about, you know, the essential points of
totalitarianism because you're an expert on that.
Because I think you said you're from East Germany, is that correct?
Originally, or your parents?
My parents are.
So I'm not originally from East Germany.
My parents were born there in their 20s, by the way.
So my dad did serve in World War Two.
He was drafted when he was 16.
And once he came back to home, you know, after having been released as a prisoner of war,
which he made sure he was good if he was going to end up as a POW,
it was going to be with Americans rather than the Russians.
So he succeeded in that, at least.
So he was released like the end of 46.
Came home just to find out that he was now sitting in communism,
which did not sit well with him at all.
So down he took the streets and, you know, questioned the narrative and, you know,
did all of that, which eventually landed him in jail.
So he was sentenced in 1950 to 25 years of hard labor.
He was actually tried and convicted by the Russians.
So 25 years as a 22-year-old.
So you can imagine, you know, how old he must have been, you know,
by the time he was going to be released.
And it was like he was devastated.
Luckily, he only had to serve five years of the sentence.
Then he was released.
Early surprisingly, actually.
But he still wouldn't shut up and he would continue speaking out against this,
this totalitarian regime of communism.
And in 59, he was supposed to get arrested a second time.
But that time he had been warned.
So he had the chance of fleeing GR, which he did on Easter Saturday in 59.
So he came to the West.
And so luckily I was born in Western Germany.
I was born and raised in Western Germany with, you know, the Western values of free speech
and, you know, the whole shebang.
And I will have to say until I would say like the 80s.
Yeah, we lived in a democracy in the Western world.
I mean, looking back at, you know, the media back then,
I mean, the newspapers back then, they pretty much covered all of the same issues, right?
But they had different angles.
And the different newspapers highlighted different aspects
of that, you know, news, whatever they were reporting.
So it was like a variety of pluralism in the aspects you were presented.
So you had a chance of, you know, making up your own mind.
But nowadays it's like you can open any old paper.
It's the same story down to the word.
So, you know, the pluralism no longer exists.
So like I said, up until the 80s, I would say, yeah,
I had a feeling I lived in a democracy and that drastically changed.
And I would say that it happened in like the mid 90s.
And the reason or, yeah, the reason I think why that might have happened
didn't occur to me at the time, obviously, but I think I know now what happened.
Well, the Iron Curtain fell.
The Eastern Bloc was pretty much it no longer existed.
So up until the reunification of Germany and the Eastern Bloc pretty much,
you know, having failed for everyone to see, and they were, you know, pretty much dissolving.
Up until that point, you had like this competition going
between the Western world and the communist world.
And it was like, you know, the West so desperately needed to try to prove to everyone,
we are the better deal.
We are the ones about freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
And the communist world is all about oppression, totalitarianism and all of that.
So as long as that competition was going,
the powers in the Western world, they could not do what they really wanted to do,
which we are seeing now what they're doing, which is to erect a totalitarian regime as well.
So as long as the communist world existed, they could not show their colors.
But that changed drastically changed after reunification and after the communist world
pretty much with a blip obliterated.
And then you saw the first thing we had was about, I would say, with the EU forming
and how they collected even more powers.
It was the introduction of the euro.
And then turns out that Germany, of all people, of all countries, I'm sorry, of all countries,
turned out to be the problem in this because we had too high wages.
We were so competitive and we were competitive, but in a positive way.
But we were, as you recall, we were supposed or we were labeled the sick country of the West.
So what happened was with the euro coming, the countries no longer had the authority
over their own currency.
So the only way you could fix a problem when you were too competitive
and you had too high wages, you could no longer sell your goods.
You had to drop the wages rather than just in your currency.
And that's what happened throughout the European nations pretty much,
or the ones that belong to the EU.
And that set off like a vicious cycle of twindling down wages
rather than just adjusting your currency within your country,
which kind of fixed the problem in the past, but you no longer could do that
because you were bound within that common currency.
So anyway, that's just one aspect of it.
So it went on and on.
And the next thing we saw is now we needed to save that currency, right?
And I have to tell you, a currency that needs saving is no longer a currency.
It is a problem and it needs to just be abolished, point blank.
Here we are now.
So next thing we're seeing, the powers that accumulate within the EU,
specifically with the EU commission, they get larger and larger.
They accumulate ever more power.
And the people, the peoples within the EU Union, they just go with it.
And it's all under the pretense of promoting fairness, of promoting kindness,
of promoting respect and tolerance and the whole shebang.
And now we are in this position that the sovereignty of the peoples within the EU,
it no longer counts because the people, and that's another thing,
in a democracy, a people is seen or should be seen as reasonable decision-makers.
They don't need nannies.
They don't need anyone to tell them what they should want or what they should vote for.
But that's what we're seeing now, is that the peoples in the various EU member states,
they're being seen as little naughty kids that need to be educated, that need to be taught,
that need to be told what to do and need to be told what to think even.
And that's where we're at right now.
So...
Christine, so observing America, it seems obvious to me, more obvious in America than
in Europe, but then I'm in Europe.
Well, I'm not in Europe, I'm in the United Kingdom.
But I just wonder, what are they trying to push on to America?
Is it communism or is it totalitarianism or are they pushing communism to achieve totalitarianism?
And what are they doing in Europe too?
But it seems to be more obvious in America where things are kind of black and white and
people are very sharply divided.
But having said that, people are divided in the UK these days, especially with the crazy
government we have.
You know what, Stephen, that's actually a difficult question.
What are they trying to do?
Are they trying to push communism to a step?
Are they trying to push communism to establish totalitarianism or is it totalitarianism?
And quite frankly, it doesn't matter because in the end, any communist system will turn
totalitarian.
That's the point, you know.
So they might usher in totalitarianism via communism.
I mean, truth be told, the whole concept of communism, oh my gosh, that is so nice, isn't
it?
Everyone is the same.
Everyone has the same thing.
Equality, no, no, it's actually no longer equality.
It's equity, which is a totally different ballgame because equality means people have
equal chances of succeeding.
Equity, however, means to have equal outcomes.
And as Kamala Harris never tires to say in order to explain what equity means is equal
chances.
Well, not everyone starts out in the same place.
So they need a little more.
But essentially, everyone should have or should end up in the same place.
So it's equity.
But you cannot have everyone ending up in the same place.
If you have everyone ending up in the same place, what do you have?
So if everyone in the entire world ends up to be the president of the United States,
because that's what it essentially means.
But you cannot have everyone in the freaking world to end up as the president of the United
States.
And you cannot have everyone in the world end up as a professor at a renowned university.
It is impossible.
So what you will get is you have the whole people, maybe of the entire planet, ending
up in misery, ending up in the slumps.
That's what you will get if you strive for equity, meaning everyone ending up in the
same place.
So that's the flaw.
But they don't tell anyone about that because they don't want you to figure it out.
But anyway, no, communism is pretty much just the pretext.
You know, it sounds nice.
Of course, you know, we don't want anyone to suffer and anyone to be poor.
It's all great.
But no, the point is this.
Humanity or humans, what drives them is to make a better world first and foremost for
themselves.
Of course it is.
And then they want to provide a better world for their children, for their offspring.
That is deeply wired into our genes, if you want, into our brains.
Because what else do you have if not striving to better yourself?
That's the motivation that drives people.
But if you take that away, if everyone is going to end up in the same place, what is
going to drive you?
Nothing.
And we've seen that in the communist countries.
Every single communist country has failed, utterly failed.
The only reason that China hasn't failed yet is because they were capable of perfecting
their totalitarian control over everything to an extent they are failing, but no one
is noticing it because they all live in misery and utter control.
Take the social credit system.
I mean, this is, gosh, the example of par excellence, how you would control people.
Yeah, you would establish a social credit system.
And that's, by the way, what they're trying to do in the Western democracies as well.
And now it ties back in to the whole COVID madness that we experienced when they ushered
in these digital COVID certificates, the green certificates, the backs, passports.
That was the first step into that social credit system.
It was the first step into digital identity.
They just got people used to having to show something wherever they went, whether it was
a shoe store or a restaurant or whatever it was.
I mean, even we as MEPs were required to provide some proof of vaccination, which I never could
because I didn't take that stupid stuff.
So it was kind of a problem.
But that's where we're going now.
And that is actually what they're trying to do in all of the Western democracies.
Excuse me.
I just got a frog my throat.
So, but they're literally trying to obliterate our free societies that were built on individualism,
on free individuals, on free speech, on free social justice, on free social justice.
Free speech.
So these are the hallmarks of every free and liberal democracy.
And that's what they used COVID for to attack.
They didn't have to do that in China anymore because China already is a totalitarian regime.
But they had to target the Western democracies.
And that's what they did.
And that is only the whole COVID map is only one aspect of it.
That's only to kind of get people used to, no, no, no, no, no.
Fundamental rights are no longer fundamental rights that are guaranteed to you.
Fundamental rights are actually some kind of a privilege that the government can grant to you
or withhold depending on how you behave.
And how, depending on your willingness to do what the government is telling you to do.
That's what this was all about.
So what we're seeing, and we've just seen that with the last Olympic games in Paris,
this whole transgender madness, which is actually a transgender industry.
They're making billions and billions and billions of dollars of people.
They have successfully gaslighted and manipulated into thinking they were born in the wrong body.
Right. So these people now need gender affirming care.
I wonder what's affirming about it.
I wonder what is care.
There is nothing affirming about this.
It certainly is not care.
But it's a billion dollar industry.
And what they produce is life long patients that need surgeries.
Not only the initial surgery of this gender reassignment surgery or whatever they call it.
They will have, like I said, life long patients that need reoccurring surgeries to fix the problem
that the initial surgery cost them.
So that's what we're seeing there.
And that just kind of gets me thinking is, okay, what is this all about?
I mean, I remember for decades, ever since humanity existed, actually,
and especially in the Western world and these past decades, it was always the task and the job
of parents and society to reaffirm, reassure our kids and adolescents
that they were fine just the way they were.
And to be quite frank, there isn't a teenager alive on this planet who is ever satisfied with this body.
You know, especially girls.
I mean, there's always something, you know, nose too big, boobs too small, you know, butt is not right.
There is always something.
But it was always our job to reassure them, no, you are perfect just the way you are.
What are we doing now?
We're telling these kids and telling these adolescents, oh, well, you're like your boobs.
Well, maybe you're a boy and you're, you know, trapped in the wrong body.
So yeah, let's do something about that.
So, you know, let's just chop them off.
Why don't we?
Right.
So this general mutilation, bodily mutilation, what is going on now is a permanent process.
Now it's supposed to be a gender affirming care.
Yeah, well, I don't think so.
But when you go back, and that's when it ties once again back into communism,
think about Mao's cultural revolution.
What did he do?
He tried to obliterate gender or sex.
What he did was he pretty much said, we want gender equality.
We want equality of the sexes, meaning women are just the same as men.
And what did he do?
He made everyone dress in these unisex outfits.
They're all more short hair, if not shaved.
But what he was doing, he was obliterating femininity.
He was obliterating and erasing women.
That is what he did.
And we all know where the Mao's cultural revolution ended up.
So, and that ties back in to once again, the Olympic Games.
I mean, we've seen it.
There were chromosomically proven biological men beating the hell out of women
on a public stage.
And not only were they applauded for it, they hung medals around their neck.
And this really gets me off.
It's like this whole transgender ideology, this transgender madness.
They're targeting women, especially women.
And then once again, I have to ask the question, why are they targeting women?
And I'm sitting here, I'm sitting in a room, I'm sitting in a room,
and I'm sitting here, I'm trying to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why they would do that.
So I was thinking, okay, yes, one reason might be that women are the easier target, if you want to overturn
that whole cultural thing of how society is made up.
I mean, you know, women are, we are the ones, the women are the ones we birth every single generation
ever since mankind existed on this planet.
Why are they targeting us?
And one reason might be is they're literally weaponizing women's general tendency to be loving, nurturing
their intent to make everyone feel welcome.
So you target women, and they tell them, hey, look, we have, you know, this populace here,
and they might be men, but they're really feeling like women.
So why would you exclude them?
So if you really were so nurturing, and so understanding, and so kind,
you must include them in your private spaces, in locker rooms, in your sports.
You can't exclude them. That goes against your nature.
So they're weaponizing this, like I said, general tendency of women to exclude every,
to include everyone and be nurturing and loving and all of that.
But that can be the whole ball game.
There must be another reason for why they would target women and try to erase women.
I mean, they don't even call us women anymore.
They call us cervix havers, uterus havers, or menstruators, as the New York Times one did.
I mean, why are they erasing women? What is this all about?
And that's pretty much a question I would like to ask you.
But to me, this whole transgenderism, this whole madness is
among all of these other issues we're seeing, just another attempt to usher in a totalitarian regime
in which we are no longer seen as humans, actually, but just a part of some male mass
they can shovel around any which way.
I hope I made sense.
Yep. Lots of sense. Huge sense. Absolutely, Christine.
Stephen, while you're waiting for your next question, I wanted to bring to Christine's
attention, but to all of us, Stephen, this big article in The Weekend Australian,
Rupert Murdoch paper published from the Wall Street Journal, talking about the Nord Stream pipeline
and the headline, total BS. Look at this, the size of this big article.
I think one too many drinks and boom, you know, it says only a small amount of explosive was
required to blow up. There's a couple of drunk Ukrainians who came together to blow up the Nord
Stream pipeline. So I will send this to Hans Benjamin. But Christine, it's been remarkable,
you know, with Hans Benjamin, who's presented, I'm sure Stephen's spoken to you about
his evidence of a nuclear device. This is a pipeline that doesn't blow up easily.
This is a pipeline that doesn't blow up easily. So, you know, I can share this article. It was
originally published in the Wall Street Journal. Tom Rodman, you might find it make it easy. I've
taken pictures of this. I'll send it to Hans Benjamin. What's your thought on this?
If I could, yeah. Okay. That's very interesting. So they blew up a critical infrastructure
that supplied Germany with energy, you know, and as an industrial nation, you do depend on energy.
Right. So that was a terrorist attack. Right. Right. So anyway, but the very interesting point
about that is when that happened, the German government, it was like, yeah, well, fine.
You know, well, it's gone now, I guess, you know, so well, we don't have to, you know,
get that dirty Russian gas anymore. So no big deal. You know, whatever. But it was like,
seriously? I mean, infrastructure, critical infrastructure sabotaged, and you guys don't
freaking even care about that. And it was like, it occurred to me, it was like, seriously. So they
asked no questions. It was like, you know, once again, the conspiracy theorists, right, that said,
well, what is going on here? But once again, it ties in to the way they handled the whole COVID
madness, you know, and all of the things we're seeing now, like the birthrate drop, you know,
in pretty much every single country that administered these despicable mRNA shots.
So you have a birth drop in birthrate. And yeah, I understand it is a correlation. I get that.
But why in the heck is no one interested in trying to find out whether or not this correlation
is actually a causation and linked to the mRNA shots? Because that's the thing, the drop in
birthrate occurred in what, mid 2021. And guess what, like nine months before they started rolling
out, you know, these safe and effective vaccines, no one is interested. The same thing with the
blowing up of the Nord Stream. No one was interested in asking questions and getting to the bottom of
it. Absolutely. The only explanation I have for their disinterest to finding out what's going on
is this. They don't need to find out because they already know. Yes. They know the answer.
Yes. The mRNA shots are responsible for the drop in birthrate. And yes, Nord Stream 2 was sabotaged
by Ukraine or maybe Poland or maybe the United States. They already know. So they no longer need
to find out. They just so choose not to inform us of their knowledge. That's the explanation I have.
So Christine, thanks so much for speaking to us. I mean, they're just so much. So Tross,
Tross, she, while she was in power, during the three weeks she was in Prime Minister of the UK,
the Nord Stream pipeline explosion took place as far as I can gather because
it was reported somewhere I saw with my own eyes, but I can't remember where. Tross said,
we've done it. Meaning the UK had done it on behalf of the US as far as I could understand.
And then, but Hans Benjamin Braun, who's a theoretical physicist trained in the famous
place in Zurich, he proved in, I think he said seven different ways initially,
that, and then it's, I think it's 11 now, but nobody was interested. He sent all his reports
and his research to the UN and various countries and nobody was interested that he said it was a
thermonuclear explosion which blew up. It was much, much bigger than the alleged size of the
the bomb or whatever which blew it up. So I'm talking about like 100 to a thousand times bigger
and it was a thermonuclear explosion. He's proved it. Nobody was interested. Nobody countered him.
Nobody said you're wrong. They just didn't respond. And I think it's very probable that I now thought,
no, sorry, I did think at the time, why do they bring trust into the Prime Minister of the UK for
three weeks? Why on earth would they put someone as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and then
within three weeks they're getting rid of her? Surely whatever was wrong with her during the
three weeks, which included the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, should have been known before
before she achieved power. So they should have stopped her before, not make fools of themselves
by bringing her in and then three weeks later getting rid of her because that and nobody
commented about that. Nobody thought it was strange. They were all kind of caught up in the
prior announcement of the energy prices going up mysteriously. And then allegedly in the UK, BBC
pumping out to the British people that the prices of energy had to go up because of Ukraine.
But I looked it up on the internet. It was only so Ukraine only supply, sorry, Russia.
Russia supplied only 2% of Britain's gas. So why on earth was gas going up in the UK? Gas price,
energy prices, they talked about energy, never talked about energy prices before. It was always
electricity, gas, oil, but all of a sudden it was all banded together. It was like, and I think that
it was like, and I think that they brought in trust to do whatever she needed to do and then got rid of
her. You know what, that might be true. I cannot speak intelligently about that. And to be quite
frank, I mean, who knows what's going on in the UK anymore? I mean, you guys go through prime
ministers as some other people go through the underwear, right? I mean, you exchange them
on a frequency. It's ridiculous. And if you were to ask me who was the prime minister of the UK
right now, it's like, yeah, it's some new guy. Oh yeah, it's the steered Kermor, isn't it?
Something like that. But it's like, seriously, I mean, you guys have like what, seven
prime ministers in the last five or six years. Is that about right? So it's like, I mean, you guys
have Italian, something Italian going on, where you constantly have someone else in charge. So
it's quite difficult. But whatever the job was, I don't know.
I really don't. In the world of politics, does it ever happen that you replace a leader of a country,
especially a country like the UK, which is, you know, it's not powerful, but it's influential
for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. But anyway, that they put someone in power who's
removed three weeks later. So why? And was it something to do with Nord Stream pipeline?
I know. But you know, I don't know how you guys feel about that. But, you know, thinking back
at the times when Maggie Thatcher was prime minister, oh my God, you know, she was a prime
minister. She had balls and she stood up, you know. And I really wish, you know, the UK all the
best. And I truly hope you guys will be able to get another Maggie Thatcher, seriously.
So the prime ministers, anybody can correct me. So I'll just try maybe Jackie. Jackie's very
knowledgeable. So David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer. That's five,
but I just get the feeling there were a couple of others, but I can't remember them. They're so
insignificant. Oh, this Sunique Rishi or whatever his name was? Yeah, Rishi Sunak. Yeah. Yeah. So he
was one of the five, but if anybody can think of any others, just crazy. It is. Yeah. So anyway,
trust. It is a fact that trust was in power during and during those three weeks. She that she did say
apparently, I don't know where, so it may be wrong. She did say we've done it. She didn't say what
they'd done. But, you know, at the time, that was the big event, you know. But what was really
interesting about what Hans Benjamin said was that nobody, as you say, nobody made any noise
about it, but the nuclear explosion was pointed at Kaliningrad, which is in White Russia, which is
south of the three, what are they called? Baltic States. Yeah. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
So White Russia is south of there, and there's a place called Kaliningrad in White Russia, and the
the bottom of the Baltic Sea,
off Bornholm, I think the Danish island, which is where they attacked the launching pipeline,
was of such a shape that they funneled it was a funnel. So Hans Benjamin brilliantly explains
this. I can put you in touch with him if you like, Christine, because he could actually provide you
with the information which he has sent around the world. Nobody's reacted. You could start harassing
them in the European Parliament. Oh, I will. Trust me. Yeah. And if you could put me in touch with him,
that would be greatly appreciated. Yeah. You haven't heard about this then, Christine?
Well, you know, there's been so much things going on right now. And like I said, I am on summer break.
I'm trying to kind of, you know, have a way, which is the first time for three years.
So Christine, I wasn't criticizing you, but I thought so when Hans Benjamin was on, I was going
to get in contact with you. And then he got forgotten. So this time I won't forget and I'll
make a note now and I'll introduce you to him. Excellent. Yes. Thank you so much. So Stephen,
that's why we're here, you know, because we all learn from each other. That's the joy.
Absolutely. So I just want, so Charles, if you can encourage, because you're a great,
I've got a series of questions. Can you encourage people to ask some questions
because the meeting's only as good as the questions. Yeah. We've got, who is Hadidj?
What's your real name? Hadidj? Oh, it's Martin. This is my name, Martin. That's better. Correct.
Hello, Martin. Long time no see. That's why, sorry, I couldn't remember. No problem. No problem.
First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Anderson for this brilliant presentation. I know, I still
can recall our meeting in the parliament, in the European parliament, where you gave us an interview
for our documentary on the WHO. So thank you very much again. Just some brief comments.
I mean, in terms of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, I think it's quite clear if you accept the sources
which are reliable. And I would like really to point out Seymour Hirsch, who is a journalist,
who also did those investigations on the Vietnam War, on Afghanistan and these things. And if you
take this for granted, I think, well, at least it's to be considered. He states, it's clear who
met because the names are clear. It's clear where they met. It was a hotel. It was on the top roof
of a hotel close to the White House, where people gathered to plan the attack on Nord Stream 2. And
if you can recall, there was even Biden saying in January, we won't let it happen that Russia
puts gas into Germany. So this was already quite known. Then there was this big event with
those warships and everything going on in May of 22. And in this horrific scenario,
there were special divers, which were US, which were British, who went down and who planted mini
nukes on Nord Stream. Because with what they call this C4, this ordinary blowing up shit, you can't
damage a pipeline like that, which has a wall of four centimeters of steel. So you need something
very special to do that. And this very special is not in the hands of some Ukraine divers going
with a sailing ship to a place which is one of the most covered areas of the Eastern Sea, because
it's a very, very distinct place where everybody has his eyes on it, because it's very, very critical,
because there is infrastructure there. So if you go there with your sailing boat, you won't stand
any five minutes, because then you will be surrounded by warships asking you, what are
you doing here? I mean, so they simply cannot get there. Then they waited for three months.
In fall of this year, there was a Norwegian airplane that dropped a special device,
because it was blown up by sonar and not by common waves, because you could have registered
those waves, but sonar you cannot register. So they had some sonar going down there, and then
it was blown up. And this should have been some mini nukes, because as already Stephen pointed out,
there were some special things which only happen if you blow up some mini nukes, which means
there was gas from water released into the air, which is quite typical for it. Then you had this
very special wave going out to Kaliningrad, where it was almost a catastrophe. By the way, Kaliningrad
belongs to Russia, not to White Russia, but to Russia. Oh, sorry, I went wrong. No problem.
But it belongs to White Russia. It's part of White Russia, but you have something like a track
going through White Russia to Kaliningrad. And this is something, it's a very narrow space, but
this was affected heavily. There was some rise of atomic energy measured in Poland,
as well as in Switzerland. So it went up, radioactivity went up. So this is also
indicating that it must have been a mini nuke. And I just learned, that's not my special field,
but I just learned that each and every big bomb you drop has a very special curve when you measure
it. It's called indication if you take it. And this is very special for common bombs, as well as
for atomic bombs. And this explosion had the curve of an atomic bomb. So there are so many
points that indicate how it happened, who was involved and so on. So I think it's quite clear
how it was done. But of course, at the moment, people tend to ignore it. And you're absolutely
right. You don't have to investigate what you already knew. And this is the reason why there is
no interest in that. And just maybe one last comment on your question, why do they especially
attack women? I think it's very simple. The women are the center of the families. If you destroy the
women, you destroy the families. If you destroy the families, you destroy the society. And then
you have the need of many states that care for the generations, because nobody else could
fill in this gap, which is provoked by destroying women. So my heart beats for women. So
all the best to all of you. I know. If I just can comment on your last remark there,
I mean, there might be another explanation as to why they target women to such an extent as they
are doing right now is if you think about this, it is actually warfare. We are at war. They are
attacking everything in our Western democracies that we ever held dear, our freedom, our democracy,
the rule of law, our tradition, culture, the way our society is made up. And if there is one common
thing about warfare, about war, it's always this. Once the conqueror enters your country and
conquers you, they take it out on the women by means of raping them or degrading them,
whatever they're doing. And this is kind of like somewhat of a means to establishing their power
over that country, over that culture by saying or by showing, look, we have conquered you.
We are violating your women. And there isn't a damn thing that you as men who are supposed to be the
protectors of these women can do anything about that. So that occurred to me. It was like that
might be a reason why they are targeting women. And what we're seeing is with having men being
emasculated for like what decades now, there is a few that stand up and then rise up and say, well,
we won't have this. But the majority of men, they just stand there and say, well, we're not going to
do anything about it because we don't want to be called racist. We don't want to be called transphobes.
We don't want to be called whatever. There's a part of men saying that. But on the other hand,
you have another group of men. They're kind of like they sort of experience what you would call
schadenfreude. The women brought it on themselves because they wanted to be feminists. They wanted
to be equal to men. Well, there you have it. Stand up for your own. But speaking about feminism,
I'm by no means a feminist, at least not what the term has come to in our day and age.
It started out with very valid reasons. Of course, women need to have the right to vote.
Of course, in a liberal society, you cannot have men dictating to women whether or not they can
have a job. And I mean, up until 1977, even in Germany, if a woman wanted to take a job,
her husband needed to sign the contract. I mean, this is not right. I get that. But we were at that
point. We had equal rights. But they completely went off the rails with this. And that is, I think,
what most men now think of feminism and feminists. It's just completely blown out of proportion.
So I can kind of understand when they say, well, you know, you wanted this, now deal with it.
You know, you wanted to be a man, now protect yourself. I get that sentiment. But society or
family or, you know, it works, men and women working together. When you look at a family,
there is things that men can do that I can't. I mean, you know, lifting heavy stuff. Sorry,
I can't do that, because I don't have the strength of a man. But there is things that I can do
that a man couldn't. Like being this loving and nurturing, this bond to the child you have given
birth to. You know, I mean, there is great fathers out there, no doubt about it. But they will never
have that special bond. They just, I'm sorry, you know, and if this offends men, I do apologize.
But to me, they will never have that. But it's different. It's a different connection.
And fathers are as important to children as mothers are just in a different way. But the way
biology or nature for us was to, you know, get together and make the best of it. So
yeah, as a team, an intact family is unbeatable. I mean, there is no better entity in the world
than an intact family. And that's, and I agree with the comments that were brought forth.
Yeah, they have to attack the family. And why do they have to do that? Because as they say,
blood runs thicker than water. And family, blood relation is the strongest bond you could ever have
in any environment. And that's what they need to attack and to obliterate. So the government
or whoever who wants to assert control over you can step in, but they need to sever this bond
first. And as long as people have a family they can rely on, no manipulation,
no totalitarianism could get a hold of you. That's why they need to destroy family. And that's why
communism, by the way, the first thing they do is they attack the family, dissolve it, get women
working so they can get a hold of the kids in daycare so they can indoctrinate the kids.
Absolutely. And that's what Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo. And he told, and now I can't quite
remember, I think it was Alex Jones on a YouTube video. It's still there, I think. And he told,
Aaron, so Aaron Russo said that Nick Rockefeller told him he was boasting, he, we created feminism,
we created women's liberation, that's it. We created, we wanted to get control of the children.
So I've been saying this for a couple of decades, at least now, because I saw with my own eyes what
was going on in Sweden. And that's why I moved, made the decision to move. We had two children
at the time and then we got, then a third arrived when we came to the UK. Why I had to get the hell
out of Sweden. I could see what was going to happen. I was going to be taken away from my children
by Swedish society where men were under attack. And so, and I really felt it. And so that's why
we came here to the UK. But the UK has got its own problems. But Sweden, people say to me,
oh, Sweden didn't need a lockdown. And I say, they didn't need a lockdown. They already trust the
government. Right. But you know what, Stephen, the question is this. So I mean, I've heard about that,
that, you know, feminism was an invention by, you know, the globalitarian misanthropists.
And I think you mentioned Rockefeller. Okay, the question is this. When, you know, in the 19,
I don't know what, 1916, 1917, the suffragists in the United States, you know, rallied to have
the right to vote. Was that a grassroots movement? Or was that it even back then,
was it instigated by Rockefeller? So I think they were always trying to-
I really have a hard time believing that the women back then, you know, that it was not a movement,
they- it was not a grassroots movement, but it was like a political move, you know, by one of the
globalitarian misanthropists. So that's- I have a hard time accepting that as it went on, you know,
later, maybe in the 40s or 50s. Oh, yeah, no doubt about it. Yeah, it was the globalitarian
misanthropists, you know, maybe they may have latched onto that, you know, and maybe they saw
a way, well, we can exploit this movement, you know, to further our agenda. So that's a question
I would actually ask you. What do you think of that? Well, I think it's quite clear as a medical
doctor, I can see without having to prove it, that men and women need each other now, as they've
always needed each other, and you only have to look at a happy family. All happy families are
the same, but all unhappy families are different. So, you know, you need a father and you need a
mother. Please, James, please don't interrupt me. My son is butting in from outside. Just-
By the way, Stephen, as he interrupts, we can't hear his interruption at all. Interesting. No,
but it takes me away, you know, I can't have that going on in the background, when my own son is
disagreeing with me in the background, when I'm trying to talk to Christine.
So anyway, I wanted to say about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, Christine, do you think that
the silence from Germany, in particular Germany, but also Sweden, and the UK, all the countries,
nobody wanted to know who'd done it, nobody interested in whether it was a thermonuclear
explosion or not, and clearly, in my mind, it probably was, just listening to Martin Haddish.
So, do you think that- I forgot, it's too long a question, I've forgotten. I'm just going to say it
and come back to me in a second. Charles, go ahead. Okay, so we've got Jessica with her hand up,
and then Glenn. Glenn keeps dropping in and out, so, Glenn, you'll be after Jessica.
Hi, Christine. Thanks, Charles. Thanks so much for being here. It's been fantastic.
I've got a couple of things, a couple of questions. Forgive me if you've answered them in these
meetings before, but I wasn't around then. Real Prime Ministers, just before that as well,
two of them were just installed, TRUS and Sunak, and they were installed without a single vote
from any member of the public in the UK, so that's probably why we get so many Prime Ministers,
they just keep installing them, sticks up bottoms, you might say. So, what I wanted to ask you,
if you don't mind, is about the European Parliament and how you are in there, because we see
videos and things from there, and I would like to know if you wouldn't mind more about the
general energy that's going on in there in the atmosphere. Do you have many others who agree with
you but won't speak out, those who will speak out? What is the general view of the UK, and are they
trying to get us back in? Now they've got Starmer to help them do that, and how did you get away,
did anybody else get away with not having the jabs to be able to get back into the European Parliament?
That kind of stuff that we don't hear on the outside, what is that like from the inside,
if you wouldn't mind, please? Of course I don't mind. So, first of all, on the question of do I
have many supporters, no I don't, to be quite frank. Okay, so the EU Parliament now consists of 720 MEPs,
and if I had to classify them, then I mean we have grown in numbers as far as the the side is
concerned that is truly about freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and that is about
that the people should have the say in this and should not be dictated to, and now we're talking
about national sovereignty and all of that. So that side has grown in numbers, but we are by no
far a majority in the House, and that's the problem. So when I look at the last legislature,
I would say if it came down to a vote on any particular issue where you could kind of tell,
okay, you know, that kind of makes it out who is on what side, the most we could hope for,
and things really went well for us, the most we could hope for was like 150 votes out of 705
in the last legislature. So what the voting is now, I can't tell because we haven't had, you know,
we have plenary sessions in the new legislature, but there wasn't like any specific issue where
you could really tell, you know, okay, that's where it's going. So but I would think by now
the most we could hope for is maybe 200 votes out of 720, right? So as far as the support is concerned,
there is colleagues that are willing to speak up, meaning, yeah, they will hang their face in a
camera and just, you know, say how things are. Then you have colleagues that are in support of us.
They, you know, will not hang their face in the camera and, you know, just spat out of these things,
but they will contribute initiatives, for example, you know, plenary, like a oral question or, you
know, some major place, something like that, right? And they will speak out in committees, right?
And then you have colleagues supporting our side behind the scenes. They're with us 100%.
But they cannot afford to become, to go public with that, because they are depending on the fact
that they will be once again put up for reelection by their party. And as soon as they violate,
violate, you know, the party's line, and they're becoming too obnoxious about their opinions,
and too outspoken about their opinions, they run the risk of their party not putting them up again.
So, but they were supporting behind the scenes. And then you have people in parliament,
they know damn well that what they're doing really isn't right. It's not in the best interest of
people. It's not advocating for, you know, the interest of the people. But man, they finally made it.
They are part of the club right now, you know, they get inside invited to, you know, golf parties and,
you know, go to this buffet in this party and da da da da da da da. So they're so proud of the fact
that they made it into that circle, and they will not do ever anything to jeopardize that.
But they kind of know it's not okay what they're doing. So, and then you have a proportion of
members of the parliament, they really believe this crap. They really do. I mean, it's, you know,
I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's insane. But they really think if you shut down
nuclear power plants and erect some windmills, because the sun and the wind, they don't post,
you know, any bills, it's all going to be good. Are we going to save the planet? All right.
They really believe the crap. Okay, so that's just to give you an insight as to how the parliament is
comprised or what the parliament is comprised of. And now I kind of lost your second question.
Well, the second question was, what is the attitude towards the UK? And then the third question was,
how did you get away and others get away with not having jobs when they were obviously mandating them?
Okay, so how do you how does EU Parliament see the okay. Okay, first of all, you have to understand,
they did whatever they could to prevent UK from leaving. And that to them was, I mean, that was
the most important thing you can think of. Because with the UK leaving, I mean, that was the first
breakout wall, right? Yeah. So I mean, they needed to not have that happen. And here we are, it didn't
happen. Okay. So that was plan B, to make it impossible for UK to leave. So you guys voted
on leaving. And they were like, well, no, we will make it impossible for them to leave. So and they
tried whatever they could. And once that failed, it was like, well, we'll make we will make it as
hard as we can on UK to leave. There was plan C. Well, that kind of failed too. Right. So and all
they're left with now is spreading the narrative that UK is so bad off now. And you know, they're,
they're failing economically. I mean, literally, I mean, they're, you know, on the verge of just,
you know, sinking deep down in the ocean. And, you know, there they are. Right. And I remember,
I was invited to, to be or to join the the Brexit on January 31 of 2020, I think it was,
I was in London, I was in Parliament Square, right. And from what I've been told, and from the
German media, right, I mean, they're all you're mourning and, you know, deep depression. And,
you know, they are going to leave now. So I arrived in London, and, you know, I arrived a day early,
because I wanted to spend time, you know, just walking the streets and speaking to people and,
you know, just going shopping and, you know, getting people into conversations and all of that.
And I have to tell you, I mean, there was no depression. Not that I've seen any. You know,
I spoke to some people and they were like, Yeah, well, it's gonna be really bad for us,
so blah, blah, blah. And I was like, but why? But they really couldn't give me a reason as to why
it was going to be bad. Right. So I was like, okay, this is, you know, a victim of propaganda.
And then I stood on Parliament Square, you know, and I was like, Oh, my God, I mean, I still get
goosebumps just thinking about that. Right. I mean, there I saw people, you know, just celebrating
their sovereignty, just celebrating, you know, for being Great Britain. And I'm like, Oh, my God,
I would just once I wish to see this in Germany, Germans just celebrating that they are Germans.
That was like, that was really, truly amazing experience. But like I said, they tried to do
whatever they could to not make this happen. So now, when they're trying or now that they're
trying, possibly trying to lure the UK back in, well, yeah, they need money. Hello.
I mean, they have all these programs. And the UK was a net payer. Right. Which, by the way,
Germany picked up your tap, you know, for the most part, and the German was happy to do so,
by the way. Right. So but it's like, they need they need money. For God sakes. I mean,
all of these programs, all of these, you know, whatever saving the planet kind of ideology and
blah, blah, blah. They need a heck of a lot of money. They would love to have you back.
And I hope that the UK will not rejoin EU. You should be happy and lucky that you're out of
this hellhole. Right. Okay. So coming to the question, how did we pull it off to have access
to EU Parliament? I mean, I can tell you, yeah, they tried to put us through the shit to get in
there. And I used to walk in there every morning. And, you know, and the thing is, it was the
security guards who had to deal with this. Right. I mean, the guys that, you know,
were being paid to make sure that, you know, the safe that the place is safe. And they're putting
them up front, you know, and how can you imagine a security guard that's being paid to ensure that
I'm safe as an MVP. And now he has to pretty much tell me, you know, I can't let you in.
Yeah, that is how despicable they were. So I used to walk in there every morning and was like,
so what hoops would you have me jump through today to get to my office? Right. So first,
it was like tests that we do with PCR tests. So we filed a court suit that was unreasonable
for them to have, you know, have a PCR test, which by the way, take 24 hours to get a result,
which meant I could not would not have been able to do my job for 24 hours because the freaking
test wasn't back yet. So we filed a court order and we got it. So it was like this rapid test kind
of thing. Right. So I went in there the first morning and was like, well, we need a test.
I was like, well, yeah, it was like, I understand. I'll do a rapid test right here. And they were
like, well, did you bring one? No, I didn't. You have to provide that. No, we don't. I was like,
yeah, it's in the court or you do. So they got a test. And, you know, I really have to admit,
I really had fun with them because they were doing the test. Right. Or it was by the way,
saliva, not poking nose. So it was like, you know, when you looked at it, it was like, oh,
yeah, it seems a lot of good. It was like, no, no, no, no, no, no. It says 15 minutes. We have to
wait 15 minutes for the result. Right. So I met them, sit down there. I got on my phone. You're
never like, I really tried. I have to admit, I tried to make it as hard on them as possible
because they did this hard on me as I as they possibly could. So, but what I did in the first
two weeks is I came up with my own COVID certificate kind of tests, test results,
and it was really creative. It created a form and it kind of looked like, you know, the forms you
would get from some test station or whatever. And, but the thing is, I, you know, noted my name and
blah, blah, blah date and even had the little dots, you know, tested positive or negative, blah, blah,
and, but I myself signed it. They never caught onto that. Right. And I issued that to all of my
staff and they, you know, managed to get in with that for like two weeks and then the president
caught onto it. And he called me out and having faked COVID certificates, which I never did.
Nover did it say that it was a COVID certificate, but yeah, they find me for like, well, I don't
know. I didn't get my daily allowance for like five days, whatever, you know, but I kind of,
you know, got by, but it was like, yeah, it was not right because they were denying
an official elected representative off the people, by the way. They denied me entrance
to my place of work so I could do my job and represent the people.
But here we are. They didn't get rid of me and well, there you go.
Christine, that's a wonderful story. Jessica, great questions. Now, before we go to Glenn,
Christine, I sent an email to Hans Benjamin Braun. Benjamin, show your face. We call him Benjamin,
the author so that we can introduce the two of you because Benjamin has done great work.
Benjamin, meet Christine, who has not been aware of your great work on Nord Stream.
Excellent, Charles. Well done. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay.
Yes. I don't know what has been discussed before. So just... Well, I was telling Christine,
who as you know, is a German MEP. Yes. Yes. Yes. I was telling her about your incredibly important
research, in my view important, and suggesting that Liz Truss was maybe brought in to be Prime
Minister of the UK for that, for three weeks only. Just for that. That was the real reason
that she was brought in and then got rid of, if you understand me. So they said that she had to go
after two weeks, you know, or even after a week of being Prime Minister. It seems to me that
whatever they found out after a week or two weeks, they should have known before,
if she was that bad, that she had to go in three weeks. And she was the one who said, in a text,
I was reminded by one of the contributors in the chat, the text said, it's done. And Russia...
So one of the contributors in the chat said that Russia was asking about that text, you know,
asking the UK. It was never answered, of course, the question. But Russia is suspicious because
Russia as well, as we talked Hans Benjamin, were very quiet about taking, you know, letting people
know that they knew it was a thermonuclear explosion, which I think they did. And so did
Sweden. And so did all the rest of them. Sweden was the one, the country which detected Chernobyl,
if you remember. So I just wanted to introduce you to Christine. I was going to do it by email,
but Charles has helped me by actually thinking of emailing you. And so you could tell Christine
yourself what we concluded that what happened in Germany, sorry, in the Nord Stream pipeline,
and the reaction in Germany in particular, but all European countries was treason. And we thought
at the time we were trying to analyse it, we thought that it was about NATO, pushing NATO,
and getting Sweden and Finland into NATO. And I believe that both those countries are now in,
but Sweden took some time to get in, if you remember, because of Turkey.
So maybe just I... Charles, I can't stay. I have some things I want to answer for Christine.
Yes, Glenn, you go, then we'll come back to Benjamin. Yes, Glenn?
Hi. So Christine, you asked a bunch of questions that you said, I don't understand why. And so for
a variety of them, I think I can give you at least partial answers. So I've been linked with
the highest level of the Department of Defence, Intel, for the past nine months. They came to me
and said, we want you to join us so that because they can't go on camera or be on voice, they do
a lot of writing, but they can't do either camera or voice. So I became the civilian front and the
host of the show. And we've put out over 60 shows since Thanksgiving and covered a large number of
these areas. And areas before they brought me in, I had no idea on a number of these. So I now have
a lot of things. And Stephen was absolutely correct about the issue with the Rockefellers
initiating the women's lib. But he only got half the story. So half the story is they wanted control
of the children, the same way has happened with Hitler, that he wanted to control the children.
And so one way to do that was to have the mothers working during the day, and therefore,
the institutions could take over the children and indoctrinate them. The other half of it is,
their set of systems is always looking to steal and to tax as much as they can. And so they wanted
more income to be occurring. And one way to do that is to double up the amount of income from
families. So not only was the husband having a job, but now the female was having a job and her
income could also be taxed. So then they could steal more of it and increase their penetration
level. Now, I'm going to stay with the women's issue. You asked specifically about the voting.
That was not part of ours. And I don't think the voting movement was driven by Rockefellers. However,
there was another women's movement in the US that was, and that was the suffrage movement around
getting rid of alcohol as a beverage. And the reason for that was-
You mean prohibition?
I'm sorry. Yes, prohibition. Thank you. The reason for that was they were running all of the
petroleum system. And ethanol from being done from corn or other vegetables was a competitive
threat to them. So they had to get rid of it. And they did that by outlawing all alcohol
production. And that allowed them to maintain the monopoly of all the energy being driven
through the petroleum system, which they owned all the petroleum mechanisms across the world.
Now, a lot of people think they had to give that up as part of the antitrust that was all a fake out.
They got $2 billion of direct payout, and then they went out and impenetrated all the other buy
out mechanisms. So they continue to control right to this day, well over 50% of all energy levels
throughout the world, including the Middle East. I don't want to fill you in on that.
There you go.
Another element around the communism, clearly all the way back to pre-World War II, there was a lot
of communism in Hollywood, and that continued. And that was another place where they could use
mind control techniques to overwhelm the public with whatever approach they were looking to occur.
Again, from the women's side, they've always wanted to do away with that close bond of women
and children. And this is across mammals, and it's because not only is there that nurturing when
they're young, but there's that existence of them growing inside the mammal's body. And that's all
mammals, including humans. And that level of bond is supreme, and they needed to break that off
at any chance they had. So breaking into the core family, paying women with welfare when the male
was gone was a way of breaking up the family. So there's a whole range of things they're doing.
The next big thing is they had to do away with religion. All moral religions are opposed to
sex slavery of children and of poisoning anyone with drugs. This was part of their main business.
They had to undo that, and so they've been trying to eliminate both Christian and Jewish religions
in order to put in some kind of neutral religion that it's okay for pedophilia to be adopted and
to be routine. So that's a range of the things going on that I think apply to questions you
were posing. Every part of this that you see as weird, it's not by accident, it's by direct plan
of the Rockefellers and George Soros and then a whole tier of people underneath them, including
a variety of capitalists in Germany that are in that second tier. They're not in the top tier,
but that are linked either through intel agencies or through bribery or blackmail,
because many of them have in fact got involved in the sex trade clubs and have gotten proof against
them, so they feel they're stuck. And that's how they've maintained the syndicate up to now.
They know they're in trouble, so much of the professional world is opposed to them and ready
to react, they are going double or nothing to complete the slave state. Exactly as we see in
the Matrix movie, if Trump is allowed to come back and reasonable legislatures are allowed to occur
and reasonable rule of law is allowed to come back, they're done with. They cannot allow Trump
to become president again. Excellent analysis, Glenn. Thank you so much. Well said. Good points.
All right, Benjamin, just quickly, then we go to Mascha, because Christian, I really want to get
you to get from Benjamin's own words, this great work that he has done.
Benjamin, green screen, I love it. Yeah, I see it. I cannot change it. Maybe it's a bandwidth
issue because I'm wrestling with the bandwidth. So can you hear me? Yep. I would have to restart
the whole thing. So I don't know what the camera is on. So can you hear me? But yeah. Benjamin,
could you possibly in five minutes give a summary to Christina of your findings? So as I remember,
you had proved in seven different ways, it was a thermo. Oh, yeah, well, it's way more. So
the summary, actually, already seven issues I summarized at the end of 2022. I sent it to
the Swiss government. I sent it actually 25th of January, I sent it to MIT to a person who actually
was in close contact with Seymour Hersh, because that individual is actually mentioned in Seymour
Hersh's articles. So actually, my analysis preceded what Seymour Hersh wrote. So that's
not entirely insignificant. And then I, it's so yeah, but what is the proof? It's essentially,
I analyzed the seismic signals. And I realized that there was some, as you would expect from
other incidences as Corona, there was simply, you know, no evidence whatsoever for the estimates
of explosives that have been used. What actually has been going around is 500 kilograms TNT. And
if you actually analyzed the seismic signals, you come to the conclusions that it's at least 200
tons, if not one, two, three kilotons explosive, which corresponds to the seismic signal. And that's
absolutely watertight. So there is no way that a conventional explosive could have been used. So
that's the first important thing. So in that sense, Seymour Hersh's story was a deflection from what
really happened, because he could not say, and in addition, what I found out from the location
of the explosive, it was actually placed in such a way that it will trigger a shockwave towards
Kaliningrad, because the seismic response there was really high. So there was no way that the
Russians could have been responsible for that. So it was clearly a Western nation. And it was
part of NATO actually, that that proof I then enhanced afterwards. So last December, so I
stumbled across that because there were no less than 30 preceding events where one actually tested
this attack. The first one is actually before 2014. It's in 2013 during a NATO ball tops exercise,
the same ball tops exercise that somehow Seymour Hersh emphasized. So and that actually then brings
me to, and then there are other evidences. So the seismics, that's the most quantitative really.
But there are others like clouds which have been observed by a captain who arrived there 10 minutes
afterwards. And the cloud looks exactly like that after a nuclear underwater explosion. There is no
way that you could actually have conventional explosive. Also with conventional explosive,
you would have had dead fish, ironically. People said, oh, there were no dead fish. The issue is,
actually, when you have a nuclear explosion, you don't have dead fish directly because you,
everything becomes a plasma, right? So there is no dead fish recognizable anymore. And so what's
actually left is just some simple layer on the water surface, you know, of mixture of whatever
is actually, you know, has been decomposed. So the very fact, and that I may add, the fish,
there was, how do you say, a fishery association in Bornholm. And they closed down this spring
after 150 years of operation, because they have no longer fish. And those fish which they have,
they are deformed and, you know, not proper. And of course, nobody reports about that. But there is,
there are reports in Danish newspaper, I can identify those. So, and that again,
that's inconsistent with a normal explosion. Why would you have, you know, such a impact on
wildlife and marine life with a conventional explosion? So now to Sweden and Finland.
So how did they get into NATO? Well, these preparatory events, which are mentioned,
30 explosions between 2013 and 2023 in the Bornholm Basin. They were also on Swedish territory.
Incidentally, there was also an explosion before at the end of 2021 on December 17th. And if you
remember December 17th, that was the day when Russia insisted that Ukraine would not join NATO.
The same afternoon, two hours later, there was an explosion in the Bornholm Basin, and actually more
directed towards Kaliningrad than actually the other one. And also the Nord Stream explosion,
when was the date? It was exactly the date of the referendum in Ukraine. It was actually the date,
the 26th of September was the date when they openly voted, you know, in Donetsk and Lugansk.
So you see a correlation between, you know, political events and these obvious geophysical
events. Now, Finland, in short, I can tell you in Finland, if you remember, I think that was the
last time we, you know, we conversed with each other because that was last October, I think you
were on this, you gave a talk then. And there was just this issue about Baltic Connector,
you know, this pipeline between Estonia and Finland. It was October 8th, local time, October 7th, UTC.
It was around midnight, obviously. So the pipeline between Estonia and Finland was destroyed.
And then I went and looked actually at precursor events, seismic precursor events.
There were five or six of them in the second half of 2021, before the Ukraine conflict started.
And I remember there was a New Year's speech of Nini Stö, the Finnish president.
2021-22, when he argued half of his New Year's speech, he argued that Finland should join NATO.
There was no open conflict yet in Ukraine. And so you see, so then Finland joined NATO in spring 2023.
Actually, I sent my analysis to Stoltenberg, to the Finnish president, to the Swedish president,
on the day before they joined NATO. I have actually a confirmation of receipt of the
Finnish president. And so it was clear. So they were under pressure to join NATO. And then,
of course, joining NATO didn't help against this aggression, which didn't really exist,
because the pipeline was blown up anyway. So and that's in a nutshell is sort of the
geophysical context of my work and the geopolitical context, both.
So I'm happy to send you the manuscript, which I sent at the beginning. There was a talk,
well, in German, you understand it, of last December. And I will have a talk, which will
be online the next few days, which I had in Germany actually a couple of weeks ago.
Wow.
So there you are, Christine. It's, yeah, Benjamin's done great work. And so, and so we'll link the two
of you. So, Benjamin, the thing is this. So my group in EU Parliament, we're planning, and I just
proposed today to my group, that we should have discussion about, you know, new insights into,
you know, the blowing up of Nord Stream 2. So would it be, I mean, there is no guarantee that,
you know, there will actually be a debate, because whatever is proposed for my group,
as you can imagine, we will not have a majority in a house to actually have that, you know,
put on the agenda. But, you know, it's a try anyway. But as we are proposing it, we will have
60 seconds to pretty much, you know, make our case. Okay. The house adopt that point on the agenda.
So what you've just been, you know, what you've just told us, you know, to be quite frank, you
blew my mind, because I'm not into all of, you know, the specifics of that. What I did,
you know, I did catch up on was, so there were like, 1.2 megatons, I think you said.
But it has to be careful, just sorry that I'm interrupting. So, you know, this issue,
people say that's the I'm making this point, because people react irrational. And when you
say this, some nuclear weapons can come in so called mini nukes. And the mini nuke was,
they actually were introduced by the US Congress, were officially approved, I think, 2003 or 2004,
something like that. And they are defined as devices with a explosive force of less than
five kilotons. So 5000 tons, right? Whereas the most powerful thermonuclear weapons, they are in
the range of megatons, you're right. So but there is this whole range of a factor of 1000, an
explosive force. And that's why one needs to be really careful, you know, when stating that,
otherwise, you get the counter reaction, which is irrational. Yeah, this one is at the lower end,
you know, this one which was used is at the lower end of the spectrum of so.
So Benjamin, there's still nuclear, are they? That's the point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course,
of course. It's still it's it's thermonuclear. Yeah. So there are even there are even warheads,
which can be adjusted between sub kiloton and 150 kiloton, one of the same weapon,
you just dial essentially. So could I could I ask you that you would provide me with, you know,
information focusing on the fact that no, it could not have been, you know, some diver from somewhere,
you know, you know, going down there and, you know, just putting in there some some fire,
even the half actually quite so much pretty much. So could you could you send to me information on,
you know, the seismic graph that you're talking about, right? That it had to be a detonation
far beyond, you know, any firework crackers, anything like that. So it could not have been
a lone diver and anything else that would really stir up some shit, you know,
so that at least, you know, some people might come to think of the fact, well, you know, the
the story they were telling us, it might not be the story, how it actually happened. But if you
could provide me with, you know, some real facts on that, you know, and mind, we have like 60 seconds
to make our case. Can it be a graphics as well? Can it be a graphics as well? I'm sorry? Can it be
a graphics, you know, an illustration, a figure, or does it need to be? Yeah, if it helps me to
understand what you're talking about, of course. Yes. But you know, just provide if you could provide
me with facts, you know, this is where we found the seismographic, whatever, you know, it had to be
this and that. So just to debunk the narrative, there was, you know, some lonely guy, you know,
one day, you've kind of figured I'm gonna dive down there and blow the whole thing up, you know,
so that would be really appreciated. And like I said, we have 60 seconds to make our case.
In the end, the House is not going to vote for it and vote on it. So but we have the 60 seconds,
you know, to really get I mean, that's pretty much all we're doing in the EU Parliament, right?
Yes. To speak to the world to speak to the US citizens, right? Actually, I can tell you,
it was a longer thing. It was presented to the US UN UN Security Council a year ago on the
anniversary of the
UN Council. So we have to, you know, use whatever platform we have. And Parliament is just an
additional platform, right? To get the to get the story out there. And so that's kind of like,
what we're pretty much I'm looking at, right? We need to get the story across. Because
have you heard? Have you heard about all of this? What you've been telling us on, you know,
mainstream media in Germany, mainstream media on France, mainstream media in Poland, or the UK,
or anywhere else in the world, for that matter? No, you haven't. They don't report on that. So
we need to really, you know, whatever platform we have, whether it's social media, EU Parliament,
or, you know, whatever, we need to use all of this. All of this. Okay. All right. So Benjamin,
is it time? What is your timeline? Just that I know. Okay, so next plenary session will be,
let me check in. It's not going to be until September. Okay, it's going to be the week from
September 16 through 19. But we will have to propose or to table that request, let's say,
the week before. So today we have August 20, right? So if I have this, you know, in the first week of
September, it would be all good. It would be fine. Okay. Okay. Very good. All right. Great work,
Benjamin. We will make that happen. And I think Christine. Oh, Benjamin. Yes. Have you got my
email address? Can you can you link? Yeah, Charles maybe link us. Yeah. I'm gonna put it in the chat.
Okay. Okay. Okay. Good. All right. On we go. Benjamin, I will provide two email addresses,
please. I made it to both of them. Okay. To increase the chances that I'll actually take note
of it. Okay. Okay. Otherwise, I use it again. Yeah. Okay. And Steven and I will make sure that it
happens as well. So Steven will harass you, Christine. That's good. Thank you. Well done,
Benjamin. So Christine, would you like Hans Benjamin before that time when you've got 60 seconds
to brief the group? Or would you like the elements of surprise? The danger? Well, it's not
necessary to brief the group because like I said, I've already got the approval to table that request
because I'm chief whip of my group now. So I got the approval of the group to table their request.
We just need the information to, like I said, make our case, right? It's not quite clear who is
going to do that. It might be me. It might be our head of group, the president of our group. But
yeah, it's fine. Yeah. Okay. Hans Benjamin, if you need any help in formulating it or advice,
I'll try and help if I can. Okay. Thank you, Steven. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Benjamin.
All right. We've got Marsha, Hayden and Martin and we're on good track. Christine, we're finishing in
35 minutes. I hope you're okay for that. Marsha. Hi, Christine. Thank you for everything.
Christine, I'm reading about a long-term study by Dr. Yang-Mi Lee and Daniel Brody. It is about the
fact that nanotechnology reacts to EMF fields and dischanging humanity in a serious way,
electromagnetic fields. So from my point of view on top, the wireless networks
are also crucial to the digitization intentions. And so my question is, how is the EU
parliament dealing with 5G? Is the resistance there too? And the same question related to
geoengineering. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. You have to repeat the question. How is the EU parliament
dealing with the topic of 5G? Because... 5G are good. Sorry?
Wireless radiation, 5G, 4G. Okay. Okay. And the same about geoengineering because we have
grave consequences of both. Okay. So first of all, I have to admit,
this is going to be an issue that will be dealt with in the committee I'm on now,
but I haven't been on the committee in the last legislature. So I really couldn't provide an
answer to you right now because I have no clue. I really don't know. So you have to understand that
there are so many issues being dealt with in the EU parliament. And I'm really kind of... I know
what's going on in my committees, but since we just started in the legislature and the issues
just raised, like I said, it's going to be an issue in the committee I'm on right now, but I'm
new to that committee. So I really wouldn't even begin... I don't know where to even start.
Right? So what I do now is that they're trying to do whatever they can to bring in new technology,
whether it's 5G or whatever. From what I know is like, it's supposed to be a blessing
to humanity because internet is going to be so much quicker. And from what I've been told
you could have surgeons from the other end of the world via internet, guide another surgeon
through surgery, that type of thing. But like I said, I'm really not equipped to intelligently
talk about this right now because I really have no clue about this. Unless you can specify in some
other way or provide more details. So at this point, I don't know.
I would be happy to do so via email, but I also think that this topic is quite promising because
they are either entirely stupid or they are really alien because they are victims of
all of these technologies too. Right. Well, the two options you just provided,
I don't think it's the first one. They're not entirely stupid. They aren't. So it must be the
other option. Right. So they're not alien. They're stupid. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Masha. We'll take some steps. I'll assist you on that. Hayden, what's going on with
euthanasia? Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? All clear. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Christine,
for being here and for everything you do. I'm here with Jackie Devoe. She's unable to put her
hand up right now, but perhaps we can split my time in half and maybe give her the opportunity
to speak too because she's very much a specialist in this area. What I really wanted to ask about
was a topic that when it comes to COVID corruption, you know, very much isn't discussed as much. It's
seen more through the conspiracy lens, et cetera. And with all the work you've done, Christine,
you know, on, you know, speaking about the jabs, the lockdowns, everything, I wanted to know if
you're aware at all of the euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia that's been taking place around the UK,
globally, quite frankly. I'm sure Jackie can touch on it more where essentially, I mean,
here it was, it was labeled a protocol named NG163 before being renamed to NG191. And then
they essentially, November last year, I believe, took the recommendation down mysteriously.
And it's essentially where government advised through protocols that quote unquote, well,
not just COVID patients, any patients are treated with midazolam and morphine. And again,
the specifics can be discussed more by Jackie, but this essentially suppresses them and so on
and so forth ends up killing them through harsh treatment as well, through abandonment. I mean,
there's so many factors to it. And ultimately, I see this and I think so many of us see it. We're
in a support group, we run a support group and it's the one thing, I mean, the quote unquote
media are starting to discuss, you know, jabs more, maybe a little bit, you know, trickling
things out. But it's the one kind of thing they're totally unwilling to touch is the euthanasia
that's been taking place. It's like a silent scandal, I suppose. And so perhaps we could
give Jackie a brief opportunity to touch on it too before we get further and move on.
Absolutely. Jackie has presented to us as well, Stephen, remember?
Jackie from memory was a former, she was working for the BBC at one stage. Is that right, Jackie?
Oh, sorry. Mainstream anyway. You're muted, Jackie.
No, maybe accidentally at some point in the last 40 years, I did write something for the BBC,
teen website or something, but no, I've never worked for the BBC. No. So who told you that?
I was told about a journalist who was mainstream journalist then maybe.
Yeah, that's me. Anyway, never mind that. Christine, I'm so honored and so feel so
privileged to be next to Christine on a screen. And I have messaged you a few times, Christine,
because I wanted you to come on my show. I've done a show for the last two years for Unity News
Network. But anyway, we're all busy. You know, we miss messages. But anyway, I know that we have got
a connection. I just know that. Anyway, so back in 2020, a man contacted me, told me that his
relative, shall we say, had been murdered in an NHS facility. And I don't know if you know this
story, Christine, but I then looked into that. I'm an investigative journalist. I've been doing
it for 40 years. I always say three decades, but it's actually 39 years. And looked into this and
lots of people came to me with their stories, very similar stories to this one man, that their loved
ones have been murdered in hospitals and care homes and hospices across the UK. So as a journalist
of a long time, I thought, well, I'm going to look into this. And I did. And then I approached all
the editors of all the national newspapers in the UK. And I managed to secure two meetings with
the news editor of the Daily Mail and the medical editor of the Mail on Sunday. And we had these
meetings and I brought the original guy along with me. He had incontrovertible evidence
of the fact that his relative had been murdered in an NHS facility, NHS in the UK. And so these
editors were like gobsmacked. Their jaws were on the floor. They were like, this is the biggest
story we've ever heard. Oh, God, I'd love a puff of your cigarette, Christine. Anyway, so
they just said, this is the biggest story of decades, you know, with this front page news.
And so I kind of persevered with this. And they kind of went quiet like they do.
And I was a bit tired. This is early 2021. And then I decided, well, I didn't decide, but
a media company, Iconic Media came to me and said, do you want to make this into a documentary? So
I did. We made a documentary. So by the end of 2021, we made a documentary called A Good Death.
And it's on iconicmedia.com. And it's been seen by, I think, probably hundreds of thousands of
people by now, because it's three years old. And I'm very proud of it. And then the next thing I did,
I did a second documentary called Playing God, which was released in April this year. Don't
know if you've seen it. It was platformed on Children's Health Defense, CHD, Robert Kennedy,
Jr. And it was also platformed on UK column, or the UK. It was about medical democide in the UK
over the last 50 years. And I did message you about it, but I know you're incredibly busy.
You probably haven't seen my messages. Also, I really love you, like really love you. Massive
girl crush. And I messaged you many times, not being creepy or weird, but just saying that. I
think you're great. And I also, for the last two years, I've done a Friday night chat show where
we can smoke and drink and be laid back. I thought you would be fantastic for that. But anyway,
that's stopped now. But I'm going to do a new show in the new year with the amazing Hayden Appleby,
who you just heard speak. He's only 18 years old. He's like some old soul, you know. Wow,
that's amazing. We don't allow 18 year olds here, Jackie. When I first had him on my show,
he was 17. He was barely legal, but we have a connection. And we just thought we need to
work together because you need to also watch Hayden's podcast on Twitter, Utter Truth. Is
that right, Hayden? Yes. Yeah. And it's amazing. I mean, he's 18 years old. He looks 50, but you
know, ignore that. He's not vain. He doesn't. I'm old enough to be his great grandmother, but yeah,
we have a connection. He's an amazing new young journalist. And I'm very keen on getting all these
new young journalists on board because I've got four adult children and they're amazing as well.
But you know, I hate him to do something like he's doing. It's pretty special, you know. And I think
he needs to be given some credit. Anyway, I've gone slightly off the ball there because I'm just so
having a bit of a moment. Jackie, you can arrange for him to come on this platform if you like.
If you wish. Well, never mind him. I'm focused on Christine now because I can't believe I'm in
some kind of virtual chat room with Christine Anderson sitting next to me because I just think
she's amazing. I'm not going to go too girly crushy on her because that is going to come across as a
bit creepy. But anyway, I think I've said pretty much, I'm writing a book at the moment. It's
called Murdered by the State and it's a kind of follow on from the two documentaries. But Christine,
if you, I don't know where, well I've got your email address now. So if you're interested,
I will send you the two films and the link to the book. And they're brilliant films, Christine.
Yeah. Okay. So Jackie, first of all, sorry for not having, I truly don't remember having got
any messages from you. But I mean, you have to understand the email. I have an EU Parliament
that we have one single email address. And on this email address, everything shows up,
whether it's official business from EU Parliament or whatever, or citizens writing to us. So
trust me, I get like what, a thousand emails every single day and there is no way to sift
through all of that. So I'm truly sorry. I truly missed it. You have my email address now once again.
I do you want better. I send you a PN right now with my personal phone number. So you just conduct
business in the future with me personally. And even there is no guarantee. I'll see it,
at least not in some kind of a timely fashion, but I will see it eventually. So, but I would love to
come on whatever show you have or seriously. So having said that, yes, I am aware of the fact of
what's been going on, especially in the UK with a, what do you call it? The
Madazelon, right? That was like a big scandal. And it's not, it didn't only happen in the UK.
It happened pretty much everywhere. And that's just, I mean, just, you know, thinking
how we treated, you know, our elderlies in their homes, you know, being totally secluded from
everyone being shut off from everything. And just to think of how many people died, lonely, if not
to say from loneliness, because I mean, from all I've known is, you know, old people,
when they're on the last days, you know, they're not concerned about dying. They're, they already
accept the fact that they are dying. What they really want is to see their loved ones and to have
having, I mean, our society imposed on them having to die lonely.
Terrible. Like I said, if not, you know, from loneliness. And I'm really,
you have to say that I truly feel blessed that my parents, my mom died at the age of 91,
my dad at 94, but it happened before this COVID madness. And I can tell you, I probably would have
ended up in jail, because had anyone tried to keep me from my dying parents in the hospital,
I don't know what I would have done. But I can guarantee you it would have landed me in jail.
How do I know that? So it's, I'm tearing up right now, actually, just, you know, to think about this.
So but it's, it's, it's utterly, it's so dehumanizing. And I actually like the words right now.
But like I said, I will PN you with my personal phone number. So please contact me.
And let's connect. And, you know, like I said, I'd love to come on your show. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Wonderful. Great. Jackie, can I just say my mother was killed by the NHS, the NHS in 2016.
How do I interrupt here? Can you hear me? Yeah. I just want to say very briefly that Christine,
it wasn't just people who were terminally ill, it wasn't just elderly people who were murdered
in their beds, in their beds at home, in hospices, in hospitals and care homes,
they were young people. In my group of 150 people, I have at least 12 people who were killed,
they were euthanized involuntarily under the age of 60. So it wasn't just and they were they
weren't disabled people, they weren't vulnerable. It's so random, it's bizarre. Hayden is my friend,
his grandmother was euthanized, my mother and my father were euthanized. That wasn't the reason I
made the film. I only realized that as I was making the film, A Good Death in 2021. Oh my God,
that happened to my mother in 2009. And while I was editing the film, A Good Death, my father was
murdered in his bed at home by paramedics. It's a disgusting, horrible, awful story. I haven't even
processed it myself at this point because I'm busy doing other stuff and I'm about to do another
documentary as well. But it's absolutely horrendous. And a lot of people say like you said, Christine,
oh yeah, old people, terminally ill people. No, in my group, 99% of the people in my group,
their relatives are people who had been murdered. They've been involuntarily euthanized, which is
murder. They weren't old, they weren't elderly, they weren't terminally ill. They went into hospital
for one reason or other, they'd fallen over, they'd got dizzy, they had a cold. And then they were put
on an end of life care pathway, which was in 2020 called NG163, later labeled NG191. And they were
killed. They were murdered in their beds, in their hospital beds, in their care home beds, and in their
beds at home. And it's the most despicable, horrible scandal that you've ever heard. It's the worst
crime against humanity, nevermind the jabs. I'm not saying nevermind them, but beyond the jabs,
beyond the post office scandal, beyond the poison blood scandal, this is the worst crime against
humanity, the worst Holocaust, and it's still going on. I've got people coming talking to me
every day, it's still happening. Christine, thank you for listening. And I love you. Big girl crush.
Thank you for that. Stephen, for some reason I can't figure out an European,
Jackie, so could you provide to her my phone number?
Sure.
Oh yes, I've got your phone number. Yes, I can do that.
Jackie, am I, I have your email address. I'm not sure.
Sorry? Yes, you have. Yeah. If you could email me your phone number. Are you on WhatsApp? I can
send it to you then. Christine, we'll fix it. We'll fix it. Okay. All right. We've got three hands up
and then Stephen, final questions. Thank you, Hayden. Good to meet you. Martin, then Bernie,
then Maverick, and then Stephen, and then we're finishing it at the two and a half hour mark. Go,
Martin. Yeah, thank you very much. Miss Anderson, I just would. Christine, please. Christine. Okay.
Christine, I would just maybe suggest, you see, if you're doing your job in the EU Parliament,
and if you want to prove that it was a special kind of bond that was used in this, in Nord Stream
2, maybe it could also be worth to invalidate the other hypothesis with the divers. So maybe you
could counsel special divers just for your knowledge. You see, if you're diving down to 80
meters, you need a very special composition of the gas you're breathing. And this very special
composition means if you're going down with natural air compression, oxygen will become toxic.
So you have to change your bottles at the level of about 40 meters to another gas formulation.
So to place some, you see, even if there are special divers, even if there are diving instructors or
whatever, they cannot trick out physiology and physics. So they have to adhere to that.
Yeah. And so you need some tanks down at 40 meters. You have to switch them to go further
deep. And when you go up again, you have to re-switch because the oxygen when you're going down
is so low that if you're coming to the surface, you would be killed. So you have to switch
mandatorily on the way down and back on the way up. And these very special gases, I just checked it
for Germany in the region of Berlin. There are only two units who are able to produce this kind
of composition of the gas. So this is not everywhere available and you cannot produce it yourself
on a sailing boat. This is also important to know. So you have to get it somewhere and you see to
prepare for that. This is a military operation. So you need to go down. You have to place those
units there and so on. And if you have a bottom time of, I think, something like seven minutes,
where you're down at 80 meters, you have to have your decompression stops when you're going up,
which needs a long time. And then you have to keep a surface time of several hours before you can go
down again, which means you cannot plant there some units within, I would say, six hours or eight
hours, but you need days, days to do that if you do it with the divers. So it could really make sense
that you're asking an expert on that because then you could invalidate this hypothesis that some
Ukraine special divers went just down there and planted the bombs there. Thank you so much for
that input. That is really important. The thing is just like I said, we have like 60 seconds
to make our case. So this is good information, background information. I might be able to stick
it in, you know, in like three words or something like that. So could you write up what you just
told me? Because I'm totally unaware of that because I'm not a diver, sorry. No, seriously,
I'm not. But you know, we need to make the case, like I said, 60 seconds. It needs to be succinct.
It needs to be so, you know, the information needs to really hit home. And it needs to be presented
in a way that every regular citizen understands what we're talking about. You know what I'm saying?
Yeah, of course. Yeah. But I didn't find your email address. I checked for it because
I could provide some data, but these are just basic. You see, I'm no specialist in diving.
I'm diving myself. I'm giving some basic lectures on diving medicine, but not on the expert level.
I think there are people by far better than myself, but I could provide you some basic items.
Based on that, you could just have 10 words like due to physics, it's not possible to go down
simply in this amount of time. Okay, I just put in my email address once again in the chat.
No, it didn't come. So Martin, I think that Hans Benjamin would appreciate being able to discuss
this with you because you have a lot of knowledge about various things and you are a professor and
a medical doctor in Austria, I believe. Actually, I'm in Germany now. I'm commuting in between
Austria and Germany. Yeah. Can someone check the chat? I just put in my email. Is it in the chat?
It's not in there. So click on on chat. Click on the down arrow so you see.
Okay, I see it. All right. Now it's a being. So, yeah. Martin, maybe you could email me and I'll
put you in touch with Christine and Hans Benjamin or whatever. Let's get moving.
Martin, could I ask you, think about it. You don't have to answer now, but would you
consider being a guest of ours? Of course. I mean, it's just a very limited time. I'm so happy to be
in here today because I cancelled something else this evening because I wanted to meet Christine.
So this was my desire and therefore I cancelled the other thing, but it's not always possible
to cancel. I would love to join you, but you see, I don't want to give the illusion that I'm expert
in this field. I know there are people better. My knowledge is just basics. Yeah. And I think the
group here would deserve an expert. This was Martin, I wasn't thinking about so much about
the Nord Stream. I was thinking more of the medical doctor, your observations from Austria
on what's happened in the last four plus years. Well, there's just maybe...
Now the microphone is on. I would just give you a brief idea of what's going on in Austria now,
because this might be concerning the whole group. We haven't got time, Martin. We've got to go.
We've got Bernie's hand up. We've got Maverick, but it would be great to have you. Bernie,
you had your hand up. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Charles, first of all,
love following your show, love being on TNT. You get interviewed by Rick and mine occasionally.
Christine, we met at the... Nice to see you again. We met at the Westminster event with the Heart
Group and we shared a few drinks and a few cigarettes in the pub afterwards. Lovely to see
you again and delighted for the work you're doing. I just wanted to draw your attention to... You
probably know this anyway, but in the context of these deaths, there's quite a lot of it on
the Corona-Ausschuss that was led by... What was his name? The doctor who's currently in jail in
Germany. Rainer Thülmich. Rainer Thülmich. He's not a doctor, though. He did quite a lot very early on,
both on what was happening in New York and in Germany where there were enforced injections
of old people in hospitals and also the use of midazol and various other things to kill them
off early. I know you said the story is around Europe, but if you go back in... I'm sure your
people can find it. If not, we can find it for you. There's a lot of programs. There's a big,
long program he did about... I want to say about two years ago on those events happening in German
hospitals, which he did a program on. I think he's still in prison, so I'm not quite sure that...
I don't know in what context mentioning his name is of use in terms of that because there's
some question mark over why he's in prison, but it sounds like lawfare rather than something genuine.
But I just wanted to highlight that, so if you need that information, I can probably find it.
Now, Bernie, we've been talking about Rainer for some meetings. Thank you for that. It is a show
trial, and he released a statement today on the ICIC website, everybody. We haven't got time to
play it, but he's thinking that there might be some positive movements, but he's been in jail
since October the 30th, and it is outrageous what's happening, Bernie, but thank you for
your comment and for being honest enough to tell us about your drinking and smoking habits.
All right, Maverick. And mine, by the way. I was being polite to our guests. Okay, Maverick, go for it.
Hey, hello, Christine. How are you doing?
Good, how are you?
Not bad. Not bad. Just hanging in there. I have found the emails because I was like, did I
miss something or did it never arrive? We met through the Zoom chat here a year and a half ago
where I sent you an email. The first one, these famous documents that fell off the truck
that you wanted. So I wanted to know if you ever received them because I never got a reply to you.
I sent you one, two, three, four documents, and it was 2022-1026. If you can just write this date
down, you might actually find them. Say again? Directly. 2022-1026. Well, this Canadian version,
so it would be the 26th of the 10th month in 2022. Yeah. Okay.
Yes. Eventually later on, you mentioned in a previous Zoom meeting that, well, you're not the
only one that have access to this email. And then I thought, ah, am I dumb? Now everybody can see this
and you may not be aware of who is really amongst the people that actually look into this email.
Did they really transfer this to you? So is there another way to contact you?
Yeah, there is actually. Let me put in my other email address once again.
I haven't seen it in the chat at all. Oh, you haven't?
Okay. There is another email address. Yes, that was come through. Yep. Yes, this one I see. Okay.
Yep. Good. Okay. And you put another one in there too.
She sent the one which is Christine.Anderson at Europa with an L.Europa.EU. Right. That's the
one I have. That's the address from your parliament. And then I just provided another one
that is, yeah, it's not very much. It's another email address. Just emailing me at both again
to increase the chance of me actually seeing it. Yes. Yes. The last email was a request for a 15
minutes interview because I'm working since now a year. The reason being it's so long, it's that
I've dealt with my own stuff here. So I work time to time on that thing and I add some
little interviews that I've made in this mini movie that I'm planning to make.
Reason being lots of people had asked me about the, well, yeah, go ahead. We've got to go. So
I got the email. Send that to Christine. We're tight on time. Okay. So that's good. Okay. No
problem. Bring it to the top. Yeah. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Paul and then Stephen. Thank
you, Charles. Thanks, ma'am. Thank you. A 32nd question, Christine. Paul Amaldi, Act for Your
Freedom. We are preparing a small group to go and take part, so to speak, to the G8 in Sicily,
because this year in Sicily, the G8 will be about agriculture. And I have done some research and you
might know that Sicily in particular has been suffering for years for drought. And of course,
that is killing agriculture in Sicily. And during my research, I came across some hints that there
is a plan to replace water pipes and put them sensors to monitor citizens' consumption. And
it's a long shot. This question, I know it's a long shot. And I just wondered whether you,
and I've seen, because I am, I sort of travel around Europe, I've seen a few places,
these places in Europe work, including the UK, where I am a permanent citizen of, work to replace
water pipe. And I was wondering whether it's ever come to your ear, this idea of replacing water
pipes and to put sensors to monitor citizens' consumer consumption. It's a long shot.
No, I'm not aware of they're putting sensors in there to track consumption. What I am aware of
the fact is that they're putting sensors in there to monitor human waste in terms of trying to
identify whether there's an infection going. So is that what you were talking about?
No, actually, no, I heard water, but it could be on the same line. That is, I noticed that in many
places in Europe, they are replacing pipes. And it just sounds a bit odd to me that this is happening.
How would you replace pipes?
They excavate and they throw away their old pipes and they put new pipes,
water pipes, they say, generically speaking. And I just smell a rat, so to speak. What is this
work going on in small villages in Italy, in France, in the UK? What is this? So I was just
and I read somewhere about this. Frank, I don't know. I mean, what's the point of replacing water
pipes, whatever pipes, the pipes we are having right now is sewage pipes and water pipes.
Why would you replace water pipes to track the consumption of the people? It doesn't make any
sense in order to track the consumption. I mean, if that was impossible, you would have to do it
via the sewage pipes, maybe freshwater pipes are going to give any insight into what happened
consuming. It wouldn't give you any insight into what infection is going on right now. So you would
have to target the sewage pipes. So at this point, it doesn't make any sense to me what you're saying,
but I took it down. I'll try to make sense of it, look into it.
No, no, but maybe that's what you say. They tell us it's water pipe and in fact the sewage pipe
and they don't tell us the whole story. I just noticed that they replaced pipes.
Okay. So if there's no clarification on what pipes you thought they were talking about,
so yeah, they are tracking the sewage pipes or whatever sewage is coming through those pipes
to detect infections. And they came up with that with this whole COVID. I mean, they were
tracking it with PCR tests and blah, blah, blah, but people weren't really into the whole thing of
getting their nose stabbed like every two days, whatever. So now they're actually tracking the
sewage to detect human feces, analyze human feces to detect infections. And lo and behold,
they now figure out that there is a monkeypox epidemic apparently going on
and they detected that through the sewage. But that's the new thing of doing things apparently.
And this monkeypox, we will see, no, it's no longer called monkeypox because that would be
yeah, somehow not right. So it's not empox is what they call it.
Yeah. Yeah. And so there was like what a few cases in Berlin and in Sweden,
you know, something popped up. And the point is this, I mean, this epidemic apparently is
going on in Africa. Why don't they fucking close the borders for God's sakes? Seriously. Sorry.
Well said. Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Balda. Thank you. Steven, last couple of questions,
Christine, and then you can go back on your holiday. Isn't he a mean man?
So in answer to that last question, Christine, from you, I think that they want to take our
identities away from us. This is really important. They do it through attacking the family,
which of course undermines society. But they do it in many other ways too. They're trying to
take our identity from us. And of course, mobile phones and social media play the addiction to
those two things plays into this. So that young people these days in the United Kingdom can't
talk to each other. And if they do talk to each other, they find it so unpleasant. They want to
go straight back to their mobile phones where everybody agrees with them and the social media.
And so this is really, really dangerous stuff. So Jason Christoph says that the only settled science,
I think he's right as well. The only settled science is mind control. And if we don't solve
what's going on with the mind control, then you could argue that no conversations of ours or
anybody else worth having because we're never going to solve the problem because they're always one
step ahead with the mind control. And so the people are seeing everything through the lens,
if you like, of mind control. And so everything. And the other thing is a lot of people have been
saying that things don't make sense. You know, that why would they do this? You know, why would
they attack women? Why the Olympics? The whole. So if you want to destabilise human beings, you need to
create confusion. You need everything not to make sense. And I think that they have,
they are trying to do this in many, many different ways. Nothing makes sense anymore.
I think someone was saying that, you know, like three decades ago, there was some,
maybe it was you, Christine, there was some kind of debate going on between the mainstream media.
And now these days, everything's all settled, you know, everything's kind of, and nothing's ever
discussed. And there's one narrative. But and. So I think that, you know, mind control and this
desire to. So they did in China, as you correctly pointed out, they wanted everybody to wear the
same clothes, Mao Zedong. And what's that about? That's about taking your individuality away from
you, your very identity. Why would you sacrifice your individuality to the group? Because
that's always going to lead to tyranny and misery. Because
that means if you give up your individuality, you're always telling lies. You're always lying
about yourself. So you're living a lie. You have no self-respect. You cannot be happy. These things
need to be discussed in school. They need to be. Well, I don't know how you teach this, but, you
know, the parents these days, they're terrified of any responsibility. Everybody is terrified of
responsibility. Walk away from it. We don't in this group. We try not to anyway. And I think that
we need wisdom. The exact opposite. So everything that they're pushing, like, you know, trying to
drive a wedge between parents and children and parents and their grandparents. This is evil.
And it needs to be exposed. The destruction of the. So I don't I have a difficulty in believing
that's a God, but I do realize that the universe is absolutely so complicated that human beings
can't even come close to to realizing how big it is, never mind explaining everything, the
complexity. And so one thing I noticed, Christine, is that people are so certain of everything.
People are so arrogant. Human beings generally are so incredibly arrogant. And they think they know
when clearly they don't know. They don't even know how far it is to the sun. Well, I think I know,
but I'm not sure because I never actually measured it myself, but 93 million miles and 250,000 miles
to the moon. But most people haven't got a clue, you know, how far it is to the moon or to the sun
or to Australia, for example, 12,000 miles. And so and then when it comes to history, nothing.
So I just wondered. We completely lost it. I'm not saying that we can't get it back,
but we need to identify what the problems are. Stop going down rabbit holes and try to work out,
try to put all the dots that we've identified and more that we haven't even identified
together because without some view of the world, you know, whole view as a whole,
as a human being, and we need to trust our instincts as well. We do in this group. And
and I thought I was always hoping that someone would prove me wrong. I knew something was wrong
back in 2010, even 2019. I was arguing with people I didn't understand why. And now I understand.
So I wish I'd. You know, I mean, you said so many things right now. I could jump on every single
sentence you just said. Let me start with this. Yeah. You know, basic knowledge. People no longer
have basic knowledge. And as you pointed out, you know, they have no clue how far the sun is away
from us or the moon or, you know, any of that. To make my point, there is I mean, there are several
elected representatives in the Bundestag that they have no fucking clue. They are excuse my language.
They are in the Green Party. And there was this one, you know, high profile politician.
And, you know, she was moaning about the fact that, you know, this climate change that is,
you know, being afflicted upon, you know, people and people are dying. And she was imploring the
people of Germany. We have to take care of people that live hundreds of thousands kilometers away
from us because they're dying in floods. I mean, hundreds of thousands of kilometers
away from Germany. Seriously, where would they put you in space considering that, you know,
it's like what forty two thousand kilometers? Seriously, these people have no freaking clue
about what they're even talking about. So next point is you rightly pointed out
it is an attack on our identity. And it's not only, you know, our cultural identity or national
identity. Now it's also our our sexual identity. So what they're trying to do is to literally
obliterate us as human beings. And, you know, what is more fundamental about our identity than our
sexual identity? And if you take that away and if you say, well, you can be anything, you know,
at any given point in time. And there is, I mean, you know, I'm not I'm not nuts here. There is
legislation now, the self ID laws, right. But the self ID laws or the way it started out, it was like,
well, these people are born this way. You know, they're born in the wrong body. So we should allow
them to ID themselves. So now they can just go, you know, walk down to to City Hall or whatever
and claim their, you know, man or woman or whatever. And their birth certificate will be,
you know, corrected appropriately. So but this the whole thing about being born this way,
they completely like overturn that by making the provision. Well, you can choose once a year. So
every 12 months, you can go there. So well, you know, last year, I was wrong. So I wasn't really
met. I was a woman now. And you know, I want to be this is insane. But this is what's going on.
And the point is this. Yes, it is an attack on our on our identity, on our individuality,
which you also pointed out, Steven, because the point is this, if you can be anything,
at any given point in time, and can change that to whatever, you know, and maybe next week,
it's a refrigerator, you identify as, or, you know, God only knows what. So what are you going to be
in the end? And nothing exactly going to be an empty shell, with no soul, with no identity,
exactly. And then it can be filled with whatever the globalitarian misanthropists
want you to be filled with. Yeah, that's the whole point. They're stealing our very existence.
They're stealing our humanity. So what makes us special as human beings, they attack everything
that makes us special. Exactly. So what that is, is going towards is, you know, individuality.
And, you know, the enlightenment, pretty much stirred us away from, you know, we have to serve
for the ancestors that fell, you know, have to pay for them. So they won't burn in hell. You know,
some kind of like, no, you do not, you do not take any, don't have to bear the responsibility
of what your ancestors did, the ones that died, you are an individual, you are here, right, and now,
and you have a right. That is individuality, and enlightenment actually took us to that place,
you know, the individual is what is important. Yeah. So the other part is collectivism. Yeah,
sure. And that's what we're driving at once again. You saw during COVID, you know, you have to
sacrifice your freedom, you know, your well-being, your bodily autonomy for the greater good.
For the group. For the greater good. All right, come on, we're turning three quarters. All right,
I could go on and on for that, but fine. Come again, we'll have you again. We've got a lot
of more questions to ask. Sure. So Christine, one final sentence. So I think to me, it's mind
control. But then Shakespeare wrote many years ago, all the world's a stage. And I can't remember
the exact words, and we're mere players. And we have our entrances and exits. Yeah. Well, but the
thing is, yeah, we are a player on the world stage. But it's your decision if you are a mere pawn
on this world stage, or if you're a badass. Absolutely. Yeah. Well said. Very good, Christine.
Thank you so much. Stephen, well done for organizing. Christine, round of applause, everybody.
I must say, Christine, you've got a remarkable ability to connect with people.
Because every time you come on, we have great meetings. But when you come on,
after about an hour and a half, it really develops a life of its own.
Well done. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for having me again. Thank you.