"Child welfare" ̶ the great excuse for state-sponsored child abduction. Compilation of the press symposium "Target child and attachment" by AXION Resist

29.05.2024 | www.kla.tv/29204

The name of the event or the title of the event is already displayed: Target child and attachment. This already explains that there is something that is being targeted, that is, there is something that is being shot at. We are referring to something that is obviously worth defending. I will address the question of whether state measures really intervene in the parent-child relationship, thereby endangering everything. The most prominent example of measures that then make a rigorous cut in this relationship are the taking into care, which endures the removal of children or at least from the environment in which they normally live. The reasons for these taking into care can be found here, among other places. This was the parents being overwhelmed. Whether it was two parents or one parent. We found that a third, i.e. a large proportion of the taking into care, were justified by the parents being overwhelmed. If you are overwhelmed, anything can happen. For example, as a city promoter, you could become unemployed during the German period. In millions, we find that around half a billion is incurred every year. Half a billion was incurred by the public sector. The costs for those affected can then be multiplied by ten. I would estimate at least ten times as much, but I think that not a hundred times is more likely. So the parents who take legal action against it, the parents who have to pay for the reports, parents who have to pay for the accommodation and so on. A lot was privatized in the 1990s. Many of the homes are private, and they earn a lot or a little less from it. I would like to share something very provocative with you today, but it is scientifically proven. It is that the love of a mother in mice and humans is fixed before birth. The mother-child bond is the closest thing that evolution has produced, and can be proven at the level of earthworms. That is the first important point. A year ago the term childminder was replaced by childminder. Childminder. That is of course a complete joke, a slap in the face for every mother, misogynistic to the point of being. As a biologist I can only shake my head and say, you're crazy, anyone who comes up with something like that. So, now we have to ask ourselves what actually happens when people grow up without a mother's love? Without a mother's love, people develop empathy or very little empathy. Basically, if you no longer have a mother's love, then mother's love is fought against, which is all politically desired, you are essentially destroying a natural, vital society. It has been discovered that in pregnant female mice, before and during pregnancy, a new representation of certain areas in the hypothalamus, in other words in a region of the brain, occurs. The new representation of the mother's brain is permanent. Once a mother, always a mother. I have now coined terms which, as I said, can be read in the source, namely innate motherly love - I basically made up the word myself, but it is of course coded in the English text - and acquired paternal affection. Fathers and dads do not have innate baby love. There is affection for the child. But the quality is completely different. And you can make this even clearer - I have shown it again in a different diagram - we can say that prenatal estrogen-progesterone-mediated neuronal brain mothering occurs. That means when female mice, or human women, give birth to their baby, carry it to term. At birth, shortly after birth, motherly love is already fixed. I have to say this very clearly here: women who have given birth to their own children, biological children, can raise other people's children with the same love. But from everything we know, it works much less well for women who do not give birth to children. Or not at all. And with men, at least from a biological point of view, it is hard to explain how that is supposed to work. Now adoption rights. Adoption rights for everyone. I mean, it is simply absurd to hand children over to a male couple, whether they are gay or straight, it doesn't matter at all, they can be straight couples, they can be brothers. The mother's empathy is simply missing. Yes. And lastly, surrogacy. So these rag doll experiments, the man-having-babies back then, you must have heard about that. There was a big congress in Berlin where young men under 45 were allowed to buy babies or at least get advice.According to information I found yesterday, this has now been stopped by the EU, so baby trafficking is obviously no longer possible. From my point of view, this is of course a problem. This is an absolutely reprehensible human experiment. I would not rule out, of course not rule out, that there are successful adoptions. I would also not rule out that there are same-sex couples who somehow manage to do it, in individual cases. But to make this defective situation the norm and, above all, to throw the whole of biology, to which I have devoted my life for decades, into the garbage heap - that is more or less how it is done - that is simply not acceptable. A society that ignores motherly love, fights it, degenerates, degenerates, brutalizes, dumbs down. And that is exactly what we are unfortunately seeing in Germany. And that was my explanation. Thank you very much. Basically, you can say, very generally, very briefly, in Plakatsch. It is also the case that when children are in acute danger and the child is actually in acute danger, the legal prerequisites for taking children away from their parents include, as I said, a concrete risk situation for the child. This requires immediate intervention. As well as a careful consideration of all relevant factors. Such as the child's bond with its parents, its chances of escaping and its individual needs. In addition, it is crucial to strengthen preventive measures in order to avoid taking children away from their parents as far as possible. In practice, this is generally not given enough attention. In general, one has the impression that the Basic Law plays no role at all in the district courts and family judges when it comes to children who are in acute danger. In practice, I have already heard several times from district judges that the Basic Law, that is the Basic Law, but I am the family judge here and I decide according to my legal opinion. According to the European Court of Human Rights, taking children away from their parents must be based on a legal basis, be proportionate and take the child's best interests into account appropriately. Proportionate means suitable, necessary and appropriate, as the lawyers say. As I said, these are the guidelines, but in practice things are of course very different. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly emphasises the importance of the child's welfare as the highest maxim in all decisions in the area of ​​child protection. It makes it clear that internal removals are only justified if the child's welfare is acutely endangered and other measures are not sufficient to protect it. This brings us back to the principle of proportionality. Despite these clear legal guidelines, there are repeated and perhaps regular cases, one could say, in which internal removals are criticised by youth welfare offices and family courts. Often, it is rightly criticised that the decisions are not sufficiently justified, that the parents were not adequately involved and that the children and young people were not sufficiently heard. The duration of the internal removals and the accommodation situation in foster families and at home are also often the subject of criticism. One of the main points of criticism is the question of the legality and proportionality of internal removals. As I said, proportionality, suitable, necessary and appropriate. It is criticized that in many cases children are taken away from their families too quickly without there being an acute risk situation. This usually leads to traumatic experiences for the children affected and of course undermines trust in the child. Another point of criticism concerns the assumption that youth welfare offices and family courts may have financial incentives to take children into care. There are fears that there may be a financial interest, as financial resources are made available for each person placed in care, and not a small amount. In addition, it is important to set up independent control mechanisms to check possible financial interests in internal removals and to prevent abuse. Regular review of the decisions and financial resources provided for internal removals can help to create transparency and trust in the system. Overall, it is important that internal removals of children by youth welfare offices and family courts are critically scrutinized and that measures are taken to improve the situation of the children and families affected. In addition, it is important to strengthen preventive measures to avoid internal removals wherever possible. I have been in the police service for 60 years, over 60 years in the police service. I have been involved in crime fighting for 50 years. I am particularlyespecialy dedicated to Schwerin crime, particularly child trafficking and child abuse. I haven't really noticed any major changes in the last 50 years. Just new sayings every year. What we have now is a Generation Alpha, over 70 percent of whom are psychologically burdened, thanks to the Corona period that we had to go through and thanks to decisions made by our politicians. So that was certainly no sign of the state caring about the welfare of children. That was a disregard for the welfare of children. What we know is from these major cases, Dutroux from Belgium, we know from French television, from French television we know about an English scandal where a huge pedophile and pederast ring was brought down. 76 politicians were involved. 43 artists, 35 journalists. The whole Muschburg, in principle, that sticks together and keeps it all under wraps and continues to lie to us. Over 100,000 children involved. I have been following this thing for the last five years, that was in 2015, and one after the other the most important witnesses have died. Just like in the Dutroux case. This classic case from 2018 of years of sexual abuse on a campsite in a rotten love affair. One time with a caravan, the youth welfare office took children to a foster father and he sexually abused the children there. And the youth welfare office provided fresh meat. This is absurd. The investigative committee, the parliamentary investigative committee, started in March. I am very excited to see what comes out of it. Because this makes the responsibility of youth welfare offices, judges, family judges and society very clear. If we get to the point where children are brought to a pedosexual so that he can raise the children there, in quotation marks, in his own way, then it is impossible. And the most important thing is that nobody is investigating the dark figure. For over 40 years we criminologists, practitioners, have been calling for more research into the dark figure. For 47 years, this has been possible verbally at all press conferences. We must soon and that must and and and. You can forget about that. You can forget about that. But on 9 April we had this wonderful press conference from our three-point team. Germany remains one of the safest countries in the world. I could laugh myself silly. Dark figure 1 in 10 at least. At least. And then when I hear that violent crime has increased by 8 percent or almost 9 percent to 214,000 cases. Highest level since 2000. I have only known highs for many decades. Every year there is plus one, plus seven, plus three, plus 30 percent. I can't keep up. In every school class there are one or two pupils who have already experienced sexual abuse. Loan-for-hire citizenship has become a particular problem. The OECD recently took up the special issue of Ukraine. An increase of 900 percent. Those are crazy numbers. The war has of course contributed a lot to that. No question about it. But Ukraine has always been. A top country for human trafficking, particularly trafficking in women. Even before that, if you had ever seen it on TV, on the German TV monitor, under Report 24 or something like that, Ukraine was being bashed. Come hell or high water, corrupt business, criminal organization, human trafficking, trafficking in women. That's crazy, it was gone. As soon as the Russians crossed the border, Ukraine suddenly became a country of the peaceful, the beautiful and the good. Then I would like to talk very briefly about the notorious early childhood sex education. I assume that it will be discussed again later. This is a paper from the WHO Europe, the European Directorate, together with the Federal Center for Health Education from 2011. The thing has been virulent for that long. It has been legitimized for a very long time. And it has suggested that children up to the age of four should learn masturbation, develop an interest in their own and other people's bodies. I wonder which teachers in daycare centers and kindergartens are willing to do this and how it is supposed to work. At four to six they should learn how to masturbate, how to encourage them to express their sexual needs. At six to nine they should learn about online sex, pornography, secret love and self-stimulation. At nine to twelve they should have their first sexual experience. And then they should learn how to use online pornography accordingly. These are the suggestions of the Federal Centre for Health Education. Masturbation in early childhood. My friend Karl Lauterbach raised this up last year and dragged it out of the morgue. The thing had been lying there for over ten years. Okay. This framework is only for political decision-makers. WithinThey can do that themselves. The framework concept, which is based on scientific findings, comes from Kinsey. The older ones among us still know him. He was a flawless child abuser who called himself a scientist. We didn't know what he was doing. He had children raped one after the other, by criminals from prison, by pimps. These were his apprentices who helped him. And Kendler did the same thing afterwards. They are sexual beings from a young age who must be given permission to have sex. Sexuality must be allowed with these children. And the next one was Mr Siebert from Kiel. He was the one who really implanted the paedophile spirit, the pedagogical preparation for sexual abuse. Ladies and gentlemen, over many, many decades this evil spirit has trained many lodges and gossips at universities, institutes and whatever. And all those who are here today and babble about it themselves are all cut out of this spirit. I am not surprised. So I'm not surprised that the University of Heidelberg in Bielefeld has at least made it clear what the matter is, that the whole thing is criminal. And nothing else. It did so in two reports. It is a paedosexual network across academic institutions. It's not just Berlin. Mind you, it's not just Berlin. And so are the parties, in particular the Green Party, which called for the decriminalization of paedosexuality. And that has consequences like Original Play, where adult men in German daycare centers pay cash to get permission to roll around on the floor with them, to practice a step. In other federal states, however, it is becoming more and more common for the introduction of inactivity. And the parents who want to fight against this are clearly told in this paper that the preferred framework requires education from birth, controlled by the state. Controlled by the state and instead of the parent model. In plain language, that means parents are disruptive. There is no exception for parents to excuse their children from school. They even face imprisonment or taking them into care. Is the aim to separate children, the nuclear family? That is the real background. If I declare a child a sexual object, then they are no longer an individual. And the state withdraws the parents' right to raise them. That is what is happening gradually. That is what the EU is doing, that is what the WHO is doing, that is what our state is doing. The parents are causing a disturbance somewhere. And we have made it onto television, onto ZDF. It is now common to talk about genitals, trans issues. And gay princes marry gay princes. That is how far we have come. Leave our kids alone. Because we have to get away from always believing that the state always wants something good for us. The state usually does not want anything good for us. Because it actually only wants the best for us, as you know, and that is our money and our children. The first question is, where does the state actually get the right to raise children? Why is a state allowed to raise children? Secondly, to oblige underage children to attend school. You will see, that is what it does. To stipulate that children are only to be raised in school. The so-called compulsory attendance in school buildings. And also to interfere with the physical integrity of children. Here I have the example of corona tests and masks. How can the state degrade the natural right of parents so that they no longer send themselves to school? In other words, it takes away their right to raise their children freely, rather than at school. So they are no longer allowed to raise their children freely, but have to send the child to school. The starting point for this consideration is Article 6 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, where we said that the state community oversees the activity of care and upbringing. The case law derives the following from this, and this is important. The state has a duty to protect the child, and the state has its own comprehensive mandate to support the child. That is what they derive from it. It only says watch. But it is nevertheless made into a support order. Compulsory schooling 1. So we have seen from the perspective of the Basic Law and case law that the parents' right to raise and care for their children is a natural right. It is therefore above the Basic Law. Now compulsory schooling for children is to be introduced. This must happen very gradually through the hierarchy of norms. And this is how it works. The wording of Article 7 of the Basic Law does not establish compulsory schooling. It says: The state has to guarantee a functioning school system. So it just has to be there. You don't have tot use. It enables everyone to attend school. There is no discernible educational mandate from the state. Nevertheless, the Federal Constitutional Court has given the supposedly state educational mandate in schools the same status as the parents' right to bring up their children. With the help of the state's duty to protect the child. And these are used to pursue the state's own goals. In fulfilling their mandate, schools have the Basic Law. That means respecting the constitutional rights of parents to bring up their children. No longer a natural right. It says it word for word now, only a constitutional right. There you see what has happened. Natural law has become constitutional law. So it is subject to the reservation of law. This ignores the natural law curtain of parental rights. And care by parents had already been completely eliminated in the Bavarian constitution. The word care no longer appears there. So it is only about education. No longer about caring for the child by the parents. Now you ask yourself, how can that be? The Bavarian constitution no longer reflects the concept of care contained in the Basic Law. Interesting. The state now simply takes over the care of the child at school. The state says parents no longer have the right to care, I'll do that now. This creates a legal dilemma. The constitution states that care and upbringing are natural rights. The state only has a guardian function. The Bavarian EUG states that attendance in school buildings is compulsory. The result is a division between parents and children, because compulsory schooling judges the children. The state cannot oblige this, even if it writes it. So it has to let the parents ensure that compulsory schooling is invited. The consequence is that the court can now choose who it takes action against. The legal regulations eliminate the parents' natural rights and open the door to arbitrariness, because they are completely vague with regard to the time of the intervention, the type of intervention, the intensity of the intervention, the duration of the intervention and the following questions remained unanswered during the Corona crisis. When is the child's well-being at risk? Through a Corona infection. What danger is it? Infection or serious health risk? Nobody answered. What are the parents not allowed to want? Testing and masks, that was clear. They must not want that under any circumstances. And what means can the parents use if the child does not want to? Nobody knew. Securing the trick in the Bavarian EUG of making parents responsible for child care for school attendance through coercive fines and fines. And that is if the parents or children violate their duties. Subjecting parents to the state narrative and breaking their will and disciplining the children in the school rooms and bringing them into line. Elimination of the parents' natural right to raise and determine where they live and widespread incapacitation of parents and re-education of children. These were the consequences for children without school attendance in Corona times. They were individually cared for and educated in loving small groups and had contact with other children who could be chosen, who you did not have to choose but could. And then absorbing the teaching material in a much shorter time than at school. Enlightened parents protect the child from daily testing and wearing pointless masks. No bullying of the child because enlightened parents advised him not to be tested and to wear a mask at school. And no psychological damage, because bullying compensates. What were the consequences for the parents if they did not follow the state narrative? Psychological stress because of concern for the child due to the danger posed by testing and masks. The child is not sent to school. They are then criminalized. Then they face unconstitutional fines and penalty payments. And a permanent attempt to enforce state-compliant behavior through financial pressure is created. This creates a split in the family. Because the consequences for the children as long as they do not go to school are these. They feel the pressure from their parents and suffer damage to their body, mind and soul. So we see that not much is left of the original natural law approach, the duty incumbent primarily on parents to care for and raise their children. The guardian state is massively intervening in this situation. That is a big relationship. Corona is the end of the line. The constitutional legislator has deliberately undermined parental rights. Nothing is left of natural law. That is why the state can at any time gain unbridled access to the child. This access can be enforced through punitive measures against parents. But parenthood and families are pre-existent. They existed before the state. That is why the state has no greater right towards children than theirParents themselves. State support for children must therefore be limited to emergencies and the creation of a child-friendly environment, or as the European Court of Human Rights puts it, the state is obliged to create regulations that are suitable for the development of family ties and must take measures that enable people to live together. So family ties must be suitable. The measure must be suitable. What we are experiencing are measures that dissolve and destroy family ties. That is what we are doing here. That is what the state is doing here. And in doing so, it is clearly going against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. My epilogue. There is a need for reappraisal. The victims of this policy must be rehabilitated. The perpetrators must be punished. New excesses must be prevented by massive education, above all of the population. They know nothing. Of doctors, school staff, the administration, judges, prosecutors and the police, and independent institutions must be created to review the opinions spread by politicians. And the defense of freedom of opinion must be enforced, as must the freedom of science. Finally, our children must be defended against an intrusive state. And finally, the legal system must be corrected. We need a separation of powers, namely the powers must be separated from one another and they must no longer divide power between themselves, as is currently the case. Breaks in children's bonds through separation and divorce, through death, institutional child removal, kidnapping, child trafficking and child prostitution lead to the release of completely different hormones that are very harmful to the child. I will just name a few. Adrenaline and cortisol, for example. From around six months of separation between parents and child, brain development is massively damaged. We have an incredible number of severe traumas in children who grew up in institutions, even to the point of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. It has been proven that our youth welfare offices know what they are doing. I would like to tell you that. When they tear a child away from a family, they know that we are harmful. That this child will be massively disturbed. Either those children who are somewhat resilient, these children, do not become mentally ill, they become physically ill. They can somehow redirect the situation. It is unbelievable what happens. And when children are then taken out preventively without there being any real evidence, then that is a crime in my opinion. For me personally, it is a crime. The main problem is the self-belief and economic advantages of the profiteers. I can tell you that politicians are among them, because politicians usually sit on the youth welfare committee and thus make decisions. Authorities as a whole, namely the youth welfare offices, and above all the home operators. And they are of the opinion that child protection is best achieved outside the biological family. According to the Harvard studies, it is not just the children's brain development that is disturbed, but, as I have already said, psychological and physical disorders, chronic illnesses, lack of education, very often a massive lack of education. And above all, as everyone knows, children who grow up in a children's home are stigmatized afterwards. Many children who were later released told me that other children were not allowed to play with them because they were children in a home. And it's better not to play with them, dirty children. So unbelievable crimes are being committed against these children. The profiteers are not only politicians, heads of the youth welfare office, children's homes, legal counsel, the pharmaceutical industry, because drug trials are being carried out on children, judges, experts, child pornography and pedophilia. They are all involved. There is much more to uncover. Regarding Kendler's stories, I just want to tell you that these heads of the youth welfare office who placed the children with the pedophiles were previously employees of the youth welfare office, they are now heads and they still work in the youth welfare offices. And the names from the Kendler investigations, the investigators, the researchers, criticized this very strongly. They are kept under lock and key. That means that people are allowed to do this with the consent of our state. Otherwise these names would be made public. Now the question arises as to how custody is withdrawn due to child endangerment in cases where compulsory school attendance is violated. And that is, the judges are intelligent and you can construct this beautifully if you know a little about the family proceedings and the background and, above all,ugen. You come to it via a very interesting layer, a track. It is said that the moment the parents, which would actually be possible, educate their children at home or online or via any of the options that are available today, then the children become socially isolated. This is the track that intelligently leads to the withdrawal of custody and thus, as my colleague mentioned, pushes the administrative track to one side. The judges decide who is heard. Can cases be constructed through family support, facts created that prove that the children have no social contacts at all, even though the parents tell me that the social contacts are there. But now the question for the lawyer is of course how do you want to prove that? Or how do you want to get away with it? That means yes, that might be a possibility, then the question is, is it permissible? No. That's where the problem comes in again. What effect does that have on cases of abuse or allegations? How is that even dealt with? And you have to remember that we basically have two parts to such cases. On the one hand we have a component that concerns the criminal law area and on the other hand we have a component that concerns the family law area. If such suspicions of abuse arise or are present on the part of the child member and you contact the youth welfare office directly, for example, you will often find that the youth welfare office and its staff urge you to file a criminal complaint, stop contact completely and get the parents to do this first. It was interesting that she said in this context that when such cases of abuse occur somewhere - I found this very remarkable, mind you - the parents should not immediately run to the police or act at the same time, take action, let themselves be influenced, but try to step back and seek help from third parties first. For good reason, as you will perhaps hear later in my presentation, there is a risk if you file a criminal complaint immediately. What happens if it is only statements made by the children? What should happen to them? It depends on the age of the children. The children are questioned. In my experience, a credibility assessment, depending on the ability of the official who carries it out, often does not produce any usable results. The further consequence - and this is something you have to think about - is that it takes a certain amount of time in the country before this questioning, the hearing, is even carried out. In the meantime, the youth welfare office often clearly tells the mother, for example, that there will be no contact. What happens to children who, if there is a suspicion of abuse that is not confirmed, who may have been manipulated by the mother at some point, what happens then? You have to imagine the situation: your child tells you this, and the consequence of this is that if you confirm it, driven in part by the youth welfare office and other organizations to report it to the police, the child will go there, often to the father, where the abuse is suspected. It is important to remember that if it emerges that the court defends the view that the mother was influencing the child, the court will investigate further. And there is a great danger that provisional arrangements will be affected at that moment, which could even go so far that the mother is deprived of parental custody. Either the children then go to the father, or, which is of course the alternative, the children come again, go to an institution. Ms Christidis has already spoken about this, not in depth, about the corresponding disturbances, and this has also been discussed in previous events, about the corresponding traumatization of the children, who are then effectively deprived of their parents. And for me the question is, if I no longer allow mothers to have children, with the consequences of the withdrawal of parental custody, which usually happens immediately, whether our state is protecting paedophiles and then the question arises for me too and then I stop, isn't this also what is wanted? Just to leave it hanging in the air, isn't that what is intended? And that is a very, very big danger. Children are our future. Children are human beings who come from a close relationship between a man and a woman and only between a man and a woman. It is crystal clear and completely understandable that there is an elementary, vital bond between child and mother, which no one can interfere with. Of course there is also one with the father. Mr. Kutschera is still here or gone. He only said that the mothershave this breeding instinct. I had an awakening when my eldest son was born. Up until then, having a child as a father had been uncomfortable for me. It didn't matter at all. But when my son came out of his mother's womb, it was like a switch flipped. And my attitude towards children was different. So maybe men have something like that too. I just wanted to put it out there. The Jewish doctor Vladimir Zelenko said about Corona, you only vaccinate a child if you believe in child sacrifice. And that is a pretty bold statement. This pious Jew, who was very well known and became very famous for treating Corona patients. At the end of his life - he died far too early - he treated 7,000 people. Seven of them died. A thousandth died. An extremely successful man is talking about it. Anyone who does something like that to children is committing child sacrifice. It is extremely interesting how courts operate. And it is understandable that they fear like the devil from holy water that their senseless, illegal actions will be documented in this way. And now you have to consider who the STIKO is? What kind of ivory tower is it? What kind of institution is it that tells people from the comfort of their own home what is good and what is not good and can even make decisions that may mean the physical demise of a person? This institution was founded in 1972. Interestingly, the debate about the measles vaccination had just heated up. Incidentally, the court that made this decision - we want to name names - is the Cologne Higher Regional Court, Judge Manfred Abs, Dr. Petra Volke and Marion Fasen. We will have to remember these names and remember them. But back to the STIKO. The STIKO currently consists of 19 members. Twelve of them have been in office for longer than the planned 3x3 years. They are appointed by the Federal Ministry of Health in agreement with the highest state health authorities. So there can be no question of neutrality here. And since the early 2000s, we have been obliged to disclose any conflicts of interest before every meeting. Conflicts of interest, I should say, I have conflicts of interest, and massive ones with the behavior of what comes over us here as a state. I have completely different interests there and I want to enforce them. But in science, you should declare your conflicts of interest before every lecture. For example, relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers. And then it will probably go like the DGHO Congress Annual Meeting 2023 in Hamburg. Session on coronaviruses. The moderator, a Mr. Corneli from Cologne, a full professor there, who, for example, cut me off when I asked questions. Take a look at the pharmaceutical companies he has to do with. And these conflicts of interest appear on a small slide at the beginning and are quickly faded out. And then it goes on to the text and nobody questions the details. Maybe we should do that sometime. And the final proof of the bias of this institution was, you remember, when childhood vaccinations were to be introduced. Then suddenly the health ministers came around the corner and said we now want children to be vaccinated against corona too. 2. 8. 21. And Mr. Martens was still very unsure and said I would not have my children vaccinated. Perhaps you still remember it vaguely. I called the federal and state health ministers criminals and was convicted for denigrating the health ministers. 8 of the 17 have filed charges against me. They are criminals, they are murderers who have condoned the deaths of children and people. So, now report us again. The STIKO is all sorts of things, but it is not a neutral institution that can decide whether a medical measure is really necessary and whether it is really harmless, as we need it to be. And if you say it doesn't matter if someone dies, then you have to say that this means death, the death penalty, has been introduced through the back door. This means killing has been introduced through the back door. We have to be careful here, because the word child endangerment is the magic word, so to speak. We actually have an extremely large lever with these medical measures. I will finish with the example of the measles vaccination. Measles has even been made compulsory by the Federal Constitutional Court. And now a child is to be taken into care because the mother is supposedly not able to do it, or the father has taken over but cannot and now the child is going to a home and perhaps the father was even against the vaccination and has not yet had the measles vaccination. Now the child is in care in a detention center. And they cannot be turned away.n, even without a measles vaccination, but must then be vaccinated within the next four weeks. What do you think will happen? And believe me, in my medical career I have only seen one serious case of measles. That was a young woman who developed severe encephalitis after being vaccinated and was then unable to live her life anymore. We must be careful. The WHO treaty also plays a role here, which forces countries to carry out things like vaccinations, including the taking into care of and removing children from their traditional and naturally belonging area. Human life is open to discretion. Child sacrifice, which has existed since ancient times, children were sacrificed. That was the case with the Phoenicians. And interestingly, the noble class, the higher-ups, the cleverer people were particularly into it. The simple people who managed it were more reserved. And I think we are discovering certain parallels with our country today. If you look, in various cities, with a total population of 250,000, over the course of 200 years there were 25,000 urns, child sacrifices. We are in a similar situation again. We are sacrificing. We are currently sacrificing our children for fantasies, for sexual perversions, for medical errors. And we must stand up against this, we must not let our children go through the fire for these idols. Today, the EU fundamental rights and the General Data Protection Regulation play a crucial role in the protection of natural persons, especially children and young people, in child and youth welfare. The EU fundamental rights set out the fundamental rights and freedoms that apply to all citizens of the European Union, including provisions for the protection of minors. The application of the General Data Protection Regulation and other EU fundamental rights in child and youth welfare is essential in order to protect children and young people and at the same time uphold their rights. It is essential that organizations and institutions in the field of child and youth welfare comply with data protection regulations in order to safeguard the privacy and rights of those affected. We cannot ignore that historically burdensome structures such as the reform of the Reich Youth Welfare Service of 1939 still have an impact on the system of child and youth welfare. It is time to clearly distance ourselves from these past ideologies and to initiate forward-looking reforms based on the principles of equality, freedom and humanity. In view of this, we propose the creation of a body at federal level that includes a broad representation of various interest groups, such as politics, independent providers, parents and youth organizations. This initiative could bring a cross-border and European perspective to the planning and implementation of measures in child and youth welfare. In short, it is time to modernize our social systems and change them from historically professional reasons. Through effective reform and the establishment of a contemporary democratic structure, we can create a child and youth welfare system that corresponds to the values ​​of equality, solidarity and humanity. As a responsible company, we warmly invite external whistleblowers, especially those working in sensitive areas such as child and youth welfare, hospitals and other organizations, to report potential violations and provide us with important information about grievances. Your contribution is invaluable in ensuring integrity and protection. We offer you a confidential and secure whistleblower system that allows you to report ethical misconduct or unlawful acts without fear of reprisal. Our goal is to strengthen cooperation with external regulators and support them in uncovering grievances. Through these joint efforts, we want to help create a safe and ethical environment. We encourage everyone working in this important area to work with us to make a positive impact and drive change. Together we can take the necessary steps to uncover and address grievances and achieve sustainable improvement. Based on my many years of practice and experience in dealing with the General Data Protection Regulation, I have particularly noticed that youth welfare offices do not fulfill this obligation to a sufficient extent. I therefore encourage you to check your correspondence with the public administration and to check whether your responsible youth welfare office has sent you information on the General Data Protection Regulation. It is importanttsam that data protection regulations are also complied with in this area. In addition, you should ensure that your other rights as a natural person are respected under the General Data Protection Regulation, including the right to information, access to your own data, the right to correct inaccurate data and the deletion of personal data. It is important, however, to prepare people for the fact that when checking decisions and data from the youth welfare offices, surprising or unexpected information may appear in the files. This thorough examination can help to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation in question and to uncover possible inconsistencies. It is therefore advisable to approach this task calmly and objectively in order to be able to respond appropriately to the information found. This preparation is essential to ensure that everyone involved is adequately informed and that potential challenges are addressed constructively. I fight for the well-being of our dear children because I love all children. They are brilliant little people, created in the image of God. I love their bright eyes and I think that children need an available mom and dad so that they can really succeed. In a format from Bayerischer Rundfunk called Controvers on June 30, 2021, the psychologist and researcher Stefan Rücker informs that, according to major studies, children who have broken off contact with a parent struggle with massive psychological consequences. He describes such behavior as psychological abuse of children when a loving reference and attachment figure is suddenly torn from their lives. It is even so bad that a parent can no longer have any contact with their own child against their will for several weeks or longer, even though they have full equal custody. In practice, it is then regularly the case that those acting on public behalf give the parent who refuses contact with the child an advantage. So there is no need for police intervention, there is no need for criminal charges, there is no need for a specific dangerous situation. Alienation is simply encouraged. I find that simply shocking. Unfortunately, a system of lies is being launched. Because although family courts have a duty to establish the truth under Section 138 of the Code of Civil Procedure, untrue factual statements are not checked. Just imagine. In family courts, there is basically no witness evidence. This means that witnesses are not summoned to German family courts. So if you say, but he can confirm that I didn't do it, he will not be summoned. What does that have to do with a judge's investigation of the truth? The best liar wins and the other is constantly having to justify himself. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with the rule of law. In family courts, as we heard today, there are no public hearings. The parties can therefore believe whatever they like. It never gets out. And who of them likes to admit that they have been mistaken for a long period of time? Probably nobody. So it has to be kept under control, because your own reputation is at stake. If, for example, it turns out that youth welfare office employees and legal counsel start lying because they discovered that they had protected the wrong parent for over a year, or sent in false names about single parents in countless documents, there is no way of getting these two out of the proceedings. A husband leaves because of a new flame. He makes up that the wife wants to kill herself and the children. A so-called extended suicide. However, the mother is a self-therapist and was never suicidal. Do you think someone approached the mother? As an official, we check. Do you have suicidal thoughts? How are you? Has she ever been to a psychiatrist? No. No one approached her. Both of her young children were locked away from her overnight. Completely. Completely gone for three months. So you learn that there is bias against contact supervisors and contact carers, but not against youth welfare office employees and not against legal representatives. Is this system error a mistake or is it intentional? I don't know myself. This means that anyone who does not have the child's well-being in mind, who wants to tear a person attached to them out of their life, is specifically moving away. Regularly rewarded and I don't think it can and must go on like this. So we are experiencing a system of thought that encourages and rewards parent-child alienation instead of reprimanding and sanctioning it. If a parent blatantly violates the so-called duty of good conduct under Section 1684 of the German Civil Code, this legal requirement for good conduct of parents, the black sheep really don't care.It is really shocking. There are secret addresses in shelters, now also for men, who often take in people contrary to the concept. As happy as we can all be, and I am too, that these anonymous shelters exist, they are all so easy to manipulate. Because they are billed and subsidized per resident. So it is mainly primary residences, where people do not actually live, for example in Regensburg, that are covered by the youth welfare office, and the community center, Lietz I believe it is called, abuses the protection paragraph from the Federal Registration Act 51 in an inflationary manner, without proof. Imagine that, there is no need for a police approach, there is no need for a criminal complaint, there is no need for a fact, all it takes is a request for protection, and it is done. This opens the door to abuse. It is the same with children. Sexual abuse is a trauma, depending on the type and severity of the trauma, the child processes this and because of shame and guilt with specific repression mechanisms, sometimes also emotional separation and so-called dissociation. When a child opens up, there is a need to act quickly. The trauma memory in the amygdala in the brain ensures that important details are buried. There is therefore a regular risk that the child will forget important things, and every public prosecutor knows this. Parents are always considered to be biased, as are the private experts they commission. We have already heard this today. Parents should not have in-depth discussions about this without training, because as a layperson there is a risk of the child being re-traumatized by the conversations, and the perpetrator could end up claiming that the child has been inoculated with the ideas. The so-called suggestion hypothesis. Parents are therefore being asked by everyone to put their full trust in the public authorities here. For all of us, this means that officials who have to work together here have a very, very high level of responsibility for the success of the investigation, and we as citizens should trust them. The public prosecutor and group leader Hans-Christopher Theissen, who became known a few years ago through the Regensburg Digital murder case because he allowed a known abuser to continue to abuse the child without a restraining order, is continuing to do the same. Not only did he manipulate the process of the child hearing, which was held far too late, but he even systematically prevented the victim protection lawyer from appearing so that nothing would come out. And now comes the thing. Unfortunately, this is being covered up by the Ministry of Justice Dr. Arlott and the Nuremberg Public Prosecutor General Michael Schrothberger. Just like then, the current suspect is now being held to continue to have contact with the minor child every week without neutral supervision. From June to today. There is no restraining order. Unfortunately, this public prosecutor then dragged the investigating judge Christian Erl into the matter. And the judge also became intrusive. Judge Erl used to be a public prosecutor, also in Regensburg. Just last August, Judge Erl acquitted an abuser who had confessed to six crimes, with a deal. I find that worrying. When the public prosecutor found out that a victim protection lawyer was to be appointed at the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg, he quickly stopped the proceedings, citing insufficient evidence, which he himself was responsible for. This meant that there was never a victim protection lawyer in the entire proceedings. And hold on tight, there was not even a witness interview in the presence of a witness lawyer. And now comes the point, I still have a minute, hopefully. So you're probably thinking, what's going on? What's driving this man? Why would a group leader, the right-hand man of the senior public prosecutor, go out on a limb like that? According to my analysis, the background scandal was that the child in question was registered as a primary residence in a shelter, contrary to the concept, with the knowledge of the youth welfare office, even though he didn't actually live there. The child lived with an accused, rarely went to kindergarten during the time of the crime, and was looked after by the accused in the mornings. A child is severely sexually abused while living in a shelter - you can't allow that, can you? It can't be done, you have to prevent it. And to our regret, the Ministry of Justice and even the highest authority in the Attorney General's office, Senior Public Prosecutor Schmidt and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Schrotberger, were not above inventing excuses and then writing these lies. We will condemn them with redacted documents, we will publish them. What has been done now to get the scandal under control? You have already heard today that the person who made the report was taken to a psychiatric hospital and that is how it went. The guardian ad litem, Ms Weigl-Brechte, and the youth welfare office, Ms Rock, heard that Axion Resist was involved, so they were given a fine for their own failure to act, they also had the child.not protected, afraid and together they requested a psychiatric report from the parent who wanted to protect their child. Mrs. Weigl-Brechte even wanted supervised contact for the parent because it could be that the child could be manipulated further. And now comes the punch line, because, as I always put it, God is good, lies sometimes have short legs. Only recently, the very expert that the public prosecutor himself chose confirmed at the family court that she should have been commissioned in July 23. Her examination could only take place on February 8, seven months too late. In the middle of her speech, she verbally scolded everyone present because the evidence had not been secured. And not only that, she told everyone that there was no evidence that the reporting parent had influenced the child. Unfortunately, she also reported that the child cannot remember. So the public prosecutor was successful in his efforts. Now hold on tight, really the legal representative should say, okay, let's forget the psychiatric report. It was too big. You stuck to the proposal anyway. And that's exactly why action is needed. Thank you for listening.

from abu.

Sources/Links: AXION Resist https://axionresist.com/
Symposium in voller Länge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANBC_OkQc2A