Following up on last week’s video exposé about Abraham Christie, one YouTube viewer asked a series of pointed questions which we thought ought to be addressed here, rather than buried in the video’s comments section.
The original conversation went like this:
Viktor: There is one statement that was never examined (or maybe it was), and it came from the mouth of one of the key witnesses. The question is, why would Mister Christie tell one of them to say it, when it should have immediately brought into question the whole alleged custody argument?
EC: Could you elaborate please? I’m not sure which statement you’re referring to.
Viktor: I went back (on youtube, as l never put anything down on paper or electronic storage) to the pookster78 and Torkgirl8 days. In the original disclosure videos, the son, not the daughter said that ‘one of the special children’ “loves sex”. If that was part of a narrative, it would be daylight madness including it in any claim against the father. You see? Those few words seem to call into question the idea that Mister Christie concocted the whole thing. There’s more but l don’t want to see the videos again, even though they are available on Youtube. It was also enough to trigger Hannah Nolegalname into a misguided tirade against Mme Pauffley later on.
Okay, let’s look at this.
One of the two children in the “airport videos” stated that one of the “20 special chidren” at their school not only participated willingly in the alleged cult, but “loved sex”.
Viktor is correct that this is a bizarre thing for the child to say, especially if the main purpose of the Hampstead hoax was to make an airtight claim against the father and ensure that he never saw his children again.
So the question is, did Christie force the child to say it, and if so, why?
Is Abraham Christie insane?
First, let’s look at the idea that it would be “daylight madness including it in any claim against the father”. Very true—but anybody who has listened to the Jean-Clement Yaohirou audio recording, or paid attention to Christie’s rantings in subsequent interviews or YouTube comments will be aware that Abraham is not a sane person.
For example, in the Yaohirou recording he states quite clearly that he believes that his brother-in-law, a “Special” with the Metropolitan Police, will not only go to the school and arrest all the alleged cult members there, but will stage a raid on the father’s house, and run the case single-handed. This is particularly bizarre given Christie’s long history of criminal charges and convictions. Surely he has been in contact with the plod enough times in his life to grasp the basics of how they operate.
In addition, we know that Christie believes some very strange things about the properties of hemp: he has stated repeatedly that hemp is the “elixir of eternal life”, that it “cures the effects of trauma-based mind control”, and that it can be used as a vegan substitute for blood plasma, amongst other things. While medicinal uses of hemp are indeed becoming recognised, Christie’s beliefs just don’t make sense.
He seems to have read a few articles online, and spun off a series of fairy stories based on his limited understanding of reality.
‘The rite of sodomy’: Dangerous lunacy
However, one of Christie’s most dangerous and pernicious beliefs is something he refers to as “the rite of sodomy”.
Put bluntly, Christie believes that very young children can be made not only to “love sex” but to become “addicted” to being anally raped—which of course is what he accused people in Hampstead of doing to children.
In a YouTube comment on 9 March 2017, he wrote this:
“The Rite of Sodomy” the central tenet of [Trauma Based Mind Control], promoted by Alistair Crowley, whereby the children/ trainee slaves are sodomised with dildos or other implements in order to manually manipulate nerve endings at the base of the spine, which stimulate the pineal gland, the master gland and the CENTRE OF PSYCHIC AWARENESS IN THE HUMAN MIND, our third eye, giving the subject flashes of cosmic consciousness, allowing the Master/Handler to “bind and control” their “slave”.
THE PINEAL GLAND PHYSICALLY AFFECTS EVERY SYSTEM IN THE HUMAN BODY AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION OF PSYCHIC AWARENESS, CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXPERIENCE OF DIVINITY.
Whilst certain abusers may derive some deviant sexual gratification from these acts due to themselves being victims of TBMC or other forms of sexual abuse, the goal is to create TBMC slaves addicted to the manual activation of the third eye. The earlier the “Rite of Sodomy” is performed upon the child, the more effective the programming.
So yes, Christie does believe that children can be not only taught to “love” anal rape, but can be “bound” to their “slave-masters” in this way. Here he is talking about it, several months before he made the above post:
Surely any sane person can see that this bizarre fantasy is not only false but incredibly dangerous? It essentially offers paedophiles a perfect excuse for sexually abusing very young children: they can tell themselves that they are teaching the child to “love sex”, by offering them “flashes of divinity” to which they will become “addicted”.
It also explains why it would not be at all unexpected for Christie to force one or both children to claim that some of their classmates “loved sex”. To him, this would be perfectly congruent with his belief that a “pedosodomite death cult” was operating out of a primary school in North London.
It wasn’t just a child access battle
Back to Viktor’s question: if the Hampstead hoax was really only a child access battle gone horribly wrong, then it would make no sense for Christie to have forced one of the children to claim that their classmate “loved sex”.
However, it seems very unlikely that child custody/access was the sole reason for the allegations. As we’ve stated elsewhere, Christie’s own obsession with hemp as a magical cure for “trauma-based mind control” points to the potential for using the two children as guinea pigs.
The fact that Christie brutally tortured them, both physically and emotionally, and simultaneously fed them enough cannabis that traces of it were found in their hair samples afterward, points to a more sinister interpretation: it seems quite likely that he wished to use them as “living proof” that children could recover from the effects of torture via copious doses of cannabis.
We hope all of this answers Viktor’s question.