This just in from Munich . . .
Alfred Schaefer and Monika Schaefer
Trial Summary, Days 10, 11 and 12
Michéle Renouf has provided another update for TBR subscribers on the Schaefer siblings trial in Munich.
Days 10, 11 & 12 – August 14, 15 & 16, 2018
A report by Michèle, Lady Renouf for THE BARNES REVIEW
DAY 10 – Tuesday, August 14, 2018
DENYING IMPLIES LYING IN THE GERMAN WORD “LEUGNER”
During today’s court hearing, Alfred commemorated the achievements of the late Ernst Zündel, the first anniversary of whose death was a week earlier on August 5. Together with his forensic and legal team, Ernst brought groundbreaking facts to light in cross-examination of key Jewish experts during trials conducted in Toronto, Canada in 1985 and 1989. A skilled publicist (out of necessity), he brought these to Canadian public attention despite special interest media resistance.
Monika’s Attorney Wolfram Nahrath comments: “For several minutes after today’s screening by Alfred Schaefer of the videoed interview of the Canadian-German [lifelong pacifist and publisher] Ernst Zündel, by [Scots-French documents expert] Professor Robert Faurisson, a respectful hush was felt by the entire courtroom,” so evident was their tenacious, scholarly perseverance in the face of totally one-sided violence which they (and other vital members of their forensic and legal teams) endured for decades in the normal duties involved in fact-finding for historical exactitude.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recently gave an interview in which he suggested that the social media company did not ban “Holocaust denial” because it was “wrong,” adding that it was sometimes not “intentionally” wrong.
“Intentionality” is the issue facing the Schaefer siblings, as it was for Ernst Zündel who served a total of seven years (two in solitary confinement) for insisting to speak what he “knew to be true” and supported this truth with the groundbreaking facts his legal team exposed in cross-examinations of key Jewish eye-witnesses to the allegedly industrial mass murder weapon plus the revered Jewish “Holocaust” historian in 1985. Never before and never again.
The nub of the present trial of the Schaefer siblings similarly concerns the special and additional element in the meaning of “leugner.” As pointed out (upon Zündel’s death) by the Canadian Jewish News: “Ernst Zündel, who became a virtual household name in Canada’s Jewish community for his [so-called] denial” in [so-called] “false news” trials—“the charge explored whether Zündel knew his views were false.” He was charged under Section 181 of the Criminal Code’s prohibition against “spreading false news” for publishing the booklet “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.”
Appeals went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 1992 struck down the false news section of the Criminal Code for violating Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On the 50th anniversary of the capitulation of the German military on May 8, 1995, Zündel’s home in Canada was firebombed, his historical investigative research went up in flames, this central Toronto property completely destroyed. And despite the mortal danger as well to every passerby or post-handler in service of the delivery process, the bombers (who self-identified as the Jewish Defence League) were never prosecuted. As is often the case, the corporate media “gatekeepers of mendacity and manipulative bias” mis-depicted the victim (who had harmed no one, save exposing testimonial liars) as if the callous culprit.
Zündel reports in this video, screened in court by Alfred, about how he had to flee from Canada to the USA because of increasingly serious deadly attacks against him. He was not to be safe there, either. When the validity of his visa expired in the USA, and despite being long married to an American citizen, within hours he was arrested (via this trivial administrative pretext) and deported to Canada on February 19, 2003. Under a new legislation later disqualified, he was deported to a German prison in 2005. In the video proof that the ADL had secret agreements with three non-transparent democracies may be deduced in the legalistic swindle enabling the extraordinary deportation of Ernst Zündel from Canada (where he had been a peaceful resident since age 19) to Germany (his birthplace). This sly (later found illegitimate) extradition of the civil-opinioned publisher was accomplished quietly with a private plane and seven officials.
Following the screening of this video, Alfred Schaefer emphasized why this film was so important to him. The interview helped him to understand a great deal and especially the “contrariwise” pretexts as he recognised them in similarly projected charges against his own good character and his civic-loving sister of “incitement to hatred, contempt or slander.”
Interviewed by Professor Faurisson, Ernst Zündel prophesied in this video: “I am happy in my role, if I contributed something for the truth and the freedom for our country. How many people in history have this opportunity?”
In these two legendary trials conducted in the 1980s in Canada, cross-examined eyewitnesses to the “unique mass homicidal gas chamber” weapon admitted deploying “poetic licence” in their testimonies. Dr. Raul Hilberg, key Jewish “Holocaust” historian, too admitted he was “at a loss” when asked to produce a single document (despite alleged “well-documented” shed-loads) as proof of a state order or a single scientifically feasible operations diagram as supportive evidence—other than, in his view, that a genocide of “6 million Jews” was carried out by the German people via telepathy (“a far-flung bureaucracy, an extraordinary meeting of minds”) during the Second World War.
Zündel was defamed severely for publishing Did Six Million Really Die? yet those who firebombed his home (the self-bragging Jewish Defence League) were never brought for public exposure. What outlasts their criminal malice is the legal testimonial legacy of those Zündel trials, where Jewish eyewitnesses and experts were fairly and freely cross-examined. Now their admissions stand in the annals of bringing history into accord with the facts obscured by wartime propaganda and subsequent “Holocaust Industry” (to cite Norman Finkelstein) for eternal reparation claimants.
On the occasion of Zündel’s death—a man who lived a life never wishing or visiting violence upon anyone—the oxymoronic “Anti-Defamation League” incited global hatred for him in their media-syndicated “enemedia” (a pithy quip by Irish poet Mike Walsh).
Their headline, “Ernst Zündel: The most evil man you’ve never heard of.” Perhaps “never heard of” enough . . . for the general public to have their democratic right to judge? However, for those who have, it is a case of once met never forgotten, for the “former Jew” Henry Herskovitz (leading American “Jews for German Justice”) who remarked, as cited in the Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA local Wikipage:
“Herskovitz shares the views of Ernst Zundel, German publisher known for promoting Holocaust revisionism and author of the “Hitler we Loved and Why” who was jailed for “spreading false news” but the conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada when the law criminalizing reporting false news [alternative opinion] was ruled unconstitutional. Following his visit, Herskovitz wrote, “Ernst Zundel, the reputed anti-Semitic devil, did not merely shake hands with me; he held mine in his. Eight years later the memory remains strong.”
Immediately after Zündel’s death, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the chief Nazi-hunter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the director of the center’s Israel Office and Eastern European Affairs, mistakenly declared: “After Zündel’s release from prison, he refused to comment on his views about the Holocaust, adding that he intended to “be careful not to offend anyone and their draconian laws.” This quote is perhaps the best indication of the effectiveness of legislation to specifically ban Holocaust denial.
It is not so “effective” as this culturally incompatible debate-hater implies. In fact, these debate-hating laws only increase public skepticism and suspicions of why such laws are made to enforce a certain era in history to be revered as “the Holy of Holies” versus criminal heresy, with its Teaching Guidelines stating that “normal historical debate and rational argument” must not be applied, thus rendering “the Holocaust” as a secular religiously imposed obligation.
Indeed, on the day when Ernst Zündel was released in Mannheim, after five years to the day in prison (despite entirely good behaviour), for merely an historical opinion and investigative criticism, I happened to record that event, “Unbowed,” for my Telling Films. In the car at the outset of our journey to his ancestral Black Forest home, Ernst, a dear friend, answered calmly: “I am unbent, unbowed, by this experience. Nothing will change my mind. I used to be a critic. Only now am I an enemy” . . . perforce by this grotesque judicial advance to barbarism.
That is what happens in dreadful consequence of these debate-hate laws and their malicious punishments. Healthy sceptics are dragged towards sickening cynicism, literally into the cesspit of incarceration with the lowest of brutal criminals. Yet in the film tribute “Unbowed” one can see the quickening instincts of the naturally kind life-enhancer when this staunch prisoner of conscience smells the forest, begins hunting for medicinal herbs, and speaks of rejuvenating things ennobling in human goodwill. In total seven years to the day shut away yet never after a whining word.
Zuroff continues: “The good news is that in the Western world, the fight against Holocaust denial has been fairly successful to date, thanks to the defeat of its most dangerous advocate David Irving’s libel suit against Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt, and the punishment of persons like him and Zundel. And, as of this week, at least we no longer have to worry about the latter, which is, indeed, a legitimate cause for joy, despite the admonitions of the book of Proverbs. The biblical book of Proverbs (Mishlei) instructs us ‘Do not be happy when your enemy falls, and do not rejoice when he fails (Chapter 24, verse 17)’.”
Knowing Ernst (aged 78), as I and many did (and many more shall do), one can be confident that had the death of Zuroff been announced during his lifetime, Ernst would not have spoken spitefully of his Judaic anti-gentile enemy. He would have pitied him—for Ernst believed in karma (the belief that a person’s actions in life will determine their fate in the next life). Long Live Ernst in the Role Model Book of the Goodly-honest of gentlemen.
Ernst had served prison sentences in solitary confinement in the Toronto Detention Centre (where I first visited him, then attended his habeas corpus trial, where his lawyer was not permitted to know who brought the case—a secret trial!) in Canada. He then was extradited to Mannheim prison Germany (where I attended in order to archive those transcript-less trials for Telling Films). There he served a further five years merely for publishing benign historical opinions.
Like the Schaefers, Zündel and his veteran colleagues never promoted violence or harmed anyone with their findings and opinions. The Munich judges are scratching around desperately to dig up any shred of evidence of “hatred” enactments engendered by their educationally intoned videos. There is nothing hateful, but rather more akin to a “teacher” tone in the Schaefer videos, as in Ernst’s. They are lessons, as they have termed them, in the conditioning and de-conditioning of political concepts akin to George Orwell’s 1984 exposé of political conditioning before 1948 (when he wrote it) about Bolshevik Communism (and how Alfred still sees it now expressed as glamorous globalism de-culturing by anti-ethno enforcement across Europe today). Alfred says he is indebted to the “brainwashing” exposés by the former KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, whose legacy of lectures of warnings to Americans of Bolshevik techniques Alfred had also screened for the court in earlier sessions.
In Monika Schaefer’s letter dated as written from Stadelheim prison, Munich on June 28, 2018, she notes to its recipient Brian Ruhe that his letter (dated April 5th) did not reach her “for almost eight weeks.” Now, ever since her trial began on July 2nd, there has been a dramatic change in the two-way correspondence delivery speed. One wonders if this is in order to facilitate the prosecution’s hope that somehow they can suggest—as the judge did about the public gallery person who “insulted” the prosecutor as she left the courtroom—that this sort of thing constitutes “evidence” of Monika’s and Alfred’s alleged intention to “incite hatred.” It seems the court is desperate to find examples. If blaming Alfred for a stranger who chose to “insult” the prosecutor after she left the courtroom with a remark—“You should experience the inside of a prison before sending anyone there”—is anything to go by as requisite “evidence” enough to keep the siblings locked away in cells behind bars for multiple years to come.
It is as well to remind American readers that politically incorrect civil utterances made on German soil are eligible as “evidence” of a crime, roping harmless individuals in prison. I recall Ernst Zündel (whom I’d occasionally meet for lunch in his childhood town of Pforzheim) explaining the incredible. He’d tell me: “When I get off the phone to Ingrid [his dear wife] I feel like a coward. She simply cannot grasp that I cannot say what she’d like me to say here in Germany” . . . and that would include anything for her to publish in her widespread Zündelgram, which would land him straight back in jail, an unbelievable reality.
Equally baffling is the action taken against Ernst, the political prisoner of conscience, to keep him separated from his toothbrush on a stool outside his solitary confinement cell in case this proven lifelong pacifist tried to deploy it as a weapon. Dr. Zuroff interprets conscientious objector Zündel’s migration at age 19 from his native Germany to Canada to avoid recruitment in the German army as shamefully “by his own admission, avoiding military service.” These thought-crime cases seem to rely, for the most part, on subjective interpretation. “I remain unbent, unbowed, by this experience,” said Ernst after seven inhumane years, forced to experience only the dangerous and deranged company of murderous criminals—an amazing feat of mind over matter.
Indeed, in a letter from her Munich prison, Monika wrote of B’nai Brith Canada who prompted her arrest: “I am feeling quite calm and strong. Also preparing myself for the wrath of a certain group of chosen people. No matter how much wrath they have, and no matter what they do, no matter how hard they try, they can NEVER transform their fictions into facts. And they will never extinguish the Light of Truth. Amen.”
How much longer, asks Alfred, can this kind of courtroom “Muppet Show” conduct go unchallenged by fair, non-biased judicial norms? This sounds similar to questions raised by learned judges in the USA about the conduct of the “lynch mob” Nuremberg trials in 1946.
At the beginning of the court session, again the urgency had been emphasised by the leading judge that the verdict was scheduled for pronouncement on Friday, August 17th, because of the upcoming vacation recess. Nevertheless, Alfred Schaefer suggested showing all his videos for they are self-explanatory, especially the content, he said, of the video from “Red Ice Radio.”
Earlier in the day the hearing had resumed with the reading of the last part of the translation of the film “Questions about the Holocaust” which had not been completed for the previous hearing.
The attorneys asked for a revision of the translation. Alfred commented on the translation that the truth must be said.
This part describes the gratuitous post-war crimes committed by the American Allies against German guards at Dachau prison in 1945, German guards who had only been detached to Dachau shortly before the Americans arrived. These Germans surrendered their weapons and were rounded up by the Americans, placed against a wall, and shot immediately. Such treatment of POWs is a war crime that has never been punished.
Furthermore, the conditions in the concentration camps at Nordhausen and Bergen-Belsen were described, following the bombing and invasion by the Allies. Nordhausen camp was aerial bombed by the Americans on April 3, 1945. Trains in which prisoners were sitting were machine-gunned. In the camp itself, there were 4,000 sick people who were shot at with air cannons. The British Allies previously had blown up the water supply to the camp. A Jewish eyewitness reported that only due to the Allied air raids and the incendiary bombs had the camp become a hell-hole. Then, after taking the camp with ground troops, this hell the Allies had created they then filmed and cynically presented, as evidence of German atrocities, at the Nuremberg Trials.
It should be noted that there were many decent Americans back home and distinguished American lawyers at the time who were highly critical of the evident “lynch mob justice” meted out during the entirely dubious conduct of the Nuremberg Trials and upon which so much of current illegitimacy is based
Germany’s continuing lack of sovereignty and wartime Allied occupation (as warned by Professor Carlo Schmid in 1948) may require citizens and legislators to take an interest, as did the two retired judges of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem, who called for the repeal of the “Holocaust-denial” law.
In English, the word denial does not imply lying. In the German word “leugner” there is the additional implication that the denier knows the truth, yet he/she knowingly denies that truth. The opposite is the case with the Schaefers, as was the case with Zündel. They believe it is the truth that is being denied and they seek to tell it. Yet laws made in opposition to what the general public presume have been created democratically fair, these “heresy laws” forbid open and free scholarly and forensic enquiry.
Having installed exceptionalism in law, this opposes the natural means of investigation to establish the facts with a stumbling block of pre-biased legislation. The “Holocaust” law asserts that “it” is “obvious” and requires no investigation. The term “Holocaust-denial,” therefore, is deliberate falsification, like a religious heresy, which ordains what is “known” must be accepted on faith in the shed-loads of critically unexamined eyewitness statements and photographs (some considered by Udo Walendy and John Ball to be fabricated) as proofs of an alleged method of a unique industrial mass murder, upheld above source critical and scientific enquiry for each and every subjective claim.
The CJN concludes: “Today, Holocaust education is firmly entrenched in school curricula around the world and Holocaust remembrance is engrained in Western culture. The memory of the Holocaust will long outlast Zundel’s legacy. . .” This is debatable. Some note that there are appearing “cracks in the Jewish cement covering the planet” (to quote Michael Hoffman from the Zündel videos). Ignorance of Zündel’s legal cross-examination legacy, and deference to fear-inducing tyrannical debate-denial laws are no longer prevailing.
My fellow educationalist Richard Edmonds provides me with a summary of the article written by the Spiegel magazine editor, Fritjof Meyer, and published in the semi-official German government periodical Osteuropa in May 2002. Meyer’s article has the headline, “The number of victims at Auschwitz: new research in the archives give us a new understanding.”
“The claim that four million were murdered at Auschwitz is a product of the Allies’ war-time propaganda. The Auschwitz camp Kommandant, Rudolf Hoess, was tortured by the British into making that claim.”
Meyer cites the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski, who was the former research director at the Polish government’s Auschwitz memorial centre. Dlugoborski wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1998, “The claim that four million were murdered at Auschwitz was made at the Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders (1945-46) by the Soviet prosecutor. From the very beginning this claim was not accepted; but in Eastern Europe (at the time of communist regimes) it became a dogma and was enforced by law.”
Meyer further cites the research of British historian Rupert Butler revealed in his book,Legions of Death, published by Hamlyn Books of London in 1982. Butler interviewed members of a special unit of the British Army who had captured the former Auschwitz kommandant and tortured him to obtain the “confession” that he, Hoess, had murdered four million.
The plaques commemorating “4 million” at Auschwitz have long been replaced—consequence of the important normal work of historical source critical revisionists’ research—by plaques commemorating “1.1 million,” though even so, Meyer (like the International Red Cross inspectors of those camps) speaks of thousands not millions who died of various causes at that wartime concentration camp. Respected British newspaper Daily Express announced in 1933, “Judea Declares an Economic War on Germany,” with the result that concentration camps like Auschwitz were established largely, as is the norm in wartime, to concentrate in the camps declared enemies of that nation-state (in this case, declared as such by their people’s Jewish Federation president and World Zionist Organisation leader Chaim Weizmann). Not every citizen agrees with war declarations by their state or federation leaders. Alas, that is how it is for all citizens who are thus rendered by their own leaders as enemy agents—this is a universally accepted matter of fact.
Fritjof Meyer published his sensational theses on Auschwitz in the journal Osteuropa. An article by Professor György Schöpflin has this year appeared in this scientific newspaper Osteuropa, which is very well known in Europe, attacking European Union policy with sharp words. He openly declares that Europe is being blackmailed by the “Holocaust” and “human rights” policy and is leading to a new dictatorship.
The article was published by renowned German Society for Eastern European Studies (DGO), Deutschen Gesellschaft für Osteuropakunde.
A paper entitled “Central Europe in the trap of misalliance with the EU” was published in the 3-5 / 2018 edition by Prof. Schöpflin. It is at least as revolutionary, by some opinions, and even more fundamental than the revelations of Meyer. The professor has taught at English universities and is a MEP for the Hungarian Fidesz Party. He is also an advisor to Hungarian President Viktor Orban. The article is so revolutionary that some cannot think it is possible to publish this contribution without massive support in the background.
Apparently, all contributions are first submitted in English and then translated into German. The article would appear to be a clear sign that the opposition to debate-denial is becoming stronger and stronger, as the Schaefers seem to think.
The Abstract reads as follows:
Western Europe is shaped by the hegemony of a quasi-fundamentalist liberalism, which a supra-state elite enforces with the help of a deterministic concept of history and the so-called human rights. This leads to tensions with the states of Central Europe. The societies of this region have experienced a different history, a history of oppression and forced modernization. This trauma is repeated; again the hope for a resurrection of the free nation has not been met; again democratically elected governments must defend against externally imposed changes. (Osteuropa 3-5 / 2018, p. 323-350).
These videos provided by the Schaefers demonstrate that Alfred and Monika Schaefer did not start their educational-intending work careless of any consequences, on the contrary, and so any accusations of malice must be judged unfounded Their videos and their socially conscientious conduct demonstrate they act out of deepest concern (right or wrong, but never knowingly wrong). Observers conclude, “The siblings undertook a thorough analysis of the subjects, working carefully with verifiable sources. In the videos they produced and screened in court we see Alfred Schaefer shows many commonly held opinions by field experts who query and provide their proofs of the controversial infeasibility of the official legend of ‘9/11,’ the Hollywood versions of history produced by Stephen Spielberg, the moon landing together with Stanley Kubrick’s self-confessed faking of moon landing photographs taken by this science fiction film-maker in his studio.”
As it happens, Lois and Buzz Aldrin were personal friends of mine, and had I had benefit at the time of knowledge of these fake photos by Stanley Kubrick, what an opportunity missed to quiz this “second man on the moon.” As it was, I only knew to enjoy his quip to the Australian TV commentator who tried to maintain that the reason for Buzz Aldrin’s subsequent 15 years’ depression was “sulking that he was only the second not the first man on the moon”! Buzz quipped convincingly that it would be wiser “to envy the third man, as he remained in the getaway van”!
As for Stanley Kubrick, whom I knew only professionally, Kubrick auditioned me on the set for a part in his terrifying movie “The Shining.” As it happens I got the part, though later refused it to my agent’s dismay, for I would not act opposite Jack Nicholson, as it turned out, in a nude scene. There again, one came close to posing an historical question and getting at least a firsthand impression from the horse’s mouth – yet without videos which inform of both sides of controversial issues, one is at a loss when opportunities for source criticism trot up for the asking! These are personal experiences, both lightweight and serious, among many one might make for open debate and rational argument.
Moreover, a witness to the siblings’ trial (an ex-policeman with an eye for “good and bad cop” techniques) noticed that “Alfred Schaefer gave a stage to leading Jews in his videos, who made no secret of the fact that they see all non-Jews as insects and human excrement, whose dissolution or extermination would be acceptable, as incited, in accord with their scriptural Talmudic law books by which Jews’ leaders of today interpret their guiding Bible.”
Alfred Schaefer does not let himself be branded as a criminal by what he calls this secular religious “inquisition” brought against him and his sister by B’nai Brith Canada in what he considers—in line with Professor Carlo Schmid—is a court still bereft of its own sovereignty. He explained to the judges that he “was witness to crimes being committed against himself by the employees of the BRD [Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Federal Republic of Germany] which can be seen in his video “Police Raid and My Confession.” It remains to be seen if the judges will allow this video to be shown on the upcoming court days. As for the siblings’ videos already shown, the four judges, public gallery visitors, the police officers and the left-wing media have witnessed the screening of these videos. “Dismay (concern) could be seen in the faces of those present, except for Judge Hoffmann, public Prosecutor Bankwitz and the left-wing media,” according to some public attendees.
Alfred added that his present time in prison is very instructive for him, because he is learning there that many young people already know about the true situation, especially those coming from war-torn lands with firsthand experience.
The Schaefer legal representatives requested that allegations number 1, 5 and 8 against Alfred Schaefer and allegations number 8 and 9 against Monika Schaefer be set aside. At 5 p.m. the session ended. The trial continues on Thursday, August 16, at 9:15 a.m.
DAY 11 – Thursday, August 16th, 2018
HERESY-THINK: Police assigned to court gallery, judge forbids memo-making
Today was scheduled for the final pleas before the verdict was due to be pronounced the following day.
The session began with the reading of a court ruling accusing Alfred Schaefer of “incitement to hatred” at a demonstration in Dresden in 2017, for which he was fined “100 daily rates of 50 euros each.”
“Incitement” equates to any civilly expressed sympathy or calling into question and speaking publicly on topics which might appear to give a positive evaluation of ANY aspect of the National Socialist era, displaying any related insignia, or valor recognised even by the Allies of its wartime military prowess, technology, camaraderie, animal rights, workers’ rights, family values, aesthetics, scientific, medical or cultural advancements.
This month of August, press headlines announce: “To hide or not to hide Nazi past: Debate raging in Germany over video game displaying swastikas.”
The article “Germany lifts strict constitutional ban on Nazi symbols to allow them in video games” reports comments like these: “This is a good move in a time where everyone is too lazy to read about history,” one of the game admirers wrote on Twitter. “One doesn’t become a Nazi just by seeing a swastika,” said Klaus-Peter Sick, an historian at Berlin’s Marc Bloch Centre, a Franco-German social sciences research institute, adding that players “know how to tell the difference between fiction and reality.”
How do they? The International Teaching Guidelines on the era insist that “normal historical debate and rational argument” must not be applied (page 11). The Entertainment Software Self-Regulation Body (USK), which is responsible for issuing age ratings for video games, promised to ensure that the softening of the ban would not promote Nazism: “This has long been the case for films and with regard to the freedom of the arts, this is now rightly also the case with computer and video games.”
Readers of the Munich reports are reminded that the Schaefer case hangs on the German definition of “leugner,” which implies the additional aspect, absent in the English word “denial,” of deliberate lying. The Schaefer siblings, as per the investigative method of historical source critical revisionism, define themselves as “Holocaust-Revisionists”—as opposed to their opponent’s interpretation and definition of them as “Holocaust-deniers.” The former assert their method means a revision of consensual-facts as opposed to knowingly denying (as a so-called “Holocaust-denier”) what he/she knows are the “obvious” facts as already set-in-stone to be revered in the manner of a religious faith with attendant heresy prosecution and above any citizen’s “decent thought” scrutiny.
As for skeptics (right or wrong) resistant to thought-crimes prosecution like the Schaefer siblings, ANY questioning of the historical sources of “the Holocaust” and criticizing anything Jewish or suggesting there are racial and ethical differences, German citizenry, like British citizenry, have been taught to fear and dread any association with or to be seen to take an interest in such “anti-semitic”-defined issues. This can be learnt on the broad and byways, transports and cafes in Munich—and can be experienced where raising these topics in any tone or mode can undermine family harmony.
These debate-denial termed “hate” and “denial” laws in themselves can incite fear so potently that a family will self-choose its own demise for the sake of remaining loyal to the politically correct line. An example has arisen during the Schaefer trial. In Britain, in the case of Jeremy Bedford-Turner—after being goaded by the demonstrators calling “kill him, kill him” and then during interrogation by the prosecutor expressing his civil opinions—he found out these “hate” laws, on the contrary, “can hound you out of house and home-life, so stigmatic is the infamy of simply upholding one’s non-violent opinions.” Some see the denouncing of family members has a certain resonance with Medieval religious heresy terror. Bewildering, to see its echo in our rather more secular day presumed to be less superstitiously gullible, though naturally as vulnerable.
Citizenry, argues Alfred, is being conditioned not only to fear prosecution (which he and his sister do not) but also to fear their own “nasty” skeptical thoughts termed “hate crimes.” Alfred alludes to this phenomenon in his own videos when citing the movie 1984. In the movie, as per Orwell’s book, the child overhears her father murmur against “The Party” in his nightmare, then denounces her father in her overriding loyalty to “Big Brother.” Dutifully she is satisfied with causing her father’s liquidation for heresy-think in his sleep. (It is the “brainwashing” aspect of the Schaefer trial that especially interests me, having learnt of the psychological methods of human conditioning during my marriage of 20 years to a gentile psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and later on from post-graduate studies in the Psychology of Religion at the University of London.)
The judgment on Alfred’s speech-crime is not yet final because Alfred had filed an appeal against it. In accordance with the Basic Law of the land as it stands since 1948, and most recently codified as “Paragraph 130,” all and any free debate is prohibited concerning that formerly democratically elected National Socialist era. By consensual definition, sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In a speech, “What does the Basic Law actually mean?” Professor Carlo Schmid (one of its signatories in 1948) clarified that German citizens enjoy no sovereignty over postwar Allied—reigning Germany—and nothing changed though the Berlin Wall came down with the part-unification of the Federal Republic of Germany.
In fact, according to the statutes of the UN, there exists no peace treaty between Canada and Germany (!)—the two colluding parties in the arrest and detention in a German prison without charge since January 3, 2018 of Monika Schaefer a Canadian citizen(!).
When Professor Schmid asked in 1948 his rhetorical question, “So what is the situation in Germany today?” he answered: “On May 8, 1945, the German Wehrmacht surrendered unconditionally. . . . The unconditional surrender had legal effects exclusively on the military. . . . The surrender deed signed then did not mean that the German people, by means of legitimized representatives, no longer exists as a state. . . . That is the position of this unconditional surrender and not another.”
To Members of the Parliamentary Council, on September 8, 1948—(as recorded in “Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948-1949, Akten und Protokolle” Volume 9, published by the German Bundestag and the Bundesarchiv, Harald Boldt Verlag im R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1996)—Schmid concludes on his concern at German citizenship’s lack of sovereignty: “For my part I think that it is not part of the concept of democracy that you yourselves create conditions for its elimination.”
Debate-denial laws inevitably came into existence to prosecute against speaking in public about politically incorrect taboo topics. A verdict on this type of trial is not usually expected necessary because the accused is pre-judged by the very word “Holocaust-leugner.” This term in itself renders a skeptical individual guilty of “only trying to deny the obvious genocide, which he/she knows but denies, of National Socialist tyranny by prosecutable submissions of infinite examples of pseudo-scientific proof.” Over the days of this trial one senses the mindset of the Queen of Hearts in whose courtroom she’d commence with, “Sentence first!”
Subsequently in the session arose a discussion of criminal norms in Germany. Attorney Nahrath took the view that the court had to inform Monika and Alfred Schaefer in particular about “Paragraph 130,” because both had spent most of their lives abroad and one could not assume that they were aware of it, especially since it was also a special law about which lawyers understand but a layman would not necessarily be aware. The judge was of the opinion that the lawyer could do the explaining to the two defendants during the lunch break. Attorney Nahrath refused, saying he was also entitled to a break. Otherwise, he would file an application for the court to clarify “Para 130” to the Schaefer siblings who cannot be presumed to have command of every subtlety of the German language and its special laws. The court’s answer is still pending.
Next, they turned to view another of Alfred’s videos, “End of the Lies,” in English, which also had been distributed with Russian subtitles and on various video platforms and thereby drew indignation from the court. The video covers many events in recent history. It quotes Jewish witnesses, good and bad—Benjamin Freedman with his ever-informative speech from the 1960s versus Barbara Lerner Spectre with her self-indicting statement about the plan that “Europe must learn to be multicultural and Jews will be resented for their leading role in this.” Alfred does not wish to comply with what race-dictating Barbara Spectre does not wish applied to her own exceptionalist ethnicity.
Like many commentators, Alfred foresees in Barbara Spectre’s “role” of social engineering over Europe, the engendering of a race-war—the oft cited “clash of civilizations.” Examples of such incompatible culture-clashes are increasingly arising.
Alfred Schaefer’s attorney pointed out that during the trial Alfred had repeatedly stated that his allegations “were not directed against all Jews, but only against those who had the expressed intention of wiping out white ethnicity.” Alfred had cited his specific instances.
This would be detrimental in general and intentional since this would make it impossible for white ethnicities to maintain their apparent superiority given this proof: The current mass migration of other races shows their choice of abode is in white nations, which have created societal benefits and infrastructural leadership abilities evaluated by them more highly above their own. According to Alfred Schaefer, one must defend himself against such statements as Spectre’s. He feels directly attacked and subjected to Spectre’s “leadership.” Rather than having to “learn” to live with her impositions, in fairness he sees he has his rights to offer counter-“lessons” in his videos. Alfred sees as otherwise the general public remains at the mercy of “self-irresponsible” deference and “Pavlovian dog-like obedience” to this prevailing politically secular though heresy-think intimidation.
When the court resumed in the afternoon, one could only surmise the reasoning behind the next surreality during its conduct. At the order of the leading judge, observers in the public gallery are no longer allowed to take notes! Only journalists were to be allowed to write during the proceedings. Policemen were assigned to keep the citizens in the public gallery under surveillance so that this new instruction was obeyed. By now, this is trial Day 11, so what has prompted this sudden prohibition of personal memo note-making? Can it be the court seeks to limit German citizens’ exposure to the admissions made freely by informative Jews like Freedman and Spectre, as cited that morning by Alfred?
In the course of the afternoon, a police chief detective from Fürstenfeldbruck was interrogated. Having received a complaint via email from the “Human Rights Commissioner” of B’nai Brith Canada against Alfred Schaefer an acting on the basis of the allegations, three house searches had been made of Alfred Schaefer’s apartment. The chief detective gave a detailed list of what items had been found there, how the apartment was constructed, who had been there and how they had merged two apartments into one.
Subsequently, an IT and video expert presented an opinion on the videos shown, rated these videos as not amateur, but as professional.
At the end of today’s trial session around 8:00 p.m., the prosecutor applied for more stringent detention conditions for Alfred Schaefer, because he spoke several languages, had travelled around the world and had money, so that there was an alleged increased risk of his absconding. (The obvious alternative of simply taking away both his current plus an outdated passport and placing upon him an electric tag did not occur or presumably suffice, though as yet Alfred has never been sentenced for any crime.) Both siblings remain behind bars though not sentenced.
The outcome of the Schaefer siblings’ trial will have vital implications for the liberties not only of Germans but of all visitors to European Union countries. Readers might expect that Alfred and Monika could seek protection from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and supposedly in force since 1976, protecting basic human rights such as freedom of expression. Article 19 of this Covenant states, “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” It continues, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
The third paragraph of Article 19 then qualifies these rights by accepting that they can be restricted, but only by laws which are necessary “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” or for protecting national security, public order, public health or morals. Article 20 goes on, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Yet this again contains hidden “Catch-22” exceptionalism.
Paragraph 49 of UN Human Rights Committee 2011 forbids “general prohibition,” insisting that states wishing to use the above exceptions must cite a specific instance. The French documents expert Professor Robert Faurisson wrote to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on December 22, 2011, requesting “helpful insight into the United Nations Organisation’s understanding of freedom on the practical level today in my country, a charter signatory to the 1966 Covenant but a country which, nevertheless, sentences peaceable citizens to imprisonment for their writings on history.”
Professor Faurisson clarified: “With respect to paragraphs 35 and 36 I submit that France, in its checks on public expression of views on history under the Gayssot Act, has failed to ‘demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat’ to the rights and reputation of persons or to public order (Covenant, article 19) purportedly constituted by utterances and writings contravening the said Act, and has failed as well to demonstrate ‘the necessity and proportionality of the specific [restrictive] action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat’.”
The Professor received no reply. However, his query was taken up by Dr. William Schabas, of Middlesex University, in his doctorate on human rights, titled “New General Comment on Freedom of Expression Deals with Denial Laws.” Schabas writes: “The long-awaited General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee on freedom of expression was adopted at its recent session. It deals rather briefly with legislation that has been adopted in many countries dealing with denial of historical events like the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Paragraph 49 of the General Comments says: ‘Laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts (fn 166) are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.’ Footnote 116 says ‘So called ‘memory-laws’, see Faurisson v. France, No. 550/93’.”
The General Comment also considers blasphemy legislation. At paragraph 48, it says: “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20(2) of the Covenant states: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This means that one can show disrespect for a religion or other belief system as long as it does not constitute incitement to discrimination or hostility. Dr. Schabas concludes: “It looks like a hard line to draw in practice.”
This is the “line” that the prosecution appears to be trying to press for the Schaefer siblings’ case to cross
Attorneys in Germany say they have been working with that comment for several years. The courts are ignoring it in Germany saying that this comment is not binding on them. Ex-Constitutional Court judges have said “Denying the Holocaust” law is a misusage of the individual’s human right of free opinion and free speech and “should be repealed.” If it truly is not binding, then does one conclude the UN Human Rights Committee in reality has no power? So much for our “guaranteed” rights
The possible alternative date proposed for the pronouncement of the judgment is September 14, 2018, in the event that tomorrow at 9:15 a.m. the hearing could not be concluded.
DAY 12 – Friday, August 17th, 2018
VERDICT DEFERRED FOR A MONTH
- Judge loses on forbidding memo-making by public in gallery
- B’nai Brith Canada caught out by videos ban dates in Germany
This Day Ten’s session proper had begun with this trial’s typical attempt to prevent the general public from all and any freedom of information to independent thought, opinion and debate:
On Day One the microphones were not permitted to be switched on, until Monika pointed out that it was not a public trial if the public were deliberately being obstructed from hearing it.
Citizens are intimidated by having to show their identity cards before admission into the public gallery in fear that being identified as taking an interest in politically incorrect trials is tantamount in some quarters as “anti-Semitic” (for, indeed, “taking an interest” is used as such a personality trait argument).
Next, in subsequent sessions, court trainees were asked to leave the room when the video translations into German were being heard.
And now—perhaps because there was a sizable attendance of some 30 public persons taking an interest—came the ultimate contrariwise: The judge announced no one but journalists were to be allowed note taking. Police were then stationed in the public gallery to supervise and denounce anyone caught writing anything down! Presumably this was to prevent what they had heard being “carried” outside and ideas opened for discussion, or even memos being mulled over later.
The trial may as well be a closed secret trial. Certainly Ernst Zündel’s final trial in Canada was a secret trial, for neither he nor his lawyers were permitted to know who brought the case or any detail whatever. Both defence and defendant were even denied all knowledge of how many witnesses spoke out against him, and what proofs were provided. No details at all. I witnessed that habeas corpus trial. Contrariwise—as when Alice in Wonderland is brought to face charges before the card game Court of the Queen of Hearts and she, its judge, declares, “Sentence first!”
SUMMARY of Friday’s morning session—which is now no longer the day for pronouncement of the verdict (the date of the 31st anniversary of the controversial demise of Rudolf Hess “prisoner of peace”).
Once the audience in the courtroom had taken their places, Sylvia Stolz (scientist of law), approached to ask the judge for the legal basis of his order given the day before prohibiting note-making. The judge answered that he had decided this ban. Attorney Nahrath, the attorney for Monica Schaefer, took the floor and pointed to a Landgericht(a district court such as the present one) judgment stating there is no note-taking ban in the public’s gallery. He was quoting from another criminal trial at anotherLandgericht.
If the judge did not allow listeners to take notes, the attorney would like to make a request for this right to be duly restored and exercised by all listeners. The court then withdrew for consultation and deliberated for three-quarters of an hour before the announcement that the audience was allowed to take notes but not to write up any notes(!).
That meant that the audience is allowed to write down notes but not a make a complete report, just short summaries of any point. Finally, everybody was able to write down what he/she wanted to.
The session proceeded with the detective chief commissioner again being asked to the witness stand. He was questioned about how it was possible that Alfred’s videos shown so far had been accessed since at the time they indicated the videos were no longer capable of retrieval on the Internet in Germany. This question the detective chief commissioner could not answer and referred instead to the colleague responsible for this. One of the attorneys, therefore, made the request to question the aforementioned colleague, since a video blocked in Germany could not be made punishable in Germany.
The court once again withdrew for advice and then announced that the colleague was on sick leave for a long time and might not be returning to the service for the performance of his duties and therefore would not be available as a witness. The attorney replied that if the colleague was on sick leave for the performance of his duties, this did not mean that he could not be summoned as a witness in court. “If five billion videos are uploaded worldwide in 2014 and six billion the following year, then the few videos from the Schaefers could pose no ‘threat’ and are only thus called owing to the Special Law of Paragraph 130.” He therefore insisted on the summons of the commissioner’s colleague to determine, in agreement with an expert on contemporary history, how the videos had been obtained, which were not officially retrievable and could not be “abusive” in Germany at the given time. Whether it should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say—or even condition them to fear allowing oneself to think (i.e., heresy-think)—are questions beyond the scope of the trial.
Meanwhile, B’nai Brith Canada have a lot more than Monika and Alfred Schaefer on their plate this August. “Supporters of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers Plan to Protest B’nai Brith Canada,” reports the Canadian Jewish News, adding: “Recently, B’nai Brith Canada launched a smear campaign against CUPW, (which) has taken a principled stand in defence of Palestinian human rights,” the protest’s organizers wrote on Facebook. “As a result, CUPW [which represents some 50,000 postal workers, revealed that it had launched a “joint project” with the Palestinian Postal Service Workers’ Union and] has become the latest victim in a long list of smear campaigns launched by B’nai Brith Canada to silence human rights defenders who are critical of Israel’s violations of international law.”
Before the adjournment of the Munich trial prompted by “human rights association” B’nai Brith Canada, the prosecutor said a request from Alfred for further evidence was inappropriate, because the same views were repeatedly expressed. Alfred Schaefer saw no reason why his request, to offer more proofs of the “educational” nature of his video work, would need be abbreviated by the court. This is the reason, Alfred explains, why magazines such as Blick nach rechts (Look to the Right) present his thought processes as confused conspiracy theories. After all, how can a complete picture be made out of the actual predicament if requests for evidence are to be dispensed with. He has, for instance, Noel Ignatiev, a Jewish professor from Harvard University, quoted in his studies that all whites must be disassembled and destroyed because “we want it that way,” adding, “Racial traitors practice loyalty to humanity.” The journalist Deniz Yücel said of the entire German people: “Your DNA is a hideousness.” Such statements, shows Alfred, are not isolated cases and are the prompt for his emergency calls for “conditioning de-contamination.” This is the way his “lecture” videos are to be understood.
In a letter written in the Munich prison by Monika Schaefer (to Brian Ruhe in Canada), dated July 27, 2018, she seems reassured that: “The court is receiving a wonderful education. They are learning that we are all about peace. Peace and love. . . . Yesterday we got to watch two of those: Questioning the Holocaust – Why We Believed (that’s the one we only got half way through the translation of same), and the Ursula Haverbeck video The Greatest Problem of Our Time, in German with English subtitles. So you see, everyone is receiving a wonderful education. . . . The judge wanted to be finished by then, but that will not likely be possible. I don’t mind one bit. It is so important that this not be cut short—I don’t mind sitting a little longer.” Monika has not been charged or sentenced since January 2018. She sits behind bars for speaking her mind, just for making use of the basic right of free speech.
After further submissions of new evidence, the leading judge concluded that apparently the attorneys were not in such a hurry as the court to conclude the trial, so he declared the hearing over and announced the following session dates: September 14, 21 and 26, 2018.
RELATED FROM THE BARNES REVIEW STORE
LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined
Here is the new standard work of Holocaust revisionism! It was written by German scholar, writer, and publisher Germar Rudolf, based on the research of the most prominent revisionists, most of which Rudolf had the pleasure to publish in a multitude of German and English language journal articles and books.
The book was written to fit the need of both those who have no in-depth knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as well as for well-versed readers familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring himself up to date on revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read all the special studies that were published during the past ten years, needs this book!
The book’s style is unique: It is a dialogue between the lecturer and the reactions of the audience. Rudolf introduces the most important arguments and counter arguments of Holocaust revisionism. The audience reacts with supportive, skeptical, and also hostile questions. The Lectures read like an exciting real-life exchange between persons of various points of view. The usual moral, political, and pseudo-scientific arguments against revisionism are addressed and refuted.
This book resembles an entertaining collection of answers to frequently asked questions on the Holocaust. With generous references to a vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is the best introduction into this taboo topic for both readers unfamiliar with the topic and for those wanting to know more. 500 pages, paperback, bibliography, indexed, $30.00.
Click here to read more about Lectures on the Holocaust, review the table of contents, read a sample, and order online from The Barnes Review.
THE HOLOCAUST HOAX EXPOSED: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie
By Victor Thorn. Holocaust research is a dangerous business. Today, if a book similar to this one were published in Europe, its author would be arrested and imprisoned. The crime: questioning the holocaust tale.
Indeed, researchers have endured solitary confinement, brutal beatings by assailants, ongoing harassment, lengthy court battles, career suicide and media attacks directed against them—all because they presented a Revisionist history of this pivotal event. Other Revisionist writers have been the victims of hate crimes, extensive smear campaigns, fines and death threats.
The perpetrators behind these police state tactics are part of an entire holocaust industry devoted to suppressing factual data in favor of peddling heavy-handed doses of error-laden propaganda.
The holocaust industry has become a tyrannical dictatorship that incessantly manipulates, distorts, marginalizes and manufactures false conclusions to prop up their sinking ship. By taking their hysterical obsessions to psychopathic levels, the charlatans behind this ruse make it glaringly apparent how weak the foundation of their argument is.
Thorn rips apart, in lay language, the veil-thin arguments used to prove the Jewish “Holocaust,” which is then used by global Zionists to justify the creation and continued existence of the state of Israel and as a tool to silence all critics; “Never again” is their rallying cry. The Holocaust Hoax Exposed dissects every element of what has become the 20th century’s most grotesque conspiracy.
Covered in this book is the mythology surrounding “death camps,” the truth about Zyklon B, Anne Frank’s fable, how the absurd “6 million” figure has become a laughing stock. From eye-opening facts that not one autopsy exists that shows the use of Zyklon B on work camp inmates to zero photographic evidence of this supposed enormous event to the ludicrous and licentious tales woven by the “Holocaust” historians, Thorn’s masterpiece should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding the underpinnings of the Jewish power elite.
Click here to read more about the book and order online: Softcover, 186 pages, b&w illustrations, $20.
And to learn more, listen to this podcast interview with Holocaust Hoax author, the late Victor Thorn, available on audio CD (one hour, $15).
Remember: TBR subscribers receive a 10% discount on product price of all purchases when order is placed over the phone (toll free 1-877-773-9077 or 1 202-547-5586. Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today, and don’t miss another issue of The Barnes Review, dedicated to bringing history into accord with the facts!