The Schaefer Siblings’ Trial in Munich
– a report by Michèle, Lady Renouf
for The Barnes Review
DAY 8, Tuesday July 17th 2018.
Fear to Think out Loud; Canada and Germany are contrary to international law.
POSTCARD: “Jews like treason; but hate the traitor”
A new development: The “hate” Law that actually Incites Family Treachery.
Is that its real intention?
The trial session commenced with the judge informing the court about the continuation of the trial. The plan is to end the hearing of the evidence by August 16th., and on August 17th. the verdict is to be pronounced.
The application for release from detention, in the Alfred Schaefer case, was rejected by the court because two postcards Alfred Schaefer had sent to his relatives were deemed “threatening.” As the postcards were sent openly without an envelope, it is not clear who may have denounced them first since any post office worker could readily read them, and Alfred did not conceal his sender address.
Now it is made clear to all in the courtroom why the police arrested my host at his home on July 6th – released him – then re-arrested him and now he remains in prison for his trial’s duration. Family betrayal. People in careers that are especially vulnerable to political-incorrectness such as schoolteachers are generally in fear and trembling of politically-incorrect “association”. It has been known for them to denounce a colleague in such circumstances to keep their job. Such is the appalling effect of these crude “hate” laws, that colleagues will feel forced to abandon decency and honour in order to spare their careers from being axed. Citizens dare not listen whose livelihood depends on their not listening.
As in Orwell’s “1984”, confronted by fear of his worst nightmare, Winston, the central hero, ultimately succumbs to his contrariwise-conditioning inquisitor to denounce fianceé Julia, screaming in tortured terror: “Do it to Julia! Not to me! Do it to Julia!”.
The legal team for the siblings’ defence has explained to me the following. Today their request to have Alfred released from prison during his trial is refused by the leading judge. The reason Alfred is being held in prison is not only because of his so-called “threatening” tone or Roman salutes in the courtroom or that the alleged effect of Alfred’s “aggressive tone” influenced someone’s behaviour in the public gallery who decried the Prosecutor as cruel after she left the courtroom.
The main reason is now made public. Alfred himself did not speak publicly of this denunciation by his relatives – the issue has only come out into the public domain because now it seems these relatives do not wish him released! His attorney’s appeal for his release was again denied. Apparently the judges consider Alfred may try to influence these family witnesses and so he should be behind bars during his trial.
The leading judge read to the court what Alfred had written on these postcards – postcards picturing Monika with her violin in a photograph with the caption “Freiheit für Monika”, and addressed on the back as ”Prisoner of war Post” (Kriegsgefangenenpost). Alfred is alleged to have written on the postcards the leery message: “the Jews like treason, but hate the traitor” – adding something like “we ask to remain anonymous”. Alfred also put his own sender’s address on the postcards. I have seen these type of postcards which are addressed to the prison: “Monika Schaefer, Schwarzenbergstr. 14, 81549 München”. If they were sent openly, and therefore addressed to the prison, I remain baffled as to how his relatives are involved at all?
The reason for his arrest was, according to the judge, because with these two postcards Alfred had been trying to influence witnesses by intimidation and threats. Alfred said, the reason why he sent these postcards was mere frustration and to “let off steam”. He never intended to influence, threaten or intimidate anybody. Besides, the judge argued, Alfred had shown already repeatedly his expressed threats in his speeches and videos, which would show, that making threats is part of Alfred’s personality. Whereas Alfred stressed again, like he had done already during the trial and several times, that his statements are never threats at all, they are mere urgent warnings! This whole trial seems to be about interpreting seemingly trivial things the way they want them to be to generate, seemingly a specious significance …
Alfred’s own school-teacher relatives, it would seem, denounced him to the police! It seems they are claiming they are “threatened” by him and so they wish him locked away (!). This is in consequence of their fear from his so-called Drohen (threatening) behaviour as in these two postcards.
Our culture once taught as per Plato that: “Honour not men more than truth”.
Continuing from the day before, the video “Pavlov‘s Dog, Brainwashing 9/11 Part 3” is screened.
Alfred explains, by these means, how we are manipulated with forbidden symbols, gestures (like his Roman salute) and words. When we see one of these symbols or hear these words we react like a Pavlovian conditioned dog, with fear, denial, or denunciations.
Alfred refers to the book “History of Central Banking“ by Stephen Mitford Goodson, when illustrating what he agrees have been the ethically undesirable influences of certain Jews down the centuries.
The “hate law”/”populace incitement”, that is, personal opinions mis-defined in his observations as “sedition”, is fostering such overwhelming fear and trepidation in the mindset of populations that we are witnessing an evermore sinister, new development. The Schaefer siblings’ trial itself is proving that “hate”/”public incitement” laws – in Germany, known as “paragraph 130” – the one that seeks to criminalise certain historical debate – actually creates hate among family members out of fear of relationship within ordinary families. During this very trial, family members are readily betraying other family members to avoid “association” with their family “thought criminal”. The Schaefer siblings’ senior attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath, says this is a new development for him, this denunciation among relatives.
A thought criminal is one who questions current affairs and historical consensus accounts of what the world syndicated monopoly media narrative asserts as the politically-correct interpretation they MUST adopt or risk ostracism, persecution, and prosecution. Alfred and Monika want this brought to light.
It is common knowledge that George Orwell’s book “1984” warns about the tyranny of politica-correctness.
In Alfred’s videos he deploys telling scenes from the movie of “1984” which demonstrates the very fear-inducing and hate-conditioning techniques which have led to the sickening mentality very prevalent within work, social, home-life, self and communal opinion censorship as is being made manifest during the very trial of the Schaefer siblings. In this dystopian novel – (already a reality in 1948 when he wrote it) – the 7 years’ old daughter (a fanatical Party member) ‘dobs in’ her father to “Big Brother” for liquidation because her father, let slip in his sleep, his deeply repressed hatred of “double-speak” (the swindle-speak) of the State Party.
“ ‘What are you in for?’ said Winston.
‘Thoughtcrime!’ said Parsons, almost blubbering. […]’You don’t think they’ll shoot me, do you, old chap? They don’t shoot you if you haven’t actually done anything — only thoughts, which you can’t help?”
What is also common knowledge – though unacknowledged by citizens for fear of severe penalties for showing their ‘knowing’ – is that there are “powers that be” which must never be named. These “hate laws” – effectively undermining both academic freedom and political free speech – go mostly unchallenged for the personal and professional lives they ‘liquidate’.
Further evidence comes from Canada of a global organisation’s tyrannical ‘liquidation’ of an academic’s his university post.
In a letter from her prison cell in Germany, Monika wrote: “Alfred mentioned [in court] an example the other day…He said that more and more American universities are disallowing anti-semites entry into their programs of indoctrination I mean oops, into their programs of study… I guess those universities would have disallowed Jesus Christ entry into their hallowed institutions”. As she has no access to the internet, Monika is kept likely unaware that this applies also to Canada and specifically to her friend Professor Anthony Hall.
Deploying swindle-speak to call their admittedly bullying racist victory as “a victory for human rights” B’nai Brith Canada mis-describes that: “This is a monumental and precedent-setting victory for human rights in Canada,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada, in a release to The Herald (August 9th). “B’nai Brith commends our supporters for keeping pressure on the university, the Government of Alberta, and ultimately on Hall himself.”
Here again is the B’nai Brith Canada onslaught action from a racist minority interest organization, boasting of their power to crush the free speech in Canada of Professor Anthony Hall. During the Schaefer siblings’ trial session we learnt that Prof. Hall had given an interview which was used by the American based historical Revisionist forum, CODOH (Open Debate On the Holocaust) along with interviews by Monika and Alfred and made available in an online video.
Another video, not made by Alfred, entitled “Why do you support open debate on the Holocaust?“ was presented in court. Three people were asked why they supported the open debate about the “Holocaust”. The court wanted to know where Alfred and Monika Schaefer knew the interviewees and if there had been a script for the video? Monika Schaefer explains that there was no script, because everyone tried to describe his point of view and each person had only wanted to give food for thought. This video, she said, was made for the English-speaking countries and was only intended for an open and honest debate to find the truth. Monika and Alfred Schaefer say and demonstrate that they are always ready to revise their views if they would be provided valid evidence. That, they say, is the nature and method of traditional historical source critical research and should be maintained without legalese-terror and scare-enforced exceptions. I am reminded by RA Nahrath that laws and sentencing for politically-incorrect opinions are far harsher in Austria for nationals and foreigners alike. David Irving was given a three years’ sentence for ten words he uttered to an undercover journalist sixteen years after he had last visited Vienna. Günter Deckert was prosecuted for simply translating someone’s politically-incorrect article.
The CODOH-Video “Why do you support open debate on the Holocaust?“, shown to the court, where Professor Anthony Hall, Monika and Alfred give their statements, was simultaneously translated into German by the court appointed professional. Alfred did not produce this video. The three of them each sent their answers by email to the CODOH Forum, which then published the video. The Prosecutor wanted to know if Alfred and Monika got money for this. The answer was “of course, no!”
Alfred mentions the book from Michael Collins Piper about the murder of John F. Kennedy (one of many political murders by Jews quotes Alfred), where Piper also names specific Jews. There are a lot of non-Jews who are even worse behaved than Jews, regrets Alfred. He sees the danger, that all Jews will encounter a destiny they will not want, if we don‘t manage to solve this problem in a civilized way. This he says is a sensible warning, not a threat.
The Lethbridge Herald continues: “Hall, who was a tenured professor who taught Globalization studies, Native American studies and liberal education at the U of L since 1990, was suspended without pay in October 2016 over concerns he had contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including providing a platform for hate speech regarding some of his online activities. Hall had maintained some of the issues involve academic freedom and that he should be allowed to promote his work as he sees fit. He was reinstated in 2017, but was recently dropped from class listings for the coming fall semester.” Hall added: “Sometimes the difficult times have proven to be the most significant in terms of my own experiential learning about how power is structured and exercised in the academy.”
The Herald notes that: “Last week, B’nai Brith Canada reported that Hall was listed as teaching two courses during the fall 2018 semester. After registering a complaint, the university immediately removed Hall’s name from the syllabus.” In an email statement to The Herald, Prof. Hall gave his track-record: “I have been a full-time faculty member in Canada for 36 years, the last 28 of which have been at the University of Lethbridge”. It seems that his opinions may have been limited for publication.
Yet, as in the Brothers’ Grimm cautionary tale “Rumpelstilskin”, we used to learn that naming the ‘powers that be’ ends their magic power of usury over Kings and States thus bound in its thrall. Alfred and his sister Monika have decided to name whom they believe is “Rumpelstilskin”. Whether they are “hunting the devil in the details” or not, it is plain for all to see that they are being persecuted by the external ‘powers that be’, self-namely the B’nai Brith Canada. Whose sedition is it if concerned citizens complain of external international groups interfering to have a Canadian citizen arrested in Germany? Is the international group’s action rather more of the seditious variety, or the parties who are complaining of their internationally interfering activities?
Because, since 1958, and never democratically elected by the citizenry but imposed on them by the ongoing wartime Allied-victors, the Federal Republic of Germany’s Basic Law was (and remains) externally imposed. German citizens have not been given a choice to have their sovereignty returned or asked whether they wish to remain under the holding laws of the Allied war victors’ Basic Law’s hostility to German nationalism. This aspect is part of the trial’s underlying ‘foundation’…as is Professor Carlo Schmid’s recorded on film exposeé in 1948 that the German Federal Republic’s Basic Law was never democratically elected by the citizens which means the citizens have no free will to hold a dissident opinion for they accept Allied victors’ rule though WW2 ended in 1945.
This state of affairs did not change with the partial reunification of West and East Germany. When Prof. Schmid made that speech, it was expected, not only by Schmid but by other constitutional experts, that the Basic Law would be superseded be a future German constitution – not imposed by military occupiers but freely adopted and voted on by the German people in a future reunited Germany. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, they got the partial reunification but not the new freely adopted sovereign constitution.
“Para 130”, today’s advance towards a Medieval blasphemy law
The little-known, yet classic Orwellian case of Monika Schaefer may yet establish, if it were to become common knowledge, dystopian precedent in terms of the power of a special-interest group in exerting its influence beyond jurisdiction, beyond international borders and beyond our universal principles of human rights. It is now of public media record that B’nai Brith Canada brought this hateful prison plight upon a fellow Canadian citizen.
According to The Star newspaper in Toronto the Schaefer case involves: “several videos of the siblings questioning the existence of Nazi death camps during the Second World War”. Rather one-sidedly, the paper neglects to assist the readership to comprehend that these videos do not deny the existence of wartime concentration camps – only that the Schaefer siblings quote serious historical revisionist scholars and Red Cross reports that these camps were labour or prison camps, not homicidal mass death camps as maintained by a literal set-in-stone consensus (like holy writ). Yet all history is constantly revised to varying degrees, except this one.
Monika says the very thing that many people suspect but dare not ask out loud, were the National Socialist era concentration camps for forced-labour, or for extermination? If the latter, why did they have hospitals where Jews themselves say they received curative treatment? Monika explains: “Jews (and others) died en masse of typhus outbreaks, not mass homicidal gas chambers”. If not, it does not kill or harm anyone (other than the skeptic) if discussion of these issues were permitted to be the norm as is the case for all other eras of war and wartime propaganda. Otherwise tyranny is the word we use to describe the undermining of both academic freedom and political speech. In fact, a ninety years’ old woman, Ursula Haverbeck, sits behind bars simply and only because she asks these forensic questions.
As pointed out in the official judgment of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which took place from 1963 to 1965), the court “lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases”. Ursula Haverbeck continues to ask a great number of 21st century “Holocaust” education bodies and official authorities for clear statements as to the murder weapons, locations etc. She is following up the open acknowledgment by the Frankfurt court that they did not have such evidence. One might expect that half a century later, once the Iron Curtain was opened with access to all relevant archives, it would be normal to answer such questions. Yet Ursula has met an implacable wall of silence, and mere assertions that the historical facts are offenkundig, “manifestly obvious”, not requiring evidence or discussion.
Jacob Mchangama, the director of Justitia, a Copenhagen-based think tank focused on human rights and rule of law, says they are“building their foundational discourse on the urge to avoid the misfortunes of World War II through European integration and acknowledgment of foundational atrocities”.
“Never again” would be a fitting raison d’être for the institutions that underpin modern Europe. But it is not clear that “never again” includes ‘Jew versus Gentile’, Gentile versus Jew, and Gentile versus Gentile, and Jew versus Jew – all such manifestation have occurred – otherwise “never again” should not be accomplished through limiting freedom of enquiry and expression for the sake of victor one-sided sensitivities. If one says to a German in the street that Britain and France begun WW2, he/she will insist fiercely, no! A non-fact, as Alfred says when so deeply embedded by conditioning will so affect the subject that he/she will denounce family members for fear of ‘association’ with the heretic. A politically correct non-fact yet, as Alfred proves, this is a deeply imbibed conditioned reflex which effectively terrorises people to close their ears, eyes, and mouth.
An American commentator, Carolyn Yeager, reports that: “The Constitutional Court rejected Haverbeck’s appeal on the grounds that ‘Holocaust denial is not covered under the constitutional right to free speech.’ Think about that. She cannot be found guilty of saying ‘Auschwitz has not been proven to be a death camp’ because that is totally true. She can only be found guilty of saying something that is not covered by the ‘constitutional right to free speech.’ In Germany, you are not free to question that Auschwitz was a ‘death camp’ because that is some kind of Holy Writ.”
Alfred quotes the late Anthony Lawson from his video where he states: “Many organisations have managed to persuade the governments of many otherwise civilised countries to criminalise any adverse discussions about the details of the ‘Holocaust’ on pain of imprisonment or a heavy fine. Merely imparting information is not incitement to commit a crime.”
In this same documentary video, Lawson quotes the eminent American judge Chief Justice Charles Wennerstrum, who served on the Iowa Supreme Court, 1941-1958, and was a judge at one of the later Nuremberg trials in 1947-8. Wennerstrum was highly critical of the way in which the Nuremberg trials were conducted. His thoughts were published in 1948 in the Chicago Daily Tribune, yet such dissident voices like his were eventually drowned out.
Justitia informs that: “France has had a ban on Holocaust denial in place since 1990. Austria’s ban was adopted in 1992, and Belgium’s is from 1995. Germany itself did not adopt an explicit ban until 1994, though it countered Holocaust denial before then through laws against defamation, incitement, and disparaging the memory of the dead. The European Union also took steps in this direction through a joint action adopted in 1996, which obliged member states to take steps toward criminalizing the “public denial” of the crimes that formed part of the Nuremberg trials. Holocaust denial laws were also approved in the 1990s by the European Court of Human Rights (under the Council of Europe), which stated that the negation or revision of “clearly established historical facts — such as the Holocaust — … would be removed from the protection” of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights. The joint action was given more bite in 2008 with the adoption of a much more detailed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.”
An ever-growing number – what Alfred calls the exponential curve – of online citizens are wishing to see free academic discourse on these topics as per our democratic right, and not the opposite, the sinister acceleration jailing of unarmed dissidents for their opinions. These laws banning normal scientific enquiry into a unique method of mass murder, by their sinister prohibition from the forensic norm, in themselves cast doubt in minds of skeptical thinkers, finds Alfred.
To quote just two Canadian citizens from their Letters to the Editor of the National Post, Toronto, in response to: Cherry picking and the Holocaust (Editorial July 24, 2014)
John Mortl : “Now asking questions about the holocaust will be characterized as a sly form of denial”.
Ian V. McDonald (former diplomat): “Guest Editor Shimon Koffler Fogel, who makes a career of fruitlessly cherry-picking: His article is riddled with convoluted sophistry suggesting that any remark that casts suspicion on Jewish righteousness is inherently criminal in nature.”
Thoughts and hatred are not to be deemed criminal in our Hellenic skeptical tradition.
In Switzerland (a non-E.U. country), a popular anti-censorship organization – AZK (Anti-Censorship-Coalition) – attracts thousands of ordinary people who attend with their children (I have attended on one occasion and know this firsthand). At its 2012 Conference, the German former attorney Sylvia Stolz gave a talk (having spent three and a half years behind bars for the ludicrous charge of “defending her Revisionist clients too well”). In consequence, the German government is currently in the process of endeavouring to put her back behind bars for her presentation on free speech in Switzerland! This opinion tyranny has to be seen to be believed, it is so incredible. As noted by Alfred, Sylvia’s eloquent presentation on free speech has garnered vast internet audiences and is still available on Youtube in several languages. In an interview, Alfred explains that: “Sylvia Stolz was put in prison for three and a half years for defending the late Ernst Zündel at an inquisition in Mannheim Germany in 2005 – 2006. She was arrested after the inquisitor had demanded that she stop presenting further evidence during the trial. She was told that any evidence that contradicts the Holocaust narrative is illegal. That did not stop her and she continued presenting evidence until they dragged her into the dungeon. This is not a horror movie, this is the reality of our world today, and it will continue to get worse until we stop it”.
B’nai Brith Canada was gloating, acknowledged Alfred, about how clever they were to spot a “Holocaust denier” at the trial of another notorious “right wing extremist Holocaust denier”, and they were patting themselves on the back at their own sneakiness and bravery in calling for a surprise break to trap and arrest Monika. They were also amusing themselves at the simple-minded stupidity of one “Holocaust denier” coming to see another “Holocaust denier” and then getting arrested. Anyone that stupid deserves to be arrested. That was the tone in the Jewish controlled newspaper. After seeing how this has now aroused indignation worldwide, they are not patting themselves on the back anymore. Monika’s incarceration actually offers the Jews the opportunity, adds Alfred, to prove their possible innocence and good intentions by simply getting her out of prison.
With reference to his Brainwashing video series in court, Alfred Schaefer reported extensively on how much our opinion has been conditioned by the media in a certain direction for many years with images and symbols.
Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, in 1985, had already nailed the syndicated media as:
“Self-appointed rulers of your opinion”.
Nowadays, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has been aptly nicknamed by Clive Menzies (of Critical Thinking.com) as the “British Brainwashing Corporation” – not least for its monstrous example of bias when the policy was to refuse broadcasting the Gaza Humanitarian Appeal. This grotesque bias was in favour of Israel after that criminal entity had rained down upon helpless Palestinians in the biggest concentration camp called Gaza, inextinguishable phosphorous bombs, the like of which were previously rained down via the despicable WW2 Allied policy over 60 German towns and cities specifically targeting and burning alive its civilians.
Alfred explains to the judges, how the process of waking up has multiplied during the past years like exponential curves. For example the 1985 videoed interview with Yuri Bezmenov, the Russian dissident giving his propaganda expertise is now all over the internet. Whereas when he discovered it for the first time almost nobody was aware of it. Massive censorship of the internet is the impasse and the suppressive measures being taken against the awakening of the people. Yet the networking is steadily growing. Alfred feels obliged to do what he is doing. For him it was the decision between failure to render assistance in an emergency or risking being punished for so-called “hate speech“ (Volksverhetzung). We are in a life-threatening situation and his reaction to this is as to an emergency call. He chose to lend assistance even if it would mean for him a prison sentence. In the future everybody will have to explain to his/her children, why they kept silent.
A question from the judge: What does this new world order look like that Alfred is speaking of? Alfred explained, that he does not have a complete solution, but all peoples of the world should have self-determination and independence. Society will not always just be there to serve a tiny privileged minority, while enslaving the majority ever more. Nowadays the productive people (workers) are systematically exploited and their right to opinions suffocated. Everywhere in this world people are confronted with the same brainwashed conditioned problem so that they have no say in the way, for example, they are taxed or the way their taxes are spent. The first step to solve this problem is waking up to comprehend and with this he tries to help with his teaching aid videos.
In Alfred’s ‘Brainwashing Part 3’ video, by way of his continuing to find ways to explain brainwashing and subversion, he cites Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas Schuman, the Soviet KGB defector – formerly of the Novosti Press Agency and KGB propaganda expert. Bezmenov outlines and explained for the historical record in detail the tactics of proven subversion and takeover of target societies, at a lecture in Los Angeles, 1983. The videoed lecture on Youtube describes Yuri Alexandrovitch Bezmenov as “a former KGB propagandist who was assigned to New Delhi, India, defected to the West in 1970, and was interviewed by Edward Griffin in 1985. Bezmenov explains his background, some of his training, and exactly how Soviet propaganda is spread in other countries in order to subvert their teachers, politicians, and other policy makers to a mindset receptive to the Soviet Bolshevik ideology. He also explains in detail the goal of Soviet propaganda as total subversion of another country and the 4 step formula for achieving this goal through product marketing, manipulation of terms, choice of terminology, packaging and mis-selling of ideas and events, whereby public opinion is formulated.
Bezmenov explained in this interview the methods used by the Soviet KGB to secretly subvert the democratic system of the United States”. This encompasses the methods and application of psychological warfare, subversion, and control of Western society via the radicalisation of human relations to destabilise and antagonise family and social coherence to a point where citizens out of fear of association will denounce one another. Alfred points out the moral decline of society everywhere recognisable is evidence of this socially engineered subversion described by this Russian expert. Alfred went on to explain how in the final stage with the complete destabilization of society, civil war results. These are the subversive steps leading up to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution as hindsight now can teach us.
“Self-appointed rulers of your opinion”.
Recently, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – who is Jewish – said in an interview, published in The Daily Telegraph, UK, he “would not ban Holocaust deniers” from his social media Facebook because “there are things that different people get wrong”. Other commentators, like author and poet Mike Walsh, have assessed concerning Twitter and Facebook, that: “These are data miners not social networks”; as did publicist and artist Edmond Morrison “Facebook: It’s an ego building snare just waiting to snap up information”. On Russia Today, the worldwide, admired whistle-blower Julian Assange assessed that: “Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented”
Confounded by the sharp decline in Zuckerberg’s profits, people are left to wonder if displaying his tolerance (“Holocaust-deniers are simply getting it wrong”) and in consequence tribal denunciation may account for this sharp profits decline; or if his business has dropped off dramatically owing to the outrage that “the social media giant must explain how personal data from up to 87 million users was harvested by Cambridge Analytica and used to further political agendas in the UK, US and even Kenya”. In all events, there has been an onslaught from the “Holocaust-preacher” fraternities upon Zuckerberg to adapt Facebook as a “Holocaust” teaching platform in the emotive manner of a religious belief. The heavyweight pressure is on Zuckerberg – for the ‘Party’ sent him a letter August 7th, subject HOLOCAUST DENIAL – ACTION PLAN FOR FACEBOOK – and our Big Brother world awaits his Winston ratification: “Do it to Julia, not to me”.
Alfred Schaefer went on to explain to his judges that there was little interest in his videos at the beginning, but that there was exponential growth evident from recent reactions and affirmative commentaries, as the audience recognized our present situation. Viewers were able to relate to his style of video lectures.
Alfred said he had to create these videos because otherwise he would have had to look on as a passive accomplice if he had not acted. But he had never pursued evil intentions with his videos. All human beings would sooner or later be confronted with the excesses of the subversive machinations. Everything, he predicts, once citizens awaken to how they are being subliminally manipulated – sold mis-packaged concepts as in advertising – what duped citizenry believe now will be swept away and all the teachers and professors would then have to explain why they had been silent for so long. For Alfred, he sees it as our task to deal with reality and to no longer believe the fantasy stories we were being presented.
The leading judge asked what the New World Order would look like? Alfred Schaefer replied what it would not look like. He referred to research carried out in a book, predicting that the mass migrating “invaders” from Africa (as warned about by Colonel Gaddafi) would put on a friendly face to get inside the welfare systems developed within Western industrial nations as long as they needed us and were dependent on us. But as soon as they reached a certain percentage of the population, they would destroy our civilization. Then a situation would arise that none of us would want and that no one in the developed world would be prepared for. Already in some European countries the “invaders” are outnumbering the standing army. However, by retaining people in their ancestral regions, every people should regain their self-determination and not be controlled from the outside by separating us from our racial and race-related cultural roots. In Alfred’s observation, this is making us sick by the syndicated-biased media telling fairy tales (no longer traditionally as beneficial cautionary tales but contrary to the public’s mental health and moral interests). Everywhere in the White world it is looking just like ours, a disorienting multi-culti experiment, and you come to the same bewildering conclusions.
A further question from the leading judge: How does Alfred deal with different opinions? Alfred replies that different opinions are no problem for him at all. The only problem for him is when free speech is not allowed and no open discussion is possible when prohibitions are imposed on free, unintimidated, open discussion of their concerns. There must be an open and objective discussion. People are hungry for logical explanations and a desire to learn how to join the dots of their growing comprehension of how the world works and if it is being worked or socially engineered in the common good or otherwise. Logical explanations as per our cultural disposition. Citizens are hungry for logical explanations for laws, taxation, regulations, and UN Resolutions which permit unjustifiable exceptionalism.
The next trial session is July 26th. 2018, at 09:15 am.
