DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

FREE SYNDICATION: We are partners not rivals. Reprint our news stories to quickly build your news platforms.

We’re used to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents. However, the most notorious deniers of free speech are found under upturned rocks in the West.

assange

Investigative journalist Julian Assange sought sanctuary in London’s tiny Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. The whistle-blower refuses to be silenced. The Australian has been awarded more than a dozen journalism awards. Once evicted under a dodgy-deal, blackmail and bribery, Assange faces life imprisonment, perhaps a death sentence.

Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, the existence of sealed criminal charges against the Wikileaks founder has been confirmed.

If wars start by lies they can be stopped by truth

What is typically left out is that Wikileaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names removed to prevent loss of life and minimize harm. It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full legally edited cables leaking to third parties on the web that Wikileaks also published them. Assange even attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.

Julian Assange

In other words, Wikileaks behaved precisely as any responsible journalist would in handling sensitive material should by removing information that could cause harm. The removals stopped only when they became pointless. The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals losing their lives as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks.

When it comes to negligence a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails. Yet, no criminal charges have been laid against a woman mired in corruption and whose snail-trail lies over a score of corpses.

Assange is being targeted because he dared to challenge the western establishment but he is far from alone. Western governments routinely target scores of news reporting dissidents.

Sylvia Stolz 2

Imprisoned in Germany merely for investigating holocaust related fraud; Ursula Haverbeck (90), lawyer Sylvia Stolz, Music tutor Monika Schaeffer and her brother Alfred Schaeffer. In France, Professor Robert Faurisson, Brigitte Bardot, and Vincent Reynouard. The list of Western dissidents is as long and silent as are the names on the Cenotaph situated in Whitehall.

Moniker and Alfred 1

Any who associated with Julian Assange are pursued. Another well-known dissident is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was a time of globalist unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority.

! Petition

Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam? Who would have thought that Britain, the supposed birthplace of liberalism and the free press would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirising the same religion?

Free speech now a hate crime

Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance? Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism.

! Tommy, one of these men is in gaol

A case in point is Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astounding thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal. Robinson now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment.

DSC_0745

Alison Chabloz is endlessly re-cycled through British courts at the urging of Jewish special interest groups. She has been sentenced, fined and ordered to work for the State without charge.

Jez Renegade picture

Her crime, she satirises the spin of World War II propagandists. Again in Britain, Jez Turner is sentenced to 12 months in prison merely for publicly stating that Britain’s regime is overly influenced by Zionists; ironically, Zionists boast much the same thing.

me 1

In the self-styled cradle of democracy, one of the last European countries to give voting rights to men and women, Michael Walsh was handed down 6 x 4-month prison sentences for publishing fliers critical of immigration.

BRITAIN-US-INTELLIGENCE-SNOWDEN

 

Britain routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being right-wing.  Michael Savage, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is the Prime Minister.

Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints.

Assange and shitheead

Julian Assange, a leftist oriented libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by the Western States coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities.

We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the West pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. These toxic unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens.  PayPal, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook routinely disconnect the accounts of even small ‘c’ conservatives.

sneaky_paypal

Undeniably, the West is as repressive as was the former Soviet Bloc. Who would have thought that countries like Ecuador, Russia, and Iran would offer sanctuary, safe passage and freedom to speak to Western dissidents; journalists, authors, poets, writers, libertarians and political activists?

Edward Snowden faces life in Russia as an exile for revealing the National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance of Americans. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Western_Dissidents_Assange_Snowden_Robinson_Wilde

 

 

Monika Schaefer’s First Public Appearance Since Imprisonment in Germany!

Monika Schaefer’s First Public Appearance Since Imprisonment in Germany!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnUfD68RABA

Monika Schaefer tells her story in my video interview with her, for the first time, of what it was like being imprisoned in Germany since Jan. 3, 2018 for the “hate crime” of Holocaust denial. She has been on The Brian Ruhe Show about ten times before. To support her brother, a Canadian, who has been sentenced to 3 years, 2 months in prison in Germany for the non violent expression of his views, called Holocaust denial, please write to him at: Alfred Schaefer JVA Stadelheim Stadelheimer Strasse 12 81549 München Germany

 

You can also see my videos on the fee speech platform Bitchute, at: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/brianruhe/

With metta,

Alfred & Monika Schaefer Sentenced to Jail in Germany for Questioning the “Holocaust”

H

CANADIAN SIBLINGS RECEIVE JAIL TERMS FOR HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN GERMANY

93
0
SHARE

Facebook
Twitter
Alfred Schaefer, left, and Monika Schaefer. (Anne Wild photo)

The trial in Germany of two siblings, both Canadian citizens, for denying the Holocaust has ended with jail terms.

According to Anne Wild, a photojournalist who monitored the trial for The CJN, Alfred Schaefer, 63, who lives in Germany, received a prison sentence today of three years and two months. His sister, Monika Schaefer, 59, who lives in Jasper, Alta., received a term of 10 months.

READ: POLL REVEALS MANY BDS SUPPORTERS HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES

But since she has been in prison since the charges were laid in January, she was set free, with her time already served.

The siblings were tried together on six counts of “incitement to hatred” for producing and posting at least one video in which Monika Schaefer denied the Holocaust.

The trial began in July in Munich. Monika Schaefer was in Germany visiting her brother at the time and was arrested while attending the trial of another Holocaust denier.

She’s a musician and activist who was born in Canada to German parents and was the federal Green party’s candidate in the Alberta riding of Yellowhead in 2006, 2008 and 2011.

Monika Schaefer gained notoriety in July 2016 after appearing in a five-minute YouTube video, titled Sorry, Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust, in which she said the Holocaust was the “biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.”

In it she claimed that death camps were really work camps where prisoners were kept “as healthy and as well-fed as was possible.”

According to Wild, Monika Schaefer told the court, in German, that, “I’m convinced that the Holocaust is a great untruth of history.” She said she made the video to make peace with her mother and that she wrote the script.

Wild said the trial heard evidence that the video was produced by Alfred Schaefer in the town of Tutzing, outside Munich. Monika told court that she knew it would be published online.

Monika Schaefer was ousted from the Green party over the YouTube video, which the party condemned “in the strongest possible terms.”

In May, Alfred Schaefer was convicted of incitement to hatred for a speech he delivered in the German city of Dresden in February 2017. He was fined 5,000 euros ($7,700).

It was reported that at the start of his trial, Alfred Schaefer delivered the Nazi straight-arm salute in the courtroom.

It was not clear as of Friday whether the verdict or sentences will be appealed

Lady Michele Renouf’s Report on Days 10, 11, & 12 of Alfred & Monika Schaefer’s Trial

Lady Michele Renouf’s Report on Days 10, 11, & 12 of Alfred & Monika Schaefer’s Trial

 

This Friday, September 14, the free speech trial of the Schaefers commences for three more days of hearings, not to render a verdict, Lady Michele makes clear in a recent letter.

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSIONTBR Special Message from the Editor

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
PREAMBLE
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
Rudolf, Lectures On the HolocaustHere 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
Holocaust Hoax Exposed, ThornBy 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).
Click here to purchase the book/CD combo: Both for just $30 plus S&H. Save $5.
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!

The Barnes Review • PO Box 15877, Washington, DC 20003
202-547-5586 or toll free 877-773-9077 • sales@barnesreview.org

Copyright © 2018 The Barnes Review. All rights reserved.

You received this email because you requested updates from TBR.
Click here to unsubscribe from ALL Barnes Review emails.

The Schaefer Siblings’ Trial in Munich – a report by Michèle, Lady Renouf

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 studyI 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 thatShe 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.

 

Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.

 
:
left to right: Attorney for Alfred, RA Frank Miksche; Alfred Schaefer; attorney for Monika, RA Wolfram Nahrath; TBR correspondent Michèle, Lady Renouf
 
Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.
 
PREAMBLE
 
A “Judicial Industry”? –  terrorising free speech?
 
Are we seeing the emergence of a “Judicial Industry”, asks one reader of these firsthand Court reports?
 
It is true that the Schaefer siblings’ trial was scheduled to commence on the same day as the judgment in the big trial of the “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) “terror trial” – a long-running Process of seven years’ duration concerning the murder of nine immigrants (mainly Turks) and one policewoman – first believed to have been killed by ethnic-minority gangsters, now said to have been victims of a “neo-nazi” conspiracy which somehow escaped the attention of numerous state agents close to the alleged “terrorists”. (Incidentally, one of the defence lawyers involved in the NSU case, RA Wolfram Nahrath, is also the lawyer for Monika Schaefer.)
 
On Day 1, July 2nd, on my way to the courthouse, I stopped to ask a technician sitting in one of the many media vans, lining the street alongside the Courthouse, whether they were there to cover the Schaefer trial?   Turns out, all those TV vans were there to cover the great media scandal of the NSU, interestingly timed, as in the UK, where the big scandal of the “Right-wing terrorist” conspiracy trial was playing out.  
 
One might say, the Jeremy Bedford-Turner trial for “racial incitement” (carrying a custodial sentence of potentially seven years, like the Schaefers’ potential five years) was underway at a parallel period when a series of trials, leading to the present trial for “conspiracy to murder” a Member of Parliament was underway in the U.K..  Perhaps is there a certain attempt to conflate the idea of actual murder cases with “thought-crime” cases in which there is no crime but only a Prosecution argument to make out an “aggression” case out of rendering simple opinion as equally culpable to actual crimes? Yet as Alfred Schaefer well exclaimed to the Munich court judge – and similarly one might say as did Jez Turner to the London court judge – “there is a difference between warning and threatening”.  
 
As I happen to know both these two defendants, I can say that – while each has a tendency to use naturally excitable rhetoric at demos and in videos – that is again quite different to “aggression” and “incitement” to commit an actual crime.  Both men are of proven “exemplary character” as evidenced in their civic-minded actions in performance of their duties towards their communities and spirited defence of free opinion and open debate.  Each is convivial, neither debate-hateful nor malicious towards criticism, and both are conscientious intellectually in their separate endeavours to inform the public of issues in the interests of public-need-to-know, as warnings to “the Powers That should not Be” (to quote Jez)!  Neither man has given cause for any corruption charges or any dishonesty in their dealings.  In both cases, only the fear of “political-correctness” could lead a jury to judge otherwise.  A great pity that jurists have no chance for a secret final ballot to overcome the pressure of peer and political fear.  
 
I experienced firsthand what a difference this secret vote can make to the behaviour of a jurist.  In London’s top private club, the Reform Club on Pall Mall, two internal ‘trials’ were held to adjudicate if I, as a long-standing member, by inviting to the Clubhouse the pariahed British historian David Irving, had offended the “sensitivities” of the “jewish cabal” within the Clubhouse and owed them an apology.  The pariahing of Irving was in consequence of his lost civil action in London’s High Court against Professor Deborah Lipstadt.  This case in 2000 was the subject of the 2016 Hollywood movie “Denial”. Incidentally, my unintimidatable presence on Irving’s otherwise empty courtroom bench –  “your kamakaze leap” asked Professor Art Butz, “into historical Revisionism?”(!) – is factually depicted in the movie, for I did attend daily throughout the several months of that revelatary civil trial (a rare fact, actually) in that thoroughly mis-depicting movie.  The point I am making is this: When the head of MORI Polls, the admirable American, Professor Robert Worcester, acted as my McKenzie’s friend in my defence at the Club, he asked, naturally, that the 12 Club ‘jurors’ be permitted a secret vote.  They then voted for no expulsion. But later on, when the same charge was re-run, and my new McKenzie’s friend failed to ask for the jurors to be permitted a secret vote, in casting their open votes those same ‘ urors’ called for my expulsion. Thus, proving my point that under peer and politically-correct pressure jurors are left subject to the “terror” or call it “heresy” vote.  (The ‘judge’ in charge of the Club’s expulsion proceedings on each occasion being a Jewish lady lawyer!) Many in the London courtroom public gallery, following the persuasive defence by Jez’s barrister Adrian Davies, felt that had the jurors voted in a secret ballot, they might well have acquitted the non-aggressive Jez of “malicious incitement”.   Yet in an open ballot those jurors would certainly fear exposing themselves to the many personal and professional dangers involved in revealing “politically-incorrect” opinions.
 
A great pity is that German law has had no jury system since 1924, when juries were abolished supposedly as a money-saving measure, at a time when the German economy was under great pressure due to the onerous reparations payments imposed at the end of the First World War. (Interestingly, as these trials are occuring in Munich, for a very short time from 1948 to 1950 this city and the rest of Bavaria reintroduced jury trials, but they were scrapped again once the Federal Republic of Germany was established.)
 
Relatedly, as mentioned earlier in these reports, I witnessed that Munich citzens do feel a terror of attending the Schaefer siblings’ trial.   Having to show their passports for entry to the public gallery makes them fearful of being placed on a watch list for simply showing their “anti-semitic” or “ Nationalist tending” curiosity in such political issues.
 
 
Day 5 of the trial, Thursday July 12. 
 
The morning session was farcical!  It had to be recessed until 13.30.
 
This late start was because the Court had failed to inform the Stadelheim Prison that Alfred had to appear in court that day!  They were only told about it after Alfred did not show up in the morning when all other actors in the proceedings had duly arrived on time at 09.15, including Monika.  
 
It was just the kind of slack incompetence that Alfred draws on when saying his opponents keep making “own goals”, for when eventually he was brought to the court not until the afternoon, he declared: “Had you let me sleep at home instead of prison I’d have arrived perfectly on time!” – (as per his estimation of the competence of conduct in his preferred era under Deutsches Reich discipline!).  
 
In the afternoon Alfred’s video “Brainwashing 9/11 Part 1“, was shown.  Since it has no German version, an official interpreter had made a translation and this German text was read simultaneously during regular pauses while the video was being screened.  Frau Schaefer told me the translations were good and fair.
 
Alfred was asked by the judge, how he had reacted after he had “found out about 9/11”?   Alfred said, that at first he had sleepless nights, then he started doing a lot of investigation and research. He reached the conclusion that we are in big trouble, like noticing your house is on fire yet the people inside the house do not notice or dare to deal with its disquiet, disturbance, or danger.   So he felt the obligation to warn and awaken everybody. 
 
He knew that life would be more comfortable in the short-term if he would not care about it.  But this was not an option for him, even if it meant, as indeed it does, his being, right now, in jail even during the remainder of his own trial.
 
Alfred explained that his video-viewing audiences at that time were mainly the Americans.  So he did not bother translating this video into German. Alfred stressed several times, that his biggest wish is to solve this whole problem peacefully.  That is why he feels the duty to do what he is doing, to warn and to inform people. (Indeed, he does use the term “lesson” and performs like a firm but patient school teacher in his videos.)
 
Alfred said, “what our judicial system is doing now, is wrapping duct tape around a steaming pressure cooker while turning up the heat on and on”.
 
Another question from the judge was, how did Alfred make the step from “9/11” to the “Holocaust”?   Alfred answered that it was the TV interview with Michael Chertoff, which Alfred presents in his video, where Chertoff states that denying the official story of “9/11” is like denying the “Holocaust”. 
 
This led to the conclusion depicted in the video, which seems to be one of the points of the accusation, that Alfred now saw “with the help of Chertoff that the Official “9/11″ story = bullshit, likewise that the official “Holocaust” story = bullshit”.
 
Alfred also described how he at first started blogging on the internet and encountered the “Hasbara” – (a Hebrew word for “Erklärer”, an explainer, though Israeli sources define it more fully as a propagandist i.e. Hasbara “refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate, abroad, positive information about the State of Israel and its actions”.)
 
Alfred said a Jewish friend from Palestine told him this when someone had made very obscene and offensive comments under his Blog, instead of reacting in a factual (objective) way and manner.
 
Alfred‘s final statement on this day was that “many people now are waking up, especially the young people in the USA. Truth is marching on, even if they throw us into jail, for now”.
 
In the afternoon a German version of Monika’s Video “Entschuldige Mama, …” (Sorry Mum…’) was shown, but was not commented upon, as yet.
 
 
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf
 
 
 
Day 6 of the trial, Friday July 13.
 
PREAMBLE
 
 
Heresy is holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted – Monika’s case is just that. She no longer believes in her own earlier accusation against her mother of having been complicit in what Monika once assumed was a evidentially-backed “crime”. “Denial” is not part of the method of  “Holocaust Revisionism”  for the method (not being an ideology) only asserts its scientific findings drawn from search into new evidence which comes to light in the course of historical documents being released from archives, new geological technology for examining the alleged crime scene and so on.  The Revisionist method is objective and is not balked by “sensitivities” to the investigation of sacred sites and sacred memories.  Indeed it is the opposite of the International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust in which, on page 11: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers [ie sceptics] or seek to disprove their position through normal hstorical debate and rational argument”. These Teaching Guidelines seek to treat the “Holocaust” in the manner of religious instruction. See BBC World Service link to “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” – an hour-long, worldwide phone-in radio programme in which the two main guests were Jewish history Professor Lipstadt and Bishop Williamson-supporter Lady Renouf, when these Guidelines were aired, though ‘never again’.
 
As usual in the public gallery there were five persons in the morning, then three by the afternoon. Fewer in the Press gallery.  
 
Concerning the media, I had observed on the day of the release of (the now late) Ernst Zündel from Mannheim Prison that only one single reporter, from the Associated Press, turned up with a single photographer, thus proving how the internationally syndicated Press relies on one story and one take on how that monopolised story will be presented.  There seems to have been no story of note about the Schaefer trial in the German media to date. Yet one would think news proprietors would estimate that German citizens would be interested to buy newspapers about this dual siblings’ case with its international aspects.  Not least, a general public interest could be expected, bearing on how their country’s laws are seen to be perpetrated on Canadian citizens.   
 
The case against Monika was instigated by the Toronto tentacle of  B’nai Brith ( Sons of the Covenant) with the motto: “The Global Voice of the Jewish Community” – an international organisation – “the oldest” it extoles – in Canada.  One wonders, as it  is committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and combating antisemitism and bigotry” why it has not (since the existence of the Jewish Entity in Palestine) seen fit to be headquartered in the “State of Israel”?  
 
Strange to onlookers too, is how the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem” (though being one of the oldest prayers), still leads so few Jews literally to go live there, even to help build up the demographic Jewish presence in their second Jewish homeland.  At a famous socialite’s garden party in London, I happened to ask, quite cordially, that very question to two very prominent and amusing Jewish personalities – the columnist and Booker Prize-winning novelist Howard Jacobson; and Maureen Lipman, columnist and comedienne (very popular for her “Beatie” role in TV commercial endorsements).  Each ran home to file their column items of their accounts at being asked an “anti-semitic question at a garden party”!  Had one asked an Australian cordially at said garden party: “still dragging your ball and chain?”, would there be media mileage in exclaiming criminal “anti-Australia” questions were being entertained?  Since then, our hostess reluctantly has had to distance herself from ever inviting me again, though she has maintained loyally and generously that such a jolly presence at parties is “life-enhancing”.  Our hostess, like for certain Robert Worcester my able McKenzie’s friend did, has likely got her spoonful of social punishment for that!  There are many such provable evidences of the terrorising of free opinion.  We shall soon see how that pertains to Canadians when visiting Germany nowadays.
 
In 1875, Canada’s B’nai Brith lodge – global Lodge No. 246 – was established in Toronto, and soon after in Montreal. Its parent company, International B’nai B’rith (which preserves the original hyphen in B’rith), was founded in NYCity in 1843).  Interestingly, the “emancipation of Jewry” into the newly unified Germany had only taken place about the same era in 1871.
 
These international Jewish lodge activities are said to reflect the organization’s (racially-exclusive) commitment to “People Helping People” – fundamentally acting as a “Jewish State within other States” is surely a factual statement.  This is a statement made by Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first President, in adherence to the ideology of Judaism though its brethren are scripturally obliged to “disperse among the nations”.  The Balfour Declaration of 1917 made provision for both – Herzl’s Jewish State as well as the option to remain a state within states.  In two millennia there appears to have been no quest (other than the saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”) for jews en masse to congregate in their entirety in a homeland carved out of unconquered territory, say in Australia or Canada before ‘gentile’ settlers came and did so.  The first Jewish Homeland, and now a Jewish Republic of Birobidjan, was only established (by Stalin) in 1928 and remains the first homeland option which did not displace any indigenous people to this day in its peaceful inception.  This existence of this peaceful first homeland option is kept very quiet even in the Hebrew language media.
 
It so happens that in 2000 I undertook a post-graduate academic interest in the “Psychology of Religion” at the University of London’s Heythrop College (a Jesuit college).
 
Interestingly – given the ‘state within states’ complaint coming from B’nai Brith Canada against Monika – in January 2004, Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, filed a formal complaint against B’nai Brith Canada under the “discriminatory signs and statements” section of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) accepted the complaint and began an investigation that would last five years. In 2009, the MHRC issued a report that dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence. Not enough is made available about this complaint, but safe to say, only jews are permitted to install “eruvs” (wires on poles around neighbourhoods) and run a “Shomrim” police force (a specifically Jewish “community”/some call it “vigilante” police patrol). This Jewish police force has the same powers as the UK’s genuine police force, as identified by Jez Turner in his recent public-need-to-know trial – and for this he sits punished in a prison cell for the next 12 months.  Is this terrorising free opinion the public are entitled to ask?
 
 
The formation in the 1930s of a B’nai Brith lodge in Shanghai represented the organization’s entry into the Far East. This international expansion came to a close with the rise of National Socialism. At the beginning of that Nationalist era, there were six B’nai B’rith districts in Europe. Eventually, the NS stopped all B’nai B’rith expansion in Europe.
 
B’nai B’rith Europe was re-founded in 1948. Their sources inform us that members of the Basel and Zurich lodges and representatives from lodges in France and Holland attended the inaugural meeting. In 2000, the new European B’nai B’rith district merged with the United Kingdom district to become a consolidated B’nai B’rith Europe with active involvement in all institutions of the European Union. By 2005 B’nai B’rith Europe comprised lodges in more than 20 countries including the former Communist Eastern Europe.
 
In response to what later was conceived as the “Holocaust”, in 1943 B’nai B’rith President Henry Monsky convened a conference in Pittsburgh of all major Jewish organizations to “find a common platform for the presentation of our case before the civilized nations of the world”.
 
B’nai B’rith was present at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco and their source say it has taken an active role in the world body ever since. In 1947, the organization was granted non-governmental organizational (NGO) status and, for many years, was accorded full-time representation at the United Nations. It is credited with a leading role in the U.N. reversal of its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism (an extraordinary disdain of fact since Zionism relates directly to founding principles of the racially Jewish State!).
 
B’nai B’rith’s NGO role is not limited to the United Nations and its agencies. B’nai B’rith also has worked extensively with officials in the State Department, in Congress, and in foreign governments to support the efforts of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to combat anti-Semitism. With members in more than 20 Latin American countries, the organization was the first Jewish group to be accorded civil society status at the Organization of American States (OAS).
 
Up against all this colossal influence and powers, German courts must be deafened by B’nai Brith’s global clamour to stand a chance of hearing the siblings who are trying to get an unarmied citizen’s plea for an unbiased hearing!  Their cases call for international eyes and ears.
 
 
 
Trial Session DAY 6, Friday, July 13th.
 
The session began at 09.45 and the whole day was devoted to viewing first Monika’s then Alfred’s videos.
 
The entire morning was spent on Monika’s case.
 
This time Alfred was brought from his prison cell to the court on time!
 
In the morning the English version of Monika‘s video “Sorry Mom …” was shown and a professionally prepared German translation was read simultaneously by the interpreter in regular pauses during the video.
 
Monika was asked questions about her video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong About the Holocaust” by the leading Judge.
 
Why did she make the film? What was her intention in doing so?
 
Monika read her Statement (Einlassung), which was considered by some in the public gallery as “very impressive”.  Some of the public hope a full version of it will be made public. 
 
 In the afternoon the video “Dissidenten sprechen Klartext” (Dissidents Speak Out) was shown.  This is an Interview Alfred had with the political firebrand Gerhard Ittner (who is himself now locked away in Nuremberg prison).  Incidentally, Gerd Ittner was the organiser of the Dresden Commemoration, February 2018, who was permitted to organise the demo yet conditionally disqualified from speaking at it himself because of an earlier conviction for “incitement”.  It was at this Commemoration as a visitor that, though an unscheduled speaker, the crowd called for me to speak.   That impromptu 10 minutes’ address, after which I was arrested for “incitement”, was used to close down that Commemoration, yet to the “own goal” satisfaction of Alfred!  He was one of the scheduled speakers, who gladly said “closing down the demo with Lady Renouf at the microphone meant worldwide mainstream media coverage of an event which otherwise would have gone unnoticed”.
 
The judge asked Alfred:  Why this time in this video he does not differentiate between Jews as a whole and the jewish “Großkapital” (Jewish big business), which he had in his “brainwashing” video, shown the day before?  Alfred pointed out that, “if it is okay all the time to blame all Germans for the nazis, why is it that we do not get the same right when referring to the Jews?”.  Why the exceptionalism for some generalisations and not for others?
 
Finally before close of day the video was shown which was filmed by the German police from Alfred‘s speech in Brezenheim – at the Rhine-Meadow (Rheinwiesenlager) Memorial, part of where post-war ca. one million German POW soldiers were herded there to starve to death in those densely crowded, open muddy fields under the orders of the “Allied victor” General Eisenhower who denied Red Cross access).  At this atrocity-mourning Commemoration in Brezenheim, Alfred is since accused of having made the “Hitler-Gruß“ (the Hitler greeting) at the close of it.  Alfred said he never mentioned Hitler, instead he had shown the “Roman Salute”.  It seems appalling to an observer that the “Basic Law” could possibly care more about a greeting gesture than the barbaric murder of post-war soldiers of all stripes.  The weight of the scales of justice are off the ‘Richter’ scale in terms of human versus emblem values.  Relatives of the Schaefer family were at these barbaic Rhinemeadow open air death ‘camps’.  Yet the Law may sooner protect the public from an historic greeting gesture than acknowledge the advance to barbarism exhibited by the post-war “victors” under whose auspices the Basic Law was planned.
 
Frau Schaefer, Alfred’s wife, asked to have a word with her husband, but the Prosecutor said she, not the Judge, would be the judge of that as it was her job to say yea or nay. Eventually, Elfriede Schaefer was granted 10 minutes to speak with Alfred.  She wanted to ask if he had received the clothes she had taken for him to the prison.  He had not.
 
 
The court session closed quite early at 15.00.
 
 
On the matter of UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (since in the case of Gerd Ittner, in the first instance he had been extradited from another country to face the charges made against him in Germany), one reader asked:
 
 

A) “Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust” narrative?

 
On the question of  jurisdiction: 
The Germans do claim “extraterritoriality”, in other words, the right to put people on trial in German courts for “crimes” committed elsewhere in the world. This type of claim of extraterritoriality is not unique to Germany.  For example, a few years ago a Spanish judge brought an action against the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet for alleged crimes committed on Chilean not Spanish soil.
 
An informal reply comes from an English barrister:
 
“Most European countries claim universal jurisdiction over their own citizens, whereas common law countries don’t for most crimes.  Ironically the idea of universal jurisdiction over nationals came in as part of the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century.  It has certainly turned around and bitten nationalists on the butt . . . there is a moral here!
 
So, if a Frenchman picks an Englishman’s pocket in the streets of NYC, the French courts assert the right to try him, though recognising the right of the state of New York to try him too.
 
Double jeopardy is avoided by the application of the principle of the Roman law called ne bis in idem, [literally ‘not twice for the same thing’] which means that if our French pickpocket has been tried in New York, the French courts will not try him for a second time, whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty.
 
So it’s not only Holocaust revisionists.
 
 
A reader’s question B):
” Did some part of what is charged occur in Germany? Or have the Germans declared themselves the cops of the world?”
 
Concerning your question re the “cops of the world”: ‘safe’(!) to say the pro-Zionist USA hold that chutzpah title (having jettisoned their superior Jeffersonian ideal of  “no meddling in other countries”).  Due to the technological changes brought about by the Internet, various legal systems have been struggling to work out whether an online posting can be judged to have taken place in any jurisdiction in the world.  A similar position has often applied in civil cases, where plaintiffs go ‘shopping’ for a favourable jurisdiction, for example Americans sometimes bring a libel action against British newspapers in a London court while ignoring the same allegations written in American publications. This is because the burden of proof is very different in the UK.
 
 
Monika’s attorney adds, “Not all. But especially for denying the “Holocaust” and other so-called political crimes. The best examples would be the cases of the late Gerd Honsik, the late Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz and Dr. Fredrick Töben. They all did not commit anything in Germany.”
 
 
 
On Monday, July 16th 2018 from 09.45 the whole day is scheduled for screening the rest of Alfred’s videos. And an additional day is scheduled for Tuesday July 17th.  An extra date in August is to be announced.
 
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf

Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich

 
Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich
 
On the sixth day of the trial of Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich court, 13th July 2018, Monika Schaefer gave her personal statement. Translation made by R. Edmonds.


Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.

She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.

As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers’ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers’ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.

The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that. — Richard Edmonds

FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK

 
FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK
 
(FROM MONIKA SCHAEFER TO BARBARA ANN NOWAK) July 1, 2018
Dear Barbara, thank you, dear sister, for your long and wonderful letter and envelope with Elvis stamps in a heart. I notice details. Well that one would be pretty hard to miss — haha – unless I was a dullard. And if I was a dullard, I guess I wouldn’t be in prison for speaking words.
I must tell you, so you don’t think I’m a slacker, that your letter took exactly 8 weeks and a day to reach me from when it was postmarked! I used to say that the average time for mail one way in and out of prison was about a month but now I would put the average at 6 weeks. Pretty bad eh? It leads to slow conversations. Maybe that’s the equivalent of the slow food movement and I like the slow food movement so maybe the slow conversations are a good thing? Having just reread your letter before responding I’m kind of in free flow here, inspired by you.
 
Me too, I am totally into organic real food and have always grown veggies wherever I could. I grew up in a family of seven, five children, in a big city, but we were like Urban Farmers. Huge vegetable garden, fruit bushes, some small apple and cherry trees in the yard. The family would go berry picking in the river valley, we could walk there right from our home and pick saskatoon’s, chokecherries, rose hips and I can’t remember what else. We live really near the Storyland Valley Zoo. You should ask Alfred to tell you the story of how he used to talk with the seals. It was funny. Speaking of funny, you can probably imagine this without me telling you, Alfred had us in stitches a lot when we were growing up. (In case that is just a local expression, “in stitches,” that means we laughed a lot. Very fun and funny.
 

​Barbara Ann Nowak “the Queen of Karaoke”

 
I love the image of you and Dolly singing to the dudes (?). That is just Priceless. Speaking of images, although that was a mental image, yes you can send me a few pictures but not too many. There is a limit of 20 pictures in the cell and I have my limit but when people send me a few more, then I can trade them out and send the excess into storage. So if you sent three or four pictures in a letter nobody gets in a sweat. I wonder what the storage looks like. Stuff keeps getting sent there, that people try to send me and I cannot have. I will need a few wheel barrels or a pickup truck when I leave here. People send stuff and I can’t have it, how sad. It’s pretty strict around here. Oh and you mentioned internet, definitely not! I wonder if people are trying to send me emails. Oh dear, I dread trying to wade through thousands of emails when I get out. I will probably just have to delete all and start over as it will be too overwhelming.
 
Very interesting that you got persecuted by the doctors for breastfeeding. When I had my daughter, breastfeeding was encouraged but the actual support to do so was not that great. I became a La Leche League leader and did that for a number of years in my town. I learned a lot about the industry of baby food, formula, etc. Boycott of Nestle ever since.
 
The hot water just got delivered through the little hatch in the door. I feel so special here, getting room service like that! Now I am going to enjoy my cup of coffee, knit and listen to music on the radio for a bit. That is my early morning routine I’ll be back.
 
An hour later… I love that part of the day. Come to think of it, there are many parts of the day that I really enjoy. So you see, they are not getting me down. I am sure that you would be the same. You wouldn’t waste very many minutes or seconds on self-pity and you would get right to work on becoming creative and using the time well. 
 
On the subject of being well, I want to add that I certainly couldn’t do it alone! Just like you said about the karaoke coming from God, I too feel I am being guided and helped by spirit and that includes all the loving energy thoughts and prayers coming from many many people including yourself. Thank you also for the Bible verses, and the Elvis lyrics. We used to sing the German folk song Muss I Denn, around the campfire when my dad’s best friend came over from Germany and visited us one summer with his wife and two of his many children, they did that twice with different children the second time. He belted out those folk songs and we sang along and just loved it.
 
Well, my dear, it has been lovely spending part of my morning with you. Let’s do it again sometime, yes? I’ll put the kettle on… We are the birds flying free in this picture.
 
love
 
Monika.

 

Late Breaking News — German  Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer  at His Home Friday 

Late Breaking News — German  Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer  at His Home Friday 
 
FRIDAY, July 6, 2018. Today At 2:00 pm, at the home of Alfred Schaefer, he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters regarding his videos which he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom. …Then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my laptop. Then,   I went to wash my hands). I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was like a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! 


 
At first, I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood two armed officers awaiting me. I gave them  my passport. They said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw five of them handcuff Alfred. He was taken away  with the little packed lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband). Alfred was hauled away about something he had perhaps said perhaps when yesterday ( as he has to do) he had duly turned up at the police station as he must do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. 
His wife advised that her houseguests,  should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure. What a business — cat and mouse  — but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each took with us our  lunch cheese!
 
“No surrender!”
 
Michele Lady Renouf

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Der vierte Tag in München begann wieder sehr spektakulär.

The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly.  But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:

Der heutige Tag begann recht turbulent. Nach dem Erscheinen des Inquisitionsgerichtes fragte der Vorsitzende in den Zuschauerbereich, wer ein Herr X sei. Als dieser sich meldete wurde er konfrontiert mit dem Vorwurf, daß er am Vortag im Vorraum eine Staatsanwältin beleidigt haben soll, indem er zu ihr gesagt habe, er wünsche ihr, daß sie auch mal einen Knast von innen sehen würde, was der Richter – außer sich vor Erregung – mit 4 Tagen Ordnungshaft bestrafte.

Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.

Unmittelbar nach dieser Verkündigung wurde Herr X von Polizisten aus dem Raum geführt. Sein Hinweis, daß doch sein Auto noch irgendwo dort draußen stünde, wurde vom Richter wütend beantwortet mit der Aussage, das sei ihm egal. Er schrie Herrn X regelrecht an: „Gehen Sie rauß, ich will sie hier nicht mehr sehen“. Unvermittelt wendete er sich auch an Alfred Schäfer mit der Frage, was er denn davon halte. Alfred Schäfer antwortete, er wolle sich dazu nicht äußern, weil Wörter in diesem Gericht stets uminterpretiert würden und ihm ein Kommentar dazu deshalb zu gefährlich sei. Die Sitzung wurde anschließend für kurze Zeit unterbrochen, weil der Richter erklärte, er brauche jetzt erst einmal 5 Minuten, um sich zu beruhigen.

Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

Als die Sitzung wieder eröffnet wurde, hat der Rechtsanwalt von Alfred Schäfer den Antrag gestellt, den Richter wegen Befangenheit abzulehnen. Daraufhin wurde die Sitzung für 2 Stunden unterbrochen, der Antrag jedoch mit Beginn der Verhandlungswiederaufnahme vom Staatsanwalt wegen „Aneinanderreihung von Vermutungen“ abgelehnt.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.

 

Anschließend erfolgte die Fortsetzung der bereits am Vortag begonnen Videovorführungen. Erneut wurde auf zwei Symbole hingewiesen, die in dem Video einander gegenüber gestellt werden. Links im Bild wird ein Judenstern gezeigt und als Pendant dazu rechts im Bild ein Hakenkreuz, was in dem Video von Alfred Schäfer als Symbol des Bösen dargestellt wird, da er seinerzeit noch geglaubt habe, das Hakenkreuz stehe für das Böse. Diese Gegenüberstellung der beiden Symbole ist offenbar Gegenstand der Anklage.

Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.

In dem Video, dessen hohe Verbreitung großes Erstaunen bei Gericht auslöste, wird Prof. Noam Chomsky von einer Universität in Amerika zu 9/11 befragt. Prof. Chomsky erklärt in dem Interview, daß keine Beweise für eine Involvierung der amerikanischen Regierung in den Terroranschlag vorlägen. Alfred Schäfer hatte Prof. Chomsky aufgrund dieses Interviews angeschrieben und verliest in dem Video seine Briefe an Prof. Chomsky sowie dessen Antwortbriefe. Prof. Chomsky hat die Briefe von Alfred Schäfer zwar beantwortet, allerdings ohne die von Alfred Schäfer gestellten Fragen konkret zu beantworten, was Alfred Schäfer dazu veranlasste, seine Briefe strenger zu formulieren.

In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.

Als der Richter einen „aggressiven Umgangston“ bei seinem Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chomsky rügt, erklärt Alfred Schäfer, man müsse schließlich verstehen, daß Prof. Chomsky im englischsprachigen Raum „ein Guru“ sei und seine Ausführungen über 9/11 aber doch eine große Enttäuschung darstellten, weshalb er ihn als „feigen Verräter“ und „Zionistenfaschisten“ bezeichnet habe. Prof. Chomsky habe eine große Chance vertan, denn er hätte sich rehabilitieren können. Stattdessen habe er für seine „Glaubensbrüder“ seinen guten Ruf auf‘s Spiel gesetzt und sich mit dieser Einlassung selbst seine ganze Größe vernichtet, obwohl er ihm doch eine eindeutige Faktenlage präsentiert habe.

When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and “Zionist fascist”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.

Der Richter warf Alfred Schäfer auch vor, er habe auch gegenüber allen „jüdischen Freunden“ von Prof. Chomsky eine Drohung ausgesprochen, in dem er im Video sagt, sie würden sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie weiterhin über die Wahrheit von 9/11 schwiegen. Wie aus der Pistole geschossen erklärt Alfred Schäfer dem Richter den Unterschied zwischen einer Drohung und einer Warnung anhand eines praktischen Beispiels. Er erklärte auch, daß dieses Video sein erstes Video war und mehr oder weniger den Beginn seines Aufwachprozesses darstellt. Als er erkannte, daß sich manche Leute durch Betrug und Manipulation mehr Geld ergaunern können, als Heerscharen von Arbeitern durch ehrliche Arbeit, habe das bei ihm einen politischen Denkprozess angestoßen.

The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.

Das zweite gezeigte Video ist ein Interview mit Henry Hafenmayer zum Thema „Die Drahtzieher unserer heutigen Situation“. Die Kommentierung dieses Videos wurde auf die folgende Woche vertagt.

The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.

Anschließend wurde ein Zeuge vernommen, der behauptete, Alfred Schäfer habe mit seiner Rede auf der Gedenkveranstaltung in Bretzenheim am 25.7.2017 Hetze betrieben. Außerdem habe Alfred Schäfer seine Rede noch mit einem römischen Gruß für 2 oder 3 Sekunden abgeschlossen. Der Richter befragte den Zeugen noch, ob die Rede vom Publikum mit Applaus quittiert worden sei, woran sich der Zeuge jedoch nicht mehr erinnern konnte. Dem Gericht wurde ein Foto aus dem Video gezeigt.

Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.

Alfred Schäfer erklärt anschließend dem Gericht, daß er in dieser Rede schlicht das wiedergegeben habe, was ihm sein Vater über die Rheinwiesenlager erzählt hat und, daß er sich dagegen verwahre, seinen Vater als Hetzer zu verleumden. Sein Vater habe als Kriegsgefangener in den Rheinwiesenlagern beobachtet wie Gefangene gesund hinein gebracht wurden, aufgrund der vorsätzlich herbeigeführten lebensbedrohlichen Umstände bald jedoch erkrankten und wie täglich LKWs mit den Leichen der verstorbenen Kriegsgefangenen abtransportiert wurden, ohne daß man erfuhr wohin. Sein Vater habe die Rheinwiesenlager nur durch glückliche Umstände unbeschadet überlebt.

Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.

Der Antrag auf Haftverschonung von Monika Schäfer wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung, daß sich am Tatvorwurf nicht geändert habe.

Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.

Auch heute war die Verhandlungsführung im Zuhörerraum teilweise wieder sehr schlecht zu verstehen.

Die Termine für die weiteren Verhandlungstage sind der 12. und 13. Juli jeweils ab 9:15 Uhr.  Quelle: http://die-heimkehr.info

Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.

The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m.  Source: http://die-heimkehr.info

Es wunderte uns nun nicht, daß die Tänzerin der ersten Verhandlungstage wieder zugegen war. Schließlich musste sich die – mit solch schrecklich bösen „Flüchen“ belegte – heute gleich ärztlich versorgen lassen. Während ihres Auftritts am gestrigen Tag ließ die ärmste nicht erkennen, daß sie so zart besaitet ist. Wenn wir beobachten was die Verfolgten der BRD alles über sich ergehen lassen müssen – unsere Monika wird schon seit 3. Januar gefangen gehalten – möchte man nur noch brechen. Willkommen im jüdisch-bolschewistischen Rechtsstaat.

We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil “curses” [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.

Dennoch gibt es auch immer etwas erfreuliches zu berichten. Immer wieder erscheinen zu solchen Prozessen neue Zuschauer, denen nun auch die Augen geöffnet werden. Nicht nur wegen dem Material was in der Verhandlung gezeigt und besprochen wird, sondern auch wegen den Zuständen die in einem BRD Gericht herrschen. Die Menschen sind regelrecht erschrocken darüber, daß sie so viele Jahre die Augen davor verschlossen haben, so uninteressiert waren.

Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.

Jetzt aber, manche nach nur einem Tag als Zuschauer, sind sie sich darüber im klaren: Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn beenden, so lange wir noch ungestraft atmen dürfen!

But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!