To Members of the Parliamentary Council, on September 8, 1948\u2014(as recorded in “Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948-1949, Akten und Protokolle<\/i>” Volume 9, published by the German Bundestag and the Bundesarchiv, Harald Boldt Verlag im R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1996)\u2014Schmid concludes on his concern at German citizenship\u2019s lack of sovereignty: \u201cFor my part I think that it is not part of the concept of democracy that you yourselves create conditions for its elimination.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
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 \u201cHolocaust-leugner.\u201d This term in itself renders a skeptical individual guilty of \u201conly 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.\u201d Over the days of this trial one senses the mindset of the Queen of Hearts in whose courtroom she\u2019d commence with, \u201cSentence first!\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
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 \u201cParagraph 130,\u201d 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 \u201cPara 130\u201d 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.<\/span><\/div>\n
Next, they turned to view another of Alfred\u2019s 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\u2014Benjamin Freedman with his ever-informative speech from the 1960s versus Barbara Lerner Spectre with her self-indicting statement about the plan that \u201cEurope must learn to be multicultural and Jews will be resented for their leading role in this.\u201d Alfred does not wish to comply with what race-dictating Barbara Spectre does not wish applied to her own exceptionalist ethnicity.<\/span><\/div>\n
Like many commentators, Alfred foresees in Barbara Spectre\u2019s \u201crole\u201d of social engineering over Europe, the engendering of a race-war\u2014the oft cited \u201cclash of civilizations.\u201d Examples of such incompatible culture-clashes are increasingly arising.<\/span><\/div>\n
Alfred Schaefer’s attorney pointed out that during the trial Alfred had repeatedly stated that his allegations \u201cwere not directed against all Jews, but only against those who had the expressed intention of wiping out white ethnicity.\u201d Alfred had cited his specific instances.<\/span><\/div>\n
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\u2019s. He feels directly attacked and subjected to Spectre\u2019s \u201cleadership.\u201d Rather than having to \u201clearn\u201d to live with her impositions, in fairness he sees he has his rights to offer counter-\u201clessons\u201d in his videos. Alfred sees as otherwise the general public remains at the mercy of \u201cself-irresponsible\u201d deference and \u201cPavlovian dog-like obedience\u201d to this prevailing politically secular though heresy-think intimidation.<\/span><\/div>\n
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\u2019 exposure to the admissions made freely by informative Jews like Freedman and Spectre, as cited that morning by Alfred?<\/span><\/div>\n
In the course of the afternoon, a police chief detective from F\u00fcrstenfeldbruck was interrogated. Having received a complaint via email from the \u201cHuman Rights Commissioner\u201d 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.<\/span><\/div>\n
Subsequently, an IT and video expert presented an opinion on the videos shown, rated these videos as not amateur, but as professional.<\/span><\/div>\n
At the end of today’s trial session around 8:00 p.m.<\/span><\/span>, 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.<\/span><\/div>\n
The outcome of the Schaefer siblings\u2019 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, \u201cEveryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.\u201d It continues, \u201cEveryone 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.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
The third paragraph of Article 19 then qualifies these rights by accepting that they can be restricted, but only by laws which are necessary \u201cfor respect of the rights or reputations of others\u201d or for protecting national security, public order, public health or morals. Article 20 goes on, \u201cAny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.\u201d Yet this again contains hidden \u201cCatch-22\u201d exceptionalism.<\/span><\/div>\n
Paragraph 49 of UN Human Rights Committee 2011 forbids “general prohibition,” insisting\u00a0that states wishing to use the above exceptions must cite<\/span>\u00a0a 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 \u201chelpful insight into the United Nations Organisation\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
Professor Faurisson clarified: \u201cWith 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 \u2018demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat\u2019 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 \u2018the necessity and proportionality of the specific [restrictive] action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
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 \u201cNew General Comment on Freedom of Expression Deals with Denial Laws.\u201d Schabas writes: \u201cThe 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 \u2018memory-laws\u2019, see\u00a0Faurisson v. France<\/i>, No. 550\/93\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
The General Comment also considers blasphemy legislation. At paragraph 48, it says: \u201cProhibitions 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.\u201d Article 20(2) of the Covenant states:\u00a0\u201cAny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.\u201d 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: \u201cIt looks like a hard line to draw in practice.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
This is the \u201cline\u201d that the prosecution appears to be trying to press for the Schaefer siblings\u2019 case to cross<\/span><\/div>\n
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 \u201cDenying the Holocaust\u201d law is a misusage of the individual\u2019s human right of free opinion and free speech and \u201cshould be repealed.\u201d If it truly is not binding, then does one conclude the UN Human Rights Committee in reality has no power? So much for our \u201cguaranteed\u201d rights<\/span><\/div>\n
The possible alternative date proposed for the pronouncement of the judgment is September 14, 2018<\/span><\/span>, in the event that tomorrow<\/span><\/span> at 9:15 a.m.<\/span><\/span> the hearing could not be concluded.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
DAY 12 \u2013 Friday, August 17^{th<\/sup>, 2018<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\nVERDICT DEFERRED FOR A MONTH<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n\nJudge loses on forbidding memo-making by public in gallery<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n
B\u2019nai Brith Canada caught out by videos ban dates in Germany<\/b><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\nPREAMBLE<\/em><\/span><\/div>\nThis Day Ten\u2019s session proper had begun with this trial\u2019s typical attempt to prevent the general public from all and any freedom of information to independent thought, opinion and debate:<\/span><\/div>\nOn 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.<\/span><\/div>\nCitizens 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 \u201canti-Semitic\u201d (for, indeed, \u201ctaking an interest\u201d is used as such a personality trait argument).<\/span><\/div>\nNext, in subsequent sessions, court trainees were asked to leave the room when the video translations into German were being heard.<\/span><\/div>\nAnd now\u2014perhaps because there was a sizable attendance of some 30 public persons taking an interest\u2014came 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 \u201ccarried\u201d outside and ideas opened for discussion, or even memos being mulled over later.<\/span><\/div>\nThe trial may as well be a closed secret trial. Certainly Ernst Z\u00fcndel\u2019s 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\u2014as when Alice in Wonderland is brought to face charges before the card game Court of the Queen of Hearts and she, its judge, declares, \u201cSentence first!\u201d<\/span><\/div>\nSUMMARY of<\/b>\u00a0Friday\u2019s<\/span><\/span> morning session<\/strong>\u2014which is now no longer the day for pronouncement of the verdict (the date of the 31^{st<\/sup>\u00a0anniversary of the controversial demise of Rudolf Hess \u201cprisoner of peace\u201d).<\/span><\/div>\nOnce 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\u00a0Landgericht<\/i>(a district court such as the present one) judgment stating there is no note-taking ban in the public\u2019s gallery. He was quoting from another criminal trial at anotherLandgericht<\/i>.<\/span><\/div>\nIf 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(!).<\/span><\/div>\nThat 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThe session proceeded with the detective chief commissioner again being asked to the witness stand. He was questioned about how it was possible that Alfred\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThe 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. \u201cIf five billion videos are uploaded worldwide in 2014 and six billion the following year, then the few videos from the Schaefers could pose no \u2018threat\u2019 and are only thus called owing to the Special Law of Paragraph 130.\u201d 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 \u201cabusive\u201d in Germany at the given time. Whether it should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say\u2014or even condition them to fear allowing oneself to think (i.e., heresy-think)\u2014are questions beyond the scope of the trial.<\/span><\/div>\nMeanwhile, B\u2019nai Brith Canada have a lot more than Monika and Alfred Schaefer on their plate this August. \u201cSupporters of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers Plan to Protest B\u2019nai Brith Canada,\u201d reports the Canadian Jewish News, adding: \u201cRecently, B\u2019nai Brith Canada launched a smear campaign against CUPW, (which) has taken a principled stand in defence of Palestinian human rights,\u201d the protest\u2019s organizers wrote on Facebook. \u201cAs a result, CUPW [which represents some 50,000 postal workers, revealed that it had launched a \u201cjoint project\u201d with the Palestinian Postal Service Workers\u2019 Union and] has become the latest victim in a long list of smear campaigns launched by B\u2019nai Brith Canada to silence human rights defenders who are critical of Israel\u2019s violations of international law.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\nBefore the adjournment of the Munich trial prompted by \u201chuman rights association\u201d B\u2019nai 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 \u201ceducational\u201d nature of his video work, would need be abbreviated by the court. This is the reason, Alfred explains, why magazines such as\u00a0Blick nach rechts<\/i>\u00a0(Look to the Right<\/i>) 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, \u201cRacial traitors practice loyalty to humanity.” The journalist Deniz Y\u00fccel said of the entire German people: “Your DNA is a hideousness.\u201d Such statements, shows Alfred, are not isolated cases and are the prompt for his emergency calls for \u201cconditioning de-contamination.\u201d This is the way his \u201clecture\u201d videos are to be understood.<\/span><\/div>\nIn a letter written in the Munich prison by Monika Schaefer (to Brian Ruhe\u00a0in Canada), dated\u00a0July 27, 2018, she seems reassured that: \u201cThe 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:\u00a0Questioning the Holocaust \u2013 Why We Believed<\/i>\u00a0(that’s the one we only got half way through the translation of same), and the Ursula Haverbeck video\u00a0The Greatest Problem of Our Time<\/i>, in German with English subtitles.\u00a0So 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\u2014I don’t mind sitting a little longer.\u201d 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.<\/span><\/div>\nAfter 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.<\/p>\n<\/span><\/div>\n
\nRELATED FROM THE BARNES REVIEW STORE<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
\nLECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/div>\nHere 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThe 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!<\/span><\/div>\nThe book\u2019s 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\u00a0Lectures<\/em>\u00a0read 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThis 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.\u00a0500 pages, paperback, bibliography, indexed,\u00a0$30.00.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/div>\nClick here<\/a>\u00a0to read more about\u00a0Lectures on the Holocaust<\/em>, review the table of contents, read a sample, and order online from The Barnes Review.<\/p>\n<\/span><\/div>\nTHE HOLOCAUST HOAX EXPOSED: Debunking the 20th Century\u2019s Biggest Lie<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\nBy 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.\u00a0The crime: questioning the holocaust tale.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nIndeed, researchers have endured solitary confinement, brutal beatings by assailants, ongoing harassment, lengthy court battles, career suicide and media attacks directed against them\u2014all because they presented a Revisionist history of this pivotal event.\u00a0Other Revisionist writers have been the victims of hate crimes, extensive smear campaigns, fines and death threats.<\/span><\/div>\nThe 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThe 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.<\/span><\/div>\nThorn rips apart, in lay language, the veil-thin arguments used to prove the Jewish \u201cHolocaust,\u201d 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; \u201cNever again\u201d is their rallying cry. The Holocaust Hoax Exposed dissects every element of what has become the 20th century\u2019s most grotesque conspiracy.<\/span><\/div>\nCovered in this book is the mythology surrounding \u201cdeath camps,\u201d the truth about Zyklon B, Anne Frank\u2019s fable, how the absurd \u201c6 million\u201d 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 \u201cHolocaust\u201d historians, Thorn\u2019s masterpiece should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding the underpinnings of the Jewish power elite.<\/span><\/div>\nClick here<\/a>\u00a0to read more about the book and order online:\u00a0Softcover, 186 pages, b&w illustrations, $20.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\nAnd to learn more, listen to this podcast interview with\u00a0Holocaust Hoax<\/em>\u00a0author, the late Victor Thorn, available on\u00a0audio CD<\/a>\u00a0(one hour, $15).<\/span><\/div>\nClick here to purchase the book\/CD combo<\/a>:\u00a0Both for just $30 plus S&H. Save $5.<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\nRemember:<\/em>\u00a0TBR 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?\u00a0Subscribe today<\/a>, and don’t miss another issue of\u00a0The Barnes Review<\/em>, dedicated to bringing history into accord with the facts!
\n<\/span><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n}}

<\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n