The Crucifixion of Monika and Alfred Schaefer Continues

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Fredrick Toben

Fredrik Toben was born in Germany to a North German farming father and an Austrian mother in 1944. His parents emigrated to Australia at the end of 1954. He has a BA degree in English and German Literature and Philosophy at the University of Melbourne in 1969.  He studied Psychology and Economics at Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand.

Toben has a Ph.D. in philosophy (1974-77) from the University of Stuttgart. He completed his doctoral thesis on a comparison of philosopher CS Peirce’s principle of Fallibilism and Karl Popper’s theory falsification. He has taught in New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Germany, Nigeria, and Victoria.

Jonas E. Alexis: I interviewed both Monika and Alfred Schaefer in the past, and both individuals have been cordial and civil in their remarks. Of course, one doesn’t need to agree with everything your friends, neighbors, opponents, and even your family have to say in order to have a decent conversation and dialogue on issues that matter.

But according to the Holocaust establishment, it is an unpardonable sin to even have an opposing opinion on things that matter. You cannot ask for a rational discussion at all. You have to suppress your thoughts and feelings about historical issues such as the events revolving around Nazi Germany.

But that is completely the opposite of what Sigmund Freud himself projected on the West! Freud taught the Goyim ad nauseam that they ought not to suppress their feelings, particularly when it comes to sexual feelings, but when the Goyim express them and extend them to other territories such as history, they get to be placed in jail for doing exactly what Freud told them!

We are certainly living in an intolerable situation. As I have argued in the past, the time will come when the Holocaust lie—a “secular religion,” to use the words of the late Christopher Hitchens himself—will at last be viewed for what it really is: an ideology that seeks to subvert the pillars of Western Civilization.

It has been a while since Monika has been put in prison, and my dear friend, Fredrick Toben, was kind enough to translate for us what has been taking place.

Monday, 22 October 2018

 At the beginning of today’s hearing, Lawyer Narath moved the following two motions:

2. The handwritten letter from Gerd Ittner submitted to the court on 8.8.2018 and stating that Monika Schaefer did not know about the use to which the video before the court had been put, and had not known him personally at the time it was put to that use, should have a considerable mitigating effect on the case against his client.
3. In addition to the third request for evidence, the request was made that the public be excluded from the court when Fred Leuchter gives his evidence via video and its simultaneous translation into the German language. The reason given for this exclusion request was that the seriousness of the proceedings could be disturbed by a negative response from the public gallery.

He went on to explain that he had long considered making that request, but had held back, remembering the number of colleagues who had in the past suddenly faced prosecution for filing applications in court. In the case of Monika Schaefer, however, he had decided to file an application for the summonsing of the witness Fred Leuchter because the latter’s report in the Zündel trial was the initial spark that had inspired Monika Schaefer to revise her opinion of the historical event that is the crux of the case against her.

After a short period of consultation, the court gave its assent to the first application, but rejected the second application (the exclusion of the public) because it was not clear why the seriousness of the procedure could be compromised when interrogating witness Fred Leuchter.

This ended the tabling of evidence. Before addressing the plea, the presiding judge warned the observers in the gallery against expressing their dissatisfaction when the prosecution presents its case. Should they fail to observe his request, he will have to interrupt proceeding to apply the rules governing behaviour in court.

In her plea the prosecutor said that to doubt the Holocaust is not a mere act of ignorance but a hostile, wilful act of ignorance. It is completely incomprehensible to her how one can upload such one-sided videos to the Internet, because if one deals with a topic, one cannot skirt the facts of the matter. On all charges, offence against §130 StGB is fulfilled because the content of the videos is able to disturb the public peace through its pervasive incitement to hatred of Jews.

The videos would also fulfil the charge of sedition against refugees, and are thus able, month by month, to disrupt the public peace in Germany. Monika and Alfred Schaefer had made it their intention to incite hatred: Alfred Schaefer in eleven instances, and Monika Schaefer in four instances. Both are thus to be found guilty on all charges.

In Monika Schaefer’s favour is the fact that to date she has no prior criminal convictions. She is more a hanger-on, but in the end does not show any insight. Hence the state prosecutor demands 13 months of imprisonment. And she is not to be granted bail because risk of flight is real, since she can very probably find refuge among public sympathisers.

Likewise, Alfred Schaefer is also to be credited with the fact that he has to date no criminal convictions. However, he is to be found guilty of all 11 charges and imprisoned for a total of 3.7 years.

The prosecutor requested also the confiscation of items mentioned in the security record, pursuant to the execution of the search warrant (camera, computer, etc.). She felt it was a threat that Alfred Schaefer had repeatedly said that at some point the court would have to answer to an ordinary court. In regards of Alfred Schaefer’s question to the court, ‘What will they one day tell their children?’ she opined that it is a particularly simple but effective propaganda tool. Hence no bail should be granted him either, especially because of the risk flight, and the likelihood of his finding refuge among sympathisers.

After a break, lawyer Narath made his closing submission: He explained that it was basically about verbal offenses, which was completely incomprehensible for Monika Schaefer, since she was raised in a so-called ‘land of the free’. She did not rob anyone, she did not hurt anyone, she did no harm to anyone. She had only decided at some point to announce her changed opinion. The concept ‘Holocaust’ is not known to jurisprudence. It emerged mainly from a film produced in Hollywood. The term ‘holocaust’ is actually a religious term.

A law is incomprehensible if it cannot be analysed. §130 of the Criminal Code has a special status. He asked leave to recall that former constitutional court judges had expressed considerable doubt about the legality of this section. If someone else was not so familiar with the legal history of the FRG, one had to be extra careful. The Republic had survived without this section for more than 40 years, without prosecution. Monika Schaefer is a thoroughly  peaceful person, a philanthropist. She engages sincerely with the preservation of nature. To insinuate and imply that such a woman harbours malicious hatred is without foundation. He quoted the following words of Monika Schaefer: ‘I started checking other events for their truth content. I started to regret things. Today I am firmly convinced that my mother is innocent. I have come to know a new term, “ritual defamation”. To regard my behaviour as hatred of Jews is an unfair and infamous insinuation.’

‘Where does this obviousness come from?’ he asked. ‘Katyn was also once “obvious”, and now the truth is known. The Russians have apologised for it. If you know nothing about an act, you have no intent. The videos are only niche products. If the obviousness were so rock-solid, then the video would have no chance of disturbing the public peace.’ He declared himself to be of the opinion that one should tolerate such videos, as was the case 25 to 30 years ago in Germany. He, therefore, requests that Monika Schaefer be found not guilty of any crime.

In his closing submission, Alfred Schaefer’s defence counsel explained that the public prosecutor had drawn a picture of Alfred Schaefer as an enemy of humanity. As a German, as a child in Canada, he was always confronted with a collective guilt complex, and from this experience he developed an adventurous lifestyle and a passion for overcoming fear.

But in spite of this he still successfully completed his engineering studies. He had studied electronics and thereby internalised the exacting scientific working method, so that there was no escape for him from the truth.

It was his interest in 9/11 that had made him aware of the fact that he was searching for historical truth, and indeed truth without a taboo, because the official history of 9/11 has nothing to do with the truth. Alfred had attacked the Zionists as he was not concerned with the Jews in general because the Zionists had a significant influence in the Western World. The videos, which would have been intended only for the English-speaking world, could not disturb public peace in Germany. He also wanted to enter into discussion with Jews, as long as it was an honest dialogue. Concrete positive or negative reactions to the videos do not even exist, so one could not speak of a disturbance of public peace. With regard to charge 9, he referred to a judgment of the Higher Regional Court, Naumburg. He emphasized that it was all about political criminal law, and requested the acquittal of Alfred Schaefer.

The court expressed its thanks for the submissions and announced that the date of the next hearing is Thursday 25 October 2018 at 9:30am, and that the closing remarks of Alfred and Monika Schaefer will be heard at that hearing.

======================

Brief report of the nineteenth day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich District Court

Thursday, 25 October 2018

At the beginning of today’s trial, lawyer Nahrath requested that the arrest warrant for Monika Schaefer be set aside, because it was completely disproportionate to continue detaining her. Then Alfred Schaefer began his submission.

First, he thanked all those attending the trial, which he labelled ‘inquisition’. He then expressed gratitude for the role he was given, because otherwise he would not have believed that a legal process such as this one, which is all about views and opinions,  could take place in Germany.

He then explained that his attitude is unyielding because there are situations where it is appropriate only to do the right thing. For example, he once crossed the frozen Ammersee and found a man who had saved himself with his last ounce of strength from falling into a hole in the ice, but didn’t have the strength enough left to move away from the hole. He was already falling asleep, thus facing certain death.

Experienced in the Canadian wilderness, Alfred knew exactly what that meant. In such a moment, you just have to do the right thing. Going to the man is not the right thing to do;  encouraging him to move away from the hole in the ice is. Going to him would put both of them in danger of drowning. He yelled to the man to come to him, and would not accept the man’s response that his hands are cold or that he is exhausted. He remained relentless, and so succeeded at some point to chivvy the man into a final effort to move away from the hole in the ice. If he, in this situation, had said a silent prayer as the judge had suggested, rather than produce the videos, that would have been the equivalent of failing to urge the man in the frozen river to move further towards him. And that man would be dead now.

So, Alfred continued, he is convinced that you have to do what you think is right, if you are sure you have the moral foundation for adopting such a view. He had wondered why the Germans were always silent on certain topics. He grew up in Canada, in a democracy that even instructs you to say what you think, and what you think is right. He is immune to attacks, and will never give up this immunity; he will stand up for what he thinks is right.

He then commented on the individual charges. He is accused of having shown a swastika in a video. However, he used this symbol only because he had learned everywhere, at school and from the media, that this symbol symbolized absolute evil. As a symbol of evil he put it opposite the Star of David to make it clear that not 19 box-cutter terrorists, but some Jews, had organised the 9/11 terror attack.

He did not choose the cross as the glorification of National Socialism, but as an expression of evil. Although the swastika was a core symbol of National Socialism, the video was an explanation of the terrorist attacks of September 11 because the official story about 9/11 was nonsense.

When Alfred Schaefer wanted to comment on the charges, which accused him of further poisoning the general political climate and disrupting the public peace by expressing himself in a video about the Holocaust, the judge interrupted him and pointed out that in his statements he has no right to commit further offences, whereupon his defence counsel assured the court that Alfred Schaefer would attempt to formulate his statements accordingly. Alfred Schaefer continued to report on the issues raised about the video in question:

• the meeting with a well-known journalist who did not know anything about the building WT7;
• the expert Leuchter Report’s being derided as ‘so-called’, despite the need to take it seriously because it is a work based firmly on scientific principles;
• Benjamin Friedman, whose speech is required reading for all who wish to understand the things that are going on, which the court has thankfully observed;
• his not understanding the court’s use of ‘legal certainty’, e.g.: that his sister’s video wherein she apologised to her mother had endangered legal certainly in the FRG;
• his is calling the video ‘Zeitgeist’ because it is a snapshot of the journey that shows it to be as unstoppable as two tectonic plates that move against each other.

‘We would have failed,’ he goes on to explain, ‘because we thought that everything was good, but we had ruthlessly to deal with the truth, whether we found it palatable or not. The 11/9 ”terrorist attack” was not a car accident. We need to understand what happened because it has had consequences for all of us; see Afghanistan, Iraq, war on terror, etc.

‘All these constructed lies will slowly be exposed. Inexorably, a higher resolution will enable us to view a picture that tells us the truth. In the end, if you obstruct the pursuit of truth by individuals who know what is going on, the problem will only get worse for all concerned.’

In the course of Alfred Schaefer’s submission, the public prosecutor interrupted to complain about his choice of words because he had repeatedly labelled the court an ‘inquisition’. And the judge interrupted his submissions likewise. Lawyer Nahrath explained that Schaefer’s submission is important because the indictment is full of indefinable terms. Alfred Schaefer then augmented the import of his question: ‘If one enters a burning house and shouts “fire”, would that also be incitement?’

In regard of Charge 11 and his gesture at an event in Bretzenheim, he said that the global Zeitgeist is changing. We cannot but recognize the new Zeitgeist. His father had always been upset that it was fully fifty years after the event, during the Zündel trial, that the  deliberate killing of hundreds of thousands of Germans through food confiscation was even mentioned.

‘One look at our cities would be enough to see where the journey is going. If we continue to let ourselves be abused, we shall later have to apologise to our children. Today the Trump administration says , Trade or die! In fact, Trump wants to make America White again, and it should be We or they?’

The court is guilty of misinterpretation, he continued, because he had never mentioned Hitler; he had shown only the Roman greeting. How can you treat people like that, and put an old lady into jail at the age of 89? ‘This is all happening on behalf of the human rights organisation of B’nai Brith.’

He was also not able to understand the purpose of silencing his sister Monika. Her fame  had thereby risen ten-thousand-fold exponentially, so the exact opposite of what they had probably intended had been achieved.

‘It must be alarming,’ he opined, ‘if so much effort is put into the preventing of people’s gaining knowledge that is contrary to the official version of an event.’

He further asked why the whole infrastructure always belongs to the same people who are able to exercise full censorship. However, all those involved in the proceedings could never again claim that they had no knowledge of asylum-related issues. ‘We would have to talk about content, not about prohibitions. Where is the crime, if one takes a different direction because of having gained new insights?’

His decisions are based only on scientific principles and not on the prohibition of thinking that exists only in totalitarian systems. Everyone has to decide on which side he wants to be: on the solution page or on the problem page. The Schaefers are persistent because they just cannot simply give up the truth.

When Alfred Schaefer addressed the subject of migrants, he was warned that his statements could be punishable. His defence counsel draws the court’s attention to the fact that this could also be due to concentration problems. The judge therefore offered a break, in which Alfred Schaefer could also be brought some coffee. Lawyer Nahrath then intervened and explained that this was now too much also for him, and he would not allow this either.

The public defender, who had for the first time during this trial day taken over the defence of Alfred Schaefer, stated that further dates are already fixed, so one does not have to force defendants to conclude their plea and thereby expose themselves to danger, that is, to expose themselves to the prosecution with careless statements.

After some back-and-forth and two consultation breaks, the court finally ruled that the closing remarks of Alfred Schaefer should be continued on the following day of the hearing, 26.10.2018, and be limited to a maximum of four hours.

The short report for Friday’s trial will presumably follow on Saturday, 27.10.2018.

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>