Brief report of the twentieth day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich District Court (Part II)

…by Jonas E. Alexis…with Fredrick Toben

Jonas E. Alexis: Studying Jewish intellectual ideologues and movements never ceases to fascinate me. Those ideologues always pretend that they are the party of reason and logic, yet they always end up contradicting themselves, confusing their devoted followers, and implicitly and indirectly finding themselves in a swamp of internal contradictions. Jewish academic Steven Pinker is a classic example.

Pinker keeps telling us in The Better Angels of our Nature that violence has declined, despite the fact that Pinker never talks about the Israeli crimes in the Middle East, despite the fact that terrorist cells have increased since the invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that Israel has been sterilizing Ethiopian women against their will, which resulted in a fifty percent decline in their birthrate,[1] despite the fact that Israeli authorities were engaged in systematically torturing four to six thousand Palestinian prisoners every year,[2] despite the fact that at least thirty thousand of them had gone through that new gulag process since 1987,[3] and despite the fact that car bombings and explosions are killing people virtually every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.[4]

Pinker does not want to talk about those issues because that would ruin his thesis in The Better Angels of our Nature. Pinker has recently published a book entitled, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. This is simply window dressing again largely because if Yuri Slezkine is right in theorizing that the twentieth century is the “Jewish Century,”[5] then people like Pinker do not really believe in freedom, reason, and human progress. Why?

In the twentieth century alone, Holocaust revisionism cannot have a voice in places like Germany because its proponent will find themselves behind bars for the rest of their natural lives. People like Pinker will never trade their academic prestige and defend the right and freedom of people who simply challenge the Holocaust establishment. You can say that holocaust revisionists are wrong and crazy, but why would anyone be placed in prison for simply voicing his or her opinion? What is the Holocaust establishment afraid of? Don’t people like Pinker hate the so-called “Dark Ages”? Pinker postulated in The Better Angels of our Nature:

“If you understand the expressions to burn at the stake, to hold his feet to the fire, to break a butterfly on the wheel, to be racked with pain, to be drawn andquartered, to disembowel, to flay, to press, the thumbscrew, the garrote, a slow burn, and the iron maiden, you are familiar with a fraction of the ways that heretics were brutalized during the Middle Ages and early modern period.”[6]

One of Pinker’s sources for this ridiculous notion is none other than A. C. Grayling!

In any event, Monika Schaefer is still behind bars while Pinker and his brethren are deceiving young and naïve people into believing that they welcome reason and science. Monika Schaefer is in prison because she simply put a video expressing her opinions about Nazi Germany. Thanks to our dear friend, Dr. Fredrick Toben, we are able to know what is still going on with Monika.

Friday, 26 October 2018

The 20th and final day of the Alfred and Monika Schaefer trial, Friday, 26.10.2018, began at 9:05am. The plan was to hear Alfred Schaefer’s final pleadings within a four-hour limit, then to conclude with Monika Schaefer’s final words.

As the first of his remarks, Alfred Schaefer noted that the hippie movement was part of the demoralization, something he and his sister had not recognised at the time. It was only because of the discipline and expectations of them from their German parents that they completed their education. If you are fortunate to be in a position where you can change something – that is, if you have recognised something as right, act accordingly. Otherwise, the chance of acting correctly is lost. And he continued thus:

– Without the talks of Professor Chomsky, who was an icon for them all at the time, the video would not have been produced. Chomsky had betrayed everyone. What would German philosophers like Hegel, Kant and others think about today’s society? ‘Re-education’ has destroyed independent thinking. The only winner is international Judaism. Anyone dependent on the Jewish monetary system loses his/her job. That would also explain why many scientists do not seem to understand that the official account of 9/11 is a lie. Thought patterns are created artificially. Kant had already established that human consciousness perceives an object as it is presented to it. Consciousness receives messages. Schindler’s List, for instance, presented certain matters as facts again and again, but they were pure fiction. Jewish financial crimes are far beyond the law, and will never be apprehended. People having to use a language in public other than the one they use at home is always a sure sign of totalitarian structures. To prevent the destruction of our civilization, we will have to return to an honest monetary system. Kant and Hegel would be horrified if they were to see how deeply we have sunk, and how thoroughly their offsprings have forgotten how to think independently.

– By enacting §130 StGB, a law prohibiting free thought and expression was created. The next step is to criminalise breathing. But he would rather die than be reduced to the level of a laboratory rat. A regime that introduces anti-thought laws will perish like all comparable regimes in history.

He then wanted to tell the following story about how a business can be destroyed within 40 years:

‘Can you imagine being asked in a job interview whether you can work with a transvestite, as if your response would qualify or disqualify you for the job? That is the Zeitgeist. Things that in the past were completely unacceptable are normal today. If our history is reduced to anal intercourse and the Holocaust, we have no future. If we are not able to join a social system that puts our cultural characteristics under scientific scrutiny, we eventually have to bear the consequences. Our situation is comparable to that of the small wild boar a boa constrictor wants to eat. The boa must increase its pressure on the boar ever more, continuing to tighten it as long as the boar is still breathing. The boa’s increasing pressure is figuratively the load of prohibitions that weigh on us today for things that would not have caused any problem 20 years ago.

‘Exerting such a pressure is also the intention of this court by confiscating savings honestly earned during a lifetime.

‘However, at some point, everyone will be judged by what he has learned from 9/11. But we should also deal with, and look at, what we can learn from Nature. We have to learn that 9/11 was not a car accident. We have to understand what actually happened, because it has consequences for us all. All subsequent wars in the world are justified by this event. But everything that is being aimed at us now creates the energy that will bring down the lie.’

Alfred Schaefer concluded by thanking everyone for listening to him for so long, and for having possibly learned something.

At 12.35pm Monika Schaefer began her closing submission, which she wished to deliver standing. When she was arrested here in this building on January 3, 2018, she stated that she was a free person. She was then informed that she should have thought about that while still in Canada. Nevertheless, she still feels that she is a free person.

Her home in Canada was very German, and of course, the outside was English. The mockery began on the very first day of school. She quickly learned that her German background was not good. At home she spoke German, for which she is very grateful. Her braids could also be an Indian hairstyle. She had always felt injustice deeply. It shaped her life very keenly, so she travelled alone in the wilderness with her three horses, sometimes three weeks at a stretch. At some point she was involved in the Green Party. She had been a very good and active member of the Green Party. In the spring of 2011, she ran for office, and at the same time, reflected and worked on the  9/11 problem. She then sent her work on 9/11 to Parliament by registered letter, but received no reply. The content of her letter was never mentioned again, but for the ‘how?’.

In 2014 there was again an election for which she wanted to make herself available as a candidate. She had said that when the next election comes, she wants to talk about 9/11. She had spoken by phone with the party leader, with whom she had been friends, for more than an hour. While she had been hugely popular throughout her association with the party, that changed quite suddenly. She was first asked to take back the letter she had written about the Israeli attack in the Gaza Strip, and to publicly apologise for it. She was required to apologise for telling the truth!

That was impossible, because she can be guided only by the truth. That is why she declared her withdrawal from the party. At that time, she still believed that they had a free press, that they had democracy, and that they were allowed to say everything they thought was right. But then the big disappointment came. Yet once you understand what’s what, you feel better. Many wars had been built on lies. If she understood that, other people would understand it too. Or so she thought. In fact, many people did not want to know anything at all.

She once had a connection with a war veteran. His motto was ‘Never trust a uniformed authority.’ When they talked about 9/11, about the use of explosives and the falling speed, he accused her of being an anti-Semite, and probably a Holocaust denier. Even at school they had learned that the victor writes the history books.

After living for some time with her new understanding, she became very sad because it was no longer possible to apologise to her parents. That is why she made the video Sorry Mom… . After that she felt really liberated. Through this experience she learned what happens to people who break a taboo. They are defamed, friends break off relationships, economic circumstances are destroyed. She experienced a ‘ritual defamation’. It was a real community effort, a network of people working together on defamation. The nearest town was 80 km from the place where she lived. She was known also as a musician. She had played at weddings, in schools, and as a volunteer in nursing homes. She was thankful for her experiences as a musician … for the light in the eyes of old people especially. The violin is her faithful companion, even in Stadelheim Prison.

Precisely because she was such a well-known person, she had to be socially destroyed. In the year the video was released, there was something in the newspaper every week that was meant to defame her. Letters to the editor had been written by people who lived hundreds of miles away, so they could not have known her. Friendships were terminated without a single question about the allegations against her.

She was charged with alleged incitement. The question here, however, should be ‘who is inciting against whom?’ Everything was purpose-built to strategically exclude her from everywhere, so that if she were ever be arraigned, she would not find support anywhere. But she also learned that in every village and in every city there are people who know the truth, and for whom the truth is sacred, and who cannot be intimidated.

She had endured the whole defamatory process, but it hurt too. She holds no grudge against the relatives who reported her; they, too, are victims of re-education, e.g. in the manner of Sefton Delmer’s plan.

B’nai Brith wanted to appear as the sole trigger of the process. But the government in Canada was jointly responsible: It had transpired that the Consulate was involved. There are no political prisoners in Germany, it is said. So if this is not a political process, why not write about it? The treatment in prison had become positive over time. All the letters she received were like a rescue ring for her.

While Monika Schaefer was addressing the court, five additional police officers suddenly entered the courtroom. All those present were irritated, and on the question from RA Nahrath, ‘What does this mean?’, the judge answered only that he had no influence over this event.

Monika Schaefer went on to say that she has recently been thinking about her 9-month prison term, which lasted exactly as long as her pregnancy. The 9 months of prison had felt like a jail pregnancy. She was shocked to learn that court observers are not allowed to take notes. She would never have believed that this is possible in a Western country. And she has been accused of criminal energy. She had to confess that once she had actually crossed a road when the traffic light was red. She said that we are at the beginning of an ancient battle. She is no longer ashamed to be German. She is proud of her parents, proud of her ancestors. Instead of a world based on lies, we need enlightenment-education.

After a break until 17:30, the judge pronounced the following verdict:

The defendants are found guilty. Alfred Schaefer was given a three-years-and-two-months prison sentence, and Monika Schaefer 10 months. In the verdict, the judge stated that a process had been experienced where poetry and truth are so far apart, videos are made with great criminal energy, and pseudo-scientific evidence is advanced that is capable of upsetting the legal peace, and of inciting hatred against minorities.

All the statements made by the two defendants, as in an endless loop, have nothing to do with facts. In the defendant Alfred Schaefer, hatred must already have eaten the soul. He might well pretend to be interested in German history, but that does not have to degenerate into such hatred.

In bringing down the sentence, a mitigating factor was that neither defendant had appeared in court before. Even so, that does not change the fact that the videos were professionally made with a high level of criminal energy that revealed itself also in Alfred Schaefer’s final address, in which he displayed no insight. But everyone can believe what he wants. This is covered by the right of freedom of expression, as long as you do not commit a criminal offense. The word ‘sedition’ subsumes the word ‘hate’, and that cannot be eliminated from this world with pseudo-scientific arguments.

• [1] Renee Ghert-Zand, “Shocking Decline in Ethiopian Israeli Birthrate,” Jewish Daily Forward, December 10, 2012.
• [2] See for example Dan Fesperman, “Israel Tortures Palestinian Prisoners Despite Peace Accords, Rights Group Says,” Baltimore Sun, June 15, 1994; see also Joel Greenberg, “Israel Reports Admit Abuses by Security Forces/Unsealed Probe of Shin Bet Details Harsh Treatment of Palestinians,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 10, 2000.
• [3] Joel Greenberg, “Israel Rethinks Interrogation of Arabs,” NY Times, August 14, 1994.
• [4] See for example Margaret Griffis, “Nine Killed, 20 Wounded in Northern Iraq Attacks,” Antiwar.com, November 15, 2013.
• [5] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
• [6] Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 15-16.

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) >>>