Conversation with Brizer on the Graham Hart Show

Posted by in busking, Canada, CBSA, Free Speech, Holohoax, Jasper, Ritual Defamation, Schaefer – Alfred, Schaefer – Monika, Stadelheim Prison, Uncategorized, Video – Sorry Mom, WW II Revisionism

Screen Shot 2019-07-25 at 5.35.57 PM

Once again, what a pleasure to talk with Brizer on the Graham Hart Show a few days ago 22 July, 2019. We covered a lot of ground catching up since the last time we spoke, everything from the “thought police” at the Calgary airport, to my local win with regards to busking, our sovereignty and “their” lack of authority, Alfred’s plight – facing new charges for things he said “in public” during the Inquisition in 2018, and much more.

I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. A couple of “dead air” moments caused loss of content, one of which was about the German corporation Bayer. They have recently bought Monsanto, and face class action suits which were strangely not successful until now. Just another example of how everything and anything German is being bled dry. That part was out of Alfred’s letter.



Letter from Alfred


4 May 2019

Dear Monika,

A visitor told me you were in the U.S.. Very good! She said communist Canada took a bunch of your books. Wow, they are scared Monika, the Jews. So close to ruling the world, and darn, the Goyim are waking up. Scheiße, how did that happen?

Monika, people are speaking a new language now. They talk quite openly about exterminating the disease. That came about rather quickly. And it ain’t gonna stop there.

JFH Reuben sent me a fantastic letter. I replied. He’s great. Him and Gerard Menuhin. We ought to sit together on a panel, and take questions. Let them shoot us if our answers don’t satisfy them. The world really is separating into Wakies and Zombies. We all had equal opportunity to ask a few basic questions and use our God given brain. Some chose to play. Have fun. Didn’t want to risk losing friends. I have not lost a single friend, got rid of pesky Zombies, and got a bunch of new real friends.

[…referring to communist Jasper…] Rainbow sidewalks so the gender confused feel happy. Safe spaces for their hurty feelings. Justin Trudeau, (the faggot with the nice hair who the Jews have as their administrator running Canada, making it darker and gender fluid.) would feel very good in Jasper. I hear that the Jews are setting up a homo to be next president of the U.S.. Then Trudeau and him can commence with very private get-to-know each other sessions when deciding how to run the country. Berlin had one of those for Mayor. His name was Wowereit. Everyone called him Po Bereit [translation: “ass ready”].

On a more serious note: I really notice how those people who missed the train, are really drifting into an unenviable situation. My last letter to you I included the lovely letter from South Africa, signed King Arthur. I notice how I openly laugh at people who stammer something about “Oh, you weren’t there, the hollow cost was real.” Time is over for lengthy “debates”. It had to come to this. Here in my Trakt [section or unit] where I am now, there are a few scum simpleminded criminals who are still zombies, and everyone with a brain is totally with me. The holo believers consist of real losers. F.Y.I. I am in with the Leonhard project, but not a participant. So my cell door is open more than the regular Trakts, and pretty much all white. Other Trakts are like a prison in Africa with German staff.

Back to the last of the zombies. When someone does come to me with “I know it was real bla bla bla…” I ask them how old they are. I ask them if they understand the Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs was created to entertain little children and that it is not true. Then I emphasize that it is now 2019 and you seem to be one of the very last people to still believe the silly evil Jewish fantasy extortion holojoke. Oh, they sulk and hate me, but they truly are the losers anyway, and we cannot waste time on them. They are lost. I actually feel like I am talking to a yappy little dog, and how do you talk to one of those? If they don’t stop yapping, and scratching them behind the ears doesn’t help, and a bone won’t stop the yapping, kick it to the curb. Hey, that is what the Kike Jews wrote once in the paper about you…

Kicked her to the curb.

Monika, would you speak normally with somebody who has placed a fresh dog poop on their head? No, it is not possible to take them seriously. That is how I feel, and so so many other people feel, about people who don’t get it. […then refers to an acquaintance who was having too much fun to care or to investigate, and also didn’t want to lose friends by talking about 9/11…]

It leaves me speechless, like when looking at the person who has a fresh dog poop on their head and pretend it doesn’t exist. I don’t want that person too close to me, in case the dog poop falls off and hits me.

These people, the ones with the dog poop on their heads, they remind me of a bunch of people who go way out on a frozen lake to join a big party. It was so much fun, everybody was there. Then the sun started to shine, it got warmer and warmer, people started to think about their situation, and started leaving the party on the ice. Eventually, almost everyone moved to solid ground as the ice was melting. The last ones, too hypnotized by the party, all go down as the bright sun melts the ice to critical point.


An interesting and effective way to move large numbers of people quickly was often demonstrated by the Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Death camps. Let’s say you want to move 1000 people from Area A to Area B, and you want to move rapidly. “Hello folks, we want you all to move into area B at 12:00 noon. The last 50 to reach area B will be shot.”

With that simple motivator the 1000 people all moved very rapidly voluntarily. In the case of the zombies who pretend not to understand, or may in fact be too indoctrinated to understand, the motivator to move rapidly will be the stigma of utter shame. No shooting necessary. Many will hang themselves, or shoot themselves, rather than face the shame.

Monika, the contempt I feel for the Zombies now, mid 2019, is shared by so many of my co-prisoners. A sulking zombie is laughed at, ignored. What do the Zombies talk about?

Oh, did you see the ball game? I think player X was bla bla bla bla bla.


did you hear, its all over the news, Joe Blow is getting a divorce from Cinderella.

Hey Monika, after you got out, you wouldn’t believe how people watched your every move.

She smiled!

And they all smiled.


Just listened to “Die Nachrichten” [the news] Propaganda. Wow. Monika, an important point that we need to repeat over and over again is:

We have become that which we were prepared to kill in an all out war. We have become Communist Zombies. Mindless zombies marching blindly where the Bolshevik Jew orders us to march. Fight wars where the Jew orders us to fight. Kill those the Jew orders us to kill. Hate those the Jew tells us to hate. Even ourselves if the Jew wants us gone. And he wants us gone after we have been bled to death. If we are incapable to liberate ourselves from the parasite of death, the others are obliged to defeat, kill us, before we kill them.

That brings to mind how much we can learn and copy from Mother Nature.

Bees, ants and Boa Constrictors come to mind. Oh, and of course Dicrocolium Dendriticum, like in my video. That’s the enemy of course. Lets start with the bees.

Seeing our work as being similar to the sting of the bee, we have come very far. Unlike the bee, we can still sting, even me from my cell, I can still sting. That is why I am so happy. Actually, our exciting adventure with the Kikes and their silly inquisition has amplified our venom. Thanks Jews!

So, how does the bee’s venom work? And when does the bee sting?

When the bee senses a threat to its own Folk, its family, its own kind, it sets its little stinger into this threat. Even though the bee will die, the bee is still happy, because it knows it has done the right thing, as have his ancestors and friends. He knows he is nothing without his Folk. A bee all alone? It won’t survive.

So, what does this little stinger do, that has been carefully positioned into the threat?
The target becomes irritated, is distracted, may change direction. But what else does the stinger do? The venom has the characteristic that it emits pheromones that signal other bees to also set a stinger as close as possible to where these pheromones, or signal, is coming from. As the target starts flailing about it becomes easier for the newly activated bees to target for additional stingers. This chain reaction continues as long as necessary until the threat is neutralized, or the bees are too few and weak to achieve their objective. A key element in this strategy is pheromones that motivate additional help to join in.

Monika, I do believe that our work has this same characteristic, and we are always open for new ideas and improvements. Like the African killer bees, their pheromone is turbocharged.


Ants: there is some clever little ant that sneaks up to its next meal, maybe a sleeping mouse or bird. The ants move in, not doing anything at all other than going into position. Then, when they figure they are enough, they all bite at the same time. Well, two or three ants would be no problem for the mouse, but 6,000,000 ants at the same time. That is too much, and the mouse has Holocaust.

Those ants must have learned from the Jews. They infiltrate undetected, and all work together, and while the ants scream Holocaust, the mouse gets eaten alive.


Now we go from ants to snakes.

Boa Constrictor or Python. They too sneak up on the next meal. Like the ants or the Jews. Once the Boa has wrapped itself around a rat, for example, the rat knows it is in trouble and holds its breath to resist getting squeezed tighter. The Boa thinks to itself, that’s fine, I’ve got time. After a while, the rat thinks, O.K, I need to get a fresh breath and I think its safe to do so now. As soon as the rat exhales, the boa ratches itself tighter, like those plastic hose clamps, and that’s it for the rat, until it tries again, and then there is zero breathing space left.

Kikes: Kikes use the boa constrictor method a lot in their propaganda. As the dark skinned murderers and rapists advance in every village and town in our white world, they increase their lies about reduced crime, and reduced numbers of poor poor refugees, and they like to make a huge show out of a poor poor little negro that is so afraid of deportation. Some innocent little child, who could want to deport this cute little brown baby? And they love to show how successfully some brown people have integrated and how the evil Nazis are so mean and dangerous.

And of course you will not hear even one word about the murders and rapes of white people. Not one word. Or how about one word about the phony hollow hoax? Or how about explaining where the money went that financed Neal Armstrong’s first step in a film studio? We are waiting.

How about one word about the Jewish attempt to poison 6,000,000 Germans in 1945 after open hostilities had ceased? How about one word about Larry Silverstein’s Insurance fraud after his role in mass murder on 9-11? We are waiting… One word please…
And no, we are not going away…
And yes, we are growing…
In numbers and resolve…
Our patience is getting thin…
We have nothing left to lose.


“Will someone please arrest that man!”
“Can’t, he’s already in prison.”
“Then cut out his tongue”
“The others will notice.”
“Do something!”


– Upload filters for the internet.
– More Holocaust awareness focus, at younger age levels, play school.
– More Gender studies. Become aware of all the 6,000,000 genders. Free choice for children to choose which of 6,000,000 genders they may want to be.
– Instant and harsher punishment for intolerance.
Holocaust deniers to be executed.
USSR did it, so can we.
USSR had Law #58 which dealt with this
BRD has Law #130
USA has Hate crime legislation. [as does Canada]
– Zero tolerance for all transgressions. We want and need to do more to protect our democracy and freedoms. We will snuff out all threats.
– People can report transgressions anonymously.
– Report on family members to prove your devotion to peace on earth.


Hey, that plan looks real good.

Just thought of another characteristic you should always keep in mind. The Jew is the gang leader of the dissatisfied. The more of these around, the greater the Jews’ power. That is why it is so important for the parasite Jew to swamp our countries with sludge, because this sludge can easily be led by the Jew, against whatever needs to be taken out. Holo deniers, racists, nazis, etc etc. The Jew slaps a label on you and sends the dogs after you. “Racist Filth Charged in Germany”. [article in the local weekly paper The Fitzhugh two days before my re-entry into Jasper, headline “Racist Filth: Schaefers sentenced in Germany”, has since been scrubbed from their online archives ~MS] The dogs are like sharks in a feeding frenzy. They were supposed to have eaten you alive.

Monika, but you were too fast for those lame dogs. The inquisition Muppet Show and the kike parasites screeching vile incitement to murder you, and your successful re-entry to the Jasper prison of invisible bars, that alone is worth a book. Better than James Bond.

Oh, those people uttering:

She deserved more prison

Those are the statements that the courts for TREASON will be happy to have in their hands. This, of course, is coming far sooner than the programmed dogs or Jews can even imagine.

Hey, just a few days ago I reached your prison time. 296 days for you I believe. [it was 297 days ~MS] Today is my 302 day. To think what you managed after that long in a cell, WOW! I am trying to imagine the sensory overload, surrounded by zombies who have no idea about the war zone you are coming from. Then sitting on a plane, wondering, wondering how the other end will be like. Will they kill me? Now you know why your smile was so important for the people to see.


When you talk to our mutual friends, please, all my warmest regards. Arthur Topham & his wife, hope they are well, thank Arthur for his amazing work over such a long and critical time. He was fighting with the gloves off while we were still happy-go-lucky Zombies. Like Kiddies in the sand box. Playing. Having “fun”. Thanks Arthur.
Talk lots with Patrick Little & JFH, VIPs.

I hope Henrik Palmgren from Red Ice has been talking with you. My luck with them has been phenomenal. Monika, we did that re-boot interview the day after I was raided. Yeah, I learned to hide the vital goods real good. Tough luck Kikes! You blew that one. First you hack Red Ice half to death, then steal all my stuff, 3 times. Did you shut me up? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha… nice try. Hey Kikes, guess what? Even the “raiders” are all coming over to our side. Ha Ha Ha Ha… Say Hi to Henrik and Lana & their little one for me, Monika. They have been a huge enabler for our cause, a crucial one. They are super heroes.

Another little detail of interest: When I was still in the Laundry [prison job], I had asked [my visitor] to check the internet for Thomas Dettmann, from Audi. Two weeks later she told me, yes, he’s there, its all in the net. After I got tossed out, people wrote me, they could find nothing about him. The Kike Jews are really running scared. Oy Vey, shut it down. Monika, he is now super well informed about all. You don’t get to be on the board of directors because you fell on your head. I’ll give you an example of Kike Logic:

✡ Jew ✡ Logic ✡

The Holocaust was real. It really happened because:
✡ It is taught in all schools, beginning with the very youngest of the goyim. The young people know for a fact that what they learn in school is true. That alone proves the big H is true. If it was not true, it wouldn’t be taught in school. That is the redundancy test. There is zero chance that it is false.
✡People questioning these truths are severely punished. They would not be punished for nothing. No tolerant democratic freedom loving society would tolerate an unjust punishment. That alone proves the big H was real.

The German Corporation Audi is guilty of criminal manipulation of software to circumvent new EU regulations for diesel fumes.
✡ If Audi was innocent, then why are a couple of their CEOs in prison? Innocent people do not just go to prison for nothing. No democracy would put up with that if they really were innocent. Of course they are guilty. I hope Audi must now pay billions for their crimes. To Jew Lawyers. In fact, the fact that these Audi CEOs are in prison proves that we have a functioning Legal system.

More Jew Logic
Monsanto / Bayer
✡ Bayer – the German Corporation, has successfully acquired a major piece of Monsanto. This piece has been producing pharmaceuticals.
✡ Shortly after this acquisition, stockholders are surprised that precedence setting law-suits have gone through rewarding claimants double digit millions due to pharmaceuticals produced by Monsanto. Strangely, these lawsuits never succeeded until right after the acquisition by Bayer. What a surprise that was. Nobody saw it coming.

And more Jew Logic
✡ If you cheat your insurance company out of 200 dollars, you will go to Stadelheim and get free room and board for some time.
✡ Larry Silverstein cheated the German Munich Re [insurance company] out of billions of dollars after he decided to “pull it” on 9-11. The mass murders don’t even matter, they were all worthless Goyim anyway.
✡ If Larry Silverstein were guilty he would surely be in prison now to account for any possible wrongdoing. The fact that he is not in prison proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is 100% innocent.
✡ No insurance company would instantly pay billions if it were not all O.K. Jews inside the insurance company and the Jew media all agree that this was 100% Kosher. No problem.

✡ Now we will have a look at open participatory democracy and activism for the kiddies. After a tough week of Holocaust studies and gender options and studies, they like to go out during school hours every Friday to show us grown ups that they know whats important. They all skip school and demand that we save the bees and rescue the climate. Oh yeah, it feels so good to be involved responsibly. The Anne Frank advanced studies from Friday afternoon can be postponed until Monday. Saving the climate and the bees is important too.

End of Jew Logic section

Now we will look at a simple multiple choice exam that every single person holding any political position will soon have the opportunity to take. It only takes a few minutes and will be coming to you in the mail. Your responses will be available for public viewing, since transparency in any democratic society is of vital importance. All your “friends” will also receive this simple test so you are not alone. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Your constituents will have more faith and trust in you after they know where you stand. Please select at least one of the following:

The reason I never ever mention that Jews did 9/11 is because:

☐ 9/11? What is that? Nobody ever talks about that. Anyway, I tried to get a real job but I don’t really like working much, and in my political position they always tell me what to say. And it pays real good. Lots of Shekels.

☐ Talk about 9/11? Oh no, never. The Germans were, and still are paying tons of Shekels for that silly holocaust story we scam them with. If the Germans are that dumb then its no problem at all to scam the rest of the white people with the silly 19 Muslims-with-carpet-knives story. I get paid good money by Jews to fool you, you take it. Why change?

☐ Because if I say anything I am not allowed to say, they will show those pictures of me with that little girl. She was only 7 years old. I didn’t know they took pictures, but then when I got this job they showed me.

☐ Because I am a Jew. Admit that we did it? Are you crazy? They would kill us on the spot. Look, after we did real well exterminating millions and millions of Germans, and Ukrainians, and Russians, and all kinds of worthless Goyim, then getting the left-over Germans paying us great money after we re-educated them, you don’t think we can squeeze lots of Shekels out of the Americans? Ha Ha Ha Ha… We control the Americans like you control your pet dog. We control all of you goyim.
Do you think we rape your 3 year old girls for fun? Our holy books not only allow, but encourage it. Yes, a 3 year and one day old non-Jewish girl is ideal for sleeping with. We do that so that there is zero chance for fraternization between you Goyim and us. We know you would kill us all if you knew what we do. That is why we are very busy now installing upload filters in the internet and increasing fluoride in the water wherever we can. And the stuff in the vaccines, that ought to keep you sedated long enough for the 3rd world to come in and deal with you.
Hey, if I talked about 9-11, the next thing you know, those Krauts would want their money back for our fantastic holocaust. I mean that was real good money. Tons and tons of Shekels.
Us Jews are real smart. We not only do not talk about 9-11 and the other cool things we do, but we lock up and kill anyone else who does. So, take my advice, stop talking about this stuff or I’ll have you arrested! or killed!


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha … Too late, I’m already in prison. And here you can’t kill me that easily. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha … 6,000,000 ha ha’s.

So you see why the Jews are hell-bent on controlling all the money, and eliminate any and all who might want to control their own money. Whether his name is Adolf Hitler or John F. Kennedy or Gaddafi, they get taken out. Then with all the money they think they can control us and as they lose control they then have always exterminated the remains of the bled out carcass. I believe it was Netanyahu who said, “We will suck America dry until you can blow the ash (or dust) away.”

Of course now the entire world is waking up, and there is no new host to run to. The story is coming to its end. Everything that has a beginning has an end. Monika, never ever in our childhood could you or I have imagined playing such an interesting part in such an interesting story. And it ain’t over yet. It is as if we were made for this Monika. When they put you and me together in the same Muppet Show, I was overjoyed, and still am. The real thing was better than any movie I have ever seen. And nobody can un-ring the bell we rang. With every day, every hour, and every minute now, the seeds are breaking through as the sun shines. Those indestructible weeds of historic truth. I would rather die today than live a single minute as a zombie.

All my love, Alfred

The Battle of the Busk

Three years of battling with the bureaucrats of Jasper about busking and I have finally won! They probably wish they had never harassed me, or put obstacles in my way, and had just sold me the busking permit without fuss three years ago, and the negative attention from around the world would not have come their way.


Busking is the act of playing music in a public place for voluntary donations. Back in 2016, they determined that because of my “non-inclusive beliefs”, I should not have a busking license. Whatever those “non-inclusive beliefs” are (transcript of my video), what has it to do with fiddle music in the streets anyway? Absolutely nothing – but they made it matter, and they shone a light on it all, having had exactly the opposite effect as they anticipated or wanted.

There is a lot of background about this silly saga, which you can find in these various articles:
Busking Permit Denied August 2016
Not Busking August 2016
Tony Hall’s Interventions on the Denial of Busking Permit to Monika Schaefer Aug. 2016
Addressing Town Council on Busking and Thought Policing February 2017
The Jasper Busking Story July 2017
Joyful Resistance October 2017
Fiddle Retreat and an Update on Busking February 2019

On Tuesday the 25th of June 2019, I finally got my busking license. Hallelujah! No fuss, no muss, just signed the form, paid and picked it up. There was, however, a bit of a lead-up to this, and smooth sailing it was not!

In late May I began making inquiries as to the acquisition of the busking permit. I had heard that in 2018 when I was safely tucked away in the gulag in Germany, they abolished all their rules and procedures for applying and auditioning for one of these elusive permits. They had invented (and then broke) all those rules just for me. Rita Hindle, one of the five “judges” on the panel in 2017 bragged to a visitor in 2018 how they had only ever refused to license a single person, and that was Monika Schaefer. To her surprise, he replied, “oh, she is a friend of mine!” ha ha.

At any rate, there were now no more stipulations or procedures, one only needed to go purchase the license.

I went five times to the Habitat for the Arts in the new cultural center/library during posted open hours, before finally on June 5th, I found Marianne Garrah in the building. She told me that the busking licenses were not available yet. “Really? I thought they like to have buskers out there by May-Long weekend. And there have been buskers already.” She replied,

What I’ve been telling people is “just go busk”. Stay off of municipal land for now. Council is still working on getting this “Busking Pilot Project #5” off the ground.

That’s hilarious, I laughed. She agreed that it was very frustrating.

So it was that with her blessing I went out busking during the following days. I assumed I would be contacted when the licenses were available.

On Saturday the 15th of June a bylaw enforcement officer walked over to me, stopped right beside me. I continued my tune. He semi-circled to my other side. I played my tune to the end, then lowered my violin and addressed him. He seemed bothered by the fact that I did not stop immediately when he appeared, but I saw no reason to stop in the middle of a tune. He asked if I had a busking license. I explained that I had tried, but that they were not available yet. Then I asked him if they are now available. He said,

They are always available!

I told him I would get one on Monday, and that now I would continue playing. He asked for my ID, and I said I do not have any on me. Incredulous, he spoke a little louder, “you don’t have any on you!?” No. I then told him,

I am sovereign of my domain, and I do NOT consent to your harassment of me.

At that he recoiled and in a very agitated tone retorted,

oh, we’re going to go that way are we?!

He retreated a few feet, and took out his phone, looking very officious and important, while I merrily played on. Several minutes later he disappeared without a trace.

The next day off I went busking again. On my way downtown I saw the same bylaw officer across the street and when he spotted me, his body literally jerked. I carried on to my busking spot.

A few minutes later the officer walked by s-l-o-w-l-y with his camera held high, filming me the whole while. Evidently he was gathering evidence of my big crime of making music in public. Oh, how frightening!

A few minutes later, a big suburban with (non-flashing) reds-and-blues on top appeared, and out stepped a female officer, ahead of Mr. Bylaw, and over they came and stood right in front of me. Again, I chose to finish my tune before stopping. They exchanged knowing glances, clearly having already discussed my “bad” behavior from the day before.

The female officer was very friendly, and explained there was a problem with busking without a permit. I cordially explained everything to her, about my attempt to acquire the permit, about meeting Marianne Garrah and her telling me that the permits were not yet available but that I could go ahead and busk in the meantime, as long as I stayed off of municipal sidewalks.

She listened attentively, said she would call Marianne Garrah Monday morning, and all was fine. She had no problem with my story. All was good. However, she then carried on that NOW there is still the problem of busking without a permit and that I need to shut it down. I calmly but firmly replied,

No. I am not going to shut it down. I will get my license when they are available, but at this moment I will play my violin, right here, right now.

With that, I raised my bow and began to play. As the two officers retreated she called out,

You’ll be receiving the ticket in the mail!

Two days later on June 18th I had a long telephone conversation with Neil Jones, the manager of bylaw enforcement in Jasper. I learned the names of the two officers whom I had already met in the street: Husan Arafat and Madison Bath. After explaining the whole long story to Jones, he apologized about the misunderstanding and that his officers did not have full information regarding the status of the busking license availability. There would be no ticket in the mail.

Jones also explained that the officers will still be doing their jobs, and that I cannot busk without the license, and if I did, they would have to do their job. The implication of that was clear — they would issue me with a ticket.

I said to Jones,

Lucky for you, it is raining today. No busking in the rain. Tomorrow I am going out of town for a few days. When I return, I will be busking, with or without the permit.

If the licenses are available when I get back, I will get one. If they are not available, I will be busking without one. I have been acting in good faith. I have been trying to give them my money for a license, and have done absolutely nothing wrong.  Furthermore, I can tell you that no time nor paper need be wasted on tickets, because I will not pay a single penny for any fine!

I received the email from Marianne Garrah before I even returned to town, subject line Busking is a go this year! with the forms attached and a statement telling me,

I will inform bylaw that we are still printing the passes for buskers but you are licensed!


CBSA Notice of Determination: Some Books Good, Some Books Bad

Two of the five books seized from me at the Calgary airport back in April have been returned to me, along with a Notice of Determination. What follows is my letter of appeal.

2019 June 26

Prohibited Importations Unit
Canada Border Services Agency
c/o CBSA Mail Processing Unit
2215 Gladwin Crescent, Entrance C
Ottawa Ontario, K1A 0L8

RE: Seizure of personal books at Calgary YYC Airport on 2019/04/24
This is my SECOND written correspondence.

Regional control No. 2019-7011-K19-0001; PIU No. 2019-0041

I have received two of the five stolen books back, thank you very much. A Notice of Determination was sent with the books, as well as a copy of the Notice by mail. I am hereby appealing the Notice of Determination.

The returned books are:
Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust” by Germar Rudolf
Government by Deception by Jan Lamprecht

The books remaining in your (temporary) possession are:
The Commission by Richard Barrett
The Great Impersonation – The Mask of Edom by Pastor Eli James
Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1 by Eli James & Clay Douglas

I am asking, nay, telling you to send back the latter three books immediately. The seizure of those books constitutes theft. I did not consent and I do not consent to the theft of my books.

It is nobody else’s business which books I choose to read. I did not write these books. I wished to read them. They were my personal property. I did not have commercial quantities; they were single copies, not for sale. The attempt to control what I read or do not read constitutes thought control.

Singling me out at the airport in Calgary was an attempt at intimidation and pure harassment.

It is of great interest to me that the Notice of Determination has, as part of the generic form, a list which outlines exactly that which the “identifiable group” is guilty of. Why else would there be such a detailed and precise list? It proves the point, that there is such an “identifiable group” guilty of exactly those things!

The following is on the official classification (D9-1-15) form, with check boxes beside each item.


Alleging that an identifiable group:
▪ is to blame for serious economic or social problems
▪ manipulates media/trade/politics/government to the detriment of society
▪ is inferior/superior
▪ weakens or threatens society

Who is the judge of truth? Could it be that the very group which is implied by “identifiable group” is guilty of all those things, and that they have cleverly made it an offense to talk or write about it? Just a little food for thought for the servants of the system.

I insist that my books be sent to me without delay, at your expense. I also insist on receiving a copy of your entire report in this file.


Monika Schaefer

Zombie Response to YouTube Censorship

Sylvia “LionHeart” Stolz – AZK Conference Speech, 2012 — TRANSCRIPT

Posted by in Ernst Zundel, Germany, Holohoax, Sylvia Stolz, WW II Revisionism

[Here are three texts of presentations from the heroic German lawyer, Sylvia Stolz.

The first is Sylvia Stolz’s speech to the AZK Conference in 2012, for which she has just recently been sentenced to prison. The second short transcript is a of an interview she gave immediately after her AZK speech. Finally, there’s a description of “Sylvia Stolz’s Last Words in Court” (Jan 2008) where she was given a three and a half prison sentence for her too vigorous defence in Ernst Zundel’s German trial. — Admin]

Video: AZK — Sylvia Stolz — Lawyer Who Was Jailed for Presenting

Evidence in the Zundel Trial (full)


Video published on Jan 18, 2013


YouTube Description

Published on Jan 18, 2013

[English Subs] Sylvia Stolz, a German lawyer who was jailed for presenting evidence in the defence of her client in the criminal court trial in Germany of so-called holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, tells her story at the AZK (Anti-Zensor-Koalition) Conference in Switzerland, in November 2012. In 2008, she was banned from speaking during the trial, barred from presenting evidence, and criminally charged with contempt of court, and with inciting contempt, and charged under the same section of the German Criminal Code as her client, and subsequently imprisoned for 3 years. She is also barred from practising law. After giving this presentation in Switzerland, she is now again facing criminal charges, as is the host and organizer of the AZK, Mr. Ivo Sasek.

NOTE: For a translation of the short interview at the very end, please go here (contains C.C.Engl. Subs)…

Transcript of speech

Sylvia “LionHeart” Stolz


Holocaust®, Issue Banned Speech, banned evidence and banned legal defence. The reality of “Free Speech”.

Ivo Sasek (AZK)


[Image] Ivo Sasek at the AZK Conference, Nov, 2012


Ivo Sasek: Our last speaker of the day will be lecturing on banned speech, banned evidence and even a ban on legal defence in court. On top of everything else, being banned from defending yourself in court constitutes a particularly disturbing problem. This speaker is a fully qualified lawyer and throughout her lecture I find it of particular importance, that we don’t let our judgement be influenced by what our eyes and ears have already been shown or told.


She really made the headlines a few years ago, as a defense attorney. So let me briefly explain with whom we are dealing with. This defense attorney has the courage of the lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defend Ernst Zündel in the famous case against him, for so-called “holocaust denial” She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zündel.


[Image] Ernst Zundel sits in a court in Germany in 2005 at the beginning of a trial where he was accused of incitement.


During the legal proceedings she provided evidence to the court, which could raise doubts regarding the official account of history. This caused furor in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech-ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case, and barred from listing more evidence.

She ignored the speech-ban and continued to submit evidence. And was then threatened on pain of penalties if she persisted. As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called “holocaust denier” Ernst Zündel. But not even this could silence her, as she continued to speak the case of her defendant while being forcefully removed from the courtroom. For this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years, in spite of her having no previous convictions.


Arrested in the courtroom and directly into prison. On top of this, she had to face 5 years of “berufsverbot” through cancellation of her license to work as an attorney, and was removed from the Association for German Lawyers. They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. I urge you to help her along. We are talking about a legend here. Making headlines across Europe.


Welcome Sylvia Stolz. If they won’t let you speak there, we will let you speak here. We trust you to know the limitations. I am sure you do.


Sylvia Stolz’s Speech


Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for the warm welcome. Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends. I’ll say it again, thank you for the warm welcome.



I would like to begin my presentation with one sentence, with which I also intend to end it. I believe that in this sentence, the very essence of being human is unfolded.


To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good, hereby the spirit finds the purpose of a life in reason.


This is a quote from Johann Gottfried von Herder, “To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good”. Regardless of your religion, your world-view or philosophical orientation this sentence encapsulates the essence of human life, in my opinion. The alpha and omega.


One of the important topics we will be discussing, is “Freedom of Speech”. One hears from many places, that people who have certain opinions get into trouble. And this is not confined to political discourse. I am sure you know of quite a few areas, without me listing them. But to give an example, say, the issue of vaccines. There are doctors out there, who have been banned from practicing, because they warned against vaccination. This is just one example out of many within medicine. Or journalists who are ostracized because they have a differing view of the events of 9/11, 2001 and report on this. Such journalists are also bound to get in trouble. However, these people are not punished by criminal law, but find themselves punished in their respective occupations.


These examples should suffice to show, that the highly praised “Freedom of Speech” in reality isn’t all, that it is made out to be. And now to the issue of banned evidence, banned legal defence within the area of “holocaust denial”. Much could be said about this, one hour is far from sufficient. My job here is to omit that, for which there is no time. But there are certain points, which I think are essential to emphasize.


First of all, it must be said, that the principle of the “defined penal code” has not been fulfilled. It has been downright violated. This principle dictates, that the accused, must be allowed to know, what he did wrong. And what he should have done otherwise If someone takes a bicycle, that does not belong to him, then this of course constitutes “theft”,as we all know. In cases of libel, where a person says something negative, causing reputational damage, then the question of the court is, whether or not, what was said is true or false. And if true, it does not constitute “libel”, because in theory one is allowed to speak the truth. In the case of “holocaust denial” the first problem we are faced with is that the holocaust isn’t defined anywhere. That is the problem of a “defined penal code” An authoritative definition cannot be found anywhere. I’ll get back to this later.


Let’s turn to to the legal passages. First of all the ones within German Law. In Paragraph 130 section 3 according to which so-called “holocaust deniers” are fined or imprisoned up to 5 years for each singular offence. In this paragraph there is no mention of the holocaust itself. It is not defined in the law as such. Instead it refers to paragraph 6 section 1 of international law. And here we find a definition of “genocide”. And whoever denies that such a “genocide” has occurred, commits an offence, provided that additional criteria are met, such as “disturbance of the public order”.


But what I would like to emphasize is the definition of “genocide” in paragraph 6. It is very brief. I’ll give an excerpt. It is defined as “genocide” when “ONE member” of an ethnic, religious or other group is:


killed with the intention of causing the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

This means that if just one member of say, a religious group is killed, and the perpetrator intended to kill a part of or the whole group. Then it constitutes “genocide”, according to this definition.


Let us now turn to the question of how it should be defined in order to clear. Normally in cases of murder, a verdict contains the established facts of the police investigation, such as where and when , which weapon was involved, the name of the perpetrators and so on. All this is included in the judgment, after being demonstrated by the prosecution that, say “this was the murder weapon” because it carries the fingerprints of the perpetrator and so on. These things must be stated in the judgment.


In cases of “holocaust denial”, we are dealing with a criminal denial of murder, and then of course we would expect to find the details of that murder spelled out too. Otherwise we have no idea, what the accused actually denied. This is the problem, there is no clarity when it comes to what was denied specifically. There should be at least one case against a holocaust denier in which the specifics of the related crime have been demonstrated and specified. I know of no such verdict.


There are no details concerning the crime-scenes, the method of killing, the number of victims, the time-frame of the killings, the perpetrators, the corpses. We have no physical trace of a killing. The testimonies are not specified, neither are the documents or similar kinds of evidence. The intention to destroy all or part of jewry under national-socialist rule has not been demonstrated anywhere. There are no documents showing any prior decisions, plans or orders.


When it comes to the trial of holocaust deniers, we do not find these things specified. Neither do we find any references to other verdicts, in which all these things could have been stated. This is the problem. As long as the court will not commit to certain specified crime-scenes on which these mass-killings are supposed to have happened As long as the court will not commit to at least one specified piece of evidence As long as this remains the case, these mass-killings simply cannot be demonstrated. And even less so the “denial” of said mass-killings.


Now some people might say:


What about the Nuremberg-trial? It’s probably in there somewhere, the details?


This is not the case. Let me read you the relevant passage of the Nuremberg verdict, where gas-chambers are mentioned. Here it says and I quote:


A certain number of the concentration camps were equipped with gas chambers for the wholesale destruction of the inmates, and with furnaces for the burning of the bodies. Some of them were in fact used for the extermination of Jews as part of the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish problem. Most of the non-Jewish inmates were used for labor, although the conditions under which they worked made labor and death almost synonymous terms. Those inmates who became ill and were unable to work were either destroyed in the gas chambers or sent to special infirmaries, where they were given entirely inadequate medical treatment, worse food if possible than the working inmates, and left to die.


That is all it says about gas-chambers in the Nuremberg verdicts.



[Image] The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg 1945/6


It is all stated in general terms such as “a certain number of concentration camps”. It is not mentioned where the gas-chambers were. This means that a defense attorney is left with no place to begin. It is also important to emphasize that the rules of evidence where nullified in the Nuremberg trials. Very important parts of them at least. It says here, in the London Statutes which were written specifically for this military tribunal. Here in Article 19 it says:


The Tribunal shall not be bound by rules of evidence.


That is a sentence which is worth pondering. That a military tribunal, from its inception is given a free hand when it comes to rules of evidence. And furthermore in Article 21:


The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.


Interesting, right? It shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but what are “facts of common knowledge”. It is usually the job of the courts to establish the facts, not presume the facts.


[Image] Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, during his closing address to the Tribunal at Nuremberg 1946


It all becomes somewhat clearer in the words of the American chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson. He stated in the Nuremberg protocols vol. 19 p. 440:


As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations.


I’ll repeat, the Nuremberg tribunal is “a continuation of the war-effort of the Allied nations” Does a nation engaged in a war-effort need rules of evidence, as it seeks to burden its opponent with guilt?


I would now like to read you a passage from another verdict, in which one might assume to find the details of the holocaust specified. This is from the so-called “Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials”. Here it says in the final verdict, and I quote:


The court lacked almost all the means of evidence of a normal murder trial and necessary for gaining a truthful image of the events at the time of the murder. There were no bodies of the victims, no autopsy reports, no expert reports on the cause and time of death, there was no evidence as to the criminals, the murder weapons, etc. Verification of the witness testimonies was only possible in rare cases


And further below:


The court was therefore in the clarification of the crimes of the accused almost solely dependent upon witness testimonies. Additionally, there were barely any of the witnesses, who could be described as neutral observers of the occurrences of the Auschwitz concentration camp.


From this verdict we are forced to conclude … or simply take in what is written to see that:


The court was in the clarification of the crimes of the accused almost solely dependent upon witness testimonies.


[Image] The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials (1963 – 1967) was a series of trials charging 22 defendants under German law for their roles as low-level officials at the Auschwitz camp complex.


This is the starting point of a trial for holocaust denial, and it is also the end-point of a trial for holocaust denial, because nothing ever changes. One never gets to know, neither as defence attorney nor as prosecutor what actually has been established as fact. One cannot know from the prior verdicts, old of new. Surely there is a lot in the media and much can be read in books about it, but obviously, we need to hear what has been determined by the courts. We want to know.


At this point I would like to add a very telling statement by 34 French historians. In 1979 these 34 historians issued a statement in response to the technical evidence presented by revisionist historian Robert Faurisson who sought to disprove the existence of gas-chambers. These 34 historians all hold to the official account of the holocaust and put forward the following as a counter-argument to Robert Faurissons line of reasoning. I quote:


It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible because it happened. That is the required point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers., end quote.


This also belongs to the point of departure of a trial for holocaust denial, because this is how the judges, the prosecutors etc. are behaving. Through their actions they are clearly letting you know, that you are not allowed to ask. This has had immense consequences.


I am in no way the first lawyer to be punished for “holocaust denial”. Not by a long shot. I might be the first lawyer to be imprisoned for it though. But for years lawyers have been accused of holocaust denial, because they submitted evidence regarding details of the holocaust. When submitting evidence, one necessarily have to phrase it as statements of facts. Otherwise it will not constitute evidence, and will be dismissed. That means you have to claim as fact, that which you want to demonstrate to the court. Otherwise it is not valid, and can be dismissed on formal grounds.


But when submitting evidence on behalf of a holocaust denier, asking the court to establish that “so-and-so is the case, by expert testimony or in accordance with earlier reports”, etc. Then the evidence is not admitted by the court, and the lawyer is then accused and sentenced for holocaust denial. The general public know very little of this, because the lawyer in question seldom wishes to attract any attention. They simply pay the fine, and tell themselves that they will stay out of trouble in the future. There are a great many cases like this.


But I thought to myself, why should this remain unknown to the public. The way the accused are being treated, the way justice is miscarried. To punish lawyers simply for doing their job. I felt it was important to me, that the public get to feel this too I will now turn to the Bavarian court for prosecution of attorneys, who was to decide whether or not I should lose my license. Here again i submitted evidence regarding the presupposed “obviousness” of the holocaust.


The evidence again was not admitted, and the reason given was, that the court in light of the available books and pictures hold no doubt as to the “obviousness” of the holocaust. I as well as my lawyer then requested that the court point out, which books and which pictures gave them certainty with regard to the “obviousness” of the holocaust. These requests were dismissed because:


The holocaust and the national-socialist violent crimes against the jews were ‘obvious’.


So, we did not receive an answer as to which material, formed the basis for the certainty of the court. All we got was a very general reference to “newspapers, radio and television, lexicons and history books”. End quote.


In other words, if you want to know why you are being punished, then you should go and look it up in the newspapers. It will not appear in the judgment. Go look it up in the “Bild-zeitung” (German tabloid). This is of course an important point they have, about “the newspapers”. What does the newspapers say?


A French historian Jacques Beynac ,was quoted in Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne, a Swiss newspaper in September 1996. He said:


When it comes to the existence of Nazi gas-chambers, all one can do is, to point out the absence of documents, of physical traces and similar types of material evidence.


According to him:

all one can do is, to point out the absence of documents, physical traces and similar types of material evidence


This is the opinion of a French historian, who by the way supports the official account of the holocaust. Does this not show that the “obviousness” could and should be questioned in court?


Another historian, Ernst Nolte wrote in his book “The Causal Nexus”:


The witness testimonies are for the most part based on hear-say and assumptions. The few eye-witness testimonies we have, are in partial contradiction with one another, and raises questions regarding overall credibility


The historian Hans Mommsen was quoted in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, saying:


The holocaust was not ordered by Hitler.


Again statements showing that questions regarding the “obviousness” of the holocaust are valid.


The last statement I would like to read to you is from Fritjof Meyer. In the journal “Osteuropa” he had an article entitled “The number of Auschwitz Victims. New insights from newfound archival documents” He wrote the the following with regard to the crime-scene. He is editor at “Der Spiegel” by the way… In may of 2002 this journal came out in which he states that the genocide did not happen within in the concentration camp Auschwitz. Instead the genocide happened:


In the two farmhouses outside of the camp, probably.


… so the genocide did not happen inside the camp, but “probably” in two farmhouses outside of the camp?


Again this shows, that evidence concerning the “obviousness” of the holocaust should be allowed in court Now, let us see where the Supreme court stand with regard to the criminalisation of holocaust denial. Because the law here prohibits a specific kind of speech it is regarded as a “special statute” within the law.


This special statute is acknowledged as “unconstitutional”, by the Supreme court, because it goes against the constitutionally guaranteed “freedom of speech”. This was determined by the Supreme court in a rather recent decision from 2009. The official acknowledgment of Paragraph 130 as a “special statute” is a small step forward. If they would just take the consequence and repeal the law criminalising holocaust denial due to its unconstitutionality… However, I will not spare you their reasons for not doing so. The justifications given by the supreme court for upholding the special statute.


In the so-called Wunsiedel-decision of the Supreme court of 2009, the court declared that Germany is by way of exception allowed to keep special statutes such as Paragraph 130. That is the statute criminalising one particular kind of speech, with the inherent criminalisation of evidence and legal defense… Germany is by exception allowed to keep this special statute because of:


the unique historical identity of the Federal Republic of Germany shaped through contrast to national-socialism.


In other words, they are allowed to keep the exceptions to free speech, because it is the “Federal Republic of Germany”?


This is very well put. It brings out the arbitrariness rather well. The second justification is not stated as clearly and is found elsewhere in this supreme court decision. Here they speak of “unique” crimes and seem to suggest that, because we are dealing with this “unique” crime, then by way of exception demonstration of evidence is both superfluous and criminal. Giving evidence is both “superfluous and criminal“, when dealing with a “unique” crime. Does this seem logical to you?


At the end of the day, these are the two pillars upon which the criminalisation of holocaust denial rests. It is the justification within legal-theory, so to speak. “The unique historical identity of the Federal Republic of Germany” and the “unique crime” itself, are the reasons given for not allowing the demonstration of evidence.


Revisions and constitutional complaints are regularly dismissed as “obviously unjustified” Which again entails, that their decisions need no justification. When something is “obviously unjustified” it of course needs no justification… How neat, that is.


Again the answer is not given with regard to questions such as, “What are we allowed to say, then?” There is no answer. I heard the following statement by judge Meinerzhagen myself in court, during the trial of Ernst Zündel. But if I had simply told you, you would probably not believe me. And it is of course not stated in the transcripts. However the “Berliner Tageszeitung” (Berlin Daily) the so-called “TAZ” had the honor of reporting this statement by Judge Meinerzhagen. I now quote the Berlin daily newspaper “TAZ” from 9th of February 2007, reporting on the trial against Ernst Zündel:


Towards the end, and much to the surprise of the anti-fascist groupings present, the court dismissed all the submitted evidence. For the short and simple reason, that it is ‘completely irrelevant whether the holocaust really did happen or did not happen. It is illegal to deny it in Germany , and that is all that counts in court.’. Close quote from TAZ.


I will now return to the sentence with which I began this lecture:


To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good.


This implies the ability to identify and label lies, the ability to identify and label the inhumane, the the ability to identity and label injustice. It also implies character traits, which is of particular importance in our age. The knowledge of our immortality, of steadfastness, and incorruptibility. With such character we might be able to shape a world for the many children who were up here earlier today. A world in which we are allowed to speak the truth without punishment.


Thank you.


Ivo Sasek: Thank you. Sylvia Stolz






Transcript of short interview given after the AZK speech





I would like to add something to my presentation, one thing which I could not mention for time reasons. I mentioned that everybody who does something reasonable, beneficial, something healing, … runs the risk of being called a “Nazi”. And if you want to avoid being called a “Nazis”, you MUST ignore the crucial topics and thus you become ineffectual.


However this is not the only reason why I don’t mind being called a “Nazis”. If you know what is behind it, if you dealt with the subject, it’s not an insult. If someone calls me a “Nazis” I don’t consider it as an affront.


There is the story of a late, senior lawyer, he was in a bakery and while he was queuing he overheard talks of “Nazis”, in the usual way, ill of course, and finally he said:


Did you ever actually encounter a ‘Nazi’? Look at me!


I think this is the right attitude to deal with this matter.


— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –


Sylvia Stolz’s Last Words in Court

January 2008 [No longer available]


[Image] Heroic German lawyer Sylvia Stolz (with heroic German lawyer Jürgen Rieger), who was disbarred and served three years in prison for debunking the Holocaust and vigorously defending Ernst Zundel.


German Patriot Defence Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years.


Sylvia’s comments to the court.


She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of “Holocaust,” making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting “Holocaust Denial.” How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of “Holocaust” was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.


Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of “abuse of court procedure.” ….. She has hope and faith that the German Nation will someday bring this treacherous Court to justice.


Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court’s desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that “Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act.” Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt.


Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions “domestic and foreign” court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany’s enemies. It featured witnesses with “built-in credibility” and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.


She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of “Holocaust?” Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the “Holocaust” game (or “Holocaust Industry” as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it, he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War.) This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the “Hermann Case” in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.


Sylvia demonstrates that the Court’s procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as “abuse of Court procedure,” which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney’s closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse… Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive.


She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler’s writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: “Put that in too!


Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism.

Glenz threatens: “We are going to cut off your final address if…

But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world.

Glenz growls: “I’m warning you!

But Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany’s plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.


Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks:


Is he German? Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye?


Then she turns to the Bench and asks:


What about you — are you Germans? ‘German’stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as ‘honorable.’ In this court, the only ‘justice’ is inspired by the Talmud!


Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and “the truth will win out.” She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction — she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. To the Bench she says


And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace… Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people…. Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects… Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!


Sylvia replies,


If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison! It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government … My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me.


Sylvia Stolz – Incarcerated for a Speech

Posted by in Free Speech

Screen Shot 2019-05-24 at 6.28.59 PM

On Thursday 23 May, 2019, Sylvia Stolz was incarcerated in Germany to serve an 18 month prison sentence for a speech she gave in Switzerland in 2012.

If ever there was a demonstration of the absurd lengths the occupiers of Germany will go to suppress the truth, this story has to be their crowning achievement. Layers upon layers of legal back-flips are required by the criminal regime to keep their holocaust fairy tale going.

First, you are not allowed to say “XYZ”. Then, at trial, you are not allowed to explain how you reached those “XYZ” conclusions. That would constitute new crime, because you would be talking about “XYZ” in public, i.e. in court. It is debatable how “public” those trials actually are, because neither recordings nor transcripts are made or kept. It is an intimidating place to go, and for those brave enough to attend in the public gallery, note-taking is restricted.

Evidence for your defense is also not permitted in those courts. You read correctly!

The next layer of the “speech crime” inquisitorial legal construct is that you are not allowed to describe the above. Because that is exactly what Sylvia Stolz did in her approximately 90 minute speech entitled “Speech Forbidden, Evidence Forbidden, Legal Defence Forbidden: The Reality of Freedom of Expression”, which she presented at the 2012 Anti-Censorship Coalition conference. For that, she is now in jail.

She did not “deny the holocaust” per se in that speech, she simply described Par. 130 of the law in Germany and why it is problematic. She spoke about evidence or lack of evidence, and what is allowed or not allowed to be said in court. She recounts what happened to her while she was acting as defense attorney for Ernst Zündel years earlier. Sylvia Stolz is a lawyer who went to jail for doing her job too well while defending her client. She spent three years and three months in prison from 2008 to 2011.

My own story ties in with that of Sylvia Stolz, in that I was arrested during one of the dates of the Inquisition – sorry – her trial, on the 3rd of January 2018. I was in the public gallery when “they” spotted me, called a recess and hauled me away.

In an interesting twist of fate, Sylvia Stolz was arrested right in the public gallery at the end of Day 1 of my brother Alfred’s and my trial, for expressing in a word her strong disapproval of the day’s proceedings. That was July 2nd, 2018. She spent the next two days in prison for that.

Back to her trial, she received a guilty verdict in February 2018. She appealed. Her appeal process finally ended, failing to overturn the verdict. Sylvia Stolz was arrested at her home on Thursday, taken into custody to serve an 18 month sentence. For a speech she gave in another country – essentially about speech.