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.



Update – Books still under CBSA Review for Hate Propaganda

Posted by Monika in Canada

The Canada Border Services Agency responded immediately with a letter of acknowledgement that they received my correspondence of May 3, 2019. Other than that, there is nothing new here, simply a reiteration of legalese jargon, and a statement that the books are under review, “as they were suspected to constitute hate propaganda”. Below is the contents of the letter.

PIU #2019-0041

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

May 9, 2019

Ms. Monika Schaefer

Subject: Request for the immediate release of five detained books — Regional Control Number: 2019-7011-K19-0001

Dear Ms. Schaefer,

This letter acknowledges receipt of your correspondence dated May 3, 2019 in relation to the above-noted regional control number. The Prohibited Importations Unit received your letter on May 8, 2019.

As per the Notice of Detention/Determination (Form K27) issued to you on April 24, 2019, the five books were detained for a determination of tariff classification as they were suspected to constitute hate propaganda. The items were sent to the Prohibited Importations Unit (PIU) in Ottawa for determination of their admissibility into Canada under Customs tariff item 9899.00.00 and pursuant to section 58 of the Customs Act.

The books are currently under review and you will be informed of the determination and their admissibility into Canada through the completion of Part B of the Form K27. You will also be provided with various options at that time.

Canada Border Services Agency
Prohibited Importations Unit
(613) 954-7049

My Letter to CBSA — and a Cartoon

Posted by Monika in Canada

Let us see what the response will be to my letter sent 10 days ago to the Canadian Border Services Agency, posted below this cartoon by Robert Alan Balaicius of Sacred Truth Ministries.

Canada Post tracking verifies delivery of the letter on 2019 May 7.



2019 May 3

Canada Border Services Agency
171 Slater Street, 7th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8

RE: Seizure of personal books at Calgary YYC Airport on 2019/04/24

I was detained for three hours on the evening of April 24, while three border guards searched my possessions. They were allegedly looking for “hate propaganda”. Five books were taken from my possession. I consider this to be theft of personal property. The search and seizure was nothing short of personal harassment and an attempt at intimidation. I did not consent, and I do not consent. Consider the following:

• These books are available and/or for sale and are NOT banned.
• I did not write the books.
• My books were not in commercial quantities, and I was not selling them. I was carrying single books (one each) for my personal consumption.
• It is nobody’s business except mine what books I choose to read. Or do we now have thought laws?
• Is there a list of forbidden books in Canada? If so, are these books on this list? Where is this list? Why could the three border guards harassing me for three hours not find my books on any such “list”?
• By their actions in seizing these books, the border guards demonstrated an utter contempt for our most basic human right: the freedom to think.

The five books seized are the following:

Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust” by Germar Rudolf
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
Government by Deception by Jan Lamprecht

The 3 guards were 12452: Masi; 30482: Nigh; and 35394: Lahaie

I insist that you send me back my books immediately, at your expense. I also insist on receiving a copy of your entire report in this file.


Monika Schaefer

Detained for “Wrong-Think”: Canadian Border Guards Seize Books from Monika Schaefer

Posted by

Upon returning from the United States of America on 24 April 2019, I was detained by the Canadian Border Guards in the Calgary Airport for three hours.

Three Border Guards spent those hours perusing through my possessions, especially the books that I was carrying in my small suitcase. They were looking for “hate propaganda“.


The five books which they seized from me for further inspection are the following:

  • Government by Deception  by Jan Lamprecht
  • Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1  by Eli James & Clay Douglas
  • The Great Inpersonation – The Mask of Edom  by Pastor Eli James
  • The Commission  by Richard Barrett
  • Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust”  by Germar Rudolf

Jan Lamprecht’s book was published in 2002 and has never had any complaints against it nor any bans on sales, whether in South Africa or America or any other place where it has been sold. Government by Deception is a critique of the black South African government, yet no black person, nor anybody else, has ever complained to the author. It was sold in several branches of the Exclusive Books chain in S. Africa, as well as through the online book distributor Amazon for a number of years. It was not taken down by any distributors.


The Commission I know very little about, it was given to me by acquaintances, and I was intending to do my own research by reading it.

Germar Rudolf’s Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust” is a book [Download as a PDF] I had taken with me from home to read on the airplane.


I had read 2/3 by the time of seizure. It is a scholarly analysis and critique of Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust”, nothing more, nothing less. Rudolf points out statements made by Lipstadt and discusses her sources or lack thereof.

The two books by Pastor Eli James are about religion and religious views. Will the Bible be next on a “danger” list?

I happened to be carrying the Quran in my suitcase – it was given to me by a street preacher in Union Square New York City a few days earlier. I intended to check for myself some of the allegations about the Quran and learn first hand what all the fuss was about. This book they did not touch, though it clearly does have sections which incite hatred and preach violence. Many examples can be found online, and now that I have the physical book in hand, I can verify. Here is just one example:

5:33 Those that make war against God and His Messenger and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country. They shall be disgraced in this world, and then severely punished in the Hereafter..

These Border Guards were looking for “hate propaganda“. Setting aside for the moment the meaninglessness of that term, how is it that single copies of books in my personal possession are deemed harmful or dangerous to anyone? What I choose to read is my business and no one else’s. It is not as though I were importing commercial quantities of books. We seem to have reached the stage where we are being dictated what to think, let alone what to say. This is Wrong-Think in George Orwell’s world of 1984.

Contrast this harassment of those of us who question the “politically correct” version of history to the mainstream teaching about Karl Marx (birth-name Moses Mordecai Marx Levy). Considered to be the “father of Communism“, Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. I do not recall having learnt at school or university that Communism was an evil system which resulted in the murder of countless millions of people, nor did I learn that it was a Jewish endeavour. I recall having been left with a generally benign impression of Communism from my mainstream education. Would these Border Guards have passed over the Communist Manifesto, were it to be found in my suitcase?

Is there a list of forbidden books that has been issued by the Canadian Government? It is doubtful. These three guards were having a terribly difficult time determining whether my books met their “hate propaganda” threshold. They leafed through them over and over, hummed and hawed uselessly. They decided to send them to Ottawa for someone else to make the determination. I suggested to them that they would receive a good education by reading the books themselves. However I also informed them that I did not consent to their actions.

imagesThe authorities seem to be in a panic about Truth being revealed and the general Awakening that is coming. The fact that they are so afraid of a few books that Monika Schaefer carries in her suitcase, shows how far down the road of total tyranny we have gone. Communism seems to be upon us. In Bolshevik Russia people were shot for having the wrong books. Let us pray that our present trajectory change course quickly, or we could end up at that point in the not-too-distant future.

I could not have imagined this when I was growing up in a seemingly utopian world in which they told us we had total freedom of speech and freedom of the press in our perfect democracy. 

Conversation with John Friend of The Realist Report

08 MondayApr 2019   Posted by

Once again I had the honour of speaking with the courageous truth-teller John Friend of the Realist Report. We spoke on live Eurofolk Radio on March 31st, 2019, however that interview was not archived due to technical difficulties. We then spoke again on April 3rd, and that interview is accessible here.

We discussed the weaponized historical narratives and psychologically exploitative propaganda, the status of my brother Alfred who is currently incarcerated in Germany due to his political and historical views, and much more!

John and I also did a shout out for Patrick Little, pictured below. Patrick and I had the pleasure of again joining Andrew Carrington Hitchcock in this show.

Screen Shot 2019-04-08 at 5.39.57 PM

We discussed: Monika’s recent speaking tour in Canada; how Patrick is running for President in 2020 and will be in Washington D.C. in March to protest the AIPAC Conference; the Anti-Semitism resolution that recently passed unanimously in the House Of Representatives; how the International Definition Of Anti-Semitism prohibits accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing; how the Leo Frank murder and rape of 13 year old Mary Phagan contributed to the creation of the ADL; how at this point it is basically illegal to criticize Jews, as many people that do have had their income streams attacked; Monika’s recent letter from Alfred; the story of Audi’s Dr. Thomas Dettmann who is in prison with Alfred, and how his story has literally been scrubbed from the internet; and many other topics.

Ein Brief an Alfred – 29.03.2019

29. März 2019

Brief 15

Lieber Alfred,

nun habe ich schon wieder zwei Briefe von Dir erhalten – Nr. 20 und Nr. 21 –, auf die ich gleich antworten möchte. Brief Nr. 20 kam erst zwei Tage nach Brief Nr. 21 hier an. Die Post wollte wohl unbedingt noch etwas mehr Porto eintreiben – (damit können wir leben)!

Charlotte hat sich sehr über ihren Brief gefreut! Ich soll jetzt schon mal ein großes DANKE ausrichten. Ich denke, sie wird Dir aber auch noch eine Antwort schicken.

Auch hier vergeht die Zeit wie im Flug. Es ist kaum zu glauben, daß wir nun schon (fast) April haben. Im Geist vergeht die Zeit so viel schneller. Vielleicht erklärt das auch die „Merkwürdigkeit“, daß große Denker, die ihrer Zeit immer voraus sind, die logischen Ergebnisse ihrer Gedanken zu nah in die Zukunft legen. Wenn die Zeit so schnell vergeht, kann manches 10 Jahre dauern, was im Denken schon nach 2 Jahren hätte eintreten müssen. Die Vernunft der Weltgeschichte sorgt trotzdem dafür, daß alles zu seiner richtigen Zeit geschieht, – auch wenn wir es für den Moment noch nicht richtig verstehen.

Auch die „biologische Reaktion“, von der Du schreibst, setzt (vielleicht) etwas langsamer ein, als es logisch gedacht wird, weil schon zu tief in die biologischen Abläufe eingegriffen wurde. Aufhalten lassen sich diese Abläufe – also die Reaktionen – aber nicht!

Wir haben uns alle sehr über die Freilassung von Wolfgang gefreut. Ich habe auch schon Post von ihm bekommen, die er nach der Entlassung geschrieben hat. Er wird nun eine ganze Zeit lang benötigen, alles aufzuarbeiten, was in den vergangenen 15(!) Jahren an ihm vorbeiging. Auch alles, was sich in der Wahrheitsbewegung ereignet hat, muß er jetzt erst einmal sortieren und „verdauen“. Du kannst Dir sicher vorstellen, welche riesige Flut an Material nach so langer Zeit zu sichten und auszuwerten ist. Auch ich bin mir sicher, daß es in Deinem Fall nicht so lange dauern wird. Dazu stehen zu viele Zeichen in der Welt auf Sturm. Die Konstrukte aus Lüge und Betrug werden in sehr naher Zukunft in sich zusammen fallen! Eine Amnestie für politische Gefangene wird vielleicht noch eine letzte Amtshandlung der „sich retten Wollenden“ vor dem endgültigen Zerfall sein. Wir dürfen gespannt sein auf den Lauf der Geschichte, – besonders weil wir nicht nur „Zuschauer“ waren.

Du hast schon sehr oft den Baum und den Stein erwähnt, die nicht möchten, daß sich ein Jude hinter ihnen versteckt, um vielleicht seiner gerechten Strafe zu entgehen. Denn Stein und Baum sind Natur und verstehen offensichtlich mehr von natürlichen Dingen als umerzogene Menschen…

Damit Du Dich mit den muslimischen Gästen im Hotel etwas besser verständigen kannst, möchte ich Dir den vollständigen Satz aus dem Hadith zur Verfügung stellen. Im „Buch der Wirren und Vorzeichen der Stunde“ – Sahih Muslim, Kapitel 53/Hadithnr. 5203 heißt es:

Abu Huraira, Allahs Wohlgefallen auf ihm, berichtete:

Der Gesandte Allahs, Allahs Segen und Heil auf ihm, sagte: „Die Stunde wird nicht eintreten, bis die Muslime gegen die Juden solange kämpfen und sie töten und sich der Jude hinter einem Stein und einem Baum verstecken wird. Da sagt der Stein oder der Baum: „O Muslim! O Diener Allahs! Dieser ist ein Jude hinter mir, so komm und töte ihn!“ Der einzige Baum, der das nicht macht, ist Al-Gharqad, denn er gehört zu den Bäumen der Juden.“

Ich möchte an dieser Stelle auch gleich erwähnen, daß ich einige lose Kontakte zu Muslimen pflege. In den kommenden Tagen habe ich ein Treffen mit dem Vorsitzenden einer Moschee aus dem Umkreis. Unter den Moslems sind viele Dinge bekannt, die deutschen Kindern in der Schule falsch oder gar nicht erzählt werden. Die Hetze gegen den Islam ist ein Teil der jüdischen Kriegstaktik und sollte von uns auch als solche erkannt sein. Vielleicht findest Du ja einen Muslimen unter den Gästen Deines Hotels, mit dem Du über solche Dinge mal sprechen kannst. Sei versichert, es wird hoch interessant – wenn es denn ein gläubiger Muslim ist.

Weil ich gerade bei den Muslimen bin, lohnt vielleicht auch mal ein Blick zurück in das Jahr 1215.

Im folgenden Auszug geht es allerdings um das Jahr 1221 – also einige Jahre nach dem Lateranerkonzil von 1215. Ernst Kantorowicz – vermutlich sogar selbst ein „Jude“ – hat uns 1928 ein sehr schönes Buch über Kaiser Friedrich II. (1194-1250) geschrieben. Auf Seite 114/115 lesen wir folgendes:

„Während Friedrichs Heerführer und die Barone den molisischen Feldzug einleiteten, setzte der Kaiser selbst wenige Monate nach dem Hoftag von Capua im Mai 1221 nach einem kurzen Aufenthalt in Apulien und Kalabrien über nach der Insel Sizilien. In Messina hielt er einen neuen Hoftag ab und verkündete auch hier neue Gesetze, diesmal jedoch nicht in der kurzen Assisenform, vielmehr schon in der ihm später eigentümlichen, die nicht nur das Gesetz selbst sagte, sondern auch dessen Begründung gab und Notwendigkeit erklärte. Hatten die Capuaner Assisen die Grundlinien und die erste Ordnung des sizilischen Staates herausgearbeitet, so galten die Verordnungen von Messina lediglich den außerhalb des eigentlichen Staatsverbandes stehenden Untertanen, gegen welche Friedrich II. die Seinen abgrenzte: Verordnungen über die Spieler und Gotteslästerer, über die Juden, die Huren und die fahrenden Sänger. Das Vorbild dieser aller war eine Gefahr und so setzte ihnen Friedrich II. Schranken. Spieler pflegten zu fluchen und Gott zu lästern: daher dürften solche am wenigsten unter Klerikern sein, welche „die Norm richtigen Lebens in Haltung und Wort übermitteln sollten“. Die Juden mußten den gelben Fleck auf die Kleidung heften und den Bart wachsen lassen.. in Nachahmung der Muslims schon vom Laterankonzil (1215) befohlen. Denn ohne solches Erkennungsmal würden „wie die Pflichten so die Bräuche des christlichen Glaubens verwirrt“. Die Huren durften nicht in der Stadt wohnen und mit ehrbaren Frauen zugleich die Bäder besuchen: „Denn ein krankes Schaf verdirbt die ganze Herde“. Die Spielleute endlich und fahrende Sänger sollten vogelfrei werden, „wenn sie mit Schmähliedern des Kaisers Frieden zu stören wagten“. Sie alle schied so der Kaiser gemäß der kirchlichen Satzung von seinem Volk, das er rein herauszuschälen sich anschickte.“

Es ist schon erschreckend, wie sehr heute Wert darauf gelegt wird, daß Adolf Hitler, bzw. die Nationalsozialisten, solche Kennzeichnung erfunden haben. Doch, wie so vieles aus der gefälschten Geschichte, wird auch diese üble Nachrede als dreiste Lüge entlarvt werden. Geben wir der Wahrheit noch etwas Raum und Zeit, bis sie sich den Durchbruch errungen hat.

Einige Worte möchte ich auch noch zu den „Richtern“ loswerden. Du schreibst, es wundert Dich sehr, daß diese über den „Gegner“ nichts wissen, bzw. etwas von ihm sehen wollten. Hier sollten wir doch immer auf folgendes hinweisen: Einem „Richter“ ist es nicht freigestellt, etwas sehen, hören oder zur Kenntnis nehmen zu wollen. Ein „Richter“ hat die Pflicht, sich beide Seiten anzuhören. Alles, was der Angeklagte zu seiner Verteidigung ins Feld führt, muß der „Richter“ begutachten. Denn nur so kommt er überhaupt in die Lage, „Recht“ zu sprechen.

Mit anderen Worten: In den Gerichtsverhandlungen, die dann geführt werden, wenn die Lüge gefallen ist, wird man diese „Richter“ nur zu fragen brauchen, warum sie ihre Pflicht nicht erfüllt haben. Sie werden sich dann nicht damit herausreden können, „von nichts gewußt zu haben“. Es geht bei der „hohen“ Stelle eines „Richters“ nicht darum, ob er alles weiß oder nicht. Aber das, was der Angeklagte ihm vorlegt, muß er prüfen! Und ganz offensichtlich haben es die Beteiligten Kreaturen in München nicht getan – sie wähnen sich noch sehr sicher.

Alle Beteiligten an den Schrecken der letzten Jahrzehnte versuchen, den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken. Sie beruhigen sich damit, daß schon nicht alles so schlimm werden wird. Noch haben sie vielleicht ihr großes Haus, ihr tolles Auto (oder zwei, oder drei), und ihre heuchelnden Freunde aus dem Kreis der Mitwisser. Wie schnell in diesen Kreisen die Stimmung kippen kann, wenn die ersten „Fachkräfte“ dort ihre „Raub-, Vergewaltigungs- und Mordzüge“ starten, wird für diese „Vögel Strauss“ ein unerklärbares Rätsel bleiben. „Es war doch alles soooo schön…“ – werden sie dann jammern. Wie schlecht es in dieser Zeit, in der es für sie soooo schön war, so vielen anderen Menschen ging, wird ihnen vielleicht nicht mal dann bewußt. Sie werden erst jammern und dann schimpfen – bis – , bis sie sich alle gegenseitig verraten, anklagen und ans „Messer“ liefern werden. In diesen Kreisen regiert nur die blanke Selbstsucht. Ehre, Anstand, Sitte und Treue gibt es in diesen Kreisen nicht. Verbrecher halten nur so lange zusammen, wie sie sich ihrer „Beute“ sicher fühlen. Doch die wirklichen Drahtzieher werden den Erfüllungsgehilfen ihre Beute nicht mehr lange überlassen können, denn sie müssen sich ja selber unter den Stein oder hinter den Baum begeben; und auch das kostet in dieser „schönen neuen Welt“ immer viel Geld. In dieser Phase nehmen einige Helfer das schmutzige Geld noch sehr gerne an und versprechen dafür, den „Flüchtenden“ zu verstecken oder ihm bei der Flucht behilflich zu sein. Die „Erfüllungsgehilfen“ läßt der flüchtende „Drahtzieher“ zurück, – mehr noch – er wird noch die tobende Masse auf die Spur der „Erfüllungsgehilfen“ lenken, um selber den Weg frei zu haben. So funktionieren kranke und verkommene Subjekte!

Sag, Alfred: Hast Du einen der Beteiligten aufgefordert, sich diesen Kreisen anzuschließen? Hast Du sie dazu genötigt, sich in solchen Kreisen aufzuhalten? Hast Du diese Kreaturen dazu gezwungen, sich für Schekel zu verkaufen? Nicht?

Dann sei beruhigt, lieber Alfred, Dich trifft keine Schuld an dem Schicksal dieser Wesen! Sie wählten ihr Schicksal selber und schlugen Deine Hand aus, die helfend ausgestreckt war!

Und doch – was immer nur wiederholt werden kann: Noch ist es für einige der Verirrten nicht zu spät. Noch können sie den Sprung über den selbst geschaffenen Abgrund schaffen. Jetzt, wo das Gesetz der Lüge noch vorherrschend ist, können sich Beteiligte aus diesen Kreisen noch in Sicherheit bringen. Gewiß, sie werden in der kommenden Zeit kein Leben in „Saus und Braus“ mehr führen können, aber sie werden leben können. Die Verantwortung für ihr Tun können sie dann dadurch übernehmen, daß sie der Jugend an ihrem eigenen Beispiel schildern, wie diese teuflische Demokratie funktioniert hat. Wie man – sehr oft sogar – anständige Menschen dazu gebracht hat, bei diesem Irrsinn mitzumachen.

Heute ziehen falsche Holocaust-“Überlebende“ durch die Schulen und Universitäten und schütten ihre Lügen in unverdorbene Kinderseelen; in der kommenden Zeit werden es vielleicht ehrliche Opfer sein, die der Jugend von dieser schrecklichen Zeit zu berichten wissen.

Die Wahl hat jeder – heute vielleicht noch etwas Kaviar und Schampus – und morgen vermutlich Opfer des tobenden Mobs. Oder es könnte eine kurze – vermutlich auch schreckliche – Zeit des medialen Terrors über einen „Aussteiger“ hereinbrechen, in der sich dann die wahren Freunde und Feinde zeigen. Nach dieser kurzen Leidenszeit aber könnte für ihn, den „Aussteiger“ und seine Lieben, eine anständige Zeit anbrechen, in der auch dieser Mut gewürdigt wird.

Wenn das Feuer gelöscht, der Rauch verflogen und die Glut erkaltet ist, ist es keine Heldentat mehr nach dem schreienden Kind zu suchen, welches nun nicht mehr schreit. Es ist auch nicht jedem Feuerwehrmann oder unbeteiligten Beobachter der Mut zu Heldentaten in die Wiege gelegt. Aber oft genug entscheidet in solchen Sekunden eine innere Stimme in den Handelnden, welche dann zu Helden werden können oder als unbedeutendes Sein in der Geschichte abhanden kommen.

Die Wahl, und das sollte sich jeder bewußt machen, trifft er selbst!

Dein Vergleich zwischen den „Antisemitismus“- Schreienden und einem Kinderschänder, der bejammert, daß ihm bei seiner Tat eine Verletzung zugefügt wurde, ist sehr interessant. „Haltet den Dieb!“ war schon zu oft in der Geschichte der Ruf des Täters.

Für den „verletzten“ Kinderschänder haben nur sehr wenige „Bekloppte“ ein offenes Ohr – vermutlich sind es Gleichgesinnte, die für solche Wesen Mitleid empfinden. Die Vielzahl der Menschen wird für sein Gejammer nicht viel übrig haben. Früher – da hast Du recht – wurden solche einfach totgeschlagen. Heute sind wir ja „kultiviert“…. (lassen ganz in „Kultur“ unsere Kinder schänden und hegen und pflegen lieber den Täter).

Was tatsächlich hinter denen steckt, die am lautesten „Antisemitismus“ schreien, ist den meisten Menschen noch nicht bewußt. Deutlich ist zu spüren, wie sehr dieser „Kampfbegriff“ an Wirkung verliert, weil er heute gegen alles erhoben wird, was auch nur den Hauch von Anständigkeit in sich birgt. So werden heute ganz plötzlich Menschen zu „Nazis“ oder „Antisemiten“, obwohl sie es doch nie sein wollten. Nun ja: wenn das „Geschrei“ ertönt, kann man sich ja noch ganz schnell zurückziehen, das Gegenteil behaupten und wieder brav in der Herde der „Blökenden“ untertauchen. Hauptsache, man ist kein „böses Wort“ – puh, nochmal Glück gehabt.

Was werden wohl spätere Generationen über unsere Zeit sagen? Ob sie so viel Unsinn verstehen?

Hier noch unsere Tabelle:

Von Alfred

An Alfred

















Sei herzlich gegrüßt, Henry