PROLOG: This gloss and essay is neither directed against people or groups of people of any origin, nor against their religiosity or ideology. The following is a replica of press reports [1] and a summary of a public hearing in a German court on so-called "HOLOCAUST-LEUGNUNG". Since in 2018 only a very limited taking of notes was possible due to judicial prohibitions and in 2019 a complete prohibition !! of taking along writing materials was ordered, the following must largely refer to remembrance. It also deals with aspects of events of WK II and the associated media-political and metaphysical "battlefield" today. Hubert Bergmann
– INTROITUS –
The term „Holocaust“ is used in English, which has spread to Germany since the American television film „Holocaust“ [2] was broadcast in January 1979 […] The Hebrew term „Shoah“ is also a biblical term and stands for e.g. in connection with Isaiah’s warning and prophecy to the inhabitants of the Northern Empire, over whom great disaster will befall because of their sinful behavior […] That is: in the German language until today no term exists for what happened – [3] / „The Hebrew word „Shoa“ became common in Western Europe mainly because of the nine-hour documentary „Shoah“ by Claude Lanzmann from 1985 [4], which is also called „narrative [5] chronicle of the Holocaust“…
– UPBEAT –
Interested in what happens in so-called „Holocaust denial“ trials, how they proceed and deal with statements, petitions for evidence and petitions for revision, I was able to follow most of the days of last year’s public trial against Alfred Schaefer (A.S.) and his sister Monika Schaefer, as well as this year’s revision and new trial of (A.S.) on some days. I became aware of this topic at the beginning of 2018 about the arrest of German-Canadian Monika Schaefer from a Munich courtroom (without charge) and her immediate blocking (for 10 months). To the best of my knowledge, initially without any legal assistance. Also about a video documentation of a speech of the lawyer Sylvia Stolz in Switzerland (2012), in front of 2500 listeners. In this speech entitled – ban on speaking, ban on evidence, ban on defence – the lawyer reported on „Holocaust denial“ lawsuits. Ironically, she was sentenced by the same German court to 1 1/2 years for exactly this and has been in custody since May 2019. This speech, which was available on youtub channels for a while, is now deleted from there. It may still be found on servers of archive libraries. Whether looking at this speech is a crime is not known to me.
1 Süddeutsche Zeitung vom: 8.8.2019|13.11.2019|21.11.2019 2 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_–_Die_Geschichte_der_Familie_Weiss 3http://schule.judentum.de/nationalsozialismus/holocaust.htm 4 http://www.antisemitismus.net/shoah/holocaust.htm 5 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzählung#Definition
p. 2
– INVENTION –
On the trial against Alfred Schäfer and reports about it (2019) in the german Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper
The very complex process of events and the review of evidence (2018/19 approx. 20 trial days including the trial against his sister Monika) hours of video projections in the courtroom, which were shown at A.S. essentially concern the videos produced by him and their publication, as well as his oral and written statements („last words“), some of which lasted days, and numerous, probably more than a dozen applications for evidence, the police reporter Martin Bernstein „especially for politically motivated crime“ (SZ) handles in the conceivably short format of a few minutes of text effusions. Thus he is quite far away from a factually correct and stringent presentation of the trial. He slides over his notepad with hardly any value in terms of content, past a halfway realistic duty to provide information straight away. Straight to the side of history. Freedom of the press here means doing little about freedom. You don’t call it the „lie press“ anymore, but what it actually does. Pressing the truth together. So „truth press„. It would be helpful if, in addition to the tightly measured grid view from the peephole of a court reporter, he could express himself in more detail on the events of the trial on his own presence. But here in the SZ the spice does not lie in the brevity.
Rather, the narrowness and meagerness of his „copy & paste“ attempts reminds one of the narrow prison cell of the adept about whom he talks. In this respect he may be in the right place. In front of, next to and behind him in the courtroom everywhere strong police officers. It’s getting tight. To his „good“ it seems that he missed the performances in that „Opera buffa“ in 2018. The regional court II / criminal justice center in the Nympfenburger Strasse behind the beer palace „Löwenbräu Keller“. This one advertises: „Bavarian like never before“.
The scope of the A.S.’s analyses and reflections on the events around 9/11 alone took four days in a single lecture (on the processes in the past and this year) to feel comfortable. Extensive statements, references, quotations, media coverage, a large collection of pictures and video material on this topic, which was prepared by the former IBM IT engineer with considerable effort and which essentially depicted the events as approximately 1/3 of the US population (according to surveys) and very many people in Germany and worldwide may see in the meantime. Namely as a kind of „false flag“ action of power and government circles in the USA, controlled with the help of secret services. For better identification this „species“ is pasted by the media mainstream with the unword „conspiracy theorist“ [6] or „confirming“ also „truther“, thus – truth’s seeker – called. Because their interpretation does not fit the officially announced version (i.e. a lying one). Researchers like the Swiss Dr. phil. Daniele Ganser and many others, however, now explain this comprehensively and encourage people to think for themselves and to use the extensive offer of alternative sources. Real clarification, however, would be a task for the „standard press“. It doesn’t seem to do it!
For lack of self-production, the SZ reporter Bernstein repeatedly chews remarks and fragments from the public prosecutor’s office and jibbers in that empty bubble whose stunted and manipulative language was denounced by A.S. in court and partly humorously analyzed with the help of self-produced cartoons. „Our“ press representative, however, remains a third-rate letter Turner, who inflates his weak muggis with marker words and memes in order to give a meaningful impression of his jumping exercises and paints his list full of dwindling information (see also alternative view of „Mem„). Alone, he does not come from the spot….
[6] https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Verschwörungstheorie
p. 3
Just like the court, he avoids to go into the lines of argument of the accused in depth, if at all possible, either individually or as a whole. For him it would probably end in disaster. If the „grid viewer“ would turn to peer into the exit of the cave, where the explanation for light and shadow blinks in the sun. Instead he likes to express his credo about the upper opening under the rubric: – colourful instead of brown. Well digested but, at the other end, everything that used to be colorful is more or less brown again.
Also the „helplessness“ of some judges and prosecutors (2018) towards the accused’s remarks could occasionally be read from their facial features and optionally pale and more serious variants. The reporter’s face, however, eluded even the proverbial pictureless, since the assembled and without exception peaceful audience had to sit behind the red guard of the press representatives in the public trial.
A short example should clarify what a well-known meme, which played a role again and again, is actually about. Prof. Butter, an American from Tübingen, gave a lecture on „Conspiracy Theory“ at Lake Constance 2015. When asked if he believed in the ID of a terrorist found in the dust of a crushed and burnt-out building after he must have fallen out of a plane, he promptly received his very simple answer: „Yes“. When asked what happened to judges, politicians, university lecturers like him and journalists when they doubted what was happening at 9/11, he was just as convinced: „None of them would be in office any longer“.
Accordingly, the assembled judiciary might have been trembling existentially in the Schaefer trial. One listens, frows, tries to avoid disrespectful facial features and finally admonishes the accused in the mined fields of history not to „push it too far“. For his self-protection, so to speak. Then he is confronted with the inevitable „conspiracy theorist“, but is not hacked into in the area in question and finally ALL requests for evidence made for this are rejected. Both those to 9/11 as well as all questions about the Holocaust. Also Mr. Bernstein knows what he has to say and how he has to behave and does this also quite diligently and certainly „voluntarily“. Who wants to lose his job? He was not supposed to be a conspirator or even a disguised anti-Semite. Or even fathoming the gap between fiction and facts. This tries for him his irritation’s object A.S., by the probably after detailed reflection and reading, the „Holocaust happenings“ as – Humbug – designates. What and which areas he understands by it, however, was neither discussed nor negotiated, measured against the size of a historical event. So most of it remains in the dark.
Let’s once assume that everyone in the judiciary and the press and many in society say the same thing about certain areas and mean (and think) the same thing, expressed in a few, constantly repeated formulaic words. Didn’t this mean a kind of unification ?!? Do we find ourselves in that process of constantly repeating the same sentences over and over again, so that others, i.e. „the population“, are also brought into line? It runs cold down one’s back during this reflection. – Gleichschaltung – …. wasn’t that „then“…??!? Perhaps that’s why the amount of design for the reporter in the press organ SZ has become a foreign word, which is now clattering for meaning in his microdossier. This height is now indicated by the „Bernstein’sche Phrasendreschmaschine“ flickering over people’s heads. The picture conveyed in this way corresponds quite exactly to that which the accused A.S. has repeatedly described in his lectures before the court.
p. 4
– IMPLEMENTATION –
The „giant pixelated canvas“ (A.S.) in front of which the letter Stolperer brings his readers very close so that they can just stare at a few dots. Optionally as a display in the public space to trickle the memes into the scurrying underneath. The actual message: – Be careful, don’t ask wrong questions, rather keep silent if you think otherwise -. For if you express an alternative point of view, prison threatens. The fact that in the display text with: „…must be imprisoned for another four years…“ also a drastic false report is knitted into it, can be understood only as confirmation of the popularly circulating and self-exposing term of a „lie press“.
22. 11. 2019 / 20.30 Uhr / U-Bahn MVG / link SZ
A.S. was sentenced to a total of 4 years imprisonment (not yet legally binding), not to „another 4 years“, which would suggest a total of 8 years. Essentially, the pixel dots of the „Bernstein Advertising Walls“ (his reports) consist of words such as: Holocaust, denier, murder of six million people, sedition, Hitler salute, blinded, anti-Semitic, handcuffs. Strengthened with a few alarmingly increased variants of a senior public prosecutor: „worst-case“, Jew-hater of the worst kind, completely unteachable and dangerous, spiritual arsonist, to have Jews killed, destroyed…“. Words of which each one freezes the blood in veins and makes us mute. Or the opposite triggers: „Hunt“ for the „eternal yesterday“. A gladly tolerated and also promoted „side effect“. The search advertisement in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 23 Nov. 2019 shows 823 entries for 2019, 823 entries for 2018-19, 1798 entries for 2015-19, 3756 entries when entering „Holocaust“. I spare myself further „experiments“ with the above memes. You can try it out for yourself, if you don’t install a filter and instead you see specially treated advertisements for the Hofbräuhaus. Final victory: beer delirium….
Chief Public Prosecutor Franck, by the way at the same time anti-Semitism commissioner of the General Prosecutor’s Office and his sign among others – contact person for the commissioner of the Bavarian State Government for Jewish life and against anti-Semitism, for remembrance work and historical heritage, in particular with regard to the criminal law classification of possibly anti-Semitic acts – made a daring question of the accused according to my memory: – If he could imagine that among his followers were anti-Semites and murderers! – This „suggestive influence“ also corresponds to the comment of the senior public prosecutor (Bernstein Report, Aug. 2019) to the accused: – He knew exactly that there had been the gas chambers and the mass murder of the Jews – His plea for a total of five years in prison also falls into this initially gigantic perspective. The judge remained in the judgement with further 8 months clearly under his, with vehemence presented demand. At the „disposal“ stood two further years to the punishment already three years and 2 months imposed, of which one year is served. Significantly, the senior public prosecutor did not go on the black ice and does not speak in a sober analysis of MENSCHEN – Gaskammern. The offence of „mass murder“ is then also „quickly“ fulfilled. It „is given in literature with four, more rarely also with three (persons)„.
p. 5
But now I don’t see myself as a „follower“ of whoever. And I suppose that my musician colleague Gilad Atzmon, who curiously says: „An anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate, wouldn’t come up with the abstruse idea of putting this fading cybernetic stamp on me for general monitoring. A very strange and threatening feeling did creep me in during the Chief Public Prosecutor’s remark. In his plea, the tone rose like a musical finale. The rhythm of the language picked up speed, the „idee fix“ was trotted out in distant keys, only to finally pull out all the stops of a Hammond organ. In this public process, whose scenario seemed to me at times like a strange mixture of Götterdämmerung, Potpourri and Instant Theater.
Why „Instant Theatre“ ? If a defendant is deprived of all rights in his defence by rejecting practically all applications for evidence, by discarding written pleadings with the succinct and unfounded reference to abuse and „obviousness“, one may become suspicious of improvisatory „ad hoc replies“ from the judiciary. Especially when the impression arises that the „object“ at issue is not even dealt with by the court. It looks similar to a little hat game, since no negotiation of the topic (Holocaust) ergo of the indictment (denial) takes place. One sees that one sees nothing and has the feeling that it is being „bricked up“. A novelty in the history of justice?!? A hugely complex and dark subject is simply referred to the shame corner of the story with the reference to „obviousness“ in order to prevent further „chats“. If a thing is to have been denied, then this thing must be clarified legally and not with the colorful toolbox of the boulevard, the film industry and its fictitious narratives. At least that’s what I mean. Otherwise arbitrariness threatens. It’s like the disappearance of some crosses that used to hang in courtrooms. At least you could still see them. But the „God“ under whom we negotiate here and now is invisible, hard, merciless, does not allow anything that he himself would not have proclaimed, demands unopposed faith, even obedience and brutally defends his dogma with a few mantric repeated words. A ritual of obscurantism that does not fit the enlightened world view of a „liberal democracy“. Finally and finally the overtaxed „priesthood“ does not allow one to get an idea of this „new God“. In other words: Not a single argument makes it to the judge. Other images and interpretations are prosecuted. Are we in a sedated secular constitutional state or a Mullah system of a completely different kind? In this process one should believe or go to jail. Such an approach is difficult to digest as a constitutional process. It does not make a convincing impression and seems alarmingly weak. Last year, a judge told the defendant A.S. that the trial would be a very difficult one:
– Anyone can believe what they want. This is covered by freedom of opinion as long as one does not make oneself liable to prosecution –
So the last consequence is: fold the lower jaw upwards or say: „The right thing“ what everyone says. Again: Gleichschaltung!
Mr. Bernstein is now brewing his soup letters from the same switching pixels of this kind with the hope that these will be silently slurped into the people’s kitchen by those who snap for knowledge. Many ingredients are not to be recognized in it. It is reminiscent of my grandfather’s turnip soup in Russian war captivity. – Transparent slosh in which rotten crumbs row for attention.
p. 6
The following remark by a judge in a similar case (Sylvia Stolz) in the same court at the beginning of 2018 shows how difficult it actually is for the judiciary today:
Quote: […] „In her reasoning she stated that the Holocaust could not be denied. She drew the somewhat tasteless comparison (for which she apologized) to international fishing: this, too, could not be denied, even if it was not possible to give precise information about the number of fish caught or the places where they were caught.“ […] – Quotation end *.
* source: Blog einer Prozessbeobachterin (Seite abrufbar bis 25. November 2019) alternativ als PDF Dokument
Yes then… Do we still have to try Gilad Atzmon / https://gilad.online and other bright minds, who demand that at least a peaceful open debate about the so-called Holocaust must be possible, to possibly prevent worse?! A request probably corresponding to the acting of A.S.. It should not be the question of violence, „reckoning“ and scenarios difficult to imagine that made an approach possible. Rather a metaphysical one that releases destructive forces into productive and creative consciousness.
Isn’t it time to bake a fat bread out of the hunger broth of limp reporting and to enlighten the assembled readership that a criminal offence „Holocaust denial“ in the sense of: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege; does not exist at all. Since the „thing“ at issue, the „Holocaust“, is not legally established and defined in the sense of § 1 StgB at all. One hardly believes it, but it is so. Anyone who has become the owner of a parking ticket knows how meticulously an act is defined (here e.g. in the false parker area) and is therefore punished. Here it seems to be somehow different. Does Bernstein hide this fact? And why doesn’t he mention the reproduction of a letter by A.S. that was sent to him by a Jewish person who largely agreed with him? Could this diminish or even cancel the accusation of anti-Semitism? The court could have examined this evidence, but perhaps that is why it kept its fingers off it. Why doesn’t Bernstein report that statement of A.S. after – all people are born equal, as human beings? He lifts only the 2 half of the sentence on his lean TippEx stage. Namely: – That Jewish people would then be put on a „false operating system“, which would be a deadly danger -. Undoubtedly the language of the IT engineer A.S. I suppose, however, that he certainly means that which has to do with a „chosenness’s arrogance“, „choseness“ or jewishness, or with some harsh maxims described in the Old Testament and its Judaistic exegeses. Namely:
How „the others“ in the world, thus the Goy’s, thus gentiles, are to be treated. To put it mildly, many things sound awakening from that not exactly trust. Consequently, A.S. quotes highly questionable statements from Judaism, analyzes them, and thus sees his explanations confirmed. The court does not deal with them. Corresponding applications for evidence, e.g. the judicial appointment of an independent historian, are rejected. The submission of such sources is interpreted by the accused as anti-Semitism. The so understood – spiritual! – Operating system“, so I realize A.S. remarks, is highly dangerous for all of us. Who would not agree to this, under the aspect of the sources mentioned in the process?!? But in the „Holocaust Denial Trial“ the conviction is based on a „clever“ construction of § 130 and the paragraph on genocide. „Beigemengt“ with „Offenkundigkeit“. According to my understanding, two spheres that basically have nothing to do with each other get in each other’s way. Those jurists who impose prison at the end and those who have no business in the courtroom at first. Those of historiography, of religious studies and finally of the narrative and fictitious procedures of „media and mantra“.
p. 7
If, however, the judiciary uses historically recognized judgments for its judgments instead of making use of its criminalistic and forensic toolbox, then is not the door and the gate opened for arbitrariness? Except this justice tested that „historically! Recognized“. But it does not, and instead gives free rein to the stories of narrators. It presupposes the narration of history as „proof“! Does it not then refer to – legally undetermined -?!? Justice bankruptcy?!? For the state system and its elites there seems to be a lot at stake. Nothing less than the image that has been and is conveyed to us by our history and thus provides interpretive sovereignty for the exercise of power and control for the system. Permanently practiced about what is called memory culture.
Has this recently become a „attitude and world outlook policeman“, a public prosecutor! Quote: „for memory work and historical heritage“ to perform ?!? So to read on the homepage of the regional court II / criminal justice / senior public prosecutor Franck.
A.S.’s effort then goes over the very controversial event 9/11 (in trial 2018) to build „a bridge“ to the similarly controversial – question of scope and manner -* of the Holocaust. * (not only in Arab countries). As a colleague of Mr. Bernstein, Dipl. polt. Fritjof Meyer (Spiegel) in 2002 in an article in the magazine „Osteuropa“.
alt. Sichtweise s.a. hier | s.a. Replik in Sezession Juli 2004
Quotation: […] „Since historical research, for obvious but inadmissible reasons, did not accept the subject of Auschwitz as an object of research, propaganda pushed itself into the unoccupied field; Soviet observance still dominated public opinion to a large extent, for example with the death toll of four million, the murder of over 400,000 deportees from Hungary or the mass gas murder in the crematorium cellars…“. […] From the abstract: „New insights through new archival finds : […] „How many people really fell victim to this singular mass murder could only be estimated so far. The first Holocaust historian Gerald Reitlinger suspected one million, the last state of research several hundred thousand fewer…“
source: Fritjof Meyer: Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz –
[…] „A suspicious observer would have to assume an instruction or an agreement at this point. In any case, the debate continues to be delayed.“ (Last sentence from the replica of the magazine Sezession)
Back to the Schaefer trial:
In contrast to a few people present and mostly the same press representatives from the house „ichweißnichtwas“, the spectators in the public trial were not even allowed to take a sheet of paper and a blunt pencil with them to take notes, which was still possible after the intervention of a lawyer last autumn. 2018 suspiciously, with a subliminal aggressive look from police officers in the courtroom surrounding us, observed that not „too much“ was written, otherwise one had to leave the room. Does this new ban count today among a catalogue of special treatment germ. SONDERBEHANDLUNG recently issued by the state (?) as a lawyer told me? To my knowledge, these trials are neither recorded nor recorded. A listener is thus exclusively dependent on his memory. The public is exclusively lulled with phrases by the said „Journaille“, similar to what Karl Kraus described in „Die Fackel“ in 1922: – The Journaille – „the devastation of the state by the press mafia“.
p. 8
Another subject of indictment. Hilter’s arm lifter. This Roman greeting, in itself, whose legitimacy of punishability A.S. wanted to have ascertained by means of a petition for evidence, is of little concern to who uses it for what purposes. By means of satire, the defendant asked whether it had been clarified that there was a copyright for the hackneyed angle. In the trial, it served the dissident 2018 as a tool to provoke and diagnose a „Muppet Show“ regarding the court. But above all their reaction to it. Interpreted by him as an automatic reflex. From his point of view, he had also demonstrated this successfully and convincingly. He threw the high art of mockery and mild contempt, which the heretic and dissident has left as the only „weapon“ in the roundabout, the „circulus vitiosus“ of the Inquisition, into the ring in „self-loathing“. Is the court allowed nothing other than to follow the conditioned reflex declared by the defendant? That would be fatal, since not independent.
This is exactly what A.S. wanted to demonstrate with his provocation. Whether this was connected with a statement about the NS world view was neither discussed nor clarified. This is simply assumed to be comprehensive. Someone who demonstrates this arm lifter is taken into a kind of virtual clan custody. But what does A.S. actually intend with this cheap caricature of an agitprop action? He thus denounces the completely decoupled and empty automatic reaction to certain words, sentences and symbolic actions. The fact that he tried to bring this arm lifter into play as over 2000 years old relic of a manifestation that wished good things to another subject was no longer accessible to the court. Apart from the biting satirical story with his dog, which could actually be dismissed with a smile. If I didn’t agree to this, I would probably shout: „Chapeau“. Of course his dog doesn’t jump up to the historically malicious height. Apart from the question whether he has one at all. A circumstance which the court did not examine at all. But that was not the point. Whether the judges and the public prosecutors understood that however?!? On the face of the punishment they must attribute a high threat potential to the statements of a „false satire“, the arm lifter, in fact with the „Holocaust as Humbug“ remark.
But what if a beer-happy Municher came to the conclusion that the statue of Elector Maximilian of Bavaria on Wittelsbacher Platz shows the controversial greeting in almost perfect pose? Yes, yes, … the index finger goes forward, 3 fingers point to itself and the thumb hangs down… Couldn’t this be a disguised „Hitler greeting“? Before his time? Or a sign that has been in use since time immemorial of a „salvation statement“ that has not been more closely defined. To interpret probably with: All is well, I greet you, it goes ahead… Has not Karl Valentin, similar to A.S. the system at that time also the „stinky finger“ shown when he gave the sentence* of himself:
„It’s a good thing Hitler isn’t called Herb, or you’d have to greet him with Heil Kräuter.“
*(at that time in the NS state with impunity as interspersion in the stage program!!!!)
As in Sylvia Stolz’s book – „Thinking and Speaking a Crime?“ * noticed, such and similar utterances and biographies, also depicted as caricatures or provocatively, are basically „cries for help“. What if increasingly young people, as can be observed sporadically at present in the USA, on a philosophical as well as satirically humorous level, argue with „revisionist literature“ and come to conclusions that are difficult to reconcile with the orthodox historical view and representation? Do we then want to cover societies with mass trials and imprisonments because people have a different view of history because of their own research and reflection, which they also express in a peaceful way, without agitation or calling for violence?
p. 9
But what if questions of this kind come along with the same propagandistic vehemence and „severity“ as is the case with the so-called „friday for future“ movement and claim just as radically – truth? (s.a. It changes….) However, it cannot be ruled out that this „movement“ could (also) be a large-scale staged diversion manoeuvre. From whom and whatever. One literally smells the oversized propagandistic and inexorable ideological part, often far from reason.
Quotation: „In the meantime, however, the mass media is already harshly tackling those who do not follow the journalistic hysteria about climate change and in the sense of a „pointless resistance“ are put on the defensive and finally forced to give up with „pointless denial“. An almost military approach by psychological warfare.“
from: Camouflage durch Enttarnung
This sphere of suspicion corresponds to A.S.’s example from one of his videos (2018), in which a former government employee of the US administration – 9/11 – equates „denier“ with „Holocaust denier“ !!! Thus in approximately. If you doubt the official version of 9/11, you will automatically end up on the conspiracy page, ergo with the deniers, ergo… of the Holocaust. Now climate deniers. Ergo….H….. ?!? We feel here the barrier that appears in us to the 9/11 and other controversial events, we think e.g. of the Breitscheidplatz, differently than officially announced to approach. A.S. wants to draw attention to our conditionings which „expire“ when we see and hear certain movements, „meme complexes“ and words.
He wants to point out the following autonomous reflexes (removed from deliberate control), which generate them and literally make us become automatons, which we, however, reproach those people of the past who have mutated into such „automatic reflex beings“ in the course of propaganda. In this sense, the act of the autonomous reflex would be fatal today. A.S. warns of a danger that threatens us if we surrender to these unreflected and untested areas of human existence, follow them, are exposed to them, and merely function like the saliva flow of the „Pavlovian dog“ that he much invokes. Which he calls „the mutt“. This in a world in which complex facts are presented more and more simply. But if simplified and manipulative representation is used to suppress controversial facts, it will arouse curiosity for the very diversity that is invoked in all places. But this curiosity could occur in a way that runs counter to those who try to control societies through narratives, media and politics. This leads to curious events such as the following sentence by a justice spokesman shows:
„We are now examining whether this is just as clearly the case with garden gnomes as with posters with crossed out swastikas“, […] The (garden gnome) sculpture (which showed a Hitler greeting) would violate Section 86a of the German Penal Code. – But what if this right sentence also applied to the statue of Maximilian in Munich? Does the blasting of historical images…?! follow?
Alfred Schaefer a provocative warner in a mirror-inverted world?!? Yes, … absolutely! One may not share some tone or way of acting. Whether he likes or dislikes „the (all) Jews“ (which is difficult to do), or only certain Jews or Jewish or Zionist circles and their supporters (which he explained in a differentiated way) – e.g. those who obviously manipulate and use certain developments in history and economy to their advantage and occasionally rely on harsh statements in the environment of Judaism – plays little role *. By the way, he has also repeatedly concretized and differentiated what he means.
- (On the effectiveness of Jewish and Zionist power and influence, see also Camouflage by unmasking)
p. 10
In the sense that he analyzes and understands the sweeping accusation of anti-Semitism as a manipulation instrument for controlling society and criminalizing individuals and politically disliked people, which, incidentally, is also done by a number of Jewish researchers. This was not actually established in court, since a considerable amount of (valid) evidence and applications were rejected. That alone makes one wonder and leaves behind further questions and places mistrust in the rule of law.
- (N. Finkelstein, „Holocaust Industry„, M. Zuckermann, „the omnipresent anti-Semite“ and others)
So one should not be surprised when people start to ask and research further and deeper themselves and come to results in many (contemporary) historical fields that do NOT correspond to what is portrayed as „obvious“. This may include the events around 9/11 as well as essential aspects of the Holocaust and/or some terrorist attacks, staged crises and many other events. Rather, these questions leave doubts behind and can form the basis of knowledge whose expression as opinion and point of view has become dangerous today and can lead to processes which no longer seem normal to a simple observer, and which can even be dangerous for society, in the dynamics of further aggravating the situation.
So are we absurdly moving towards a similar arbitrary rule which addresses our supreme court jurisdiction to a previous system, so that as „counter-draft to this“ the FRG comes to its moral and identitary right?
What if a perspective correction and subsequent assessment of diversity also transfer to other areas of the destroyed system and its people, our ancestors:
Quote: […] „The range of books was considerable, in addition to non-fiction books about raw materials, the so-called „raw material novels“, there were narrow novels about homeland, science fiction, crime novels, romance novels (which even sang about the love between a German and a Frenchwoman), joke books and cross-media companion books to radio broadcasts and films. […] Public perception of the book market between 1933 and 1945 is distorted.“
from: SPIEGEL online
Or as Alfred Schaefer put it in his own way in the direction of a prosecutor on the witness stand:
„Can you imagine that as in – the journey to Jerusalem – you could one day sit on my chair? „
Also this game did not call the police reporter Bernstein by name! Perhaps the rapporteur of the Süddeutsche Zeitung does not associate it with good memories?
Hubert Bergmann, Herbst 2019
For further (and also cheerful) observation and deepening in a complex „mined“ area: >>> Camouflage through unmasking„.