Brian Ruhe Show — Monika Schaefer – One Month in the “Free World”, Nov 26, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT
December 1, 2018 by katana17
[Brian Ruhe from “The Brian Ruhe Show” interviews (Nov 26, 2018) Monika Schaefer in her second appearance, exactly one month since being released from a German prison. She served 10 months for a six-minute YouTube video, in which she gave a belated apology to her German mother for berating her for not doing something about the “Holocaust“, that Monika has since realized, factually never happened.
They discuss the trial in more detail, for example, how they had to fight to get the microphones turned on so that everyone could hear what was going on. How Alfred fought and succeeded in having his videos shown in full.
More importantly, Monika discusses the absurdity and injustice of the trial system, in that by attempting to defend and explain why she made her video, she runs the very real risk of being charged again for the same thought crime that she is already on trial for! That is the reason why she was advised to flee Germany, using trains, etc., as soon as she was released.
She ends, saying that she’s looking forward to doing some kind of speaking tour after the New Year.
The Brian Ruhe Show Monika Schaefer One Month in the “Free World”
Published on Nov 26, 2018
In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
Streamed live on Nov 26, 2018
This is Monika Schaefer’s second visit on The Brian Ruhe Show since being freed from imprisonment in Germany for 10 months for the “hate crime” of Holocaust denial. To support her brother, who has been sentenced to 3 years, 2 months in prison in Germany for Holocaust denial, please write to him at:
Stadelheimer Strasse 12 81549
You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.
http://www.brianruhe.ca/please-donate/ or cryptocurrencies below.
You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.
Bitcoin Cash: qq3xdk6lfacxz0gqgxl6fk42y9ldmr0l45yhega2vs
Exodus Ripple: rpNtf3KwSAnrCBeeq4gcvMwFZCi6onm1XM
Brian Ruhe’s books are available at Amazon.
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
Brian: Welcome to the Brian Ruhe Show. It’s November 26, 2018. It’s now one month since Monika Schaefer’s been in the free world! Since she left prison in Germany for the hate crime of “Holocaust” denial. So she’s back on the show for a second time. It’s a real honor to have you back Monika. How are you doing today?
Monika: Hello Brian! Nice to be back with you. Thank you so much. Yes, today is exactly one month since the last day of the trial and the verdict, which did set me “free”. And I’m glad you put that in quotation marks. Time served, so it was ten months. It was just under ten months, but they said ten months and now you go free.
And, of course, Alfred, unfortunately, is still in jail and will be for quite some time. They gave him thirty eight months, so just over three years. And yeah, we can talk about that some more in the show, too. About how people can support him, and write letters, and that kind of thing.
But anyway, yeah, so it’s been one month! It seems like a lot longer ago. I have to say. “time” has a way of shrinking and expanding on us depending on what we’re doing! And interestingly the way I feel now about this past month, one month going by, is kind of like my first month in jail! How I felt in terms of the time, just crawling by, like it was just this interminably long amount of time, that first month. And then time would speed up, like at the end it was shocking how fast time went by in prison! And now, here I am! You know, I was set free and so much has happened over this past month, and so many impressions, and so many emotional highs and lows, and just going through a lot.
I talked last time with you about escaping out of Germany and out of Europe, needing to do that, because, …
Brian: Eight trains you said to get out of the country!
Monika: Well, eight trains and then an airplane obviously, to get over the ocean. And I needed to do that, because I did new crimes just in trying to defend myself! That’s the crazy thing about if you’re a “thought criminal” in Germany, and you go through the court system, you cannot actually defend yourself, or explain how you reached your conclusions without doing new crime! And I think I talked about that at length last time, so I won’t go into that.
Today I thought I would talk more about the details of what did happen in the trial, not just the fact that it was a dark ages almost pseudo secret trial. We talked about that last time, quite a bit. Just all those aspects about problems with the microphones and people not being able to take notes for a while. And not being recorded. No transcript of the trial, that kind of thing.
And, by the way, there was one aspect of that I did want to update, or make a correction on., because we didn’t quite complete the narrative. And that was about the mics.
Monika: They did get turned on, but it took a while, right? But that first day we were struggling with that, and I think it was maybe half a day in, and finally did get the mics turned on., because I saw that in the feedback, or the comments, that people who were left with the impression that they never did get turned on. That’s not quite true. We did get them to turn them on. But it was only after, you know, I had talked about how I stood up and just said:
“Hey! This is either a public trial, or it’s not a public trial, and they’re just there for show! If you don’t care that the public can hear.”
All those things did not faze the judge. He was not fazed by any of that until, in my exasperation, I just kind of muttered, almost as an afterthought, I muttered under my breath:
“Well, I can’t hear that well, anymore.”
And that did the trick! At that point he suddenly realized:
“Oh okay, we might be a Inquisition here, or it might be a kangaroo court, but we still have to have some semblance, …”
[her telephone starts ringing] Oh dear, my telephones going! I’m gonna just bury that back here and put a pillow on it! Just a sec. Yeah. Sorry about that. I didn’t think of that before. I should have done that before and buried that. But anyway. [loud laughing]
And then the judge decided:
“Okay the defendant at least has to hear what’s going on, right?” [loud laughing]
So that’s when they decided, yeah, they’ll turn on the mics. It was only when I said I couldn’t hear that well, anymore.
Brian: Yeah, so you needed to hear, of course.
Monika: They had to afford us that much, that the defendant herself has to be able to hear what’s going on! [loud laughing] And that took quite a while to get that. But yeah, so just what happened during the trial? People are probably curious, and I know there were some reports, and the Barnes Review put out reports, and from Lady Michele Renouf who wrote about it, that kind of thing.
Monika: Yeah, but a lot of people felt like there was just this darkness about what actually went on in the trials. So I’ll just give a little bit of a summation of what did go on, why it took so long, 20 days in total.
It was basically a giant education for anybody who was there. [Brian holds up the latest Barnes Review with an article on the trial] Oh my goodness! Wow!
Brian: This is a current issue of the Barnes Review and you’re in it. This is the current issue. Yeah Lady Michele Renouf’s write up is in here. Yeah I could just show the audience. Here it is “History and Free Speech Holocausted in Germany”. This is a current issue. This is the write up about you.
Monika: Oh fantastic!
Monika: I must get that!
Monika: Okay, well I’ll deal with that later. So thanks Brian for showing that.
It was basically a giant education, so that nobody who was in that courtroom could say afterwards:
“We just didn’t know! We just didn’t understand!”
So, at first they were just going to show little snippets, little tiny portions, of the offending parts of the videos. There were multiple charges against Alfred, there were multiple charges against me, more against Alfred. He’s created more videos. And so they would outline, you know, minute three, or minute ten, out of this video, this kind of thing. And they’d only scheduled four days at first for the trial, and they just thought they’d show these little offending bits, and:
“They broke the law! And this is what the law says and these are ‘inciting hatred’ and riling people up.”
And whatnot. And not show them in their entirety. And then they would be done with it, and bingo, lock them away!
But Alfred was very strategic, and it was brilliant how he forced them to show the videos in their entirety, so that they would be in context. Sort of like reading a book from front to back, instead of just reading a little paragraph here, and a little paragraph there. So you take everything out of context.
Brian: He did he manage to convince the judge to do that? Because I know he did long videos, he’s playing.
Monika: Yeah. He just simply did not answer questions that the judge was asking him, which pertain to the technicality of when, and where, did you produce these, or push the button to send it out into the internet? That kind of thing. And those were the questions that they were very, very interested in. They, of course, are not interested in the contents pertaining to reality, or history. They don’t want to know those things, in fact, they would deny us the opportunity to bring this kind of evidence into the court, over, and over, again. No, they’re more interested in:
“When did you push that button, and push that send? And where were you exactly? And what was the date? And what was the minute and second of when it was released to the world?”
And this kind of thing, because that then can be used to show:
“Oh! We broke their law!”
Right? So Alfred just simply refused to answer those questions. He just said:
“Well, I’m not gonna answer that. We have to see the whole video. I’m not gonna answer that, we have to see the whole video!”
Eventually we won that, or he won that. And the judge just decided:
“Yep! We’ll see the videos.”
So we saw a lot of videos. And then, of course, most of these are in English and they needed to be translated. So they were translated into German and those translations were read out. So those were prepared, they weren’t just simultaneous translations. No, they were prepared. We would see the video in its entirety, and then hear the translation. And those, of course, since they are on paper, they are on the record. Those are now, …
Brian: Oh, so it is part of the record. That’s good.
Monika: Yeah. That is good. So that was a good chunk of time taken up by the watching of those videos. But after each video there would be questions and answers. An opportunity for all of us who wanted could speak. Like whether it was Alfred, or his lawyer, or me, or my lawyer, or the prosecutor. Everybody had a chance to speak. So most of, …
Brian: I remember in your letters, you said there’s a bit more mutual respect between Alfred and the judge, you know, when they’re going through all these videos. Sort of like teaching them, explaining. I mean, he said those were a real education for the court.
Monika: Well, that’s how we perceived it. They evidently, … I mean, we knew this wasn’t going to go, … They were quite likely not going to do us a personal favor. Alfred knows that. We all knew that. However, I mean, we’re doing this for all of us, our enlightenment, for truth. This is just really important historically to, hear it is!
So then a lot of the time, also, was taken up by these motions for evidence, or I don’t know what you would call it in English. It was “xxx”. So these documents, some of them were quite thick, to be read in court. Now the judge didn’t always allow these to be read, because he said:
“Oh, that’s too long, we don’t have time. It’s the end of the day.”
But this was ridiculous! There were more days scheduled! It has to take as long as it has to take. But so, when they were not read out loud, the judges were supposed to read these on their own, and the prosecutors too. And that was the sort of their promise, or their covenant, or whatever, that they would say. Yes, that we will take these for our own reading. But then it doesn’t go to the public, nobody hears it. And then there’s the opportunity for the press that’s there, you know, the mainstream press. I mean, they could just interpret these things however they want, because it’s not actually out there for the public to hear, what, is in it.
Then you only hear the interpretation of the prosecutor afterwards, and in the final judgement, of course, the judge, … But, some of these things did get read out loud. And to give you an example what those would be, one of the accusations against Alfred was this term that he used, “parasite”, okay. And they accused him “that’s hatred”. Well no! He wanted to get a biologist, an expert in to describe exactly what that means.
Brian: [laughing] What a parasite is! If it’s realistic, if it’s straightforward and honest, how could you call it hate?
Monika: In a very biological sense, what is a parasitic relationship with a host? Okay. So that kind of request for expertise. Or a request for an historian to verify that the things that Alfred is saying, either in the videos, or in these long documents, these motions for evidence.
The quotes that are being given by, you know, people who want to do away with us, the White race, for example. So quotes by Noel Ignatieff, or these books, you know, the Hooton Plan, or the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, or Kaufman, you know, Theodore Kaufman, or countless books, or papers. Or, you know, positions that have been taken and are widely documented and they’re known of but Alfred was requesting that there be an expert historian to verify that these are actually out there in the public record.
[In this 28 minute video, recorded in September 2015, Ursula Haverbeck, a German woman who lived through WWII discusses how the “migrant” invasion is part of larger plan to destroy Germany and is a continuation of the WW II era Hooton Plan (and similar schemes) created by organized jewry as part of their larger goal of world domination, aka, the Jew World Order — KATANA.]
That these things have been said by these people. So that it’s not us making it up. It’s not us just making up things. That, you know, whether the jewish people are saying this about us, or we’re saying this about them, or whatever. No! If we’re quoting somebody else, we want to know that was actually what they said! So these kind of requests. But, of course, those were all dismissed, put aside.
Also at towards the end of the trial my lawyer did make a request for Fred Leuchter to appear in court. Now not in person, because that would be very dangerous for him to come to Germany. He’d end up in the gulag, too! But — via videoconferencing — to bring him back on, because his evidence had been used in the videos, and in the written submissions. And that was also dismissed, pushed aside.
“No! We don’t need him to come!”
So anything that we requested to verify our positions, the things that they are using against us, to incarcerate us, to call us the “haters”, but we’re just presenting it to the world. But any of these things that we wanted to prove and show, they just dismissed it!
“Nope! No! No! You guys are bad! You’re the haters! We don’t like what you’re saying and full of your hatred! And your undermining confidence in the justice system!”
That is in each charge. Then they say you are basically “inciting hatred” and:
“Undermining confidence in the justice system!”
Brian: What’s wrong with undermining confidence in the justice system, or a political system? If you don’t have confidence in it, that’s freedom of speech! Right? Like criticizing the government, anyone can do that, right?
Monika: Well, not only that, isn’t in an irony that these things they’re doing to us, like raiding Alfred’s home three times, over the past three years, and taking all his equipment, and whatnot. And then if you point that out:
“Oh! You’re undermining confidence!”
Well aren’t they just undermining confidence in the justice system by locking people away for freedom of expression, and stealing their equipment from their homes? And, you know, appearing any time of night, or day. I mean, they can come in the middle of night. In those cases they came early morning. But they’re the ones doing all these things to undermine our confidence!
Brian: That’s a double standard!
Monika: And then they tell us we’re undermining the confidence in the system! Right. So yeah.
I wanted to also talk about some of the specific points that I was charged on, and they’re just crazy! And I talked about these during the “last word”, you know, the final, what do you call it? When I gave the last word, four hour speech that I gave. [final words from the defendant at the end of the trial]
So one of the charges against me originally, and actually this one, I think, it was dropped in the end, but I don’t have my legal, all the legal documents with me here. Hopefully they will be sent to me. I wasn’t able to take everything along with me when I fled quickly. I couldn’t fit it all on my suitcase! But the CODOH video that was produced, in which we answer the question:
“Why do you support open debate on the “Holocaust”?”
Brian: Oh! I remember that when you made it. Yeah.
Monika: Yeah, it’s a less than four minute video, which we just sent sound clips, we didn’t actually produce that one. It was produced in the States, and I don’t have to go further with that. But it’s CODOH, the Committee for Open Debate on the “Holocaust”. And this little video, it just turned out really great, I think. Because really, we’re just answering this question, that if you substituted that “H” word with any other word, anything else, everybody would say:
“Well, of course, you should be able to debate that! Of course, you should be able to talk about these things! Why wouldn’t you?”
I mean, this is really the only historical event that is legislated by law. That there’s one version of it, and you’re not allowed to talk about it. But so, this is just answering the question:
“Why do you support open debate on this taboo subject?”
And so I was delighted actually, that if they were going to charge us, and charge me at all, well good that they included that one in there. Because it just is one of these things that demonstrates incredibly well how they are defending and supporting lies! I mean, really! I don’t think you can watch that video without shaking your head and saying:
“Well that’s logical! Of course, you should be able to debate it!”
We don’t even talk about things happening, or not happening. We’re just saying:
“Yeah, we should be able to discuss it!”
Brian: Yeah just to discuss it. Ask questions about it.
Monika: That’s not allowed! That’s not allowed! And they just proved it by putting that in the charges.
Okay, another one that they charged me with, that which they definitely kept in, and I was awarded several months of incarceration, you know, verdict for. Was the video that was with Gerd Ittner, who just was released not that long ago from prison, another prison sentence.
And Gerd Ittner and Alfred, they had this video called “Dissidents Speak Out” [“A Dissident Speaking Out — Gerhard Ittner”] and they had a version in German and a version in English. And I think the English version was entitled “Dissidents Speak Out”. In German it was “Dissidenten sprechen sich aus”. And the German version of my offending video the “Sorry Mom” video, the German version in Germany disappeared very quickly, because they censor things like crazy. And so they had wanted, like Gerd Ittner, wanted that video to show up more — and mine’s just short, right, that’s six minutes and theirs was already half an hour, so to add six minutes to their half hour video that was just a little addition — and so they put that one in there, mine, into their video, into the dissidents video. And I didn’t know about it, but I was charged with having collaborated to do this!
Brian: Oh! You weren’t aware of it?
Monika: No! I wasn’t aware of it until afterwards. Now it’s irrelevant what I think about the idea. I don’t even need to comment on that. Do I think that was good that they did that, or not, good? It’s irrelevant! But the relevant part is that they charged me! That I spent time in jail for having participated in doing that! You know, to — what’s the word — to “conspire” with them to do that. Conspire, that’s the word I was actually wanting to use. Because, they keep talking about “conspiracies”! And “conspiracy theories” and all this! Making it sound like that’s some kind of a, like crazy thing!
Brian: Well, like you’re a nut!
Monika: Yeah, yeah! Anyway, so I made it very, very clear, as did my lawyer. And we were able to show that I had no foreknowledge, I had no knowledge of them doing this, to put that video in there. But they kept it in there, and, you know, that was part of my verdict.
Brian: So were you out of prison at the time? When they put it in.
Monika: Of course! Of course. So this is all, …
Brian: So there was no way to discuss it, …
Monika: This is just the verdict on me, because I did get the verdict of guilty. Just, because I was released, doesn’t mean I got “not guilty”. I got “guilty”, but ten months prison sentence. And I had already served it, so then they released me. But that charge remained. So I got a guilty verdict on that charge, even though I was able to prove, really, … I mean, I guess I don’t know how does one prove something like that? :
“Did know about it in advance?”
So they are going to read your mind? But I was able to make a strong case for the fact that I had no knowledge about, …
Brian: What about, they know your letters in prison. It wasn’t in your letters, right, they we’re doing this? So isn’t that evidence of nothing, you didn’t know? You just you didn’t have much communication, right?
Monika: No. That video was produced like a couple of years ago! So it’s not produced while I was in prison, right?
Brian: Right okay.
Monika: But anyway, I made an analogy in the “last words”. I said:
“Okay, let’s say we go out into the woods and I’m gonna instruct people on how to build a fire out in the woods, you know, using the lichen off the tree. And just making a fire where you don’t have a blowtorch, you know. [loud laughing] You might just have a match, if that. And I teach people how to make a fire on a survival course. And so everybody’s happy. And then we come back. And then maybe a month later there’s a case of arson. Somebody burnt down a building. And then they find out, oh it was somebody that happened to go on that survival course and learned how to make a fire from Monika Schaefer! Oh we’re gonna charge Monika Schaefer with that arson!”
Brian: Yeah. Good analogy.
Monika: You know, it’s kind of crazy! Like they’re making some kind of a weird connection that makes no sense. And maybe that’s not even a good analogy, because that was a destructive act, and that I don’t want to make that a comparison with putting that video into the “Dissident” video, at all! But just the logic, the step of logic, just doesn’t exist, it’s crazy! But this is the kind of thing they were doing. And that’s why I was always saying with delight to my friends in prison:
“Gee, every day they’re proving to us how truth, and justice, and right, and righteousness, lies on our side, and they’re defending lies!”
So. Anyway. One of the things that they did also do, they did stop some letters going in and going out, and they stopped those letters, or sometimes they just photocopied them, and then still sent them onwards. But they read one of my letters in court. One letter that I had written to somebody, and it was in German this letter. And at first I was quite nervous. And my lawyer had wanted to stop them from doing that, because he hadn’t seen it. And his argument was:
“It’s always the right the right of the defense to see the evidence before it’s brought out into the court.”
But I said:
“No. No. Let them read it.”
Because I was quite confident, even though I didn’t remember specifically what I’d put into that letter, you know, because I wrote so many letters. But I was quite confident that it should be suitable for reading in court. But still, you get nervous, you know, here they are going to read this letter in court and it’s supposed to be very incriminating!
Anyway I was quite delighted after they read it. And I did translate it, and I want to read that now.
Brian: Very good. Yeah, let’s hear it! Thanks.
Monika: So this was read out in the court, in the Inquisition of the Schaefers.[loud laughing]
“Dear Doctor R.”
I’ll just call him that to protect his identity.
“Thank you for your letter dated July 15th, which I received July 27th. You are not alone in thinking about the witch persecutions. I have often thought of them. I am very grateful that there is no death penalty, at this point, in time, because we both know what would then be. One thing occurs to me, just like today there are many helpers, or quislings, or followers.”
I wasn’t sure of the English word to use here, “Shabbat goy”, maybe.
“Just like today, there are many “Shabbat goy” who firmly believe they are doing good when they betray people who are actually telling the truth. I would think it was that the same back then. It is likely that people sometimes betrayed as “witches”, their own relatives and believed they were doing good. I suspect there were a lot of lies, deceptions, indoctrination, and brainwashing at that time, as well. And that fear played a large role. Or, I probably know far too little about the history.
I don’t think that the letters written to me, as per your concern, harm me, more than help me. The authorities have to catch on eventually, that the more they just lock people up simply for saying inconvenient things, or asking questions, the more it rattles the people awake out there. At some point it just gets to be too much. The servants of the system just don’t know when to stop.
Sure, sometimes letters in both directions are confiscated, copied, either forwarded, or not, used as evidence against me, but I have to say it sometimes has very little to do with contents regarding history. They are not interested in history, and truth! Only whether we bumped up against some thought control law, or pushed a button in the Internet. That’s what I mean.
The law itself is so intangible and unclear. Well, it has to be, for their purpose of serving a regime built on lies. The whole thing makes me think of Kafka and the book, or the film, 1984 by George Orwell. When I read 1984, back in the 70s, I never could have imagined that I would one day find myself in the middle of that book, …”
Then I wrote a little bit about stamps, which is now irrelevant. And then I continued:
“In the meantime the trial continues. Maybe I’ll be out of here soon see, dot, dot, dot.”
And I signed off.
And so, that was a letter that they read out loud. And I’m telling you when they finished reading that I just about jumped up and down for joy, because I was proud of that letter! You know? I mean, I thought:
“Maybe they’re on my side?”
Monika: It made me think;
That like, there’s there are two main judges and two lay judges. And the one who was tasked with going through the mail, was the one of the main judges, but not the head judge. You know, it was the woman. And at first it was that prosecutor who was reading all the mail. And they got way behind, and they couldn’t handle it anymore! And they were just complaining, that’s all they were doing anymore, is reading this mail for Monika Schaefer! And they were frustrated.
Anyway, they finally passed it off to the judge, and she was reading all the mail. And she just looked so friendly, I have to say. I just thought:
“She’s on my side! That letter was in my favor, I thought.”
But evidently not! For their final result, the verdict — especially when the head judge was saying at the very end:
“Every day we proved what haters we were!”
Brian: Yeah, what really stuck with me, the judge was saying:
“It doesn’t matter whether the “Holocaust” happened, or not. What matters is that it’s illegal in Germany to deny it!”
Monika: That was the judge for the Ernst Zündel case — just to be clear. I was making comparison in our last show. About how our judge handled it and how that judge handled it quite differently. Right?
Like our judge never said anything of that sort, and did not let on at all that he might have realized that, very same thing.
Brian: Okay. Yeah I misunderstood that, yeah.
Monika: That was the Ernst Zündel [Trial], at the end of that. And I thought that was pretty interesting actually, because it makes it clear that judge understood.
Brian: Yeah. It would be huge admission for a judge to say that. It’s good that he said that at the Zundel trial.
Monika: Some people make the commentary that was actually quite risky for that judge to have said that. But then, of course, he slapped on the maximum sentence, five years, for Ernst Zündel. So he still, you know, did that. But just by making that admission, just to say that:
“It doesn’t matter if it happened, or not, and what matters is that it’s against the law to question it, and you broke the law.”
But no, our judge didn’t do that at all. No! No, our judge was actually, well the head judge, the one who then spoke, you know, sort of like a chairman. Oh my goodness! No you didn’t get that impression at all!
And I know partway through, after that first wild week when things were just a “gong show”, there. After that it settled down a bit and all the videos were being shown, and then the question/answer and all that. And that’s when Alfred made the comment that he thought there was this mutual respect developing between them. And Alfred is the eternal optimist! Who really does have this positive outlook, thinking, you know:
“These people, they will know, and they will all learn, and they will understand it. And at some point they’re going to turn. And turn around and to come over to our side. To do the right thing!”
And Alfred has that huge, you know, he just radiates that optimism too, which gives him the strength too, to carry on! And it’s wonderful! Like that is an infectious and wonderful energy that he has. To have that outlook!
Brian: Yeah, I can see that in his videos, as well. But I guess it didn’t pan out that way. You know, others were responding to that.
Monika: But at some point it will happen! And then it’s just going to be this domino and avalanche effect! That somebody, some judge is just going to be courageous enough to do that, even if it means that they themselves suffer some dire consequences.
And I think that it has happened in some forms, or other, in Germany. Like I can’t remember the specifics, but there was some case that was going on and it wasn’t exactly like ours. But people in all these positions, they know what’s going on. At some point that dream, that prophetic dream, that Ursula Haverbeck had, while in prison already. I don’t know if you heard about that dream? But it was this wonderful prophetic dream in which they, all these military type people, and the jail type people, the inquisitors, the judges, they, … Somebody just at some point said:
“I’m not going to participate in this anymore!”
And in her dream there was torture going on, and all this thing. So it really was a dream that she wrote down. And this has gone out maybe, it’s more, you know, even more, … I don’t know if it’s been translated into English, but it was a wonderful dream. And they just stopped participating, in this dream. And to cut to the chase, you know, in the end she woke up great really relieved, that:
“Oh thank goodness! They have just stopped participating! And now it’s gonna turn.”
At some point, it’s going to turn!
Brian: Yeah it good! Yeah, I guess we don’t know when. I guess they’re firmly in the saddle at this time. But it’s good that you, you know, people are making the sacrifices to do this. But certainly I guess, within Germany there’s more truth amongst the people, about World War Two and the role of Adolf Hitler. There are these groups of Germans which are patriotic and know about that. And they get together and they meet, you know.
Monika: Yeah, it’s hard to know how many people know, they’re in Germany, what’s going on. But it’s more and more, all the time. It really is. Like people are waking up. I know that, for instance, the driver going back and forth between the courthouse and the prison, I know that some of them are very aware, just from some of the comments I was getting from them in my interactions. Because I went back and forth so often that then they started to get more comfortable.
And I just know that they can see what’s going on! They’re driving prisoners back and forth all day, so they see who’s doing all these things. Why are they in jail? And, who are they? [loud laughing]
Brian: Is there any idea of just how many people are in jail in Germany for “Holocaust” denial, for this “hate crime”? It’s hard to get any figures. Maybe they don’t want us to know? Do you have any idea?
Monika: I don’t think it’s that many that are actually, … But I shouldn’t even say that. I don’t know how many there are. But I do know that there’s a lot of charges on the same law, this 130, this paragraph one thirty. Two thousand a year is what I was told. Two thousand charges a year, which means that people are paying fines, people are forced to do this, or that, or the other thing. I don’t know what some of the other conditions are.
Brian: So that’s 2,000 people for “Holocaust” denial and Germany, you mean?
Monika: Well they don’t even have the words “Holocaust denial” in their law. The word “Holocaust” does not appear in that law. But it is always about that. That paragraph 130. That is what it’s about! And there are 2,000 cases a year being processed! And that law has existed since 1994. It did not exist before 1994. So, you know, my lawyer argued very well that they got along without a law for 40 years, after the war. And they were actually encouraged, when he was in his, you know, schooling.
“Yes debate these things! Talk about these things! We should be able to discuss these things.”
And they did without fear of persecution.
Brian: That’s surprising that in Germany they could talk openly about that until 1994. You think they would have prevented any doubts about the “Holocaust”?
Monika: Well, the reeducation program was in full swing.
Monika: And there too, you know, that really got into swing, I guess the whole “Holocaust” thing, in the 70s, right? It wasn’t right after the war. It was too close to events. But then those people who went through the school system, people of my age, our age, they really got hit with it. And subsequently to that they’re just getting really, you know, the triple, quadruple, dose of that, the poison of the mind! You know, the poison that gets put into the mind, of these lies.
Brian: Yeah. I met, with Germans I’ve met here, you can really see that strong reaction. They are convinced that way. So of these 2,000, you would say probably few would go to jail? They would get a fine, or something else like that?
Monika: Yeah, and I don’t know how many are in jail, specifically for this. I think there’s probably quite a few in jail for related, you know, “inconvenient truths”. I don’t know, though.
Brian: I think the person who has been in jail the longest for this is Wolfgang Fröhlich, about 14 years in jail!
Monika: In Austria.
Brian: Yeah it’s in Austria, yeah. Because he was like a pest-control expert, and he testified in Switzerland and he, while in jail, keeps writing letters to authorities saying:
“No it couldn’t have happened this way, you know, because like this Zyklon B needs about 25 degrees fahrenheit to evaporate to kill people. But they these chambers were only like 15 degrees. It was too cool, so wouldn’t have happened.”
So I think that’s so threatening, because he knows his chemistry! That’s why they keep putting it back in jail. It’s a tragedy, like 14 years in jail! He gets the record, Wolfgang Fröhlich!
(Click on image to enlarge)
Monika: Yes and I’m so glad you brought up his name, because it’s really important that we don’t forget any of these people. And that we support these people. They are, I mean, what a sacrifice he’s made! And he’s not bending, he’s not bowing down, just because they put him in jail. Right? He just keeps speaking the truth. And this, I mean, they just keep putting him in, back in. Or they keep him in there for the repeat offense. Well, that’s like us in our trial. We couldn’t go through that trial, without repeat offending! It’s rather, … That alone should wake people up, that there’s something deeply wrong with this!
Monika: Because you can’t defend yourself! Now shouldn’t there logically be the provision that at least during your trial you can speak about these things without “re-offending” making a new crime? No, you’re defending yourself for what they’ve already charged you with! And yet you’re incurring “new crimes” that they’re going to put you in longer for!
Alfred is facing a new court date, January 28th.
Brian: Oh, for what? What’s the charge for January 28th?
Monika: For the things he said and did during the trial!
Brian: Oh gosh!
Monika: This is what I’m saying! He got three years two months. And that doesn’t mean he’s going to, like, they just want to keep him there for a long time! It’s, it’s, … [shaking her head]
Brian: So they can add to it? He’s on trial, so they can add to it?
Monika: Yes. And I mean, it leaves me speechless, literally! So but what can people do? I mean, there’s a lot of things people to do, and we don’t want to prescribe. Everybody has their own imagination, and everybody has their own capacities, and these could be little things, big things. But one of the things you could do to help the political prisoners is write letters to them, or write letters to embassies, or consulates, or whatever. Because that puts the pressure on! And it shows the authorities that these people have support. You know, if the letters just dried up, then it’s:
“Ha! See we can get away with this!”
No! People should be writing lots and lots of letters and keep doing it!
Brian: Well I’ll put the address for Alfred below this video, like it did in the last video. Yeah. I guess maybe your demeanor in court was different than Alfred’s? Was he more challenging and you’re a bit calmer? I guess they treated you differently than they did Alfred, it seems, right?
Monika: Well the verdict was less, because there were less counts against me, as well. And yeah, we have our different styles and that’s perfectly natural too, we’re two different people. I say to people:
“Look we’re on exactly the same page, but we have our different styles of communication and all that.”
And plus it was important for me to get out. I was already there, and so there was a different strategy. I didn’t speak as much during the trial. But I did do quite a speech at the end, there! [loud laughing]
Brian: I think you had a good strategy. You did get out! I was impressed, you know, like, I thought they’d hold you for a year, or more. So I guess your strategy worked.
Monika: Well, the persecutor, sorry prosecutor, [loud laughing] I accidentally said “persecutor”. The prosecutor called for thirteen months for me, and for three years, seven months for Alfred, something like that. So that is one thing you could say. The judges did go lower in both cases, you know, that’s one thing you could say. [chuckling]
Brian: Okay, well, …
Monika: Yeah anyway, I don’t remember what else I was gonna talk about today, but I think that’s probably, … Is there anything else that you wanted, that comes to mind?
Brian: Well there’s a few comments and questions in the chat. One person asked:
“What was your first meal in prison.”
Do you remember that?
Monika: You know, the first food that I was offered was actually in the holding cell, right in the courtroom on January 3rd. When they just grabbed me, and handcuffed me, and took me against my will. And I protested that I was a free Canadian citizen. And they threw me in this hole, in the basement, like it’s just this little holding cell. And then a number of hours later they came by with a trolley, and in the trolley they, in the little cooler box. They had sandwiches and apples. So I had a sandwich and an apple. That would have been my first meal while incarcerated. [chuckling]
Brian: Another comment in the chat, or someone saying. This is from “purple carnation”. He said:
“Can you appeal Monika? How can you not be allowed to produce your own evidence to support your innocence? This is what happened in Nuremberg! You’re really a conquered people!”
Monika: Thank you! That is just, … Thanks so much for that question and comment. And I did want to say this, and I’ve forgotten, both times, both interviews with you Brian. It is being appealed! My lawyer is appealing my verdict! And Alfred’s lawyer is appealing Alfred’s verdict! And people might, at first glance, say:
“Well, why appeal? You’re out! You’re free! Right!”
Well, it’s the wrong verdict, right? They pronounce me guilty, I served months and they pronounced me guilty, plus costs. Can you imagine court costs? Oh my goodness! That’s gonna be a bundle of money! But it’s being appealed! So I haven’t been sent a bill yet, or anything like that. It’s being appealed, because it’s the wrong verdict.
So that’s going to go up to the Supreme Court in Germany. And we talked at the very beginning about the title, you know, being set out into the “free” world. It’s kind of going, you know, one prison cell to another. None of us are free! If there are political prisoners. If there’s one person in jail, we’re all in jail really. Because we’re in this mind prison, we’re in the prison of the mind. Like we are in a virtual prison. So I kind of wanted to throw that comment in there.
And what was the other part of that person’s comment? So it was about this appeal, and, … I don’t hear you.
Brian: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, are you going to appeal? And he said this is like the Nuremberg Trials.
Monika: Oh yeah, that was the other part I wanted to comment on.
Monika: The Nuremberg trials! At that trial how many people are aware that there they just proclaimed that you do not need evidence to prove something that is “common knowledge”?
Brian: Oh yeah! So they put out the propaganda, people believe it, therefore it’s “common knowledge”. [shaking his head]
Dachau display table. Human skin lampshades, shrunken heads, bone ashtrays — all “common knowledge” with enough propaganda!
Monika: It’s “common knowledge” that this thing happened! We’re just gonna proclaim that it’s “common knowledge” and that set the bar for evermore! I mean, this is just something that drives me crazy! That kind of thing, we need to tell people over, and over again! And we need to spread that. But if you just declare at that first very infamous trial, post World War Two, and it really was a terrible thing that happened there!
They just said:
“This is ‘common knowledge’. We don’t need evidence.”
And then, in fact, they just had all this “counter evidence” which was a bunch of lies, and distortions. And then they hanged these people!
Brian: Yeah. It’s like they create their own realities, kind of jewish thinking, you know, this subjectivism. They create their own reality, and then they impose that upon us.
Monika: Yes! And then forever more, … Like I get this so much in town here people saying, or on social media, people are always saying:
“Oh! This is the most well-documented event in history! This is just so well documented! It’s just got to be the most studied event in history!”
But then they never say:
“No. Where’s where’s the evidence? Where is it?”
No! They just keep repeating that statement. It’s just an empty shell of a statement! Which is a complete and utter lie!
Brian: Yeah. They’ve thoroughly studied the lies and repeated the lies. That’s why they call it one the most documenting crimes in history! [chuckling] Because they document a bunch of lies!
Monika: You could exactly just invert that, because they invert everything, and they say it’s the most repeated lie in history! And it really is. Or it’s the most repeated documentation of non evidence, or false evidence, or whatever! It, that drives me crazy! And they started with out at the Nuremberg Trials. Just look up articles 19 and 21 of the Nuremberg trials and you will find it in more legalese language, but that is basically is where they say:
“We’re not going to have evidence for this. We don’t need evidence, because it’s common knowledge.”
Brian: I want to ask, how are you doing back home, in Jasper, Alberta? How is the town treating you? How does it feel?
Monika: Yeah, it definitely has gotten better since I last talked to you, on November 15. Like at that point, I had some encounters that just made me feel:
“Whoa! What am I coming back into?”
And there still is that fear in people’s eyes. And I just try to be friendly to them and ask them how are the kids doing, or whatever! [chuckling] It sort of disarms that fear, a little bit. But I’ve also had some really nice “welcome home” hugs, you know. And people really meaning it when they say “welcome home Monika”. And that’s good! I mean, life is not like it was before. It never will be, but I’m not looking for that. We’re in a different kind of a world than what I was perceiving before I started waking up to this, to all these deceptions.
Brian: Because I remember you were barred from the Legion, but you’re not barred from anyone else, right? You are free, right?
Monika: Well, no. I haven’t really tested that out, and actually I haven’t tested that out. And I was barred, I was banned from a couple of other places too, actually. There was a breakfast kind of a place where she was extremely hostile to me and then threw me out, and barred me from ever coming in there.
Brian: Gosh! Gosh.
Monika: But the Legion was the big one, because it’s a sort of a central, it’s a focal point in this town for all kinds of events. Lots of stuff goes on there.
Brian: You’re not barred from the Legion now, right? You used to perform music there, right? [Brian was breaking up here and was hard to hear.]
Monika: Oh yeah. In fact, our band helped bring that up from, you know, at the time that was a pretty dead place and then the guy that — well, Ken Kuzminski, the President there — he wanted to bring live music in. And he approached me with my band to come in. And we came in on a regular basis for about a year. We came in about once a month and performed, and then other groups did. And then he started going with bands that were traveling from elsewhere, not just local bands. But yeah we kind of kick-started that. Helped to kickstart, getting that place a “happening” place. [chuckling]
And now I’m forbidden! But I don’t know if I am, like I say, … Anyway I don’t want to talk too much more about that in case I want to go down there and try it out.
Brian: Yeah. What about going on tour, [words unclear] go across Canada and talk about your experience?
Monika: Oh yes, I’m looking forward to that! I think in the new year there will be a little bit of a speaking tour happening in Canada! So don’t know the details yet. But definitely want to do a little bit of speaking. I would love to do that. And I will.
Brian: Very good! Yeah, anything else? It’s been a good interview, a good follow up on our first talk, when it’s so fresh on your mind. So do you feel you’re adjusting, you’re getting on with your life? Maybe things will never be the same, of course, after this.
Monika: Yeah, like I say, it’s been exactly a month today. And like I said at the beginning, that time, it seems like a long time ago, because so much has happened, and I’m just finding my feet. But I expect that things will go a little smoother going forward from here and maybe normalize a little bit in terms of just day-to-day life. And I’m feeling pretty good!
And yeah, again remember about Alfred, writing letters to him. And yeah, I’m okay! I’m doing well, thank you! And thanks for doing this Brian. I really appreciate you doing these kinds of interviews and doing all the work you do. Thank you so much!
Brian: Well I appreciate having you on my show. It was an honor to be the first to interview last time. I like to do more of these as things change, and talk on other subjects as well. Thanks for being on the show!
Monika: Thank you.
Brian: Okay. Until next time.