The “six-million killed” lie—the hoax of the twentieth century By Jonas E. Alexis & Monika Schaefer

 

“The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured.”

~Monika Schaefer

Monika Schaefer started to play the violin at age 7, under the tutelage of Alexander Nicol, former concert master of the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. Later she studied with Norman Nelson, co-founder of the renowned chamber group Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. While studying sciences at the University of Alberta, Monika played in the St. Cecilia Orchestra. All her life, she has played with various combinations of people and instruments, wherever she was living and working.

In 1982, Monika moved to Jasper, Alberta, to work for Parks Canada. While classical music remains the cornerstone of her musical endeavors, Monika has broadened her horizons in recent years, delving into old-time fiddle, bluegrass, swing, improvisation and “jamming” with all who like to play. Lately she has discovered the joy of composing and has a few tunes to her name. Schaefer has recently discovered that she has been lied to about the so-called Holocaust. Here we will discuss her story.

Alexis: You say that the so-called holocaust, “the six-million lie,” is “the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.” That indeed is an extraordinary statement which demands extraordinary backbone. Expand on that statement for us. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that it is indeed the most pernicious lie in all of history.

Schaefer: I will give a very brief answer to this right now. The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured. Because of the myth of the holocaust, Israel can do anything. The lies continue, in the form of false-flag terror attacks, and these give justification to the fraudulent War on Terror. The Islamic world and the Christian world are being set up to fight each other, the beneficiary being Israel.

Alexis: Great point. Israeli embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon declared that the Israeli regime wants to maintain “German guilt about the Holocaust” because it “helps Israel.”[1] In other words, she was basically saying that the so-called Holocaust is as sacrosanct as the state of Israel itself. Let’s get to the heart of the issue. Tell us your story and how you have delved into the history of this critically important issue.

Schaefer: Let me begin by giving you a brief description of the video which we released just over 2 months ago on June 17th, 2016. I make an apology to my parents, my mother in particular for having berated her long ago for having “let all those bad things happen in WW2, like Hitler and the death camps.” This apology was in essence to their spirit, because my parents are deceased.

I believe my reproach dates all the way back to my teenage years. Of course I believed all the stories we were taught in school, why would I not believe them? It never occurred to me at that tender young age that teachers would lie to us, let alone anybody else. We were taught to tell the truth, and telling the truth is a natural thing to do. Lying is something that has to be learned. Truth-telling, in my opinion, is the natural instinct.

When I reproached my mother, I don’t think that I really believed that she personally was at fault. I think I was just so indignant about all the injustice that I needed to let out my feelings, and it is easiest and safest to blame those close to you. So that is what I did all those years ago, I held my mother to account for the horrors of WW2!

So now, in 2016, when I know better, and understand that the history we have been taught is wrong, I started feeling really badly about that reproach years ago. I mentioned that to my brother Alfred once, just in passing – I said I wish I could apologize to our parents for what I said all those years ago. He immediately recognized the significance of that story, and suggested we do something with that.

You see, we don’t think we are alone in those sentiments that I had then, and now. There is a whole generation or two of German people who felt this disdain, disgust, shame, all these negative emotions about their grandparents and parents. This constitutes psychological trauma, it causes a generation gap, it causes shame of one’s own heritage and culture.

Back to the short video, I thought it would be good to give it a tone of happiness because for me, waking up to the truth is a liberating experience. I am so glad to know the truth. So, I played a cheerful little tune on the violin, and that is how the video begins and ends. It sets a tone which reflects that truth is light.

I would like to add something here that I did not include in the video but would like to make it perfectly clear, that I never said No Jews Died. Many Jews died in the camps. And yes they were in the camps against their will. Most of the deaths occurred in the last months of the war. Disease and starvation took their toll, as Germany was being bombed by Allied Forces and food was not reaching the typhus-infested camps. And no doubt there were also brutalities.

We know through Ursula Haverbeck’s research that at least 2, if not more, SS officers were themselves executed for brutalizing prisoners. So that means that there were rules against abusing prisoners.

I started down this journey of my awakening in about 2011, 10 years post 9/11. 9/11 is the port-hole through which I began to understand the matrix of deception and illusions that we live in. It was actually a number of years earlier that I was visiting friends on an acreage in central Alberta, and this fellow told me there was this 9/11 truther movement.

I was very curious and interested, because I had this sense right from Day 1 that something was wrong with this picture the way the American government responded to 9/11 by making war in several countries, which made no sense to me. I kept saying to my friends, wow, it sure looks like someone handed that to them on a silver platter because look at the aftermath….look what they are doing with it.

So I listened carefully to this friend, and I wanted to know more. I didn’t say much, and I was pretty wide-eyed. At the end of the day, I went home, and life was busy for me. I didn’t even have a computer at home yet. Even though I was curious, the days and months and years slipped by and I didn’t do any research on the 9/11 question. But I never forgot that encounter. I wondered about it a lot.

So…. when in 2011, my brother Alfred, who lives in Germany, started sending stuff to our family members about 9/11, I immediately jumped on this – and by that time I did have a computer at home and was connected to the internet -I would fire back right away, how do you know this and that and where are you learning this from?

This curiosity about what that man had told me years earlier had been simmering in the back of my mind all along, and when I finally had some concrete information coming my way about this subject, the seeds that had been planted started to grow.

I was insatiable for more knowledge about what really happened on 9-11. I checked everything Alfred was telling us, especially when he was implicating Israel. There was a taboo about implicating Israel. I said, how do you know?

Anyway, I started learning everything I could. I checked sources, I dug into this, and I read, and I looked at videos and I maintained a healthy dose of skepticism, because I was going to make sure that I wasn’t just “falling” for something just because my brother said something. The rest of the family didn’t show much interest, and that is actually the way it has remained to this day.

Fast forward to late 2013, early 2014. At that point I was confronted with some statements about the holocaust not being true. I had heard about “holocaust deniers” before, every once in a while there would be a name in the news, like Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra, and I remember thinking, wow, that’s really weird.

Why would someone deny the holocaust? Really? Everyone knows the holocaust happened. It seemed as solid as the grass is green the sky is blue and I have a nose on my face. I mean, there was simply no questioning it. If someone says outright, that didn’t happen, well, maybe they are a bit crazy.  But I have to say, I never thought to myself that those people are hateful people, no-no, it just puzzled me.

So when I was being confronted with this, I resisted at first. I said, don’t be mixing this up with 9/11, you’re just going to undermine the 9/11 truth movement!

But okay, the questions started to pry their way into my brain. There were enough little doubts, and those little seeds began to grow. Finally, I dared to look. I remember opening the website holocaustdeprogrammingcourse. That opened my eyes! I saw immediately that there was a TON of material on there – you know that little scroll bar on the side – it was tiny.

I pulled on that scroll bar, and there was endless material – articles, videos, survivor stories (other kind of survivor stories). I only spent a few minutes the first time I dared go there, but it was like a lightning bolt for me, just to see that there existed so much material that was contrary to what we had been told all our lives.

Soon after that, I watched the 90 minute video about Ernst Zundel called “Off Your Knees, Germany!” That was huge for me. … My eyes were being opened. There wasn’t any going back. I looked at lots more material after that, but really, when I think about it, the Ernst Zundel case was and still is ground-breaking.

In those Toronto trials in 1985 and 1988 – evidence was brought into the courts! Actual forensic evidence. (Leuchter Report, Robert Faurisson was there, coaching Lawyer Doug Christie on cross-examination,…) This is not done anymore. Holocaust trials with evidence are avoided nowadays.

The process of awakening did not happen without discomfort. When I started learning about the false-flag nature of 9/11, I recall feeling semi-nauseous for days and weeks maybe even months at a time. There was that feeling that not all is well in the gut. That went on for a while.

Learning about the holocaust did not give me that same nauseous feeling, even though it is a deception on a much larger scale. In retrospect I think comprehending 9/11 is easy compared to the holocaust. And yet, when I think back on it, that nauseous feeling occurred primarily when I was discovering that “easier” deception.

I think that once a person has made that first step and understands that our governments, our institutions such as the media, the justice system, etc, are not acting in our best interest, and in fact are beholden to a hidden hand of power, it is then easier to understand the bigger deceptions.

Going through the first door is the hardest. The next door, even if it is a much more difficult subject, and much more deeply ingrained in our brain, and much older, that door is easier to go through.

So, what exactly is Our Problem?

We seem to be living in a Matrix of Deception. And the foundational Lie is the one that I apologize to my mother for having reproached her for. The singular so-called Holocaust. The Holohoax. The 6 Million Lie. Foundational, because the state of Israel is based on the fictional holocaust. Foundational, because Germany as it exists today (and it is not a sovereign country, it is an occupied country!), Germany in its current form is structured on this lie.

The Times of Israel quoted Angela Merkel in an August 9th, 2013 article:

“The heinous crime committed by Germany against the Jews, the betrayal of all civilized values that was the Shoah, will always be present and we can shape the future of the resulting special relationship between Germany and Israel in awareness of that.

“That means that we’ll never be neutral and that Israel can be sure of our support when it comes to ensuring its security. That’s why I also said that Germany’s support for Israel’s security is part of our national ethos, our raison d’être.”[2]

Angela Merkel had said much the same thing when she addressed the Knesset, the legislature of the Jewish state of Israel, on March 18th of 2008. How are these deceptions kept up? Much of it is through psychological warfare, together with endless false-flag events which are coming at an ever-increasing rate.

It seems to me that the primary tool in psychological warfare is the weaponization of language. This, coupled with the indoctrination of young minds through the school education system, through the film and television industries, through the incessant repetition of the lies in the mainstream media.

Weaponized language is designed to prevent us from looking. Certain control words put gates into our brains, and our brains become fragmented. Barriers have been engineered into our brains by the lies and indoctrination.

So what are some of those control words and expressions that cause these brain barriers, and stop us from thinking clearly?

Well, I think we are all familiar with the long-standing weaponized terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, holocaust, holocaust denier, anti-Semite, or the name Hitler – if someone gets compared to Hitler, that is the worst you can say about them.

Other terms are 9/11 Truther, and Conspiracy theory. I am sure you can add to the list. Nowadays, there is this package of 4. If you are one, you are all 4:

•9-11 truther

•Anti-Semite

•Conspiracy theorist

•Holocaust denier

When I began my awakening to the 9/11 story, I was called an anti-Semite by a former friend before I even brought Israel into the conversation. I had only presented him with Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth materials, and they only deal with physical evidence, not with the “who did it?”

This friend also said – next thing, you’ll become a holocaust denier. At the time I retorted angrily – what are you talking about, no I am not, it is totally unrelated. … Little did I know. I should write to him and tell him thank you, you were right!

Alexis: Good start. We will pick up on that theme later this month.

[1] “Israeli Diplomat in Berlin: Maintaining German Guilt About the Holocaust Helps Israel,” Haaretz, June 25, 2015.

[2] “Merkel: Germany can never be neutral on Israel,” Times of Israel, August 9, 2013.

{ 4 Comments }

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

 


In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.”[Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

{ Add a Comment }