Current Events

Ursula Haverbeck bravely Faces the Inquisition

By Monika Schaefer

What does the state have to hide when they relentlessly persecute a 92-year-old peaceful woman, who has never done anything that we normally associate with ‘criminal behaviour’, never did anything violent, has never stolen, never vandalized, never defrauded anyone, but has asked an inconvenient question over and over again.

This woman has just been released from jail, having spent 2.5 years behind bars, and less than two weeks later was in court in Berlin to face similar charges. Her name is Frau Ursula Haverbeck. The Law is the infamous Par. 130.

Monika Schaefer, who was also imprisoned in Germany for publishing her findings following her investigation into holocaust fraud:

‘This 16-minute video (in German) by the Volkslehrer (Folk Teacher) was sent my way recently by an English-only speaker, who wondered what was said. What follows is by no means a word-for-word translation, but a description giving the gist of it.

‘I highly recommend viewing at least the first 8 minutes of the video even if you do not speak German, because it is beautifully put together especially the music and scenes at the beginning, followed by the interesting scene of reporters chumming outside the courtroom, excluding the independent journalist-reporter Nikolai Nerling the Volkslehrer, producer of this video.

The Volkslehrer asked Ursula Haverbeck for an interview before court began, but she explained that she was not allowed to speak to anyone at this time.

Then you see the throng of reporters outside the courtroom awaiting entry, all friendly with each other, laughing and joking, until one masked woman asks ‘who are you,’ to Nikolai.

He introduces himself, shows his press pass, and explains that he has been a journalist for the last 3.5 years. Condescendingly, she scoffs at him, accuses him of having made up his press pass himself, effectively calling him a liar, says this is nothing, it is not from a proper organ of the press, and then mutters about putting the mask on properly. He answered that it had just slipped down.

After she disappears with his press pass, she returns, again delegitimizing him by saying his press pass has not been issued by a recognized institution (recognized ie. mainstream media. She cackles about not coming too near and that his mask is slipping yet again.

He read her the Grundgesetz, the foundational law which stipulates freedom of the press, to no avail. Nikolai Nerling was not allowed in, and was forcibly taken out of the building.

Ursula Haverbeck was in fine spirits when she came out of the building. Her appeal is being reviewed. The remainder of the video is the interview with Haverbeck’s Attorney, Wolfram Nahrath.

Nahrath tells how Ursula spoke so clearly, so honestly, with dignity, with grace, brilliantly really, and made her case in court that day.

She spoke about how she came to her present understanding of what really happened in WWII. It began in the 1960’s, as she was investigating the nuclear industry on account of her concern for the environment. She read much, researched much, which led her to question the official narrative of WWII.

She emphasized that she never denies anything, but that she has repeatedly asked the question over the years, to which nobody could ever give her an answer. Nahrath referred to that famous question which she still asks, but did not describe it in this interview. (The question is ’where did the crime (the six million take place?)

Ursula went on to say that actually there is nobody in the courtroom who would be capable of denying anything, because nobody was there to witness what happened. So if they don’t know what it is that happened, because they did not see it themselves, then none of them are in the position to ‘deny’ it either.

It is interesting logic, because in German the word for deny is leugnen, and by the German definition, you cannot leugne something that did not happen. It is impossible.

Then Nahrath went on to say that Ursula had said all these things with a clear mind and spirit and that she demonstrated that she has no guilt-awareness or better said, no guilt feeling.

In all the 10 different trials she has been through, not a single prosecutor nor could judge or anybody answer her question. Nor did anybody attempt to answer her question. They simply declared her guilty.

When they declared her guilty in the past, they proclaimed that Frau Haverbeck knows the holocaust took place, and yet she denies it (leugner). So she is guilty. Evidently, the judges and prosecutors engage in mind-reading.

We will see what the verdict is on December 4, he says. He fears it might be as previous verdicts. Then it is far from over. There is another count that she is charged with in Berlin for which the prosecutor appealed because the 6-month sentence was not deemed stiff enough. Then there are the court proceedings in Hamburg still underway in which the prosecutor asked for 10 months.

Lastly, Nahrath goes on to say that Frau Haverbeck is in no way-shape-or-form agitating to incite. She operates on an intellectual level, searching for answers. He laments the fact that they are dragging a 92-year-old matriarch through the court. He of course makes the point that this Par. 130 should not exist at all, but really emphasizes how terrible it is that they drag an elderly woman through this.

He talks about how at this age her health could take a turn at any time, and also that if she goes back to jail after these legal battles, there is naturally the possibility that she could be brought back out under a sheet directly to her grave. The fact that she is willing to seek answers at the age of 92, in full knowledge of the personal consequences bring forth respect.

Nahrath’s emotions could be felt coming close to the surface when he addressed the ‘court’. The whole affair is such a travesty. But if they do put Ursula Haverbeck back in jail, do they not just show their desperation to protect their lies?

Evidence is forbidden. Independent reportage is forbidden. They read the accused’s mind to say she knows something only to deny it with the intention to incite hatred. How absurd. How is it not blatantly obvious to every thinking man and woman?’ ~ Monika Schaefer. Source

5 replies »

  1. What that disgusting Zionist Occupied Government in Germany is doing to Frau Haverbeck is truly sick and totally unwarranted. They are trying to frighten everyone so Holocaust criticism will be seen as something to avoid. But, I believe the opposite is happening. These Talmudists/Zionists have never learned proportionality. They push their evil, come hell or high water, and eventually, their actions will cause a whirlwind of retribution.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Shame society would tolerate throwing an elderly woman–or anyone for that matter–into prison for voicing opinions on history. Even the liberal classmates I had in college thought it was ‘hateful’ to question the Holocaust and didn’t see anything wrong with imprisoning people for questioning the Holocaust. I said to them, “What if it were a crime here (I’m American) to question how many people died in the American Civil War? Wouldn’t that be absurd to do that?” All logic goes out the window when discussing the events of WWII in the West. Suddenly those ‘free speechers’ and ‘truth seekers’ show their tyrannical, Bolshevik nature then.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Decades of propaganda and indoctrination from the Zionist block has turned millions into agreeing sheep. The White Angle-Saxons who allied themselves with these criminals did so to coverup their own war crimes which were far worse than anything the Germans did. There is no documentary or forensic evidence to prove the ridiculous stories flogged by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the ADL, or any of the ludicrous Holocaust Museums. I believe what I posted and am willing to debate anyone about my claims. In my opinion, Frau Haverbeck is a heroine.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. This not only insane to imprison people for voicing opinions on history, but evil too. I’m an American and universities are getting Marxist and liberal, too. Granted, in America, it is still legal for us to speak our minds on the events of WWII and history, etc, but there is a lot of stigma for questioning WWII or being vocal against political correctness. Even when I debated this with my fellow liberal classmates in college, they supported ‘hate speech’ laws and thought it was ‘hateful’ and ‘evil’ to question the official narrative of WWII and the Holocaust. What I would say to them in response is, “Imagine if we were imprisoning people here for disagreeing over how many Americans did in the American Civil War. Was it 600,000 Americans killed, or 1 million? I don’t know, but it should be open for debate. Same as the Holocaust or any other genocide. Do you consider me ‘hateful’ if I am not sure how many people died in the Vietnam War or the Armenian Genocide or killed under communism?”


  3. What they are doing to Haverbeck and Assange is nothing compared to what is coming to the street where you live. Read Hellstorm, The Gulag Archipelago and 200 years Together for a preview.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s