For the background on this story, please read my previous article. https://freespeechmonika.com/native-rights-mobs-at-canadian-universities/
Dear Reader, if you are short on time, please skip ahead, to the letter from a concerned mother of a student.
I received the following email from the Department of Advanced Education in Alberta on April 28th, 2026.
Dear Monika Schaefer:
Thank you for your email to the Honourable Myles McDougall, Minister of Advanced Education, regarding recent events at the University of Lethbridge. The Minister has asked the Governance, Policy and Engagement Division to respond on behalf of Advanced Education. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with some information.
Albertans have the right to express themselves and their opinions freely, and Alberta’s government is committed to ensuring there are strong protections for freedom of speech. It is important that post-secondary institutions foster a strong culture of free speech and diverse viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are deemed controversial, barring speech intended to incite hatred or violence.
As directed by Alberta’s government, all publicly funded post-secondary institutions in the province implemented free speech policies as of December 2019. The University of Lethbridge’s website includes the institution’s Statement on Free Expression.
Furthermore, as of spring 2023, Advanced Education has introduced new annual reporting requirements for all post-secondary institutions to collect data, declare intended outcomes, and report on the implementation of free speech policies. With this information, Advanced Education hopes to emphasize the commitment of Alberta’s government to protecting free speech at post-secondary institutions.
The directive of Alberta’s government to all publicly funded institutions is to align with the University of Chicago principles on free speech, which include the following limitation: “The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.”
The University of Lethbridge has implemented free speech policies and is currently reviewing the handling of the events you cited to determine whether improvements on the implementation of these policies can be made in the future.
The Ministry of Advanced Education provides strategic guidance and direction to Alberta’s post-secondary systems but does not have a role in day-to-day institutional management or operations. Post-secondary institutions, including the University of Lethbridge, are responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures related to the management of campus activities. For this reason, we encourage you to continue working directly with the University of Lethbridge to find a resolution.
To share your concerns, you may wish to contact the Office of the Provost and Vice‑President (Academic), given its responsibility for oversight of academic operations. The Provost and Vice-President (Academic) at the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Michelle Helstein, can be reached by phone at 403-329-2202 or by email at provost@uleth.ca.
Thank you again for your email.
Sincerely,
Governance, Policy and Engagement
Advanced Education
cc: Honourable Myles McDougall, ECA
Minister of Advanced Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response:
2026 May 25
To the Minister of Advanced Education in Alberta,
The Governance, Policy, and Engagement Division responded on your behalf to my concerns about events which took place at the University of Lethbridge on February 4th, 2026. I appreciate having received a response, and will consider that response as coming from yourself, the Minister of Advanced Education in Alberta, and I am thus addressing this to you.
The Minister’s proxy suggests that I direct my concerns to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) at the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Michelle Helstein. I will point out to you that she was indeed one of the recipients of my letter of concern April 2nd of this year. Thus far, I have not heard back from her, nor from anyone else within the University administration.
Your proxy writes, “The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.”
However, the Minister does not address the reverse, in other words when the University causes rather than “restricts” these bad things.
As outlined in my April 2nd letter, the University was promoting the mob behaviour (sending a mass-email to students that a controversial person was coming) and then praising the mob behaviour afterwards (Professor Leroy Little Bear’s ceremony). It seems unlikely that the University will respond to my concerns in any meaningful and honest way. I hope my misgivings are wrong.
The Minister says “The University of Lethbridge has implemented free speech policies.” They may claim that, but they have done precisely the opposite. I could write reams about how that statement is a complete reversal of what the University has really done. It beggars belief, that anyone who can observe, who can still think straight, and who can say two plus two equals four could make that statement with a straight face.
I have read the University of Lethbridge Statement on Free Expression. It is beautiful, erudite, inspiring. It truly is wonderful. The motto Fiat Lux, “Let there be light” lifts us up. Our joy and our hope for enlightenment upon entering an institution of higher learning with that motto evaporates when we learn that every single principle within the Statement on Free Expression of the University of Lethbridge has, in reality, been negated and reversed.
Let me just give one single example. From the Statement on Free Expression:
“Mutual respect, tolerance, and civility are valued within the University but do not constitute sufficient justification for closing off the discussion of ideas or shielding students from ideas or opinions, no matter how offensive or disagreeable they may be to some members of the University community, or those outside of the University.”
Sending out a warning email to the student body about a controversial person, and then praising the students afterwards for their terrible behaviour completely negates the above statement, and that is putting it mildly. The mob did not demonstrate respect, tolerance nor civility that fateful day February 4th, to the four elderly and peaceful people who came onto campus to have a civilized dialogue with students.
Universities receive public money, from the government, and that means we are paying for this public institution. There must be accountability. Thus far, we have seen precious little accountability.
I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Monika Schaefer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As of today, 2026 June 11, I have had no response from the University of Lethbridge on this serious violation of any and all civilized standards of conduct, and the condoning of criminal behaviour on the campus of this publicly funded academic institution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, I will share a letter written to the University of Lethbridge by a concerned mother of a student.
Dear Members of the Board of Governors, Members of Senior Leadership, and Academic Deans and Associate Deans:
I am the parent of a student at your institution. My email is concerning the intimidation of and what appeared to be physically aggressive and confrontational treatment of professors on your campus on February 4 2026. My understanding is that these professors were attempting to engage with students on a controversial issue using a
critical thinking exercise. My son was at class and upon hearing loud yelling, horns, and drumming, went over to find out what was going on. He did not know who Dr. Widdowson was, or what she was talking about, only that she was a controversial figure that travelled to campuses to try to engage in critical thinking discussions. My son called me and said “I’m going to go and speak to her and find out what she has to say. I want to have a talk.”
His next call to me was one of a very different tone, marked by personal distress and disbelief at what he was witnessing. By the time he arrived, the crowd was highly escalated, agitated and disorderly, with Dr. Widdowson surrounded. He then met the other professor, and they had a discussion. The professor struck my son as kind, deeply concerned about social issues, and holding a measured, rational view.
I have seen numerous videos of the crowd. I want to pause here to focus in on the deeply disturbing and volatile behaviour of your students. To work themselves into a frenzy over the potential of someone speaking, to engage in what appeared to be threatening and physically aggressive behaviour, over words, is not only deeply concerning on a mental health and legal level, but it is difficult to believe that such extreme and aggressive behaviour could arise in a vacuum. This kind of thinking and its resultant behaviour raises serious questions about what may be being fostered within your institutional culture. Your students, who are under your tutelage, appear to believe that if someone says something that upsets them, or with which they disagree, they are now entitled to respond with what appeared to be threatening, physical aggression. It appears that many students lack the resilience and intellectual discipline expected in a university environment, reacting with escalation rather than engagement. They appeared to collapse under the crushing weight not of intellectual disagreement itself, but the mere potential for it. It raises concern about whether students will be adequately prepared for reasoned participation in civic life.
But worse, they can be observed in these videos in a heightened frenzy. Individually perhaps none of these students can be taken seriously (or perhaps they should), but as a group of perhaps hundreds, the situation appeared volatile and unsafe. What we witnessed on February 4 appeared organized, sustained, and aggressive, in a way that prevented the event from proceeding, thereby forcing the shutdown of freedom of expression.
My son, for his part, did the right thing. He saw what appeared to be intimidation, physical aggression, and destruction of property, and he stood by in some attempt at protection. He was genuinely afraid because the mob started to turn against him too. Suddenly, he was on ‘the wrong side.’ He tried to ask the people screaming, now in
his face, what they were so activated by, but all they could do was scream “Racist!” He then went and found some earplugs that were being distributed to the crowd and brought some back to the professors and their spouses. Evidently, this act of human decency was forbidden, and one for which he is still paying the price as he believes a
number of your students have continued to select him out for negative attention since then. I want to add here that my son is also of Indigenous heritage, some generations removed, but nonetheless a part of his cultural and genetic history. And there is nothing about his ancestry, or any other part of his identity that would change how he would treat the humans who were being violently mistreated–that is with kindness, dignity, and respect for their humanity. I have seen this from him repeatedly, selfless kindness, protection of others, and care for strangers, especially those in trouble. His courage has historically entailed risk as he has put himself in harm’s way to help, and even save, others. I cannot take credit for the moral character he possesses; he is a better person than I find myself being many times. But I can say we have worked hard to instill in him good foundations such as that there is equal dignity and worth in all human life – regardless of a person’s ethnicity, sex, skin colour, belief, or any other factors related to identity. We also have tried to teach him that the pursuit of truth is worthy, encouraging critical thinking and open discourse on tough topics, none excluded.
I ask each of you as leaders to step back and ask yourselves what you have done. Freedom of expression is not just a constitutional right–it is the foundation of a just and functional society.
For such a display of disorder to unfold there appears to be a serious institutional failure. Universities exist, by design, as institutions devoted to disciplined inquiry: the systematic examination of claims through evidence, argument, and open debate. Critical thinking is the condition that makes it possible. And at the foundation of critical thinking is first learning to listen well. Your job is to teach students to listen carefully to competing perspectives, and then, to seek and evaluate relevant facts, to distinguish assertion from argument, and to deliberate with intellectual honesty. From there, students must learn to reason coherently, weigh alternative interpretations, and arrive at judgments that are defensible in light of evidence and logic. Without these practices, a university may transmit information, but it cannot fulfil its defining role as a community committed to rational inquiry. Some would say the university exists to pursue truth itself -an afront to postmodern ears, perhaps. Whatever language we use, the aim of disciplined inquiry cannot be realized apart from intellectual humility, reasoning, and the freedom to test ideas against counterargument.
Your institution hit top news cycles on social media for days, with all able to witness what many observers perceive as the prioritization of ideology over critical thinking. Across the globe people have watched students seen in widely circulated videos online. My son also witnessed directly that people were spitting in elderly professors’ faces, in their spouses’ faces, tearing apart their books, throwing items at them, screaming “racist” at them, elbowing them, shoving them, and blowing deafening horns in their ears.
The events that occurred on your campus – including reported shoving, spitting, and destruction of property – constitute conduct that, if substantiated, meets the definition of assault and related offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. Such behaviour is not protected protest; it is unlawful.
As a publicly funded institution, the University of Lethbridge has both a duty of care and workplace safety obligations to ensure that faculty, students, and anyone present on campus can participate in academic life without fear of physical intimidation or violence. A failure to respond decisively and transparently to such conduct raises serious legal and governance concerns.
Any individual found, through proper investigation and due process, to have engaged in assault or destruction of property should face appropriate disciplinary measures and, where warranted, referral to law enforcement. Likewise, if any administrator or faculty member failed to respond appropriately to unlawful conduct, that conduct warrants independent review and appropriate recourse.
Given the seriousness of these events, it would be appropriate for provincial authorities to ensure that the university is fulfilling its statutory mandate as a publicly funded institution committed to lawful and safe academic inquiry.
The reason we need to vehemently defend everyone’s freedom of expression is precisely for times like these. Can you argue that you are operating an institution of higher learning when you cannot uphold dialogue when it matters most: where disagreement exists?
This presents a profound failure of leadership. And for all who stayed silent–this is also a failure. Bystanding is not without moral and practical consequence.
While it is not your job to defend what anyone is saying, it absolutely is your job to defend their right to say it.
My son and I have spoken at length regarding his feelings about being a part of your institution. He has felt what he has described as “disbelief, horror, and shame,” at what he has described as “violent” and “frightening” in the mistreatment of human beings on your campus, and of his deep concern in being associated with a university where this can take place. I am actively encouraging my son to leave your institution, but that is up to him. Not only does your university appear to be in a state of deep dysfunction, but February 4 demonstrated that it is a frighteningly unsafe place for people like my son, who dare to ask Can we talk?
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
17 Responses
Die einzige innerhalb des “demokratischen Spektrums” geführte Oppositionspartei “auf dem Boden unserer demokratischen Grundordnung” AfD soll am Wochenende ihren Parteitag in Thüringen abhalten. Dieser Parteitag findet 100 Jahre nach dem NSDAP-Parteitag 1926 in Weimar statt. Im Landtag in Erfurt besetzt die AfD aktuell knapp 33 % der Stimmen. Die verantwortlichen Entscheidungstreffer sehen diesen Aufmarsch von Paramilitärs vorwiegend als eine friedliche Versammlung an und beabsichtigen nicht, diese zu stören. Die Polizei geht von einem Endzeit-Szenario aus. 60.000 Demonstranten wollen anreisen, davon etwa 2.500 Linksextreme der ANTIFA, auch aus dem Ausland. Es steht zu erwarten, daß diese brennende Straßenblockaden errichten, Geschäfte zerstören, Straßen aufreißen, von Hausdächern aus mit Zwillen schießen, Brandsätze oder Gehweg-Platten herunter werfen. Es wird gewarnt, daß sie Laserwaffen einsetzen könnten. Ein Bus soll als Kampfwagen eingesetzt werden. Mit ähnlichen Bildern wie damals beim G-20-Gipfel in Hamburg wird gerechnet. In Hamburg wurden 2017 etwa 20.000 Einsatzkräfte mobilisiert, in Erfurt werden es etwa 5.000 sein. Bürgerkrieg auf den Straßen steht zu befürchten, wenn der “schwarze Block” der ANTIFA auf die Parteitagsmitglieder losgeht. Die Bilder werden durch die Welt gehen und es steht zu befürchten, daß es Mordopfer geben wird bei Politikern, Polizei und Unbeteiligten. Eine Strafverfolgung dieser Chaoten (Kommunisten und Anarchisten) wird ähnlich lasch ausfallen wie seinerzeit in Hamburg. Die AfD wird politisch gestärkt aus diesem Kriegsszenario hervorgehen.
Translation of Hilken’s comment:
The AfD, the only opposition party within the “democratic spectrum” that operates “within the framework of our democratic constitutional order”, is due to hold its party conference in Thuringia this weekend. This conference is taking place 100 years after the NSDAP party conference held in Weimar in 1926. In the state parliament in Erfurt, the AfD currently holds just under 33 per cent of the seats. The decision-makers in charge regard this gathering of paramilitary groups primarily as a peaceful assembly and do not intend to disrupt it. The police are anticipating an apocalyptic scenario. 60,000 demonstrators are expected to arrive, including around 2,500 far-left extremists from ANTIFA, some of whom are coming from abroad. It is to be expected that they will erect burning roadblocks, destroy shops, tear up roads, fire slingshots from rooftops, and throw incendiary devices or paving slabs. There are warnings that they could use laser weapons. A bus is reportedly to be used as a combat vehicle. Scenes similar to those seen during the G20 summit in Hamburg are anticipated. In Hamburg in 2017, around 20,000 law enforcement officers were mobilised; in Erfurt, the figure will be around 5,000. There are fears of civil unrest on the streets should the ANTIFA’s “black bloc” attack party conference delegates. The images will be seen around the world, and there is reason to fear that there will be fatalities amongst politicians, police and bystanders. Prosecution of these troublemakers (communists and anarchists) will be just as lax as it was back in Hamburg. The AfD will emerge politically strengthened from this war-like scenario.
Am 19.6. ging ein Film von Uwe Boll in die amerikanischen Kinos; Citizen Vigilante. In Deutschland kann man ihn nicht sehen.
Worum geht es? Eine Mutter wird von einem Ausländer in Gegenwart ihres Sohnes mit dem Messer schwer verletzt. Eine Gruppe Jugendlicher fährt provozierend im Öffentlichen Nahverkehr schwarz und prügelt einen einheimischen Jugendlichen zusammen. Männer versuchen in einer Bar, zwei Frauen mit K.O. Tropfen zu betäuben, um sie zu vergewaltigen. Eine Jugendliche wird von einer Gruppe junger Ausländer gruppenvergewaltigt. Alltägliche Übel in allen weißen Gesellschaften. Sanders, ein Ex-Soldat lebt ungebunden, ein einsamer Mann, ist Amerikaner und er übt Selbstjustiz, spürt Täter auf, wird zum dunklen Rächer, findet den korrupten Richter und tötet ihn. Die Gruppenvergewaltiger erschießt er. Die auf den jungen eintretenden Schwarzfahrer bringt er mit wenigen Tritten zu Boden. Er geht zu den Opfern und holt sich deren Einverständnis. Die Polizei (Interpol) jagt ihn vergeblich, doch er stellt ihr eine tödliche Sprengstoff-Falle. Im Internet wird er gefeiert. Der Film ist drastisch und realistisch brutal, indem er die Verbrechen selbst zeigt und die blutige Rache, die Sanders schonungslos an diesen Illegalen und Kriminellen nimmt. Sanders spricht über die Zerstörung der Gesellschaft und über die Korruption der Akteure in Politik und Strafverfolgung.
Unser Kindermädchen-Staat indiziert diesen Film über die Hintertür, indem es keine Altersfreigabe gibt, was einem Verbot gleichkommt. Der Regisseur nennt dies Zensur. Aber das Grundgesetz deklariert für uns Unmündige (Staats-Mündel) auf dem Papier: Eine Zensur findet nicht statt. Angeblich leben wir ja in einem Paradies von Menschenrechten, Meinungsfreiheit, Demokratie und Kunstfreiheit. Noch niemals in der Nachkriegsgeschichte waren Politiker so unbeliebt wie heute hierzulande. Es nützt ihnen auch nichts, daß sie einen Paragrafen der Majestätsbeleidigung auf sich anwenden und alle Kritik hart verfolgen, besonders in den sozialen Medien. Das Volk hat die Schnauze voll.
Translation:
On June 19, a film by Uwe Boll was released in American theaters: *Citizen Vigilante*. It is not available in Germany.
What is it about? A mother is seriously injured with a knife by a foreigner in front of her son. A group of teenagers provocatively ride public transit without paying and beat up a local teenager. In a bar, men try to drug two women with knockout drops in order to rape them. A teenage girl is gang-raped by a group of young foreigners. Everyday evils in all white societies. Sanders, an ex-soldier living a solitary life, is an American who takes the law into his own hands, tracks down perpetrators, becomes a shadowy avenger, finds the corrupt judge, and kills him. He shoots the gang rapists. He takes down the young fare-dodger who attacks him with just a few kicks. He goes to the victims and seeks their consent. The police (Interpol) hunt him in vain, but he sets a deadly explosive trap for them. He is celebrated on the internet. The film is graphic and realistically brutal, depicting the crimes themselves and the bloody revenge that Sanders mercilessly exacts on these illegal immigrants and criminals. Sanders speaks about the destruction of society and the corruption of figures in politics and law enforcement.
Our nanny state is effectively banning this film through the back door by refusing to assign an age rating, which amounts to a ban. The director calls this censorship. But the Basic Law declares on paper for us, the legally incompetent (wards of the state): There is no censorship. Supposedly, we live in a paradise of human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, and artistic freedom. Never before in postwar history have politicians been as unpopular as they are today in this country. It does them no good to invoke a law against lèse-majesté and harshly persecute all criticism, especially on social media. The people have had enough.
Noch eine Reflexion über diesen Film von Uwe Boll, Citizen Vigilante.
Wir leben in einem Nachkriegsdeutschland, das sich emotional immer noch so verhält wie ein besiegtes Land. Dazu zählen ständig wiederholt ausgelebte Demütigungs-Rituale gegenüber Siegermächten. Wie könnten WIR die Deutschen zu einem dauernden Verhalten dieser Art bringen? Sie würden ewig eine schuldbeladenen und gedemütigte Nation sein. Bis zu ihrer völligen Auslöschung. Dann würden sie nie wieder eine Gefahr für UNS darstellen. So bekamen wir eine Massenzuwanderung aus Ländern, die sich kulturell und religiös besonders misogyn und hochgradig intolerant und aggressiv verhalten, etwa Gesetzesbrecher enthaupten oder steinigen; und die durch Kriege und archaische Gesellschaften auch traumatisiert sind. Das wäre ein interessantes Sozialexperiment. WIR wollen uns das mal anschauen. Diese fremden importierten Völker verhalten sich dann emotional wie eine Siegermacht. Sie erwarten aufgrund religiöser Dogmen ohnehin die geglückte Islamisierung Europas. Dazu verhelfen WIR ihnen auch. WIR coachen sie zu ihrem Erfolg. Diese eingewanderten Männer dürfen ungehindert massen-morden und massen-vergewaltigen. Unsere Gesellschaft ist durch Umerziehung und Traumatisierung nicht mehr imstande, tribale Kämpfe um ihre kulturelle und gesellschaftliche Dominanz zu führen. Ihre Elite ist nicht bereit, diese Gesellschaft zu verteidigen. Der Regisseur Uwe Boll präsentiert seinen gebrochenen Anti-Helden Sander mit einem tief gestörtem zwanghaft-eiskaltem Gefühlsleben. Ich halte den ganzen Film einzig für Fantasie dieses Deutschen, der so viel Wut in sich trägt und nun seine Fantasien ausleben will. Er träumt von der Vernichtung der Feinde seiner Überzeugungen. Dazu gehört auch seine Berühmtheit im Internet. Interessant, daß diese Kunstfigur als Anti-Held (Sander) von einem Deutschen erdacht wurde. Denn er zeigt etwas, was unsere Männer völlig verloren haben, Sander ist ein kompromißloser Krieger, der auch vor Tötungen aus Selbstverteidigung nicht zurückschreckt. Damit bringt Boll etwas in den Diskurs, das bislang verdrängt wurde. Die Macht hat Angst vor dieser Botschaft.
Translation of Hilken’s comment:
Another reflection on this film by Uwe Boll, *Citizen Vigilante*.
We live in postwar Germany, which emotionally still behaves like a defeated nation. This includes rituals of humiliation toward the victorious powers that are constantly repeated. How could WE induce the Germans to adopt this kind of behavior permanently? They would remain a guilt-ridden and humiliated nation forever. Until their complete annihilation. Then they would never again pose a threat to US. So we ended up with mass immigration from countries that, culturally and religiously, behave in a particularly misogynistic, highly intolerant, and aggressive manner—such as beheading or stoning lawbreakers—and that are also traumatized by wars and archaic societies. That would be an interesting social experiment. WE want to take a look at that. These foreign, imported peoples then behave emotionally like a victorious power. Based on religious dogmas, they expect the successful Islamization of Europe anyway. WE are helping them achieve that, too. WE are coaching them toward their success. These immigrant men are allowed to commit mass murder and mass rape unhindered. Through re-education and traumatization, our society is no longer capable of waging tribal battles for its cultural and social dominance. Its elite is not prepared to defend this society. Director Uwe Boll presents his broken anti-hero, Sander, with a deeply disturbed, compulsive, and ice-cold emotional life. I consider the entire film to be nothing more than the fantasy of this German man, who harbours so much anger within himself and now wants to act out his fantasies. He dreams of annihilating the enemies of his convictions. This includes his fame on the internet. It’s interesting that this fictional character, the anti-hero Sander, was conceived by a German. For he embodies something our men have completely lost: Sander is an uncompromising warrior who does not shy away from killing in self-defence. In doing so, Boll brings something into the discourse that has been suppressed until now. Those in power are afraid of this message.
Thank you for translating Monika.
According to a blog I’ve read, the producer of this film did a film on the “holocaust” previously to this film. I cannot verify this information but I know that in the past the powers that should not be put out movies of public sentiment in some form of Talmudic pressure release for the goyim.
Thank you again Monika for all that you do. God Bless you.
Thank you Outside-looking-in.
In the meantime, I have watched the film myself. I think you are probably correct in this “pressure release” valve analysis. Also, what I noticed about the movie, is that there is ZERO mention of (((who))) is behind the mass migration. A critical point.
You can translate your posts into English using the online translation program “linguatools.net”.
Thank you Thomas. I have a “Deepl” account and it is not a problem for me to do these translations. This way, German readers can still read Hilken’s comments in the original German if they like, and nothing is “lost in translation” as they say.
Und außerdem: Ich bin es so leid, immer wieder mit psychologischen Operationen des gleichen Strickmusters beschäftigt zu werden. Sie sind wie Endlos-Schleifen, sind so ungemein langweilig, so primitiv und banal und doch gleichzeitig so abgründig boshaft. Ich möchte endlich meinen Gedanken und Gefühlen freien Lauf lassen getreu dem Motto, leben und leben lassen. Wenn man diese sich wiederholenden Muster einmal durchschaut hat, kann man sie allesamt so leicht durchschauen. Ihnen fehlt es an Fantasie. Hoffentlich erwachen bald mehr Menschen. Ich wünsche mir so sehr Wahrheit und Freiheit für alle.
Translation:
And besides: I’m so tired of constantly being subjected to psychological maneuvers that all follow the same pattern. They’re like endless loops—so incredibly boring, so primitive and banal, and yet at the same time so profoundly malicious. I want to finally give free rein to my thoughts and feelings, true to the motto, “live and let live.” Once you see through these repetitive patterns, it’s so easy to see right through them all. They lack imagination. Hopefully, more people will wake up soon. I wish so much for truth and freedom for everyone.
Hoffentlich ist das, was ich jetzt schreibe, nicht zu sarkastisch? Der nächste Schritt wäre: Akribisches, konspiratives und professionelles Ausspionieren der Opfer, Einüben von Angriffen aus der Gruppe und einem Hinterhalt auf Einzelpersonen mit Schlaggegenständen wie Eisenstangen, Äxten oder Schlagringen von rücklings, mit Tarnanzügen aus schwarzer Farbe und schwarzen Hauben mit Sehschlitzen, Plünderung und Brandschatzung, rasches Untertauchen. Das Markieren von Zielpersonen durch Veröffentlichung von Fotos, Adressen, Gewohnheiten und der Aufruf zu Überfällen mit Mordfolge. Das ist das Milieu der deutschen Jugend in der Antifaschistischen Aktion. Ihr Motto: “Wehret in den Anfängen.”
Translation of comment by Hilken:
I hope what I’m about to write isn’t too sarcastic? The next step would be: meticulous, conspiratorial, and professional surveillance of the victims; rehearsing group attacks and ambushing individuals from behind with blunt weapons such as iron bars, axes, or brass knuckles; wearing black camouflage suits and black hoods with eye slits; looting and arson; and quickly going into hiding. The targeting of individuals by publishing photos, addresses, and habits, and calling for attacks resulting in murder. This is the milieu of German youth in Antifascist Action. Their motto: “Nip it in the bud.”
[from Monika: sometimes the sarcastic or satirical remark illustrates the point the most effectively! What a sad state of affairs, that the German youth have been so indoctrinated as to participate in their own demise. Thank you for your informative comments Hilken!]
Ernst Jünger was a contemporary witness of the 20th century. Having returned highly decorated from the front as a young man, he later became, among other things, a writer who shared his experiences from this period of immense hardship for the German people. He grew up in an era when serving the preservation of one’s nation and fatherland was considered a matter of course. In West Germany, he questioned the meaning of the achievements of those who later grew up, if these achievements were displayed in public for the sake of personal advancement, a company, or an abstract concept.
Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, professional soldiers of the GDR army were indoctrinated in their political training with the idea that they had to defend the GDR against the class enemy in the West; if necessary, a preemptive strike would have to be launched. The fall of the Berlin Wall unfolded as follows: On the evening of November 8, 1989, East German television broadcast a statement from the Politburo of the communist party SED announcing new travel regulations. A day later, the SED leadership declared that crossing the border was now possible without delay. Several hundred GDR-people gathered at a border crossing in East Berlin – it is quite possible that the Ministry for State Security (the secret service of the GDR) not only directed the people to the border crossing, but was itself present there with hundreds of plainclothes officers demanding the opening of the border (the likelihood of this is made clear by the assassination of Romanian head of state Ceausescu a month later by the Romanian secret service – the revolution in the Eastern Block in autumn 1989 was therefore an international conspiracy). Instead of explaining to the “demonstrators” that they should issue themselves passports in the coming days, the border guards opened the crossing. Of course, this had been agreed upon beforehand with superiors in the relevant ministries – no border guard would have done that on their own, as it carried the most severe penalties – just as the Politburo’s announcement of some unspecified new travel rules was part of the staging; nobody needed that, only the issuing of passports for everyone would have had to be announced. Then, within a few days, Politburo chief Egon Krenz had the border torn down. GDR-officers did not defend their country and people, nor did they even consider it – despite their previously sworn oaths – but deserted, whenever possible, immediately to the class enemy in the West and joined its army, participating in the same political and ideological circus again, only in the other direction: eastward, where the new enemy now stood. The armies of GDR and FRG never did anything for Germans – if they were ever deployed at all, it was abroad for the Allies. But they’re practicing in their reservations for some eventuality, while they’re overrun by foreign races that aren’t so foreign to them anymore, since they’re not uncommon among them, as are faggots and women. They’ll never lift a finger for whites or Germans. Similarly, the so-called police: During the Corona time, incited Black people took to the streets in Germany – Black Lives Matter protests without masks. Okay, thought this domestic service, while simultaneously recording the personal details of Germans protesting against masks and vaccinations in order to send out fines. The employees of these companies allow themselves to be used by politicians; they are spineless figures, each one – like the students in Canada – insignificant, but in the majority and armed with a big mouth.
Communism has many faces – in the GDR, a high school teacher somewhat condescendingly declared that in rural areas, the three houses in a village were sufficient for the inhabitants. Serving the supposedly progressive – understood by Marxists as communism – is serving the unknown, the foreign – it leads to serving strangers and leaves the (white) servants underdeveloped and childish. Clinging to one’s own, one’s own clan, one’s own origin, one’s own people – regardless of all talk of respect and tolerance, and only the enforcement of one’s own way of life, even with violence if necessary – allows the member of the people to enter into reality, opens up a previously unknown world to him, drives him to unforeseeable, seemingly impossible achievements – for his people and thereby for himself.
Thanks for this post, Monika.
Great article Monika, that young man’s mother is so well spoken.
Someone just told me that the Canadian legislature voted to outlaw speech derogatory to the residential school natives. It didn’t pass by a few votes. Is that true?
Yes that is true. The Canadian Senate voted 41 to 32 to strike an amendment from Bill C-9 the “combatting hate act”, which would have criminalized you for publicly condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian residential school (IRS) system.
The bill that Leah Gazan re-introduced a couple of years ago has also not been adopted. Both of these legislative attempts to criminalize dissenting views about the IRS mirror the existing holocaust denial law.
This battle continues. They continue to ramp it up, but maybe this latest strike against their attempt to criminalize truth is a sign that they are losing ground on their narrative, especially with regards to “unmarked graves”. Not a single shred of evidence has been unearthed in spite of the millions they have received from the government, which is of course OUR money.