Dear Fellow Patriot!


Germany: Yesterday, Friday, February 6th, the opening
of the trial against Horst Mahler and two others, in
the Berlin State Court, began. The three men are
accused of incitement. They are charged with
circulating "anti-Semitic" and "xenophobic" pamphlets
on the Internet in October of 2000.

The 68-year old heroic attorney stood up and addressed
the judge:

"It is a lie that we systematically murdered 6 million
Jews,"

said Horst Mahler to the court. Under normal
circumstances, the attorney would have been arrested
right there and then, because holocaust denial is
illegal in Germany. However, he got off with a warning
from the prosecutors, that, if he continues this talk,
new charges would be added.

Horst Mahler must have balls of brass. Imagine, not
afraid to stand up in a German court, telling the
whole lot that the holocaust is a lie. And that's the
man who is one of our keynote speakers at the April
24th and 25th, 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento.

[More on Mahler]
*******************************************************

Kosher food seems to become ever so popular around the
world. Specifically white yuppies in America seem to
be all excited about kosher food. I think it is
solidarity that they show with the poor Jews. How
about a little feces or urine or dried flies with your
kosher meat? Because that's exactly what happened in
one or the largest kosher meat and poultry plants in
England. More than 1 million English Pounds is the
turnover of H. Schlagman & Sons. The Schlagman's
supply the world with kosher meat and poultry for
decades, even though they haven't passed health
inspections since 1998.

Dried meat on the wall as well as dried blood, dead
flies all over, feces on the floor and no running hot
or cold water.

The Schlagman's were fined once 8,000 Pounds, then
2,500 Pounds, and just in July of 2003 again 5,500
Pounds. The violations were never cleaned up. At the
last inspection, still, feces were on the floor, now
they added a little urine for the taste and dried meat
and blood was still decorating the walls.

Anthony Bradley, Schlagman's attorney, had this to
say:

"It's not the case of Andrew Schlagman, cutting
corners in order to make profits, and it has not
resulted in any customer being sold unfit meat."

Yes, and this coming year Christmas falls on Easter.

*******************************************************

For many days I have received questions why I was so
quiet about the Mel Gibson Movie Passion controversy.
Since they keep coming, here is the long answer:

For one, I don't like Mel Gibson. He is a fence sitter
and an enabler. While I support the movie, I don't
give a rats ass about him or his family. He is a male
whore who sold his soul to the Jews, no character and
no backbone. His many movies have given me so much
headaches over the years. His bashing of European
Americans to please the Hollywood moguls, is
despicable.

The multi-million dollar take in from the Lethal
Weapon series enabled him to finance the Passion
movie. The Lethal Weapon movies were an insult to
European Americans and contributed greatly tot he
demonizing of Western Cultures.

The Mel Gibson story is sort of a Faustian story. You
can't make a deal with the devil. Of course, he will
make the changes that the Jews have asked him to make.
While we are on the subject, let me be a little
paranoid here. I think he is in kahooz with the Jews.
Who in his right mind wants to see a movie that does
not use the English language, has unknown actors and
Mary is played by the daughter of a "holocaust
survivor."

I personally already know that the Jews killed Jesus
Christ. I do not need Hollywood scum like Mel Gibson
telling me in a language that I don't understand and
actors I don't like. But that's exactly the gist of
it. How do you sell a movie to an audience that is
predominantly brown, little in IQ, poorly speaking
English on one hand and to the other audience, who is
already fed up with Hollywood movies about Jesus
Christ. Just remember, "Jesus Christ Superstar" and
"The Temptation of Jesus Christ." With all these
issues, the movie wasn't about to find a distributor
or attract a large audience.

So, what do you do? You create a controversy that is
big enough that it brings in both groups. Even though,
many of them will not understand it. The ADL, the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Jewish Community, and
other special interest groups declared the  Passion
anti-Semitic. Slowly, the media gave it more and more
coverage. Now, who owns the media again?

By the time the movie is finally being released, Mel
Gibson and his ilk with have made all the changes to
please the Jew. However, by then it's too late for the
American people to realize that they've been had
again.

No wait, consider this, only a year ago, the movie
couldn't find a distributor. The movie had no
audience. Today, there are so many distributors that
Gibson can take his pick. What about audience? Well,
here it comes. Today's front story in The Sacramento
Bee Scene Section. Christian churches throughout
California are renting entire theatres and buying the
tickets by the thousands. Now, the movie hasn't event
been release, and most theaters around California are
booked out for February 25th, by the Christian
Warehouse Ministries around the state. For example,
just here in Sacramento, the Bayside Church in Granite
Bay bought 3,000 tickets, so their congregation can
see the film. Sunset Christian Church in Rocklin has
done the same. First Baptist Church bought 15,000
tickets. And, Adventure Christian Church bought out
five showings at the large movie theater in Roseville.
Not bad for a movie that couldn't find an audience and
a distributor only a short year ago.

It will be a blockbuster, watch it. And Mel Gibson
will easily make his investment. He will party with
his Hollywood buddies and will continue to play parts
in movies that bash European Americans, with a black
partner on his side.

*******************************************************

Now, has anyone seen the name list of the seven
people, President Bush named to sit on his
"Independent Commission" to evaluate whether or not
the war on Iraq was justified. Out of the seven, four
are Jews: Richard C. Levin, William O. Studman,
Patricia Wald, and Lawrence Hirsch-Silberman (that's a
double-Jew). I am pretty sure that the "Independent
Commission" will find that there was not reason for
the war on Iraq! - NOT!

*******************************************************

...and a word from Dr. Bob Countess:

[START]

In your research on Fraeulein Braun, did you arrive at
any solid basis for believing that she and Hitler had
sexual relations-as I would certainly expect to have
been the case?

I ask this since we all have heard Jewish propaganda
about Hitler.

Bob

[END]

My Comment: I am sorry that I cannot answer this
question, Dr. Countess. My research does not include
events in ones bedroom.

*******************************************************

See you at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento, held on April 24th and 25th,
hosted by the European American Culture Council,
sponsored by the Adelaide Institute!

Organizer: Walter F. Mueller

thetruthisback@yahoo.com

Make your reservations today by contacting

hansgemuetlich@yahoo.com


Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"

The "Patriot Letter" is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with
"unsubscribe".

----- Original Message -----

Dear Fellow Patriot!


I have received a few angry letters about my Patriot
Letters concerning Mel Gibson, the kosher butcher and
the Missmiranda story. Let me address them
individually.

Joe Cortina was one of the angry letter writers, who
called me a racist and an anti-Semite of the worst
kind. "There are many decent blacks and many decent
Jews," proclaims Mr. Cortina. He is right, however, in
the current political climate, I don't give a damn,
nor do I have time to look for them.

About Mel Gibson, that's just my opinion. The Patriot
Letter is not about anyone else's opinion but mine. I
do offer a forum for anyone to respond, and I believe
that the Patriot Letter has become the most talked
about Internet letter.

The kosher butcher - just get over it. There are no
other terms to put it. If there was feces and urine on
the floor, that's exactly what I'll report. I wonder
if those of you who have complained about that
language take issues with the Jews when they, in
detail, describe the holocaust lies.

Now to the Missmiranda story. An overweight, black
burn victim, who wants to win the Miss Sacramento
County Beauty Pageant. She put a new meaning to Beauty
Pageant, just like in so many other issues, our
standards have become unacceptable.

She is ugly and fat, and has no business taking away
the hard work from those girls who have worked
tirelessly to keep in shape. But this is one of the
evil concepts from the Jews. Men are not created
equal. Anyone who says differently is an idiot. We are
all born with different gifts and different abilities,
and if we stick to it, we get along just fine.

An ugly woman wanted to win a beauty contest, 4,000
Vietnamese refugees demanding ready-services when they
arrive, February being Black History Months, and I
could go on and on and on..... We live in a world that
is completely upside down, and years of brainwashing
have even affected people in our community.

Look around, February is also the month where the
Hollywood crowd showers themselves with awards.
Yesterdays Grammies or Sammy's or whatever were
predominantly received by untalented criminal
elements. Music, my friends, is one of the biggest
indicator in what kind of a society we live and if we
believe that, then you know, we are going down!
Imagine, that acting like an epileptic, speaking
filthy lyrics to loud music will get you an award.

May the best man win doesn't exist anymore. It's
politically incorrect. It's who does propaganda for
you, talent and ability doesn't count. That's why
blacks have taken over the sports and music business.

I have no problem is they are the better man. More
power to them. But only in rare occasions is this the
case. Remember, Rush Limbaugh dare pointed out that
black football player are pushed by the media and they
are not that good. Consequences: he had to resign from
the sports show.

Today, we give 5 Grammies to an untalented black
singer and call it "deserved", but if we would give 5
Grammies to white musicians, it would be called
"racism." Minority programs, affirmative action
programs are all Jewish inventions to destroy the
dominance of European-American culture. And by doing
so, the standards have been lowered gigantically.
Because it is a lie when the media tells us that they
are better, because they aren't. And because they
aren't our cities, our neighborhoods, and our country
is being destroyed.

I can already hear these well-to-do white yuppies,
saying come on Walter, that is not true. Well, it is
true. I have lived in inner city communities and I
have watched what "equality" has done to those
communities. What was once a row of well-kept houses
has now turned into a huge car shop, with oil changes,
radiator flushes, down to the storm drain. Six, seven
cars, parked in the lawn, on the sidewalk, are a
common thing. Drug dealers on every corner, and gang
graffiti on every wall. In the dwellings themselves,
roaches, mice and rats have taken over.

Our public education facilities are a mess. In most
inner city schools, there are metal detectors and
security guards. The real picture is horrible. Jamal
is a dumb as a box of rocks, but he gets an A+ for
trying. Pepe' doesn't speak a word English, but has a
special ed class to be taught the curriculum in
Spanish. Of course, the smart kids are the victims.
They are held back until they are as dumb as their
counterparts.

Holocaust education is a big part of public school
curriculum. Never mind that many of them can't read or
write, as long as they know the lies of the holocaust.

For me, the main thing has always been respect. You
don't have to like me, love me, as long as you respect
me. And in return, you get the same from me. But, if I
am forced to not only celebrate, but pay for Third
World events and holidays, that's where I get angry.
Or when I am threatened with hate crime laws that only
apply to European-Americans, for what I say in this
Patriot Letter. Let me be with my people. Celebrate my
culture, just like I let you be with yours in your
country. But don't force me to participate.

The melting pot is not working. We know that. It has
only caused resentment and hatred. In this environment
is where the Jews thrive best. And if we point that
out, we are anti-Semites.

The environment of multi-culturism and
holocaust-religion has had dire consequences for us
and the Western culture. We have been demonized and
therefore it's okay to destroy us. The only way out of
this is to form a European-American group that is
powerful and politically involved. Being a big fish in
a little pond doesn't work anymore. Sure, you got your
few supporters, but, in the end, you are not making a
difference. New methods have to be found to fight.
That is the reason why I reject racial slurs, or slurs
in general.

I spend a lot of time on websites and discussion
forums and I read a lot of great stuff. If it wasn't
so full with slurs and vulgarities, it would be good
to print some. I just recently ran into a movie review
of a guy names Brooks. I think it was on VNN. Boy,
what great writing, however, the racial slurs turned
him into a great "Dummkopf." And so many of these
educational columns, essays, are laced with slurs, and
it's too bad, because the minute they do it, it
becomes unusable.

I believe that there are a lot of sympathizers out
there, and with the talent we have, we could educate
many of them, just by the power of word. You know what
they say, the pen is mightier than the sword.  But
slurs make your pieces look like those rantings of a
hating idiot. I believe that even the most ardent
supporters get turned off when reading an essay that's
laced with slurs, however, otherwise written
brilliantly.

You can't convince people that all we do is trying to
tell the truth, that we are not hating, that we don't
want violence, when every second word is "nigger",
"kike", "queer", "fag", etc. But most upsetting is
that it makes us just as dumb as we claim they are.

I kind of always get amused when I see writings that
proclaim that we whites are so superior, and, at the
same time, we articulate ourselves with slurs. Then I
wonder who is actually the superior one. Of course,
the question is, what does a writer want to
communicate? The truth, a story, or an anecdote? In
all three cases it will never be communicated right
when using slurs. The meaning will be lost, the great
message that we tried to put out becomes distorted.
And most people will stop reading and not come back.
For example, I say "Black people commit most violent
crimes in this country." They say "Niggers commit most
of the violent crimes in this country." Which one do
you think the reader identifies with?

If we want to get our message out, then we have to do
it in a way where we don't antagonize, scare, and
intimidate the reader. The Jews are doing that
already.

*******************************************************

Kelso vs. Weber:

[START]

"I also spoke on both occasions, pointing out that the
strident claims by President Bush and his government
that the US had to go to war because the Iraqi regime
of Saddam Hussein posed an imminent danger to the US
have proven to be lies." - Mark Weber
 
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is
imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on
notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted
to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words,
and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting
in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a
strategy, and it is not an option." - Bush State of
the Union address.
 
For the umpteenth time, Mark, please get it right!
Bush did not say the threat was imminent. READ IT!! He
said we need to attack BEFORE the threat becomes
imminent - before it is too late - as any sane leader
would do. Calling Bush a liar reflects on you not him.

 
Pat Kelso

[END]

Mark Weber forwards this:

[START]

Hi, all
Here is a transcript of an interview with Greg
Thielmann, until recently head of analysis of Iraqi
WMD in the State Department. He and Houston Wood,
nuclear arms expert at Oak Ridge Laboratories, are
among those astonished by Sec. Colin Powell's
[mis]representations in the infamous speech to the
U.N.
V.

The Man Who Knew; Experts claim they knew Iraq had no
threatening weapons program CBS News Transcripts 60
Minutes II (8:00 PM ET) - CBS 4.2.4

ANCHORS: SCOTT PELLEY

SCOTT PELLEY, co-host:

Just yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a
surprising admission. He told the Washington Post that
he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the
invasion of Iraq if he'd been told at the time that
there were no stockpiles of banned weapons. Powell
said when he made the case for war before the United
Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected
the best judgments of the intelligence agencies. But
according to the people you're about to meet, long
before the war, there was plenty of doubt among
intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons. One
analyst, Greg Thielmann, told us last fall that key
evidence cited by the administration was
misrepresented to the public. Thielmann should know.
He'd been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons
threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.

When you saw Secretary of State Powell make his
presentation to the United Nations, what did you
think?

Mr. GREG THIELMANN: I had a couple of initial
reactions, then I had a more mature reaction. I think
my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low
points in his long, distinguished service to the
nation.

PELLEY: At the end of the speech, the United Nations
and the American people had been misinformed, in your
opinion?

Mr. THIELMANN: I think so.

(Footage of Greg Thielmann)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Greg Thielmann was a foreign
service officer for 25 years. His last job at the
State Department was acting director of the Office of
Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs,
responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.

PELLEY: You and your staff had the highest security
clearances.

Mr. THIELMANN: That's right.

PELLEY: And you saw virtually everything?

Mr. THIELMANN: That's right.

PELLEY: Whether it came into the CIA or the Defense
Department, it all came through your office...

Mr. THIELMANN: That's right.

PELLEY: ...sooner or later?

Mr. THIELMANN: Yes.

(Footage of Thielmann walking; Colin Powell at United
Nations)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Thielmann was admired at State.
One high-ranking official called him "honorable,
knowledgeable, very experienced." Thielmann took a
long-planned retirement four months before Powell's
big moment at the UN. February 5, 2003 was the day
that the world had been waiting for. Secretary Powell
presented the evidence against Saddam.

Secretary of State COLIN POWELL: (From United Nations
speech) The gravity of this moment is matched by the
gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction pose to the world.

PELLEY: Do you believe that Iraq posed an imminent
threat to the United States of America at the point we
went to war?

Mr. THIELMANN: No. I think it didn't even constitute
an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we
went to war.

(Footage of Thielmann; Iraq weapons inspection)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Thielmann says that's what the
intelligence really showed. For example, he points to
the evidence behind Powell's charge that Iraq was
importing these aluminum tubes to use in a program to
build nuclear weapons.

Sec. POWELL: (From United Nations speech) Saddam
Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear
bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated
covert attempts to acquire high specification aluminum
tubes from 11 different countries even after
inspections resumed.

Mr. THIELMANN: This is one of the most disturbing
parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us.

(Photo of aluminum tube; footage of Thielmann at work;
Oak Ridge National Laboratory site; Thielmann at work)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) The tubes were intercepted by
intelligence agents in 2001. The CIA said that they
were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium, fuel
for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn't so sure.
Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs,
advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb
program. At about the same time, Thielmann's office
was working on another explanation. It turned out the
tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi
conventional rocket.

Mr. THIELMANN: The aluminum was exactly, I think, what
the Iraqis wanted for artillery.

PELLEY: And you sent that word up to the secretary...

Mr. THIELMANN: That's right.

PELLEY: ...of state many months before?

Mr. THIELMANN: That's right.

(Footage of Houston Wood teaching)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Houston Wood was a consultant who
worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He
watched Powell's speech, too.

When you saw the presentation in full, with regard to
the aluminum tubes, what were you thinking?

Mr. HOUSTON WOOD: I guess I was angry. I think that's
probably the best emotion--the best way to describe my
emotions. I was angry at that.

(Footage of Wood teaching)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Wood is among the world's
authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He
found that the tubes couldn't be what the CIA thought
they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick
and certain to leak.

Mr. WOOD: Wasn't going to work. They--they would have
failed.

(Footage of State Department flag and buildings; New
York Times headlines)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Wood reached that conclusion back
in 2001.  Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell's
office that he was confident the tubes were not for a
nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the
administration was building a case for war, the tubes
were resurrected on the front page of the New York
Times.

Mr. WOOD: I thought, when I read that, there must be
some other tubes that people were talking about. I
just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing
that those might be centrifuges.

(Footage of New York Times article)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) The New York Times reported that
senior administration officials insisted the tubes
were for an atom bomb program.

Was it clear to you that science wasn't pushing this
forward?

Mr. WOOD: Yes. That's a very good way to put it.
Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had
made their evaluation and made their determination.
And, yeah, we didn't now what was happening.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) In his UN speech, Secretary Powell
acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes,
but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear
theory.

(Footage of United Nations meeting)

Sec. POWELL: (From UN speech) There is controversy
about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think
they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges
used to enrich uranium.

Mr. WOOD: Most experts are located in Elk Ridge, and
that was not the position there.

PELLEY: Do you know one in academia, in government, in
a foreign country who disagrees with your appraisal,
who says 'Yes, these are for nuclear weapons.'

Mr. WOOD: I don't know a single one anywhere.

PELLEY: If the secretary took the information that his
own intelligence bureau had developed and turned it on
its head, which is what you're saying, to what end?

Mr. THIELMANN: I can only assume that he was doing it
to loyally support the president of the United States
and build the strongest possible  case for arguing
that there was no alternative to the use of military
force.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) That was the case the president
himself was making in his State of the Union address
only eight days before Secretary Powell.

(Footage of President Bush shaking hands)

President GEORGE W. BUSH: (From 2003 State of the
Union speech) The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities
of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell
us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength
aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) After the war, the White House
said the African uranium claim was false and shouldn't
have been in the president's address. But at the time,
it was part of a campaign that painted the
intelligence as irrefutable.

(Footage of Bush speaking; Dick Cheney speaking)

Vice President DICK CHENEY: (From speech) There is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing
them to use against our friends, against our allies
and
against us.

Sec. POWELL: (From United Nations speech) My
colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up
by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions.
What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based
on solid intelligence.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Solid intelligence, Powell said,
that proves Saddam has amassed chemical and biological
weapons.

(Footage of screen at United Nations meeting)

Sec. POWELL: (From United Nations speech) Our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a
stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical
weapons agent.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) And part of that stockpile, he
said, was clearly in these bunkers.

(Footage of screen at United Nations meeting)

Sec. POWELL: (From United Nations Speech) The four
that are in red squares represent active chemical
munitions bunkers. How do I know that? How can I say
that? Let me give you a closer look.

PELLEY: Up close, Powell said, you could see a truck
used for cleaning up chemical spills, a signature he
called it, for a chemical bunker.

(Photo of chemical munitions bunkers)

Sec. POWELL: (From United Nations speech) It's a
decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.

Mr. THIELMANN: My understanding is that these
particular vehicles were simply fire trucks that you
can not really describe as being a unique signature.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Satellite photos were notoriously
misleading, according to Steve Allinson. He was a UN
inspector in Iraq in the months leading up to the war.

(Footage of screen at United Nations meeting; Allinson
and reporter)

PELLEY: Was there ever a time, in your experience,
that American satellite intelligence provided you with
something that was truly useful?

Mr. STEVE ALLINSON: No. No, not to me. Not on--not on
inspections that I participated in.

PELLEY: Not once?

Mr. ALLINSON: No.

PELLEY: Ever?

Mr. ALLINSON: No.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Allinson had been sent to find
decontamination vehicles that turned out to be fire
trucks and another time a satellite spotted what they
thought were trucks used for moving biological
weapons.

(Footage of UN vehicles; inspection site)

Mr. ALLINSON: We were told that we were going to the
site to look for refrigerated trucks specifically
linked to biological agents.

PELLEY: And you found the trucks?

Mr. ALLINSON: We did. We found about seven or eight of
them, I think, in total. And there were--they had
cobwebs in them. Some samples were taken, and nothing
was found.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) If Allinson doubted the satellite
evidence, Thielmann watched with worry as Secretary
Powell told the Security Council that human
intelligence provided conclusive proof. Thielmann
says that many of the human sources were defectors who
came forward with an axe to grind.

(Footage of Allinson; Thielmann and reporter; UN
meeting)

PELLEY: Give me some sense of how reliable the
defector information was across the board. You got bad
information, what, rarely?

Mr. THIELMANN: I guess I would say frequently we got
bad information.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Some of it came from defectors
supplied by the Iraqi National Congress, the leading
exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

(Footage of Iraqi National Congress; Ahmed Chalabi)

Mr. THIELMANN: You had the Iraqi National Congress
with a clear motive for presenting the worst possible
picture of what was happening in Iraq to the American
government.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) There was a good deal more in
Secretary Powell's speech that bothered the analysts.
For example, Powell claimed that Saddam still had a
few dozen SCUD missiles.

(Footage of Powell)

Mr. THIELMANN: I wondered what he was talking about.
We did not have evidence that the Iraqis had those
missiles pure and simple.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Last week, David Kay, the former
chief US arms inspector, said his team found no
stockpiles of banned weapons. His assessment of 12
years of US intelligence was this:

(Footage of David Kay)

Mr. DAVID KAY: Let me begin by saying we were almost
all wrong, and I certainly include myself here. That
my view was that the best evidence that I'd seen was
that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Secretary Powell declined an
interview for this broadcast. As we mentioned earlier,
Powell told The Washington Post this week that he
doesn't know if he would have recommended invasion if
he had known then that there were no stockpiles of
weapons. But yesterday he added this:

(Footage of Powell)

Sec. POWELL: The bottom line is this. The president
made the right decision. He made the right decision
based on the history of this regime, the intention
that this leader, terrible, despotic leader, had,
and the capabilities on a variety of levels: the
delivery systems that were there and there's nobody
debating that, the infrastructure that was there, the
technical know-how that was there. The only thing
we're
debating is the stockpile.

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Tomorrow marks one year since
Secretary Powell's UN speech. In that time, Greg
Thielmann has come to his own conclusion about the
presentation. He believes that the decision to go to
war was made, and the intelligence was interpreted to
fit that conclusion.

(Footage of Powell; Thielmann and reporter)

Mr. THIELMANN: There's plenty of blame to go around,
but the main problem was that the senior
administration officials have what I've called
faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted
the
intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf
to any kind of countervailing information the
intelligence community would produce. So I would--I
would assign some blame to the intelligence community
and most of the blame to the senior administration
officials.

PELLEY: This week, President Bush said an independent
commission will investigate the intelligence failures
on Iraq.

(Footage of 60 MINUTES II clock)

(Announcements)

[END]

*******************************************************

A word from Albert Doyle:

[START]

Thanks for posting Mark Weber's story about the IHR.
Mark has taken some heat recently from some
revisionists because of the difficulties with the IHR
magazine. I think he has taken the right decision in
pulling back a bit and regrouping and now perhaps his
critics can cut him some slack. His standing up to
help Ernst and Ingrid in their time of troulbes is
something I will remember long. Let's hope the
conference allows us all to keep our eyes on the main
objective here, the battle for truth!

Albert Doyle

[END]

*******************************************************

.....and Horst is back:

[START]

Herr Mueller, An alle...

One of your readers wrote you [04Feb04] that he had,
"even seen writings that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was
black." Good grief! Not that long ago, I saw a "Black
History" booklet that claimed that Beethoven was
black!

I suppose that they will next claim that Richard
Wagner was black.

On another note, I saw one of the terminally inane
"Black History" programs on PBS last week. It was full
of the most ridiculous claims of blacks inventing
things over the millennia. A good portion of the
program was dedicated to their childish focus on
peanuts... which are supposed to have originated in
the Dark Continent. No claim was made for inventing
airplanes, steam locomotion, automobiles, nor
machinery... at least not YET.

Given that it might possibly have been true that their
ancestors possessed an IQ over 75, wouldn't that make
us non-blacks wonder why in the world they could
accomplish such miraculous feats for so long --
and have no hard evidence of their monuments to
intellect? Why do they still:

Live in bug-infested huts, unless living in a building
built by Whites,

Have no indigenous knowledge of anti-biotics or insect
repellants,

Starve en-masse on a regular basis,

Have the highest per-capita rate of thieving and
murder,

Have the highest per-capita rate of HIV/AIDS in the
world,

Hide their women in huts for 6 months to 'lighten'
their skin for marriage,

And still be rubbing shit in their hair to turn it
red?

Horst

[END]

[START]

Herr Mueller, An alle...

Some years ago, around 1993, I spoke with David Cole
and Bradley Smith several times immediately after the
production of their famous video of David Cole getting
the confession directly from the Jewish Auschwitz
Director Dr. Franciscek Piper's mouth... that the 'gas
chamber' shown to tourists was built by Polish
Communists (Jews) in 1948. Piper was - at the time of
the interview - the Director of the
Polish-government-run "Auschwitz State Museum." I
found David to be forthright, albeit a bit hesitant
speaking openly with a 'stranger' on the telephone.

Though diminutive in size and with a voice that can
only be described as a cross between Jerry Lewisohn
(Lewis ) and Mickey Mouse, he carried out his mission
of exposing The Auschwitz Lie with precision on video
tape. Though the original video's audio quality was
atrocious, a later version that I received on 3/4"
studio tape from Bradley corrected much of the
problem.

As for David Cole's "absence," it must be noted that
he went into hiding after calls for his MURDER
appeared on the web site of the Jewish Defense League.
I didn't have the presence of mind to copy the page,
but I did in fact see it, and I presume that at least
-some- of your readers copied it for archival
purposes. They may have it on file, and can send you a
copy.

Horst

[END]

*******************************************************

Still on the Cole issue, GN:

[START]

how far can things go with the boy cole? not very far.
read (and if necesary, re-read) RF on the subject.
cheers,

GN

[END]

*******************************************************

KPS Reports:

[START]

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Mel
Gibson may be considering cutting the film's most
controversial scene - in which a Jewish high priest
declares a blood curse on Jews for the death of
Christ.

The newspaper stated that an unnamed "close associate"
of director Gibson said he had decided to delete the
scene.

Jewish groups say the passage taken from the Gospel of
Matthew 27: 25 was often used in medieval passion
plays which sparked anti-Semitic feeling.

KPS Reports

[END]

*******************************************************

See you at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento, held on April 24th and 25th,
hosted by the European American Culture Council,
sponsored by the Adelaide Institute!

Organizer: Walter F. Mueller

thetruthisback@yahoo.com

Make your reservations today by contacting

hansgemuetlich@yahoo.com


Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"

The "Patriot Letter" is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with
"unsubscribe".

----- Original Message -----

Dear Fellow Patriot!



There are some exciting subjects in this Patriot
Letter. Let's discuss them: A reminder, tomorrow is
Eva Brown's Birthday; Adolf Hitler, in 1941 Time
Magazine; and the controversy of anti-Semitism in 14th
Century Germany.

*******************************************************

Now, let's get to the Von Trapps! I remember, like it
was yesterday, when the movie came out in 1965. I was
11 years old. For me, it was the first musical that
demonized "Nazism." Julie Andrews played Maria Von
Trapp and Christopher Plummer played Baron Von Trapp.

The movie was nominated for several Academy Awards,
and I can't remember if it got any.

Michelle Kunert started the research, passed it on to
me, and I finished it.

The Sound of Music was sold to audiences as a true
story. Songs from that musical are world famous.
However, most of the story is, as it always is with
the Jews, a lie.

Maria Augusta Kutschera was the real name of Maria.
She was the daughter of Karl Kutschera. Karl Kutschera
was a wanderer. He loved to travel the world. So,
Maria ended up in a foster home. As she grew up, she
made a living by doing small jobs. Then, Maria ended
up in Salzburg, and was taken in by Nonnberg Abby, run
by Benedictine nuns. Maria Kutschera was then sent to
the estate of Baron von Trapp, to tutor his seven
children. Two boys and five girls.

Soon, she became his wife (November 27, 1927). Baron
von Trapp was 20 years older than Maria. Maria von
Trapp gave the baron her own two children, two girls.
One in 1929 and the other in 1931). In 1932, the von
Trapps lost their fortune. That was when a priest
heard them sing and asked them to perform in churches
around Salzburg. So, the von Trapp choir was formed.
In 1938, they sang at the Salzburg Festival. Not once
were the von Trapps harassed by the Nazis, even
though, Baron von Trapp refused to fly the Swastika.

The von Trapps never fled the Nazis, had no idea about
hiking, and never crossed the Italian Alps. In fact,
if it would have been true what the movie portrayed,
they would have ended up in Hitler's Eagles nest.

The truth, the von Trapps were strapped for money and
one of their sons met a New York producer. They agreed
to take a tour through Europe, and then to America -
Manhattan. In 1938, in America, Maria von Trapp gave
birth to another child, a boy. The von Trapps tried
their religious music in America, but the American
audience didn't like it. Down to only $50, the von
Trapps started yodeling and performed American folk
song. And by 1941, the von Trapps were a hit. By the
end of WWII the von Trapps became so wealthy that they
bought a 7,000-acre ranch in Stowe, Vermont. Baron von
Trapp died in 1947. None of the von Trapps ever saw
their home country again.

There you go. The von Trapps never fled Austria, never
hiked over a mountain. They left because of an offer
from a New York producer, they couldn't refuse,
because they were bankrupt. They lived happily ever
after.

*******************************************************

Soon, the 20th of April is here, and former Reichs
Kanzler of Germany, Adolf Hitler, would have
celebrated his birthday.

If you think about it, in 1933, the Fuehrer was
standing in front of President Hindenburg, humbly and
differential. In 1941, Chamberlain and Mussolini were
standing before Hitler. Since 1933, the Fuehrer had
taken the measure of most of Europe's statesmen. In
1941, April 14th, # 15, the Time Magazine featured
Adolf Hitler, in color, on their front-page,
accompanied by an article, entitled "A Dictator's
Hour." Time Magazine doesn't give the author of the
piece, however, enjoy:

[START]

"The crucial spring of his career came last week to
Adolf Hitler. He could see it in sheltered son-struck
places around the Berghof, where Lilies of the Valley,
Violets, Alpine Roses, Blue Gentians, and Wild Azaleas
bloomed, and in the green showing through the white on
the Untersberg's slopes across the way. But he could
feel it even more strongly in his bones: Spring, when
Armies march.

If the campaigns Hitler launches this spring are as
successful as those he launched a year ago, he will
almost indisputably soon be master of at least half
the world. For Hitler, this spring is destiny.

There must have been an extraordinary meeting that
morning in his pine-paneled workroom, with his aides:
General Alfred Jodel, the powerful anonymous Chief of
staff; huge Julius Schaub, his personal adjutant and
bodyguard; Chief adjutant Colonel Schmundt of the
General staff; Army aid major Engel; Navy Aid Captain
von Putkammer; Air Aid Major von Below; and a few
others.

If Adolf Hitler's blue eyes were sharper than April
sky, and if he rubbed his hands with queer, excited
jerks, that was only natural. Excitement makes him
thrive and happy.

His ambition, which he has often avowed, is to be an
architect - not only of heroic buildings; but also of
mankind in his image. And spring is his building
season. 'Just now,' he said in a recent speech, 'I'm
feeling particularly vigorous. Spring is coming.'

Though not noisily sturdy like Mussolini, Hitler is a
healthy man, who in 10 years has changed physically
less than most man between 42 and 52, and who has
suffered no greater hurts then a finger broken in an
automobile accident and a polyp removed from his
larynx. The wig-like wad of hair which hangs across
his forehead has no gray in it; nor has his curt
mustache.

For Adolf Hitler is an ascetic. He never smokes and
says: 'I like to have my enemies smoke as much as
possible, but I do not like to have my friends smoke.'
He never drinks anything stronger than his private
near-beer, 1.5% alcohol. In springtime with Germany at
war, he gives us even his little pleasures:

There are no more evenings now of dressing to the ears
and listening for hours on end to the stupendous
heroics of Richard Wagner; no more evenings lying on
his army cot at home as his Siemens record-changer
riffles through the ponderous Germanisms of his other
favorite, Anton Bruckner. No more tenderness to
animals now. Now he must attend to the business of
war.

All these sacrifices are worthwhile to Adolf Hitler,
for this spring all that he has accomplished is at
stake. Now is work will come to fruition or else will
be blighted.

He has increased Germany's size from 180,976 square
miles to 323,360 square miles, plus 290,000 more in
occupied, but unannexed lands. He has spread his
boundaries to include not 65 million, but 106 million
people. He has built a party of 3 million. A youth
movement of 11,750,000. A compulsory labor movement of
25 million. Before war came, he had built 1,300 miles
of roads, given 315 new vessels to the merchant
marine, more than doubled the carrying capacity of
railroads, more than doubled the distance flown by
commercial airlines. Starting with unemployment of
some 7,500,000, he ended with such a labor shortage
that 600,000 laborers have been important from Italy,
750,000 from Poland, 150,000 from the Netherlands,
over 1 million from France.

Even war that has cost Germany much has not stopped
the steady accretion of Germany's strength. Adolf
Hitler's extraordinary accomplishments in increasing
his naval, military and air strength, not only from
1933 to the beginning of the war, but since war began,
is remarkable.

Growth of Hitler's Army might:

January 1933:

Panzer Divisions:                0
Infantry Divisions:              7
Surface Navy Tonnage:      117,350
Submarines:                      0
Military Airplanes:              0

April 1941:

Panzer Divisions:               12
Infantry Divisions:            214
Surface Navy Tonnage:      363,171
Submarines:                    189
Military Airplanes:         40,000

Victory depends, among other things, upon relative
strength. Hitler's legions are greater than ever
before. This is spring. Last week he grasped it
avidly."

[END]

Now this is the text of the 1941 Time Magazine # 15. I
could not think of a better tribute to Adolf Hitler's
birthday. Of course, I own a hardcopy of that
magazine.

*******************************************************

See you at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento, held on April 24th and 25th,
hosted by the European American Culture Council,
sponsored by the Adelaide Institute!

Organizer: Walter F. Mueller

thetruthisback@yahoo.com

Make your reservations today by contacting

hansgemuetlich@yahoo.com


Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"

The "Patriot Letter" is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with
"unsubscribe".

----- Original Message -----

Dear Fellow Patriot!


I have to take care of all my mail, because not only
is it important, but also if I don't, you won't write
to me anymore. So the reason this Patriot Letter is so
long because it includes important comments,
information and news from you.

Sacramento has had the Miss Sacramento County Beauty
Pageant Contest, a run-up to the Miss America Pageant.


In an incredible media stunt, local media favors
Missamanda Green, a local black girl. Front-page
coverage explained to the reader how important it is
that this girl wins the Miss Sacramento County Beauty
Pageant. There was only one problem; Missamanda Green
lost 25% of her body's skin due to a fire, her mother
started. Missamanda Green is black. And her face has
had 40 reconstructive surgeries. Special make-up
artists have volunteered to fix her up for today's
beauty pageant. Missamanda Green is 20 years old and
is also overweight. The kids call her "Freddy
Krueger's Wife," nevertheless, Missamanda Green will
be amongst the 10 other young women who will compete
in the Miss Sacramento County contest.

Jennifer Coffey, Assistant Director for the pageant,
excitedly tells the press how wonderful it is that
Missamanda wanted to be involved.

"We do want to send the message that it's not about
being the smallest or the prettiest."

Now that gives a totally new meaning to the word
"Beauty" Pageant. Thank God for Missamanda Green that
February is Black History Month. And I have the
suspicion that she will be added to that history month
as the first black, overweight and burned girl to win
a beauty pageant. If that sounds cruel to you, then
get ready that all of our standards will become like
this. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, and
right is wrong and wrong is right.

*******************************************************

Now, here is a progress report from the Institute for
Historical Review. Director Mark Weber is one of the
keynote speakers at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento:

[START]

A New Year Report from the Institute for Historical
Review
January 2004
http://www.ihr.org/news/040130newyearreport.shtml

PRODUCTIVE WORK DURING A TIME OF ADVERSITY 

AN OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOK FOR 2004

Dear friend,

This past year has been a time of struggle for the
IHR. And although we're still understaffed and short
of funds, we're upbeat about the future. We're
encouraged by what we've achieved during the past year
in spite of adversity, and pleased that our
educational outreach has never been greater.

By far the most important way of reaching people has
been through our web site. Since we launched ihr.org
in 1998, our site's impact has grown steadily. This
past year it has ranked among the top one percent of
the world's most-visited sites.

To make it even more effective, a few weeks ago we
launched a new, dramatically redesigned web site
(http://www.ihr.org/index.html).

It's not only more eye-catching and professional
looking, but also, for the first time, the home page
has photos and provides a continually updated round up
of current news items from around the world. Also for
the first time, it offers audio capability, so that
lectures and speeches can be downloaded.

Still accessible, of course, is our tremendous IHR
archive, which includes hundreds of articles, essays
and reviews from back issues of our Journal of
Historical Review.

Encouraged by the very positive response we've been
getting to the site's new look, we're hopeful that
viewer ship will grow significantly this year and,
with it, the IHR's global impact and influence.

Interviews and Media Outreach

Throughout 2003 I've conducted dozens of interviews --
on radio, television, and with print journalists.
These have included:

- Radio interviews heard by millions across the United
States and Canada

- Television interviews broadcast nationwide in Canada

- Interviews with major short wave stations outside of
North America that reached millions of listeners

- A lengthy interview on southern California's
influential "progressive" radio station KPFK

- Interviews heard on four broadcasts of the weekly
"American Dissident Voices" radio series

- Five guest appearances on the popular Jeff Rense
show, which is heard across the USA on stations of the
Talk Radio Network, and online everywhere through the
Rense web site ( http://www.rense.com/ ).

In many of these interviews I provided historical
perspective on current events, often stressing the
decisive Zionist role in pushing the United States
into war in Iraq, and the dangers of Jewish-Zionist
power for America and the world. 

Most of these interviews focused on the political
persecution of our courageous friend, Ernst Zundel
(http://www.ihr.org/news/030923Zundel.shtml).

He was arrested on Feb. 5 at his home in Tennessee --
even though he is married to an American citizen,
Ingrid Rimland -- and then deported to Canada. Since
then, authorities there have held him in prison,
without bail, on the empty pretext that he's a threat
to national security.

Shortly after his arrest, Ingrid asked for my help as
a media spokesman. I readily agreed, of course, and
during the past year I've spoken about the Zundel case
with dozens of newspaper, radio and television
reporters, and many talk show hosts, providing news,
background information, and pointed commentary.

Ernst is in prison, I repeatedly stress, not because
his views are unpopular, or because he's a security
risk, but because powerful Jewish groups want him
there. He's a prisoner because he holds and promotes
views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful
to its interests.
 
On May 22 we organized a demonstration at the Canadian
consulate in downtown Los Angeles demanding freedom
for Ernst. This action was coordinated with a
simultaneous demonstration in Seattle. (Photos from
the event, with a report, are posted on our web site:
http://www.ihr.org/news/030522Zundel_Demos.html).

We've been gratified by Ernst's generous appreciation
for our work. From his prison cell, he wrote to me on
December 14:

"... Your interviews were very fluid, full of
essential content, historically accurate, recounting
of events in my life. You were polite, respectful to
your hosts. I was pleased, and I explained to Ingrid
that we all have our own way of answering
spontaneously asked questions, and that you always had
my admiration and trust because of it. That's why I
asked you... to testify several times in court cases
on my behalf, when my very freedom, and my life in
North America, was at stake!

"I can think of no greater compliment and expression
of trust, bestowed on a man and friend, than being
asked to testify in court on occasions like that! This
kind of relationship based on intrinsic trust is
pretty
rare in human relationships! I actually would elevate
that relationship, to one only German speakers, among
which I count you, will understand, and that  is
'Kameradschaft' [comradeship]... Ingrid and I
appreciate all the work you have done with the media,
and amongst revisionists, on my behalf, and therefore
also on Ingrid's behalf."


Meetings

During the past year we organized two successful IHR
meetings.

Tom Sunic, a Croatian-born scholar who has taught in
American universities, addressed our February 15
event, and best-selling British historian David Irving
spoke at our December 10 meeting
(http://www.ihr.org/news/031215IHRMeeting.html).

I also spoke on both occasions, pointing out that the
strident claims by President Bush and his government
that the US had to go to war because the Iraqi regime
of Saddam Hussein posed an imminent danger to the US
have proven to be lies. The most important, and
probably decisive, motive for the war, I explained in
some detail, has been to further the interests of
Israel and Jewish-Zionist power, and to impose a
US-Israeli hegemony throughout the Middle East.

Also last month, I addressed a meeting of the Freedom
Forum of Orange County (California). My talk, entitled
"Behind the Propaganda: The Real Reasons for War in
Iraq," was well received. IHR books and back issues of
the IHR Journal were sold at a table manned by
Institute staff members.

Our IHR News and Comment service continued to grow in
2003, with the number of subscribers increasing
steadily. This free e-mail service regularly
distributes selected news and commentary. (To
subscribe, just write to news@ihr.org)

Much of our small staff's time and effort are devoted
to the routine but important work of promoting,
processing and shipping out great quantities of books,
leaflets, tapes and other educational materials. Over
the years, we've distributed many tens of thousands of
books, leaflets, tapes and other educational materials
-- a record unmatched by any similar center or
association.

One telling measure of our Institute's enduring impact
is the vehement hostility we routinely provoke from
influential Jewish-Zionist groups such as the
Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee,
and
the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The Anti-Defamation
League, for example, recently issued yet another
diatribe against the IHR. Typically, it's not only
viciously one-sided and misleading, it's packed with
factual errors.

And just a few weeks ago, the "Wyman Institute for
Holocaust Studies" issued its year-end "Global Survey"
on "Holocaust Denial" in 2003
(http://www.WymanInstitute.org/denialreport/2003.php).
The Jewish authors of this detailed report, which is
predictably deceitful and misleading, took special aim
at the IHR, citing it as "the leading Holocaust denial
organization in the United States."


Adversity and Criticism

This past year has been a difficult one. Short of both
money and staff, we were forced temporarily to suspend
publication of The Journal of Historical Review. As
painful as that decision has been, realistically it
was the only reasonable one we could make under the
circumstances. As important as the Journal is, the
sheer survival of the IHR is an even higher priority.

Largely in response to that decision, the IHR, and I,
have come under criticism from some individuals within
the revisionist community. These critics -- who have
no first-hand understanding of the challenges we face,
much less any responsibility for them -- overlook some
crucial facts.

Only about a year ago did our board of directors name
me corporate president, assigning to me, for the first
time, overall responsibility and authority for our
finances and business operations. With that
appointment, I inherited responsibility for large
debts and serious legal problems we had incurred as a
result of Willis Carto's massive embezzlement of IHR
funds, and his relentless, years-old campaign to
destroy the Institute through smears and harassing
lawsuits.

During this past year, for example, we've had to
devote a lot of time, and many thousands of dollars,
to defending ourselves against an absurd lawsuit he
brought against us in Texas. (Carto's main complaint
is that we defamed him by calling him an embezzler. In
fact -- and as California judge John Hargrove has
explicitly affirmed -- Carto is an embezzler.)

As those who are familiar with the facts know, we have
made every reasonable effort peacefully to settle the
IHR-Carto dispute. We even succeeded in prodding him
to sign two formal agreements to end the dispute --
but Carto broke both of them. (For more on the Carto
ordeal, see the "Willis Carto Information Site"
http://homepage.mac.com/lsf/index.html )


Sacramento Conference in April

An important conference in Sacramento, California,
over the weekend of April 24-25 is shaping up as the
revisionist event of the year. We're doing our part to
help make it a success. The IHR is providing financial
support, and I'm scheduled to participate as a keynote
speaker. Among the 14 other scheduled speakers are
Horst Mahler (Germany), Paul Fromm (Canada), Dariusz
Ratajczak (Poland), Fredrick Töben (Australia), Lady
Michele Renouf (England), and Claus Nordbruch (South
Africa).

For further information, see the notice posted on our
web site:
http://www.ihr.org/news/040112conference.html


Optimism 

As we begin a new year, we are still hard-pressed for
both money and resources. But I am confident that we
will overcome our current difficulties, just as we
surmounted even greater ones in the past.

My optimism is fortified by a dramatically more upbeat
and youthful spirit here at our office. During the
past year, we brought on two new staff members. In
June we hired a Marine Corps veteran from Virginia to
serve as our new office manager, and in October we
hired another able man to oversee our sales
operations, process orders and handle shipping.


Growing Worldwide Awareness

The most important event of 2003 was, of course, the
United States invasion and occupation of Iraq. Rarely,
if ever, has the US acted with such arrogant contempt
for established norms of international law and for the
principles this country claims to uphold.

As we have repeatedly stressed, and as the world
increasingly understands, the crucial factor in the
decision to attack and occupy Iraq was the
Jewish-Zionist lobby. This lobby is now pushing the US
to
remove, by force if necessary, every regime in the
area that opposes Israel's policies, or might
potentially do so.

For years the IHR has warned of the great danger of
Jewish-Zionist power. Now awareness of this peril is
growing everywhere.

In Britain, for example, a prominent Member of
Parliament, Tam Dalyell, candidly remarked in May
2003: "A Jewish cabal have taken over the government
in the United States and formed an unholy alliance
with
fundamentalist Christians." The Labour party MP, who
is also the parliament's longest-serving member,
added: "There is far too much Jewish influence in the
United States."

In Malaysia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed
pointedly declared in a landmark address on October 16
that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to
fight and die for them." In the global struggle
against
Jewish power, he continued in his speech to a meeting
of world leaders, "we are up against a people who
think... We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We
must use our brains also."

We must build on this growing international awareness.


To counter Jewish-Zionist power is a task of the
highest importance -- for Americans and for people of
good will everywhere. In this struggle, the role of
the IHR is critically important.

Our Institute is the only well-established history
research and publishing center in America that boldly
and conscientiously identifies the enemies of freedom
and peace, educating the thoughtful public with
solidly referenced books, articles, reviews and tapes.

The IHR is virtually alone in opposing Jewish-Zionist
power in a way that is not only explicit and
forthright, but also thoughtful, scholarly and
informed.
 
We urgently need your help to make the IHR even more
influential and effective -- by reaching many more
people across America and around the world, by
expanding our outreach on radio and television, by
launching important new books, by hiring new staff
members -- and much more.

I look forward to your generous response.

Sincerely,

Mark Weber

Director
Institute for Historical Review

P.S. Your tax-deductible donation to the IHR will
strengthen our global impact, which is vastly out of
proportion to our small staff and very limited budget.
It's easier than ever to donate. Click on our site's
"Support Us" page:
http://www.ihr.org/paypal/donate.html
 
[END]

*******************************************************

Horst Mahler in his own words - for our German
readers:

[START]

Betreff: An alle Bundestagsabgeordneten: Anklage wegen
schwerster Kriegsverbrechen gegen das Deutsche Volk

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

in dem gegen mich wegen vermeintlicher Volksverhetzung
durchgeführten Verfahren habe ich am 6. Februar 2004
in öffentlicher Verhandlung einen auf Carlo Schmid
gestützten Beweisantrag verlesen, in dem ich darlege,
daß Sie sich als Kollaborateure der Feindmächte eines
schweren Kriegsverbrechens gegen das Deutsche Volk
schuldig gemacht haben. Nach dem fortgeltenden
Reichsrecht steht darauf die Todesstrafe. Die
Gerechtigkeit wird ihren Lauf nehmen.

Der erwähnte Beweisantrag ist diesem e-Brief in
Word-Format angehängt. Für diejenigen, die angehängte
Dateien aus Sicherheitsgründen grundsätzlich nicht
öffnen, ist der Text nachfolgend in diesem e-Brief
dargestellt.

Mitfreundlichen Grüßen

Horst Mahler

 
Beweisantrag
 
In der Strafsache gegen Dr. Reinhold Oberlercher, Uwe
Meenen und Horst Mahler wegen des Verdachts der
Volksverhetzung  - LG Berlin 522 - 1/03 -  beantrage
ich, einen Sachverständigen für Völker- und
Staatsrecht zu hören.

Dieser wird zur Überzeugung der Gerichts darlegen, daß


a) für die Beurteilung der völkerrechtlichen Lage in
Bezug  auf die  Besetzung des militärisch besiegten
Deutschen Reiches durch die Truppen der Siegemächte
USA, Sowjetunion und Großbritannien  das "Abkommen,
betreffend die Gesetze und Gebräuche des Landkrieges"
vom 18. Oktober 1907 (RGBl. 1910 S. 107)  Haager
Landkriegsordnung, insbesondere dessen Artikel 43 als
allgemein anerkannte Grundsätze des Völkerrechts
maßgebend ist,

b) nach herrschender Völkerrechtslehre[1] insbesondere
im Hinblick auf Art. 43 HLKO die Eroberung eines
Landes

-          nicht der Erwerbung der Souveränität
gleichsteht,

-          nicht Annexion des besetzten Gebietes oder
zur sonstigen souveränen Verfügung über es, etwa zur
Schaffung neuer Staaten auf dem besetzten Gebiet,
berechtigt,

-          diese Akte vielmehr gegebenenfalls erst bei
Friedensschluß vollzogen werden dürfen;

-          die trotzdem durch die Besatzungsmacht
erfolgte Annexion oder Staatenneubildung ein
Völkerrechtsdelikt darstellt, das keine Rechtswirkung
gegenüber dem rechtmäßigen Gebietsherrn hervorrufen
kann;

-          die Absetzung der Regierung des
Feindstaates oder die Einsetzung einer neuen Regierung
für das besetzte Gebiet die Befugnisse der
Besatzungsmacht überschreitet und

-          eine Marionetten-Regierung nicht einmal als
de-facto-Regierung anzusehen ist, sondern als ein
Organ der Besatzungsmacht;

-          Maßnahmen einer solchen Regierung, die
weitergehen als die Befugnisse der Besatzungsmacht,
widerrechtlich sind.
 

Weiterhin wird der Sachverständige zur Überzeugung des
Gerichts darlegen daß
 

1.        die Desorganisation des Deutschen Reiches,
namentlich die Inhaftierung bzw.  Ermordung der
Mitglieder seiner  Regierung, die Beseitigung  des
Reichstages, sämtlicher Reichsbehörden und Gerichte
des Reiches, das Verbot der Staatspartei, der
Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
(NSDAP), durch den Kontrollrat der Alliierten Mächte
und die von diesem angeordnete Diskriminierung der
Nationalsozialisten (Entnazifizierung genannt)  gegen
allgemein anerkannte Grundsätze des Völkerrechts,
insbesondere gegen das Interventionsverbot des  Art.
43 der Haager Landkriegsordnung (HLKO) verstieß;

2.        das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik
Deutschland dem militärisch wehrlosen Deutschen Volk
von den westlichen Siegermächten unter Verletzung
allgemein anerkannter Grundsätze des Völkerrechts,
insbesondere unter Mißachtung von Art. 43 der Haager
Landkriegsordnung (HLKO), aufgezwungen worden ist;

3.        das Grundgesetz aus diesem Grunde lediglich
ein Besatzungsstatut ist, das als der Herrschaftswille
der Siegermächte für Bürger des Deutschen Reichs  ohne
Rechtsverbindlichkeit ist;

4.        die Bundesrepublik Deutschland kein Staat
ist, sondern nur die "Organisationsform einer
Modalität der Fremdherrschaft" (OMF)  über das
Deutsche Volk mithin ein Organ der Besatzungsmacht;

5.        das Verhältnis der OMF-Bundesrepublik
Deutschland zum  Deutschen Reich kein
inner-staatsrechtliches sondern ein völkerrechtliches
Rechtsverhältnis zwischen Besatzungsmacht und
besiegtem Kriegsgegner ist;

6.        die in Verhandlungen zwischen den USA und
der Sowjetunion als Kriegsziel Nr. 1 festgeschriebene
Abschaffung der völkischen Geschlossenheit des
Deutschen Volkes[2] gegen allgemein anerkannte
Grundsätze des Völkerrechts, insbesondere gegen das
Interventionsverbot des  Art. 43 der Haager
Landkriegsordnung (HLKO) verstößt;

7.        die Veranlassung bzw. Duldung des Zuzugs von
Ausländern in das Gebiet des Deutschen Reiches durch
die OMF gegen allgemein anerkannte Grundsätze des
Völkerrechts, insbesondere gegen das
Interventionsverbot des  Art. 43 der Haager
Landkriegsordnung (HLKO) verstößt;

8.        die Ermöglichung des Einsickerns und des
Aufenthalts von Ausländern in das Reichsgebiet bzw.
auf dem Reichsgebiet durch die Behörden der OMF gegen
allgemein anerkannte Grundsätze des Völkerrechts,
insbesondere gegen das Interventionsverbot des  Art.
43 der Haager Landkriegsordnung (HLKO) verstößt und
den Ausländern keinerlei Rechte gegen das Deutsche
Reich und seine Bürger aus den tatsächlichen
Gegebenheiten erwachsen;

9.        die Rückführung der in Verfolgung
völkerrechtswidriger  Kriegsziele der USA und der
Sowjetunion auf dem Gebiet des Deutschen Reiches
seßhaft gewordenen Ausländer in ihre Heimatländer als
Folgenbeseitigungsmaßnahme mit den allgemein
anerkannten Grundsätzen des Völkerrechts vereinbar
ist.

10.    die Anwendung  des vom Bundestag der
OMF-Bundesrepublik Deutschland geschaffenen § 130 StGB
so als wäre er eine gültige Rechtsnorm, gegen
allgemein anerkannte Grundsätze des Völkerrechts,
insbesondere gegen das Interventionsverbot des  Art.
43 der Haager Landkriegsordnung (HLKO) verstößt;
jedenfalls insoweit, als diese Bestimmung zur
Wehrlosmachung des Deutschen Volkes   gegen das
schwere Kriegsverbrechen der fremdvölkischen
Zivilokkupation seines Restlandes in Stellung gebracht
wird.

Begründung

Das Abkommen betreffend die Gesetze und Gebräuche des
Landkrieges  vom 18. Oktoberb1907 ist kodifiziertes
allgemein geltendes Völkerrecht. Es bindet auch
diejenigen Mächte, die dem Abkommen nicht formell
beigetreten sind.

Artikel 43 HLKO steht im Abschnitt "Militärische
Gewalt auf besetztem feindlichen Gebiete"

Art. 42  definiert den Begriff der "Besetzung" wie
folgt: "Ein Gebiet gilt als besetzt, wenn es sich
tatsächlich in der Gewalt des feindlichen Heeres
befindet.

Die Besetzung erstreckt sich nur auf die Gebiete, wo
diese Gewalt hergestellt ist und ausgeübt werden
kann."

Art. 43 [Wiederherstellung der öffentlichen Ordnung]
hat folgenden Wortlaut:

" Nachdem die gesetzmäßige Gewalt tatsächlich in die
Hände des Besetzenden übergegangen ist, hat dieser
alle von ihm abhängenden Vorkehrungen zu treffen, um
nach Möglichkeit die öffentliche Ordnung und das
öffentliche Leben wiederherzustellen und
aufrechtzuerhalten, und zwar, soweit kein zwingendes
Hindernis besteht, unter Beachtung der Landesgesetze
."

Der Standpunkt des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in Bezug
auf das Schicksal des Deutschen Reiches[3]::

Es wird festgehalten, daß das Deutsche Reich den
Zusammenbruch 1945 überdauert hat und weder mit der
Kapitulation noch durch Ausübung fremder Staatsgewalt
in Deutschland durch die Alliierten noch später
untergegangen ist. Es besitzt nach wie vor
Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat
mangels Organisation nicht handlungsfähig. Die BRD ist
nicht Rechtsnachfolger des Deutschen Reiches.

Der Standpunkt des Grundgesetzes bezüglich seiner
rechtlichen Qualität:

Artikel 146 Grundgesetz (Geltungsdauer)

Dieses Grundgesetz, das nach Vollendung der Einheit
und Freiheit Deutschlands für das gesamte deutsche
Volk gilt, verliert seine Gültigkeit an dem Tage, an
dem eine Verfassung in Kraft tritt, die von dem
deutschen Volke in freier Entscheidung beschlossen
worden ist.

Wenn das Deutsche Reich nicht untergegangen ist,
besteht es als Völker- und Staatsrechtssubjekt fort.

Wenn die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht
Rechtsnachfolger  des Deutchen Reiches ist, dann sind
das Deutsche Reich und die Bundesrepublik nicht
identisch sondern Unterschiedene.

Sind sie voneinander unterschieden, so stehen die
Unterschiedenen in einem Verhältnis zueinander.

Dieses Verhältnis ist zuallererst zu bestimmen.

Diese Aufgabe   hat der Völker- und Staatsrechtslehrer
Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid als  Mitglied des
Parlamentarischen Rates  mit seiner Rede in der
Sitzung des Parlamentarischen Rates vom 8. September
1948[4] in klassischer Weise gelöst, indem er zunächst
den allgemeinen Grundsatz (Obersatz) entwickelte, um
anschließend die nach dem 8. Mai 1945  in den
"Westzonen" Deutschlands  gegebenen Zustände als
"Untersatz" unter den "Obersatz" zu subsumieren.

Er begann mit der Frage: "Was heißt ... ,Verfassung'?"
Er beantwortete diese wie folgt:

"Eine Verfassung ist die Gesamtentscheidung eines
freien Volkes über die Formen und die Inhalte seiner
politischen Existenz.

Eine solche Verfassung ist dann die Grundnorm des
Staates. Sie bestimmt in letzter Instanz ohne auf
einen Dritten zurückgeführt zu werden brauchen, die
Abgrenzung der Hoheitsverhältnisse auf dem Gebiet und
dazu bestimmt sie die Rechte der Individuen und die
Grenzen der Staatsgewalt. Nichts steht über ihr,
niemand kann sie außer Kraft setzen, niemand kann sie
ignorieren. Eine Verfassung ist nichts anderes als die
in Rechtsform gebrachte Selbstverwirklichung der
Freiheit eines Volkes. Darin liegt ihr Pathos, und
dafür sind die Völker auf die Barrikaden gegangen.

......

Es kam in diesen Revolutionen (1830)  die Erkenntnis
zum Ausdruck, daß eine Verfassung in einer
demokratischen Welt etwas mehr sein muß als ein bloßes
Reglement, als ein bloßes Organisationsstatut. Die
Ordnung des Behördenaufbaus, die Ordnung der
Staatsfunktionen, die Abgrenzung der Rechte der
Individuen und der Obrigkeit sind durchaus vorstellbar
und das hat es gegeben- im Bereich der "organischen
Artikel" des absolutistischen. Obrigkeitsstaates, ja
auch im Bereich der Fremdherrschaft."

Wesentlich ist hier die Abgrenzung, die Schmid
vornimmt zwischen Verfassung und Organisationsstatut.
Letzteres kann auch von einer Fremdherrschaft
ausgehen, eine Verfassung aber nicht:

" Man wird aber da nicht von Verfassungen sprechen,
wenn Worte ihren Sinn behalten sollen; denn es fehlt
diesen Gebilden der Charakter des keinem fremden
Willen unterworfenen Selbstbestimmtseins. Es handelt
sich dabei um ,Organisation' und nicht um
,Konstitution'. Ob eine Organisation von den zu
Organisierenden selber vorgenommen wird oder ob sie
der Ausfluß eines fremden Willens ist, macht keinen
prinzipiellen Unterschied; denn bei Organisationen
kommt es wesentlich und ausschließlich darauf an, ob
sie gut oder schlecht funktionieren. Bei einer
Konstitution aber ist das anders. Dort macht es einen
Wesensunterschied, ob sie eigenständig geschehen ist
oder ob sie der Ausfluß fremden Willens ist; denn
,Konstitution' ist nichts anderes als das
Ins-Leben-treten eines Volkes als politischer
Schicksalsträger aus eigenem Willen.

Dies alles gilt auch von der Schaffung eines Staates.
Sicher, Staaten können auf die verschiedenste Weise
entstehen. Sie können sogar durch äußeren Zwang
geschaffen werden. Staat ist aber dann nichts anderes
als ein Ausdruck für "Herrschaftsapparat", so wie etwa
die Staatstheoretiker der Frührenaissance von il stato
sprachen. Il stato, das ist einfach der
Herrschaftsapparat gewesen, der in organisierter Weise
Gewalt über ein Gebiet ausgeübt hat. Aber es ist ja
gerade der große Fortschritt auf den Menschen hin
gewesen, den die Demokratie getan hat, daß sie im
Staat etwas mehr zu sehen begann als einen bloßen
Herrschaftsapparat. Staat ist für sie immer gewesen
das In-die-eigene-Hand-nehmen des Schicksals eines
Volkes, Ausdruck der Entscheidung eines Volkes zu sich
selbst."

Angelpunkt  sind die Ausführungen über die Einheit von
Volk, Verfassung und Staat.

Diese Einheit ist die Idee des Nationalstaates, der
erst auf den Trümmern des Feudal"staates" für sich
wird, wenn das Volk nicht mehr Eigentum einer Dynastie
- nicht mehr königliches bzw. fürstliches
(Privat-)Eigentum -  ist, sondern sich selbst gehört
und sein Lebensraum sein Eigentum ist.

"Man muß wissen, was man will, wenn man von Staat
spricht, ob den bloßen Herrschaftsapparat, der auch
einem fremden Gebieter zur Verfügung stehen kann, oder
eine lebendige Volkswirklichkeit, eine aus eigenem
Willen in sich selber gefügte Demokratie. Ich glaube,
daß man in einem demokratischen Zeitalter von einem
Staat im legitimen Sinne des Wortes nur sprechen
sollte, wo es sich um das Produkt eines frei erfolgten
konstitutiven Gesamtaktes eines souveränen Volkes
handelt. Wo das nicht der Fall ist, wo ein Volk sich
unter Fremdherrschaft und unter deren Anerkennung zu
organisieren hat, konstituiert es sich nicht - es sei
denn gegen die Fremdherrschaft selbst -, sondern es
organisiert sich lediglich, .....

Diese Organisation als staatsähnliches Wesen kann
freilich sehr weit gehen. Was aber das Gebilde von
echter demokratisch legitimierter Staatlichkeit
unterscheidet, ist, daß es im Grunde nichts anderes
ist als die Organisationsform einer Modalität der
Fremdherrschaft; denn die trotz mangelnder voller
Freiheit erfolgende Selbstorganisation setzt die
Anerkennung der fremden Gewalt als übergeordneter und
legitimierter Gewalt voraus. Nur wo der Wille des
Volkes aus sich selber fließt, nur wo dieser Wille
nicht durch Auflagen eingeengt ist durch einen fremden
Willen, der Gehorsam fordert und dem Gehorsam
geleistet wird, wird Staat im echten demokratischen
Sinne des Wortes geboren. Wo das nicht der Fall ist,
wo das Volk sich lediglich in Funktion des Willens
einer fremden übergeordneten Gewalt organisiert, sogar
unter dem Zwang, gewisse Direktiven dabei befolgen zu
müssen, und mit der Auflage, sich sein Werk genehmigen
zu lassen, entsteht lediglich ein Organismus mehr oder
weniger administrativen Gepräges. Dieser Organismus
mag alle normalen, ich möchte sagen, ,inneren'
Staatsfunktionen haben; wenn ihm die Möglichkeit
genommen ist, sich die Formen seiner Wirksamkeit und
die Grenzen seiner Entscheidungsgewalt selber zu
bestimmen, fehlt ihm, was den Staat ausmacht, nämlich
die Kompetenz der Kompetenzen im tieferen Sinne des
Wortes, das heißt die letzte Hoheit über sich selbst
und damit die Möglichkeit zu letzter Verantwortung.
Das alles hindert nicht, daß dieser Organismus nach
innen in höchst wirksamer Weise obrigkeitliche Gewalt
auszuüben vermag."

Damit ist der Obersatz gesichert. Dessen
handlungsbezogene Bedeutung hatte Carlo Schmid in der
Einleitung seiner Rede wie folgt bestimmt:

"Es handelt sich hier nicht darum zu theoretisieren;
aber es handelt sich darum, so wie der Ingenieur, der
mit Rechenschieber und Logarithmentafel umzugehen hat,
gelegentlich einmal sein Physikbuch hervorholt, um den
Ort seines Wirkens im System der Mechanik genau
festzustellen, einmal zu sehen, in welchen Bereichen
wir uns denn eigentlich zu bewegen haben. Theorie ist
ja kein müßiger Zeitvertreib, sondern manchmal der
einzige Weg, komplexe Verhältnisse zu klären, und
manchmal die einzige Möglichkeit, sicher des Weges zu
gehen, die einzige Möglichkeit, die Lage des
archimedischen Punktes zu definieren, an dem wir den
Hebel unserer politischen Aktivität anzusetzen haben.
Nur durch eine klare Erkenntnis dessen, was ist,
können wir uns die Rechnungsgrundlagen verschaffen,
deren wir bedürfen werden, um richtig zu handeln. Der
Versuch, einen Tatbestand in allen seinen Bezügen
denkend zu erfassen, ist die einzige Methode, die es
einem ermöglicht, sich so zu entscheiden, daß die
Entscheidung auch verantwortet werden kann".

Es ging also um die Grundlagen für ein verantwortbares
Handeln. Schmid hat mit dieser überzeugenden - ja
zwingenden - Argumentation den Willen des
Parlamentarischen Rates zu einer Distanzierung vom
Grundgesetz geformt. Diese kommt im letzten Artikel
dieses Regelwerkes, in Artikel 146 GG, auf Vorschlag
von Carlo Schmid klar und deutlich zum Ausdruck: Das
Grundgesetz ist nicht die Verfassung des Deutschen
Volkes. Dieses bleibt aufgefordert, in freier
Entscheidung eine Verfassung zu beschließen, die das
Grundgesetz aufhebt.

Im weiteren Verlauf seiner Rede hat Carlo Schmid
hervorgehoben, daß eine Verfassung nicht auf dem Wege
von Grundgesetzänderungen entstehen kann, sondern
allein durch eine konstitutive Nationalversammlung des
Deutschen Volkes.

Vielleicht wird man hier einwenden wollen, diese
Problemlage sei durch die Entwicklung der Europäischen
Union aufgehoben, in der die Nationalstaaten ja
vergehen sollen.  Dabei würde allerdings übersehen,
daß die Integration des Deutschen Reiches in den
imaginierten Supranational-Staat "Europäische Union"
selbst nur aufgrund einer freien Entscheidung des
Deutschen Volkes denkbar ist. Den mit dem Grundgesetz
geschaffenen Institutionen mangelt die Kompetenz  für
diese Entscheidung, weil sie nicht das Deutsche Volk ,
sondern die Fremdherrschaft über dasselbe
repräsentieren.

Die Sieger wußten, daß sie ihre völkerrechtswidrigen
Kriesgziele nur würden errreichen können, wenn es
ihnen gelänge, den Deutschen vorzugaukeln, daß die
Bundesrepublik ihr Staat und die Angehörigen der
politischen Klasse nicht Kollaborateure sondern die
Repräsentaten des Deutschen Volkes und seines Staates
seien.

Der Druck der fremden Herren lastete schwer auf dem
Parlametarischen Rat, was in einer kodifizierten Lüge
zum Ausdrück kommt. In der Präambel - also im
feierlichsten Teil - des Grundgesetzes war zu lesen:

"Im Bewußtsein seiner Verantwortung vor Gott und den
Menschen ....hat das Deutsche Volk in den Ländern ....
kraft seiner verfassungsgebenden Gewalt dieses
Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
beschlossen..."

Der Titel des Gesetzes lautet: "Grundgesetz für die
Bundesrepublik Deutschland" - ein entscheidender
Unterschied. Gravierender ist die Lüge, daß jenes
Regelwerk "vom Deutschen Volk ... kraft seiner
verfassunggebenden Gewalt beschlossen worden sei.
Carlo Schmid hatte klar gemacht, das davon keine Rede
sein könne.

Um das herauszuarbeiten hatte er die Frage gestellt:

"Was ist nun die Lage Deutschlands heute?"

Er gab folgende Antwort:

"Am 8. Mai 1945 hat die deutsche Wehrmacht
bedingungslos kapituliert. An diesen Akt werden von
den verschiedensten Seiten die verschiedensten
Wirkungen geknüpft. Wie steht es damit? Die
bedingungslose Kapitulation hatte Rechtswirkungen
ausschließlich auf militärischem Gebiet. Die
Kapitulationsurkunde, die damals unterzeichnet wurde,
hat nicht etwa bedeutet, daß damit das deutsche Volk
durch legitimierte Vertreter zum Ausdruck bringen
wollte, daß es als Staat nicht mehr existiert, sondern
hatte lediglich die Bedeutung, daß den Alliierten das
Recht nicht bestritten werden sollte, mit der
deutschen Wehrmacht nach Gutdünken zu verfahren. Das
ist der Sinn der bedingungslosen Kapitulation und kein
anderer.

.....

Nach Völkerrecht wird ein Staat nicht vernichtet, wenn
seine Streitkräfte und er selbst militärisch
niedergeworfen sind. Die debellatio vernichtet für
sich allein die Staatlichkeit nicht, sie gibt
lediglich dem Sieger einen Rechtstitel auf Vernichtung
der Staatlichkeit des Niedergeworfenen durch
nachträgliche Akte. Der Sieger muß also von dem
Zustand der debellatio Gebrauch machen, wenn die
Staatlichkeit des Besiegten vernichtet werden soll.
Hier gibt es nach Völkerrecht nur zwei praktische
Möglichkeiten. Die eine ist die Annexion. Der Sieger
muß das Gebiet des Besiegten annektieren, seinem
Gebiet einstücken. Geschieht dies, dann allerdings ist
die Staatlichkeit vernichtet. Oder er muß zur
sogenannten Subjugation schreiten, der Verknechtung
des besiegten Volkes. Aber die Sieger haben nichts von
dem getan. Sie haben in Potsdam ausdrücklich erklärt,
erstens, daß kein deutsches Gebiet im Wege der
Annexion weggenommen werden soll, und zweitens, daß
das deutsche Volk nicht versklavt werden soll. Daraus
ergibt sich, daß zum mindesten aus den Ereignissen von
1945 nicht der Schluß gezogen werden kann, daß
Deutschland als staatliches Gebilde zu existieren
aufgehört hat.

Aber es ist ja 1945 etwas geschehen, was ganz
wesentlich in unsere staatlichen und politischen
Verhältnisse eingegriffen hat. Es ist etwas geschehen,
aber eben nicht die Vernichtung der deutschen
Staatlichkeit. Aber was ist denn nun geschehen?
Erstens: Der Machtapparat der Diktatur wurde
zerschlagen. Da dieser Machtapparat der Diktatur durch
die Identität von Partei und Staat mit dem
Staatsapparat identisch gewesen ist, ist der deutsche
Staat durch die Zerschlagung dieses
Herrschaftsapparats desorganisiert worden.
Desorganisation des Staatsapparats ist aber nicht die
Vernichtung des Staates der Substanz nach....

Diese Auffassung, daß die Existenz Deutschlands als
Staat nicht vernichtet und daß es als Rechtssubjekt
erhalten worden ist, ist heute weitgehend Gemeingut
der Rechtswissenschaft, auch im Ausland. Deutschland
existiert als staatliches Gebilde weiter. Es ist
rechtsfähig, es ist aber nicht mehr geschäftsfähig,
noch nicht geschäftsfähig. Die Gesamtstaatsgewalt wird
zum mindesten auf bestimmten Sachgebieten durch die
Besatzungsmächte, durch den Kontrollrat im ganzen und
durch die Militärbefehlshaber in den einzelnen Zonen
ausgeübt. Durch diese Treuhänderschaft von oben wird
der Zusammenhang aufrechterhalten. Die Hoheitsgewalt
in Deutschland ist also nicht untergegangen; sie hat
lediglich den Träger gewechselt, indem sie in
Treuhänderschaft übergegangen ist.

.......

Der Rechtszustand, in dem Deutschland sich befindet,
wird aber noch durch folgendes charakterisiert: Die
Alliierten halten Deutschland nicht nur auf Grund der
Haager Landkriegsordnung besetzt. Darüber hinaus trägt
die Besetzung Deutschlands interventionistischen
Charakter. Was heißt denn Intervention? Es bedeutet,
daß fremde Mächte innerdeutsche Verhältnisse, um die
sich zu kümmern ihnen das Völkerrecht eigentlich
verwehrt, auf deutschem Boden nach ihrem Willen
gestalten wollen."

Diese Feststellung ist von geschichtsmächtiger
Bedeutung. Diese wird von Carlo Schmid wie folgt
hervorgehoben:

"Aber Intervention vermag lediglich Tatsächlichkeiten
zu schaffen; sie vermag nicht, Rechtswirkungen
herbeizuführen. Völkerrechtlich muß eine
interventionistische Maßnahme entweder durch einen
vorher geschlossenen Vertrag oder durch eine
nachträgliche Vereinbarung legitimiert sein, um
dauernde Rechtswirkungen herbeizuführen"

Die Absetzung der Regierung des Feindstaates oder die
Einsetzung einer neuen Regierung für das besetzte
Gebiet überschreitet die Befugnisse der
Besatzungsmacht; eine solche Regierung ist nicht
einmal als de-facto-Regierung anzusehen, sondern als
ein Organ der Besatzungsmacht.[5]

Die Frage, ob der Deutschlandvertrag und/oder andere
von der Bundesrepublik Deutschland geschlossene
Verträge eine Heilung herbeigeführt haben könnten, ist
müßig, denn heilende Wirkungen könnten nur vom
Deutschen Reich mit Dritten abgeschlossene Verträge
zeitigen. Das Deutsche Reich aber kann keine Verträge
schließen, weil es immer noch
handlungsunfähig/geschäftsunfähig ist.

Auch  im Völkerrecht gibt es keine Verträge zu lasten
Dritter (Pacta tertiis nec prosunt nec nocent).[6] Die
von der OMF-BRD geschlossenen Verträge binden nicht
das Deutsche Reich. Das gilt insbesondere für die
NATO-,  EU- und Ost-Verträge, für den Beitritt der
OMF-BRD zur UNO sowie für den Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag.

Damit rücken  in des Zentrum des Verfahrens jetzt die
Fragen, die mit dem Beweisantrag  zum Gegenstand des
Sachverständigenbeweises gemacht sind. Die Antworten
sind nur in Anwendung des Völkerrechts zu gewinnen.

Die OMF-BRD ist als Organ der Siegermächte ein dem
Deutschen Volk feindliches Institutionengeflecht, das
den naturgegebenenWiderstand des Volkes gegen seine
Ausplünderung und Auslöschung im Schein der
Rechtlichkeit niederhält. Die Deutschen
Volksangehörigen, die sich in den Diensten für die
OMF-BRD an der Raub- und Völkermordpolirtik der
US-Ostküste beteiligen, machen sich schwerster
Verbrechen gegen das Deutsche Volk schuldig.

Die Existenz von Normen des Völkerrechts sind
zulässige Gegenstände der Beweisaufnahme. Wegen der
Besonderheit des Völkerrechts ist es nicht möglich,
die einschlägigen Normen als solche vollständig zu
benennen.  Oft handelt es sich um ungechriebenes
Völkerrecht (Völkergewohnheitsrecht), oder um
Vertragswerke, in denen der Normgedanke oft nur
versteckt enthalten ist. Entscheidend ist die
tatsächliche Übung der Völkerrechtssubjekte bzw. der
Konsens der führenden Völkerrechtslehrer.  Das
Beweisthema  kann daher nur in der Weise bestimmt
werden, daß ein konkreter  Sachverhalt als
völkerrechtsgemäß bzw. völkerrechtswidrig dargestellt
und in Beziehung gesetzt wird zu einem Grundsatz des
Völkerrechts mit der Behauptung, daß dieser Grundsatz
für den Einzelfall  zu dem im Beweisantrag
formulierten Ergebnis führt.

Bürger des Deutschen Reiches, die in richterlicher
Funktion für ein Gericht der OMF-BRD tätig werden,
sind nach allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätzen gehalten,
völkerrechtswidrige Auswirkungen der Fremdherrschaft
abzustellen und den mutmaßlichen Willen oder das
wohlverstandene Interesse des handlungsunfähigen
Reiches zur Richtschnur ihrer Entscheidung zu machen.

Berlin, den 6. Februar 2004

Horst Mahler

[END]

*******************************************************

Professor Kelso:

[START]

I remarked in an earlier letter that I thought
Hitler's invasion of russia was preemptive. There were
some who replied to my letter who were unconvenienced.
Allow me offer the following derivitive from Irving's
web site in further defense of my position.... Pat
Kelso
 
 
...... Review @ Amazon.com of Albert L. Weeks's new
book, STALIN'S OTHER WAR SOVIET GRAND STRATEGY
1939-1941, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.

Stalin's offensive war plans against Hitler
documented,
September 22, 2002
Reviewer: Thomas Titura...from Austria

This is an important new book by an expert on Soviet
history. Professor Weeks presents the reader with a
lot of newly discovered secret information from
documents from formerly closed Soviet archives. Among
these documents are transcripts of Stalin's famous
toast to graduates of the Military academies from the
5th of May, 1941, and the text of Stalin's previously
hotly disputed secret speech to the Soviet Politburo,
dated August 19, 1939, just days before signing the
Hitler-Stalin Pact including its secret protocol about
the territorial division of Poland, the Baltics and
Bessarabia. The text was discovered in Russian
archives and has also been confirmed by diary entries
of Comintern head Dimitrov. Stalin predicts that
Germany will have to fight a long war against France
and England, allowing the Soviet Union to sovietize
not only defeated Germany but also France.

An even more important document is from the Soviet
General Staff. It is a war plan against Germany,
calling for a pre-emptive strike against German
forces! The document, titled 'Considerations of the
Plan for the Strategic Deployment of the Armed forces
of the Soviet Union in Case of War with Germany and
its Allies', is dated May 15, 1941. It has been
prepared mainly by General, later Marshal, A.
Vasilievsky, Deputy Head of the Operations Department
of the Soviet General Staff (Stavka). The Memorandum
was presented to Stalin by Commissar of Defense S.
Timoshenko and Chief of the General Staff G. Zhukov.
The document Considerations (some 15 pages long) is
explicitly calling for a pre-emptive strike against
German forces. [One may easily imagine that German
agents obtained a copy for Hitler's eyes. - RPK].....
 
[END]

*******************************************************

Dr. Bob Countess weighs in on the David Cole issue:

[START]

David Cole and I have spent a lot of time talking in
person over recent years; he has been a guest in our
home and I in his.

Whatever personal problems he has now or has had in
the past, I hold the position that he ought to be
welcome at the April  Conference as would anyone else
who pays his/her registration fee.

 Thus, I must disagree with our French Professor
Faurisson's stated email of last week that way quite
negative toward Cole.

Robert H. Countess, Ph.D.
Ancient Greek
email: boblbpinc@earthlink.net
28755 Sagewood Circle
Toney, AL 35773  USA
Phone: (256) 232-4940  Cell: (256) 653-7598
Fax:  (256) 232-4940

[END]

MY COMMENT: We welcome David Cole at the conference,
if he wants to come.

*******************************************************

I like that one:

[START]

ZULU HOWLER

English football's increasing reliance on coloured
players was summarised by former Crystal Palace
manager, Alan Smith. He horrified diners at a Royal
Automobile Club's jolly when asked what it was like to
be a football manager today.

With a football manager's notorious lack of respect
for political correctness he replied, "Like Michael
Caine in the film ZULU facing the hordes - only these
days the Zulus are in the dressing room."

You could have heard a pin drop. Among the audience
Fulham FC manager Chris Coleman. His key black player
Luis Boa Morte has just reported Everton FC striker
Duncan Ferguson for an alleged racist comment.

Michael Walsh

[END]

*******************************************************

See you at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento, held on April 24th and 25th,
hosted by the European American Culture Council,
sponsored by the Adelaide Institute!

Organizer: Walter F. Mueller

thetruthisback@yahoo.com

Make your reservations today by contacting

hansgemuetlich@yahoo.com


Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"

The "Patriot Letter" is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with
"unsubscribe".