From: Horst Mahler 
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2006 5:06 AM
To: 'Ingrid Rimland'
Subject: AW: Recent letter from jailed historian Germar Rudolf - Freiheit für die Nationalsozialistische Bewegung!


- in German

Letter from Horst Mahler

 - translated by James Damon

First of all, I doubt that legally binding convictions will result from the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf and the other combatants in the struggle against the absurd Offenkundigkeit (“manifest obviousness”) of the Holocaust.  However, I must correct an error that Germar made.  In his case, as well as the cases of Zündel and Verbeke, the government might well pronounce sentences considerably longer than five years. 

Five years is the present maximum sentence for the "crime" of denying the Holocaust.  However, Germar and several others have repeatedly "committed the crime."  Consequently the OMF/BRD judiciary (Prof. Carlo Schmid’s Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule) must churn out a sentence of up to five years for each individual instance. 

Then they establish the sum of the individual sentences, and from that they interpolate a total sentence somewhere between the highest individual sentence and the sum of the other sentences.  The absolute maximum would be 15 years.

For a single instance of “Denying Holocaust” that occurred 16 years ago, David Irving has been sentenced to 3 years without probation.  This is wonderful news!  It is the death knell of § 130 III StGB (Paragraph 130 Article III of the Penal Code -- the “Holocaust Denial statute".)  Foreign domination of the Reich is beginning to falter.  If against expectations, legally binding convictions do result from the present batch of prosecutions, I feel certain the "perpetrators" will be set free within 3 to 5 years.  Foreign rule is losing its power to keep them imprisoned for longer than that.  

Without a doubt, Ernst Zündel's case is already bringing about a breakthrough in the judicial world, thanks to a very simple argument presented by Sylvia Stolz in the Mannheim trial.

The ruling by the 6th Criminal High Court of Mannheim District on 7 Nov 2005 contains the official statement that genocide directed against the Jews – the so called Holocaust – "tatbestandlich vorausgesetzt werde" (is assumed regarding the facts of the case”) in § 130 III StGB (Paragraph 130 III of the Criminal Code), and consequently all evidence submitted in denial of this assumption is disallowed.”  Let us see what we can do with this statement by the court.

Given this tatbestandliche Voraussetzung (official presumption that a criminal act has been committed), would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case, even If  he himself (possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust”) were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry” is an extortionate fabrication?  Such a ruling would constitute a verdict against perceived truth!  Any judge who issued such a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath: “I swear to the best of my knowledge and conscience, to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.” 

Would Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign statements to the effect that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the oath they took as judges?  Not likely!

The point to be made is that in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings about “Holocaust” can be an obstacle to deciding against conviction.  If this should happen in the course of a Holocaust trial, the efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by presenting of scientifically verifiable evidence, can not be suppressed as “alien to the defense!”  In fact, a motion to present such evidence would be the Königsweg (high road) to a verdict of not guilty, and it is ethically incumbent upon the defense to follow this very path.  Or do the above named jurists prefer to cling to an illegal refusal to submit evidence?  Do they prefer to leave to co-incidence, whether or not, on basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has misgivings about “Holocaust”?  Judges in Holocaust denial cases who express a willingness to reach a verdict, even though they consider the “Holocaust” a monstrous swindle, are thereby exposing themselves as dishonorable wretches exhibiting moral turpitude.  They have to be removed from the bench forthwith!  

Judges who leave justice to blind chance are no less criminal.  The same is true of those judges who persist in asserting “Offenkundigkeit” even though scientists and historians such as Germar Rudolf have assembled undeniable proofs that “Holocaust” was feigned and fabricated from the beginning.  The sentences imposed by these judges show that at present, the more convincing the proof of fraud by the "Holocaust Industry," the more severe the sentence imposed on the person who exposes it.  Sylvia Stolz included Rudolf's “Lectures” among the trial documents with a pronounced undertone of warning to Holocaust jurists, and it is a very good sign that after she had done so, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm, Dörr-Krebs and Dr. Tittle (presiding judge of Verden District Court in the case of the Bundeswehr physician Dr. Rigolf Hennig) all chose to abandon the Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) argument.

This “assumption regarding a criminal act” that they are now attempting to substitute is a godsend!  Now even the dimmest wit in all the land is able to perceive what the powers of foreign domination are doing to Germany .  Not all jurists in the service of the OMF-BRD are scoundrels!  It was difficult to overcome the fiction of Offenkundigkeit; it cost Revisionists decades of unremitting toil to accomplish this, whereas logical thinking can demolish the government’s “factual presupposition of criminal activity” in the blink of an eye. This thought experiment must be constantly held before the jurists’ eyes.  They must be forced to acknowledge its compelling logic and demand a movement to abolish Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code, or at least support such a movement.

I am counting on your assistance.  We must apply leverage at other points as well.  The enemy expects to have an easy task in the OMF “courts;”  he thinks that all he will have to do is slander the arguments of Germans who want to be German as  “Nazi propaganda” and he will again prevail, just as in the past.  Now, however, the apparent strength of the enemy is turning out to be a strategic weakness.  The court’s vituperation of the National Socialist world view offers us the opportunity of countering enemy propaganda by judicial means.

National Socialism Is a World View

Article 4 of Basic Law provides that “Freedom of religion and avowal of one’s world view are inviolable.”  We are now going to make this our fortress!  A confession of belief in National Socialism must be as little to the detriment of Germans as confessions of belief in Judaism or Christianity.  Since World War II the enemy has successfully denied acknowledgement that expression of support for National Socialism is freedom of confession of a world view.  The enemy did this by contending that National Socialism is “contemptuous of humanity” and therefore not protected by Article 4 of Basic Law.  In refutation of this, we shall strike a blow for our liberation by proving that it is Judaism that advocates contempt for humanity and a horrifying inclination to genocide.  In this way we can demonstrate that it is the devil himself who is demonizing National Socialism.  And whom does the devil demonize? – The Saviour, of course!


According to the findings of Prof. Götz Aly, 95% of all Germans [1] experienced the rule of National Socialism “not as a system of terror and oppression, but rather as a government of social caring, as a kind of benevolent dictatorship.[2]  As late as1948, the majority of Germans (57%) were still of the opinion that National Socialism “was a good idea.”[3] This nation would never have voluntarily inflicted upon itself the disgrace of spiritual self mutilation that has been forced on it.  On its own volition, Germany would not have demonized its chosen leader and thereby itself.  Such a demonization could have been accomplished only by overwhelming military force on the part of the enemies of the Reich, assisted by collaborators of course.  Our enemies continued to wage psychological warfare long after unconditional surrender.  It has been a major part of the never ending military occupation of Germany .

Hitler was the savior of the German people.  The enemies of the Reich, Judaism in particular, forced the War upon Germany in order to put an end to the gospel of the Reich.  As the inventors of modern propaganda, they always knew that given an absolute military victory over the Reich, they would have the means to portray Hitler as the one guilty of the hideous global slaughter of the War. [4]

Now we are finally in a position to expose this deception and present the following solution to the crisis:  “The German nation will not be free again until Germans can again march unhindered under their Hakenkreuz banners, through the Brandenburg Gate.”  At last we are on the proper path to achieving this!

Sieg Heil! 

With patriotic greetings,

Horst Mahler


1) Götz Aly: Nach seiner Ausbildung an der Deutschen Journalistenschule in München studierte er Geschichte und politische Wissenschaften in Berlin , in Politologie promovierte er 1978. 1994 schloß er seine Habilitation am Otto-Suhr-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin ab. Nach seinem Studium 1973 arbeitete er als Heimleiter in Berlin-Spandau, wurde aber 1976 infolge des Radikalenerlasses für ein Jahr suspendiert. Als Journalist arbeitete Aly unter anderem als Redakteur bei der taz, der Berliner Zeitung und der FAZ. Seit dem Wintersemester 2004/2005 hat Götz Aly eine auf vier Semester angelegte Gastprofessur für interdisziplinäre Holocaustforschung am Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt am Main inne.Hauptthema von Götz Alys Forschung ist die Geschichte des Holocausts und die Beteiligung gesellschaftlicher Eliten an der Vernichtungspolitik im Nationalsozialismus. Dabei arbeitet Aly weitgehend außerhalb des etablierten Wissenschaftsbetriebs. Große Aufmerksamkeit erregte Aly mit seinem 2005 erschienenen, sehr erfolgreichen Buch Hitlers Volksstaat. Aly bezeichnete das NS-Regime als eine „Gefälligkeitsdiktatur“, die durch soziale Fürsorge die Massen ruhig hielt – und die Deutschen damit vom Treiben der Nazis profitierten. Alys Thesen blieben jedoch nicht unwidersprochen. Für seine Arbeit ist Aly mehrfach ausgezeichnet worden, 2002 erhielt er den Heinrich-Mann-Preis, 2003 den Marion-Samuel-Preis der „Stiftung Erinnerung“. Quelle:

2) Götz Aly in DER SPIEGEL Nr. 10/2005 S. 56

3) DerSpiegel Nr. 20/2003 S. 47

4) Meiser, Hans,Das Tribunal - Der größte Justizskandal der Weltgeschichte/ Ein deutsches Drama /Hans Meiser.– Tübingen, Grabert-Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-87847-218-8 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ingrid Rimland []
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. März 2006 14:21
Betreff: Fwd: Recent letter from jailed historian Germar Rudolf

Brief communiqué from Germar Rudolf to an Italian correspondent, FYI


Germar Rudolf

Asperger Str. 60

D-70439 Stuttgart

Stgt., Feb. 25, 2006

Dear Mr. ___ !  

Thank you very much for your letter of Feb. 6, which arrived here

only recently due to court-imposed censorship. I appreciate very

much that you show your compassion for me in this awful situation

of mine.

As to the reason for my incarceration, I am sure you are vaguely

informed about them, sinc e m y publishing activities of the past 15

years will not have evaded you. Since the conclusions of many of my

publications are illegal in Germany, and because it is illegal here

to defend oneself in th e m atter itself, the verdict "guilty as

charged" is already spoken before any trial has begun.. As nice as

your wishes are that I will be acquitted, they are also very naive.

I will most likely received th e m aximum penalty of 5 five years in

addition to the 14 months I have to spend right now for the expert

report on Auschwitz which I wrote back in 1991/92. So I will get

out of her e m ost likely not before January 2012. 

In case you are interested to learn more about me and my case, you

are invited to visit my website, provided you have internet access,

at If not familiar with the Internet, I am

certain that one of your children or grandchildren will be able to

help you out with that. On that website you can also find out how

you can help me in my ongoing struggle in various way, in case you

are interested in that.

In hoping that I will read from you again I remain with my best

wishes and regards your

[Signed] Germar Rudolf


Top | Home

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute