Sylvia Stolz and Breakthrough on the Holocaust Front
Translated by Prof James Damon
Danish, English, French, German, Spanish
Amelia Aremia: In a Court of Law
David Matas: Canada properly adopts new anti-Semitism, Holocaust positions
Horst Mahler: The Genie is Out of the Bottle
Horst Mahler, Pfarrer-Grabmeier-Allee 10, 85560 Ebersberg
D 85560 Ebersberg
Ebersberg, den 27. Januar 2008
An Kaiser’s Geburtstag
Greetings from Horst Mahler:
This is a quick report on the latest developments here in Germany.
The weekend before Sylvia was jailed, we received a letter from Potsdam court that caused Sylvia to exclaim, “This is a bomb!” meaning that it was smashing good news. She was right -- in fact, her exclamation was actually an understatement. It is actually a “super bomb” that has already been “fused,” and I have the other end of that fuse in my hand!
On 17 December last year, when the outcome of Sylvia’s Mannheim trial was already obvious to everyone, I received notice of a ruling by the Staatsschutzkammer of “Staschu” (State Security Agency) of Potsdam District Court to the effect that they were dropping the six most serious charges against me, including 21 separate counts of denying “Holocaust.” Now they are saying that the statutes of limitations have expired. The basis for this ruling is obviously in error technically, at least for some of the counts. This basis for the court ruling has also been “zurechtgezimmert” (tailored or bent) by ignoring certain changes in the regional press laws that had been rammed through by the Central Jewish Council. Through these changes, the relatively short statute of limitations for the alleged publishing crime of denying “Holocaust,” which had been six months, was increased to at least three years. This three-year limitation for the separate counts in the indictment has expired in just a few instances.
It is obvious that the court in Potsdam has deliberately allowed the statutes of limitation to expire. As early as October 2006, and using the same rationale, a different court of the same district had dropped an indictment against me for “disparagement of the state,” for which Rigolf Hennig was imprisoned for nine months. I was not even aware of this at first. By Mannheim District Court standards, the counts in that indictment (21 separate counts each with a sentence of 5 years) would have been a life sentence for me in view of my age, since the maximum would have been 15 years.
All this is just the tip of the iceberg! The Federal judiciary’s “quiet revolt” against “Holocaust” prosecutions is now in full swing.
Other judges in Stuttgart, Mühlhausen, Berlin, Bernau, Brandenburg, Potsdam and Lüneburg‚ who have been putting “Holocaust” trials of at least five other Revisionists “on ice,” will now be carried along with the stream of events. From now on, Mannheim will be known as “Holonkenheim” (“home of scoundrels” -- a play of words on Halunkenheim.)
At least two dozen prosecutors and judges will soon be facing charges of “evading punishment while in office,” and the Central Jewish Council with its attack dogs will be cracking the whip. These trials are going to split the judicial establishment. They are going to throw it into total turmoil. The correct defense will have to be that no evasion of punishment has taken place. No conviction is possible under Section 130 III, 90a, and 86a of Penal Code, therefore the defendants must be exonerated. With no convictions there can obviously be no evasion of punishment. I would never have dreamed that I would be the recipient of such highly unlikely favoritism by the judiciary of the Federal Republic. The law normally works to the disadvantage of German-minded Germans, rather than protecting their “guaranteed freedoms.” However, the whole thing becomes quite plausible when you “add 2 and 2 together.”
By her heroic conduct, Sylvia has succeeded in unmasking the disgusting fraud of “Holocaust” justice. On basis of the courts’ verdicts and rulings, all of which we have in hand, she has exposed and demonstrated the short and simple formula for “Holocaust” prosecutions. It goes like this: “If Defendant A, who is charged with lying and must therefore be punished, presents evidence that he has told the truth, he is punished a second time, and this time his attorney is punished for defending him.” The institution of “Holocaust” prosecution has destroyed itself by acting in such an obviously despotic manner. The “Holocaust” judges should never have allowed their “secret” to be so openly depicted! Sylvia has struck at the very heart of the foreign domination of Germany! Now that her accomplishment is clear for all to see, fewer and fewer prosecutors and judges will be willing to support those judicial atrocities of “Holocaust” prosecutions.
There are signs that entire groups of prosecutors are now hesitating to sign their names to “Holocaust” indictments, knowing that they will be faced with defendants who follow Sylvia’s example. Sylvia has very effectively demonstrated how to scandalize these show trials, to convert the role of accused into that of accuser and to function as prosecutor in these courts of foreign inquisition. We have to consider the whole phenomenon in its larger context. The jurists, who have now been exponiert (“raised to a higher level”) by Sylvia’s defense, are legally required by their office to read my works. I can assume that even if the jurists are not convinced by my arguments, they are at least aware of them.
The clamor in the media over the debate between Michel Friedman and myself has brought several things to light that heretofore had been submerged in silence. On page 82 of Vanity Fair’s Issue No. 45 for the year 2007, we read the following:
“With his anti Semitic theories, Mahler has inspired the extreme Right as no one else in Germany has done... Neo-Nazis listen to Mahler because he philosophically ennobles their nonsense...” However it does appear that “Neo-Nazis” are not the only ones who are now paying attention to me. Harald Martenstein made the following remarks on the Friedman-Mahler exchange in the “Opinion” page of TAGESSPIEGEL issue for 6 November 2007:
“In Germany / one does not confront rightwing radicalism. Instead, one runs away from it.... Behind this kind of thinking lies more than just antiquated theory about the media, according to which the only thing that exists is what is presented in the media and that one can overcome discord with silence... The uncontrollable Internet has demolished that theory, which was inspired by an irrational fear of the apparent omnipotence of the rightwing radical arguments. It is as though Nazi slogans could mesmerize the masses merely by being uttered... Many of us obviously have misgivings about ourselves, since any one who really confronts ideas must first allow them into his head.”
Vanity Fair Chief Editor Ulf Poschardt wrote the following to Süddeutsche Zeitung in its online edition of 2 Dec 07:
“Horst Mahler is the chief ideologue of the extreme Right. His views, horrible and absurd as they may be, are secretly shared by a great many Germans.”
In Süddeutsche Online for 2 Dec 07, Friedman himself augments this, writing that “Mahler talks about what a not insignificant part of the population is thinking. Surveys show that, irrespective of age and class, 10% to 15% percent of the population admits racist prejudices. This is true even of people in three piece suits... The problem of rightwing extremism has not died out. It continues to be contemporary, present in a considerable portion of today’s youth.”
At another place Friedman writes, “Horst Mahler’s articulate and pseudoscientific agitation is influencing a portion of our youth and leading them to commit violence against minorities.”
Regarding the departure of the chief editor of Vanity Fair, Ulf Poschardt, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes on 11 Jan 08 that he showed recklessness, “...such as in the debate between Michael Friedman and the rightwing radical Horst Mahler... His intention of demystifying Mahler was a spectacular failure.” In a perceptive observation, Henryk M. Broder writes in Spiegel Online, 4 Nov 07 “...but the important thing) is that he talks with Mahler, and does not land in hell, but rather under the wheels of a demagogue who is superior to him because he is more overbearing and intelligent... Finally Friedman loses his nerve... the winner with the most points is Horst Mahler.”
“... As Michel Friedman points out, Horst Mahler himself is unimportant... If Horst Mahler were the only one involved, it would not be worth the effort of talking to him, but he represents the most virulent ‘brown beast’ on the rightwing scene. It is important to talk to him because behind Horst Mahler there are millions of ‘light brown’ (lesser intensity right-wingers)... They are not all skinheads... some of them are representative fellow citizens from the midst of our society.’ Friedman said it occurred to him at the time Mahler greeted him with ‘Heil Hitler, Mr. Friedman!’ that there are millions in Germany who believe that Hitler had his good side. 20 percent of all Germans do not want to have a Jewish neighbor. In a nation of 80 million, that is 16 million Germans! The fact that Horst Mahler unfortunately represents a sizeable group of Germans makes him interesting... For me, Horst Mahler must be taken seriously because millions of Germans are standing behind him... A person who represents a political direction with millions of followers has become an actual social phenomenon.”
The December 2007 edition of Jüdische Zeitung (Vienna) contains the following on page 3: “It was irresponsible and impermissible to offer Mahler such a platform,” according to the General Secretary of the Jewish Central Committee in Germany, Stephan J. Kramer.
Vice President Wolfgang Thierse of the Federal German Parliament is grumbling that the Neo-Nazi spoutings of Mahler are ‘completely irrelevant’ and directs at Friedman ‘the unsettling question of why he allowed himself to be used as a sounding board for rightwing extremist slogans.’”
The chairman of the Unionsfraktion Wolfgang Bosbach says, “I do not understand why Mr. Friedman so damages his own interests”, while Petra Pau, Vice President of the Bundestag (Left) speaks of an “incomprehensible public relations action for a magazine.” Other acknowledged opponents of National Socialism, such as the chairperson of Bundestagsinnenausschusses, Sebastian Edathy (SPD) as well as Representative Omid Nouripour of Green Party, also released criticisms, according to TAGESSPIEGEL of 6 Nov 2007 (page 4). In the Münchner Merkur, Bavarian interior minister Joachem Herrmann of CSU also criticized Friedman’s conduct, saying he should have “broken off the interview immediately after the Nazi salute.” DIE WELT Online, 7 Nov 07 reported that the search words “Michel Friedman Horst Mahler” in the Yahoo search engine found 78,200 “hits,” while Horst Mahler registered 343,000, Sylvia Stolz 161,000, and “Sylvia Stolz Horst Mahler” 20,300. “Strategic Silence” can no longer head off what is happening now, and the Verlästerung (slandering) of our ideas has been rendered ineffectual. Fear of the “omnipotence of rightwing radical argumentation” is spreading rapidly.
“Obviously Nazi slogans can enchant the masses, merely by being expressed.” What an admission! Whoever said “Obviously a great many of us do not trust ourselves, since whoever wants to seriously grapple with an idea must first allow it into his head” -- wasn’t that person referring to his own experiences and anxieties about being convinced by “rightwing radical” ideas? Have we come a long way, or not? Among the 16 million Germans that Friedman includes among my followers, there are surely several thousand prosecutors and judges. What effect is that going to have on our present government of foreign occupation?
So far I have had opportunity to speak to Sylvia in prison just twice,
once for 20 minutes and once for 30 minutes. When I mentioned Friedman’s figure of 16 million “right wingers” she remarked: “In his wildest dreams it’s only 16 million!” She is in good spirits, and more determined than ever to continue the struggle for Germany’s liberation. Whoever coined the poetic phrase Zum Kampf auserkoren, zum Sterben bereit (“Chosen for struggle, prepared for death) must have had her in mind. Victory or death! must be our battle cry.
Frederick, please inform the world about what is going on here in Germany. Please arrange translations of this letter into English, French, Spanish and as many other languages as possible.
With heartfelt good wishes to all,
In a Court of Law
Amelia Aremia - AAREMIA@nc.rr.com
A critic once described Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in two words: a “revenge drama.”
Recently, I read reports on the trial of defendant Attorney Sylvia Stolz; and also reports on the Zundel trials, plus a few other defendants who have been tried for questioning facts of the Holocaust. All have been found “guilty,” a verdict that appears to be based on bias, and a devastating revenge.
How such flagrant travesty of justice can be allowed to continue in these Holocaust trials where an exaggerated and grotesque ridicule of a fair justice system in a court of law by a government supposedly governed by "Democracy and Freedom" is beyond simple reasoning. The formal denial of an allegation of fact isn't given a fair chance to be proven. This is most difficult to understand, and makes a scary situation limiting freedom of speech, or thought, only to one side.
Why should it be fair to commemorate the Holocaust with memorials, and not do the same to commemorate the Holocaust in Bolshevik Russia, where “Jewish” commissars led the slaughter of more than 17 million Christians and other non-Jews? Neither must we forget that some 3,000 priests were imprisoned; where more than 1,000 perished. Nor should we forget that almost two non-Jewish civilians were killed for every Jew.
To paraphrase the words of a former state governor: if one human being died under the conditions reported in Nazi Germany, it is important to be reminded of the tragedy. This phrase offers the best possible grounds for a dedication to the memory of Christians and other non-Jews, that if even one human being died under the conditions reported in Bolshevik Russia, it is important to be reminded of the tragedy.
It would also be unfair to say that Pope Pius XII didn’t care about the Jews although the history of Christian-Jewish relations has been a tormented one. Hate is such a terrible word, such a terrible emotion clouding out clear thinking.
Back to the Courts:
Why do courts permit one side to bring up evidence, which haven’t been proven as historically factual; and not give the same right to the defendants to present their theories?? It would seem that the courts have upset the checks and balances of just law, for it is through the courts and judges who have assaulted the time-honored system of checks and balances through their arrogant Masters who legislate through judicial fiat---by making laws and social policies instead of merely interpreting the law.
In recent decades the courts have turned to sociological jurisprudence, where judges base their decisions, not on legal justice or precedent, but on the findings of sociology and psychology. This is the moment when rights and freedom began to crumble. Unless countries either curb the excesses of the courts and their allies, the regulatory bureaucrats, all freedoms of speech and thought will be lost. Is this is what “Political Correctness” is all about?
If there is no independent tribunal to check judicial excesses, all the written guarantees of rights in the world would amount to nothing. Unless the remainder of free countries return to a strict adherence of justice, and restore the system of checks and balances, all shall end up in a dictatorial rule by the arrogant elite of bureaucrats, judges, and secret police who regard the rest of the people as stupid animals, fit only to be used as their slaves, or herded into a collectivist prison. The free world is in the worst era of judicial tyranny.
Many wise Greeks and Romans said that freedom and equality are completely incompatible. When equality is imposed on the people, it is at the cost of freedom, and justice stems from freedom which all men crave, and have the right to expect equal justice for all under the law of his country. Besides, equality among people is contrary to all laws of nature. No two people thrown together under conditions of natural freedom and competition will ever remain equal.
Nearly everyone is familiar with Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers who worked on the formation of a ruling government for the new, young country in America. These great statesmen understood that men are seekers of power, and therefore, they should be bound to the laws of a Constitution. The Constitution that was formed gave the people the greatest freedoms the world had ever known under a Republic, governed by rule of laws. It is also worthy to note that Thomas Jefferson originally said, “We are equally free,” but he was forced to change that phrase to: “We are created equal.”
In those early days of the young states he warned: “The government is your enemy.” That it is the duty of the citizens to protect themselves from elected officials who recklessly create laws and tax, tax, their earnings. It is the business and duty of every citizen to preserve the freedoms they were given in order to hand them down to their children, and not to leave them trillions of dollars in a heritage of debts. Our present day world conflict is the simple question of freedom and responsibility against a tyrannical form of a one-world government that will bring us back into slavery.
After a slow awakening many Americans have found that they are no longer a free nation under the Constitution. The Constitutional Republic has been turned into a “Democracy” for freedom. Two words which in meaning are the complete opposite to each other. Like the rest of the Western world, Americans , too, will become bound to the chains of the “One Worlders.”
The tyrants’ hold tighten, the strong devour the weak; the innocents are frightened, yet the righteous fear to speak out. We all have learned, sometime in our lives, that ignorance of history, let alone contempt for it, is bound to repeat. We have let the new breed in the media create events, report out of context mass demonstrations, and create psychological warfare to take over a country and make it ungovernable. Look around the world, and you can see it happening.
The Americans, who have been lulled into a false sense of security, are slowly awakening. And if it is not too late, they can make an overwhelming show of force to put an end to the traitorous acts of their government in the coming elections.
There is always tomorrow, and a hope for a better world, a world with honor and a future which no longer has a conspiracy for world domination by an elite few.
David Matas: Canada properly adopts new anti-Semitism, Holocaust positions
Sunday January 27 2008 - [Holocaust Memorial Day/ Palestinian Break-out/German Kaiser Birthday]
WHAT could Canada's policy makers have been thinking? Up until last summer, successive Canadian governments held to the idea that the most effective way to combat racism and intolerance was to adopt a systemic approach.
This holistic method, championed in bureaucratic circles, grouped all racisms under one umbrella, ignoring the need for a specialized study of each. Governments simply refused to focus on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as a means for advancing anti-racism efforts. This prevailing culture, however, has undergone a transformation under the Harper Conservative government.
Last year, I was part of two Government of Canada delegations to international meetings where Canada's traditional positions were dramatically altered to reflect a substantive change in both attitude and approach.
The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had created in 2004 the position of the representative of the chair on anti-Semitism. The stance of Canada until June 2007 was that this position should be abolished.
The Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research (ITF), an organization whose title says it all, first met in Stockholm Sweden in 2000. Until June 2007, Canada refused to join.
At the June OSCE meeting in Bucharest, Romania, Secretary of State Jason Kenney announced for the first time a break with the traditional position; he spoke in favour of maintaining the representative on anti-Semitism. Kenney went from Bucharest to a meeting of the ITF in Prague, Czech Republic, to announce that Canada would, at last, apply to join the ITF.
Why would Canada want to abolish an institution dedicated to combating anti-Semitism and refuse to join an organization committed to Holocaust remembrance? The justification was a belief in the need to integrate the effort to counter anti-Semitism and remember the Holocaust into a general effort to combat intolerance and remember all grave rights violations. This justification is unpersuasive.
* The approach ignores the value of specialization. The discourse of hatred and genocide denial is, for every victim group, quite different. It takes an organization familiar with the discourse and denial directed against a victim group to combat it effectively.
* The approach ignores the history of human rights. The whole contemporary human rights superstructure has its foundations in revulsion to the Holocaust. It is impossible to understand human rights today without understanding how and why the standards developed.
* The international dimensions to the Holocaust were unprecedented and unreplicated since. The Holocaust was a crime in which virtually every country in the globe was complicit. It gave us examples worldwide of good as well as evil.
* Anti-Semitism is unique because the situation of Israel is unique. Israel is the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack. The Holocaust and struggle against anti-Semitism, because they are seen as reasons for the existence of the State of Israel, are uniquely attacked and must be uniquely supported.
* A focus on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism provides an effective link to other bigotries and tragedies. Either the immunity for prior mass violations and the silence that enveloped them made the Holocaust possible. Or, the killing machines the Nazis developed for the Jews were all too easily turned towards other victims. Or, the premature shutdown of the Nuremberg tribunals before all Nazi war criminals were prosecuted and the refusal to set up a successor tribunal for crimes against humanity until more than 50 years later provided a licence for subsequent man-made disasters.
* Austria and Germany were the countries of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms and Schubert, of Goethe, Schiller, Schopenhauer, Hegel and Kant. The Holocaust tells us in a way that no other tragedy can that neither education nor culture nor intellect can immunize us from evil.
* The progress of European civilization made the Holocaust easier rather than harder to perpetrate. A focus on Holocaust teaches us that industrial, technological development increases our capacity for evil.
* The Holocaust was not only the death of six million people. It was the loss of the Yiddish shtetl culture in Europe. What we learn from anti-Semitism and the Holocaust is not just the death of the past but the loss of the future.
* Anti-Semitism remains the universal hatred, the one belief the extreme right and the extreme left have in common, the one venom religious fundamentalists and secular fanatics share. Learning about the Holocaust becomes one of the most effective means at our disposal for discrediting contemporary extremism.
A purported effort to combat racism without a focus on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust turns into farce or worse. When we bury under generalities the struggle against anti-Semitism and Holocaust remembrance, the struggle against human rights violations itself is buried.
David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer and senior honorary counsel to B'nai Brith Canada. He represented the Jewish human rights organization as a member of the Canadian delegations to the OSCE meeting and the ITF meeting. Today is the United Nations-designated day for Holocaust Remembrance.
© 2008 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved
Adelaide Institute just sent this story to me. It is interesting that David Matas remarks that "The whole contemporary human rights superstructure has its foundations in revulsion to the Holocaust. It is impossible to understand human rights today without understanding how and why the standards developed."
I don't imagine it is necessary for me to comment on the "standards".
Prof Art Butz - firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Professor MacDonald,
We are often told how foolish it is to blame Jews for all the world's evils. But maybe it's notall that foolish. I wonder if you too will see, hiding in the underbrush of the following article, support for the thought that globalism, universal equality, democracy for all, rejection of national sovereignty, and other ideas presently offered to the public as good for the whole world, are really part of a grand (Jewish) plan structured on the platform of Jewish supremacism, the end result of which could be expected to be good only for our Jewish dictators, and even then not for long. Or should I see merely the sentimental attachment of Jews to the Holocaust and to anti-Semitism? My thought relates to your piece, "The Neocons as a Hostile Conservative (!) Elite".
Mel Fowler - email@example.com
The Genie is Out of the Bottle
Horst Mahleron Apr 20, 2006 - 02:23 AM Germany
Zündel’s defense attorney
Sylvia Stolz, responding to the statement by the Mannheim Holocaust Judiciary:
“The Holocaust Laws of the OMF-Bundesrepublik (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule of the Federal Republic of Germany) are pure treason!”
On the first business day of the recently resumed show trial against Ernst Zündel for “Denying the Holocaust,” Dr. Meinerzhagen (pottering about as head judge) proved to be extremely irritable. After numerous but fruitless attacks against
Sylvia Stolz(chief defense lawyer for Ernst Zündel), he finally lost his composure and muzzled the defense. Unprecedented events have indeed taken place. After the rather timid reading of the charges against Zündel by two prosecutors, the assistant defense lawyer, Attorney Schaller of Vienna, had responded with an eloquent appeal for observance of the rules that characterize court procedure in a state of laws, which the Mannheim justices are obligated to observe.
Sylvia Stolzaddressed the court as follows:
“The defense rejects the accusations against Ernst Zündel, a citizen of the German Reich. This is not a legal prosecution under the laws of the Reich or any other legal system. It is an exercise of power that is illegal under international law, by a puppet government called “Federal Republic of Germany.” To use the expression coined by the professor of international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, the Federal Republic of Germany is an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.” Henceforth we shall refer to this foreign occupation government as “OMF-FRG.”
I described the legal structure of OMF-FRG in the court document dated 18 October 2005, complete with lengthy quotations from the founding speech of the OMF-FRG Parliamentary Council presented by Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid. I also quoted pertinent remarks by the professors of International Law Prof. Friedrich Berger and Prof. Otto Kimminich and elucidated the conclusions to be drawn as they relate to the case of Ernst Zündel. In its meeting outside th
e main trial, that is, in the absence of the presiding judges, the “Sixth Superior Criminal Court of Mannheim District has given notice that it intends to simply ignore the duly submitted argument made by the defense. The decision of the Criminal Court states that “The legal profferings that the defendant submitted in his petition cannot be accepted by this Chamber. They and the conclusions at which they arrive, appear to be ultimately devoid of judicial relevance.”
The defense refuses to accept this peremptory dismissal. Every layman with at least a primary school education should be able to understand the arguments developed therein, as well as the significance of their conclusions for the Zündel trial. As counterproposal, the defense will read its submission dated 18 October 2005 in th
e main trial, including basis for its arguments, so that the hesitant attitude of the ‘professional judges’ will be recognizable and the court of appeals will be able to correct their capricious refusal to accept our submissions.
The signers of the ruling of 7 November 2005, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Dr. Hamm, and Mrs. Krebs-Dörr are conducting themselves in the tradition of the International Military Tribunal of the victors over the German Reich, who agreed to disregard all discussion about whether their actions were violations of international law. Those so-called ‘judges’ and ‘prosecutors’ resolved that ‘we will simply declare what international law is so that there can be no discussion of whether it is international law or not.’ The persons responsible for that atrocity propaganda show had expressly abandoned any quest for truth and concept of justice in order to make their lynchings of leading Reich personalities appear to be legal. I shall return to this later in my presentations.
In my motion of 18 October 2005 (page 26) I gave notice that the defense would attack the dogma of 'Offenkundigkeit' (Manifest Obviousness) of the ‘Holocaust’ with all the resources at its disposal. I said the defense would show that in the continuing war against Germany by the enemies of the Reich, ‘manifest obviousness’ has been feigned and assumed from the very beginning.
e mentioned jurists have taken this statement as occasion to, express their intent for mendacious procedure in th e main trial as follows:
‘As far as manifest obviousness of the Holocaust is concerned, th
e motion recapitulates familiar pseudo arguments that have been proffered and continue to be proffered by so-called revisionists (see BGHSt 47,278) without raising bona fide doubt about the historically proven and therefor e manifestly obvious genocide, particularly of the Jews, by the National Socialist Dictatorship (stdg. Rspr. des Bundesverfassingsgerichts und des Bundesgerichthofs vgl. BVerfGE 90, 241, 249; BGHSt 40,97, 99,; 46, 36, 46 f.; 47, 278.) This genocide is factually assumed in Paragraph 130 III of the Penal Code (See BundesGerichthofStrafsachen, Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters, 47, 278). Thus any evidentiary exhibit that would deny this is forbidden in Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters and other publications.
With this reasoning, Dr. Meinerzhagen and his colleagues have obviously abandoned the dogma of Manifest Obviousness. That is the good news. The bad news is the withdrawal of permission to submit evidence, which took place despite the abandonment of ‘manifest obviousness.’ What is going on inside the heads of these judges? What is the definition of Scheinargumente (show arguments)? In imitation of the Nuremberg Tribunals, these jurists use the term ‘show arguments’ to designate arguments that are likely to prove, in support of the will of the foreign occupation government, any previously established ‘verdict’ as illegal and unjust. Such arguments have to be repressed. And what are ‘familiar show arguments?’ ‘Familiar show arguments’ are apparently arguments on which OMF/FRG judicial arbitrariness has been successfully tested.
And what in Heaven’s name are ‘factual presuppositions? The term ‘factual presupposition’ or ‘presumed factuality’ refers to the court’s complete disregard of the criminal law. In criminal law, punishment is court ordered compensation for a debt. Debt is a deficit appearing in a transaction that should not be there. But if there is no transaction, there can be no debt. In order to distinguish terror from punishment, the penal code typifies certain transactions as punishable by designating them “Tatbestandsmerkmale“ (factual characteristics), thereby separating them from permissible activity. The facts of the case extend to the transaction in the narrower sense of an act or failure to act, as well as to accompanying circumstances that are significant for determination of the demerit. In a narrower sense, the action classified in Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is an expression of opinion. The circumstance accompanying th
e misdeed is a certain contemporary historical fact (called ‘Holocaust.’)
It is the task of the judge to determine the given life circumstances involved in the case.) In the present instance this consists of a certain expression of opinion, along with accompanying circumstances. The judg
e must determine what is to be considered as “given” and whether the facts of the case correspond to an action that can be classified as punishable. The citizen under the law can adapt his intent to avoidance of the classified action.
The statement of facts of a punishment norm also guarantees the freedom from punishment of all actions that do not meet the criteria of punishable (nulla poena sine lege – “no punishment without law.”) Within the realm of actions classified as nonpunishable, one can live free from fear of being punished. This is what distinguishes a nation of laws from tyranny. However, the statute of the victors’ tribunal at Nuremberg violated this basic principle (that is unanimous opinion.) Egged on by the High Court of the OMF/FRG, Dr. Meinerzhaben and his colleagues are likewise engaged in tearing down the boundary between justice and tyranny. Where “Holocaust” is concerned, they intend to set aside the burden of proof that is obligatory on the judge. They intend to do this with allegation of a fiction that does not even appear as such in “the law” (Paragraph 130 III of Penal Code.)
What is the source of this legalistic and dogmatic mistake of Dr. Meinerzhagen and the High Court of OMF/FRG? In their “argumentation,” they dogmatically assume that the so called Holocaust is a given fact in time and space. They postulate that any and all doubts concerning “Holocaust” are unthinkable. They have defected from the ranks of the truth-seekers and joined the ranks of the religion-founders. Religion requires that we rule out doubt and substitute belief in its stead. The true believer vehemently crushes every attempt to introduce reason into his consideration, since reason is the harbinger of doubt. Believing demands unquestioning trust in the priestly caste, which functions simultaneously as the faith police.
Within the hazy realm of Holocaust religion, the legal apparatus of the OMF/FRG has degenerated into an inquisition. There is a cynical calculation of power in this. Following World War II, world Jewry recognized the possibility of using the Holocaust lie to found Israel and create a world empire to support and secure it against all opposition. World Jewry knows from experience that almost everyone can b
e made to believe almost anything if it can be suggested to them that most people believe it. Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media the “Holocaust” has indeed become the suggested belief of almost everyone.
When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI said the following on the subject of this power of world Jewry:
‘The feeling that democracy is not yet the proper form of freedom is rather common, and is continuing to spread… Is there not an oligarchy consisting of those who determine what is “modern” and “progressive,” and what the enlightened person should think? The cruelty of this oligarchy, and its power to make the public do its will, is all too familiar. Whoever blocks its path is an “enemy of freedom” for the reason that he is allegedly hindering free expression of opinion… Who can have doubts about the power of these interests, whose dirty hands becom
e more visible all the time? And besides: is the system of majority vs. minority a system of true freedom?’
If it is to be suggested that the Holocaust lie is to be “believed by nearly everyone,” then the real truth must be sunk in a bottomless spiral of silence. And this can succeed only if the contradiction of the “Holocaust” lie is forcibly suppressed -- obviously through a modern inquisition. Criminal law serves the cause of justice through atonement for crime by punishment, while inquisition serves the enforcement of a particular belief through destruction of heretics. However, it is the general will of Western civilization that involuntary belief of all kinds should be abolished. That is precisely what comprises the substance of freedom of belief, the nucleus of recognizing the individual as a person. This general will constitutes the difference between modern and medieval times.
Inquisition is the purest atrocity, since it destroys freedom of belief.
Inquisition has nothing to do with the application or reestablishment of justice through punishment. The enforcement of “Holocaust” law is inquisition, hence unmitigated crime. As Plato pointed out, inquisitory law is in fact the worst kind of injustice because it pretends to be justice.
Exclaiming “ Enough of that!” Dr. Meinerzhagen then interrupted Attorney Stolz, taking away her right to speak and terminating the session. He fled into the conference room with his colleagues and returned after a quarter hour. Dr. Meinerzhagen then proclaimed the directive of the court that in future, Attorney Stolz would have to submit all her motions in writing, and would not be allowed to read them aloud before the court.
With this ruling, the show trial has become another “Ghost Trial” (
RainerHamm, Counsel for Defense, 94, 457.) The public will no longer be allowed to hear the arguments of the defense. The Holocaust judges are attempting to introduce the “silence of the grave” in the courtroom (see Scheffler, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 94, 2194.) However, their attempt to disguise their illegal action as legal procedure is still doomed to failure. They are chanting the allegation that the Holocaust has been “proven many times” into empty space. The undeniable fact that the opposite has long been proven, is enough to completely disqualify it.
The court appointed expert witness Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the University of Vienna Institute for Contemporary History (A 1090 Wien, Rotenhausgasse 6) demonstrated that the opposite is true in his written report submitted to the Landesgericht für Strafsachen (District Criminal Court), Vienna, on 10 January 1991. See Az. (Archiv für Zivile Praxis): 26 b Vr (Verwaltungsrundshau)14 184/86.)
Prof. Jagschitz presented his findings as follows: “…in the course of research into the literature on the subject, it developed that a relative scarcity of scientific and objective literature is offset by an abundance of eyewitness accounts and subjective summarizations. I found numerous contradictions, retractions, omissions and inadequate references to sources. Furthermore, substantial doubts about basic questions have been reinforced by a number of court exonerations in relevant trials.
These exonerations resulted from expert reports presented to both national and international courts. Thus th
e mere extrapolation of court verdicts and evocation of judicial notoriety of the familiar stories of gassings of Jews at Auschwitz no longer suffice as a basis for reaching verdicts -- at least not in the context of any democratic concept of justice. Thus in this expert report, it was proven necessary to undertake the necessary corrections of relevant literature as well … In the course of this research it became clear that resources from certain archives were inadequately utilized in previous research. Thanks to political events of the last few years, resources that were heretofore unavailable to us in the West have now been made available. I am referring in particular to documents of the Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (Central Reich Security Office) in Potsdam, a huge resource of Auschwitz documents (several tons) that are stored in various archives in Moscow…”
The historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte also refers to the baselessness of using this inquisitorial device of assumed manifest obviousness in order to protect the Holocaust lie against consideration by the court:
“Not until the rules of examination of witnesses have been generally applied and testimony is no longer evaluated according to political criteria, will secure ground be won for any attempt at scientific objectivity regarding the ‘final solution’. The widely disseminated notion that all doubt concerning the prevailing concept of a ‘Holocaust’ with six million victims is to be automatically treated as though it wer
e maliciousness and inhumanity, and therefore repressed by all means, can under no circumstances be accepted by objective science. This is because of the fundamental significance of th e maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est’ (everything is to be doubted) for objective science… This attitud e must be rejected as an attack on the principle of freedom of research. 
Although I consider myself more challenged by ‘Revisionism’ than most contemporary German historians, I soon arrived at the conviction that the Revisionist school has been treated in a subjective and unscientific manner. In established literature it has met rejection, suspicions about th
e motivation of its authors and above all, dead silence.
Radical revisionism is much more prevalent in France and the USA than in Germany. There can be no doubt that its forerunners are well informed and have carried out extensive investigations in the field.
As far as mastery of sourc
e material is concerned, and especially criticism of sourc e material, these investigations probably surpass those of established historians in Germany. At any rate w e must give the radical Revionists and their provocative theories credit for having forced established historiography to reassess its positions and find firmer basis for their assumptions and conclusions, as Raul Hilberg has done. “…The questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the significance of documents, technical impossibility of certain procedures, credibility of numbers quoted, the and persuasiveness of the circumstances are permissible and legitimate. Not only are they permissible, but they are procedurally indispensable, and every attempt to dispense with Revisionist arguments and evidence by imposing total science or banishing them from the world, has got to be illegitimate.
If radical revisionism were correct in its assertion that there was no ‘Holocaust’ in the sense of a comprehensive and systematic program of annihilation ordered by the highest levels of government, I would have to arrive at the conclusion that National Socialism was not a ‘bizarre copy of Bolshevism,’ but rather that it was simply leading the struggle for survival of a Germany that had been forced into the defensive worldwide. No author wants to admit that nothing of his work has survived except rubble and so I too have a vital interest in proving that Revisionism is incorrect, at least in its most radical manifestation.
The above formulation provides the key to understanding our present world. It is not just the scientific work of Ernst Nolte that would be lying in ruins. The very foundations of the Jewish American world empire would be shaken. The German Empire would again be perceived as the power that had defended the Christian West “to the last drop of its blood” against talmudic mammonism (Satan.) Adolf Hitler would no longer be the devil, he would be the savior. The world would recognize the profound truth concerning the Nuremberg Tribunal as proclaimed by the Portuguese expert on international law, Dr. Joao das Regas: “In actuality, two mutually incomprehensible worlds faced each other at Nuremberg. Th
e materialistic world of Mammonism and hypocritical democracy opposed to the idealistic and heroic conception of a nation that was defending its right to exist… How could the sated and materialistic world understand the unflinching and heroic will to survive of a nation that, despite its exasperation over diminished territory, had presented our culture with immortal works for centuries, and before the Second World War had stood at the forefront of critical scientific progress in our century?
It was characteristic of the depraved mentality of the international press to continue their attacks against the leaders of the German nation despite the nobl
e manner in which they conducted themselves throughout their disgraceful treatment and unjust death sentences. As precursors of social justice built on a national basis, the condemned German leaders went to their deaths at Nuremberg with a glowing confession of love for their nation and their ideals. Theirs was a truly heroic deportment, worthy of our highest admiration.”
The Evil Empire that, true to its nature, is forever demonizing others (the goys) has mobilized all th
e material and intellectual resources at its disposal in the effort to hinder dissemination of the truth. The truth can no longer be held back, however. For the first time, the leader of a large and wealthy nation is directing his country’s national policy toward exposing the Holocaust lie. His intention, born of self defense, is to remove the Zionist settler state of Israel from th e map, thereby making it possible for Jews and Arabs to once again coexist in peace. It marks the beginning of the end for the Great Lie that has long held our nation in bondage. The reaction of world Jewry to Achmadinedschad’s announcement of the convocation of an international commission to investigate the “Holocaust” shows that the conspiracy of silence surrounding Revisionism has finally been broken. The Jews are no longer able to suggest that “nearly everybody believes in the Holocaust.” We are witnessing the end of the greatest lie in the history of mankind. He who still continues to defend the lie and thereby soils his hands will be left behind. In the words of Michael Gorbachev, “Life punishes those who get left behind.”
Some other remarks by Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte on the subject of Revisionism are noteworthy: “I do indeed feel challenged by Revisionism, but I am unable to join those who demand that the state and the police intervene to repress Revisionism. For this very reason I find myself compelled to ask the question of whether Revisionism has/represents real arguments, or really does consist of mere deceptive agitation. The general all around quality of the individual historian comes into play here. The real historian knows that revision is the daily bread of scientific history.
Real historians also know that in the final analysis, some Revisionist theories are going to be acknowledged by established historians, or at least taken into the discussion… For example, during a recent congress of historians it was not specifically mentioned that during the War and immediately afterwards there wer
e many allegations that the Germans had carried out mass executions by the use of hot steam in sealed chambers, electric shocks on giant electrical plates, and quicklime. By its complete silence, the congress declared these allegations to be as irrelevant as the rumor of soap made from Jewish corpses. (Incidentally, a well known film director has recently resurrected those rumors in German newspaper announcements.)
Even the testimony of the SS leader and Bekennende (Confessing) church member Kurt Gerstein, probably th
e most widely circulated “Holocaust” account of the 1950s, is no longer accepted in documentary collections, even by th e most orthodox scholars. And it is well known that Jean-Claude Pressac, who despite his peculiar precedents is still acknowledged to be a serious researcher, recently reduced the number of Auschwitz gas chamber victims from four million down to around half a million. Their abandoned allegations do not differ fundamentally from individual corrections of the kind that, to my knowledge, have been brought forward only by ‘Revisionists:’ The corrections that the first confessions of the Auschwitz commandant Höß were extracted under torture; that giant flames leaping from crematory chimneys, reported by numerous eyewitnesses, are best explained by mistakes of visual perception; that the technical prerequisites for cremating up to 24,000 corpses per day were simply not available; and that the cellar morgues in crematories of camps that had to accommodate around 300 “natural” deaths per day were indispensable during the typhus epidemics of those days and could not have been utilized for mass murders, at least not during epidemics.
Such ideas can hardly surprise a historian. He knows from his own day to day experience that, since Herodotus’ time, it has been necessary to treat large figures with suspicion, insofar as they do not originate with official statistical bureaus. The historian understands no less well that large groups of people exposed to stressful circumstances and confusing events that are now and have always been rumor incubators…
The testimony of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß was obtained under torture. Without doubt, his confessions contributed greatly to the collapse of the defense in the Nuremberg trials. His testimony would not have been admissible in any court of law that complied with Western legal and judicial standards. The so-called Gerstein documents contain so many contradictions and objective impossibilities that they must be discarded as worthless, while the few actual eyewitness accounts consist of hearsay and mere assumptions.
Thanks to the Soviet and Polish communists, a thorough investigation of Auschwitz by an international commission of experts did not take place after the end of the War. This stands in contrast to the case of th
e mass graves at Katyn Forest discovered by the Wehrmacht in 1943. The publication of photographs of crematoria and some cans with the label "Zyklon B Poison Gas" has no value as proof of murder since crematoria had to be constructed near large camps and Zyklon B was the best know disinfestant of the time. Zyklon B was indispensable wherever masses of people were forced to live under crowded conditions.
The integrity of the scientific discipline of historiography demands that it be allowed to question the established and “politically correct” version of history – namely that mass murder in gas chambers has been proven by numerous eyewitness accounts and incontrovertible facts, and therefore is not open to doubt. If historiography is not allowed to do this, then science as such is inadmissible.
The basic issue is the assertion that on the basis of scientific findings or technical facts, either there were no mass gassings or else they could not have taken place, certainly not in the scope and number heretofore assumed. Here I am referring to the chemical investigations or expert reports on the residues of cyanide in the disinfection chambers on the one hand and the cellar morgues of the crematoria on the other. I have in mind the reports of Leuchter, Rudolf, and Luftl as well as the unusually detailed studies of Carlo Mattogno on extremely detailed questions such as the length of time to burn corpses, the coke required, et al.
No fundamental objection can b
e made against the Revisionist argument that the scientifically or technically impossible cannot have occurred, even though hundreds of witness reports and testimonies might have stated the opposite. The conclusion is unavoidable that humanities people and ideological critics have absolutely nothing to say in this matter.”
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung expressed a similar opinion in the following:
"Raul Hilberg and Ernst Nolte agree that on
e must read the eye witness reports of the celebrated Elie Wiesel with extremely critical attention. Hilberg`s most recent book and grandiose work of his elder years, ‘Sources of the Holocaust, has silently taken leave of many of th e most familiar but obviously unreliable witnesses, such as Kurt Gersten and Jan Karsky… liars and propagandists must be seen as complementary to our age.”
What effect does the following confession of Raul Hilberg, the Pope of the Holocaust Church, have on th
e minds of holocaust believers?
"But what began in 1941 was not a previously planned annihilation (of the Jews), organized centrally by a single office, there were no plans and no budget for these annihilation measures. Thes
e measures developed step by step, one after the other; and not through the execution of a plan, but rather by an extraordinary meeting of minds, a coincidence of views within a comprehensive bureaucracy." [Quoted in Rudolf, Vorlesungen, Page 187.]
Did not all the world believe that the annihilation of the Jews was centrally planned and decided in the "Wannsee Villa" on January 20, 1942?  How are we to reconcile all this? The Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer, director of the International Institute for Holocaust Research in Jerusalem, ridicules the fact that “…Just as before, the public keeps repeating the foolish story that the annihilation of the Jews was agreed upon at Wannsee.” Professor Dr. Eberhard Jackel, co-editor of the official Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, addressed the issue in the Frankfurter Allgemeine on 22 June 1992:
“Historian Jackel: Purpose of the Wannsee Conference Disputed: The decision to murder the European Jews was made earlier… Jackel said that the protocol for the Conference does not contain a single word about a decision to murder Jews. Furthermore the participants at Wannsee lacked authority to do make such a decision… He pointed out that the actual purpose of the Wannsee Conference is disputed. He stated that an English colleague had remarked forty years before that the Conference was simply ‘a sociable lunch, and that the list of participants proves the conference played no role whatsoever in the deportations, since there were no representatives of the Wehrmacht or the Reich Ministry for Transportation present. Jaeckel is of the opinion that a corresponding order of Hitler’s to annihilate the Jews followed th
e meeting that took place between Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich on September 24, 1941, i.e. thre e months before the Wannsee Conference.
Conjectures, absurdities, forgeries, and lies - thus the foundations of the " Manifestly Obvious Holocaust" were created, and now we are supposed to swallow this swindle as "factually presumed." Just how stupid do you think that we Germans really are, Dr. Meinerzhagen? Can’t you see what you are representing to the entire world, and for the history books yet to be written? Does the High Court still want to hold fast to the assertion that the Holocaust has been completely and undeniably proven? How are the “Redrobes” [High Court judges] setting themselves up to be characterized in future? Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen, "the emperor has no clothes." Or do you really see clothes where there are none? How do you propose to cover your own nakedness? You should take to heart the knowledge that there are insurmountable limit for every lawmaker: he can not decree facts. This is what distinguishes politicians from magicians and Almighty God.
Do you think this limitation does not apply to judges as well? The legislator -- not the judge -- can under certain circumstances manipulate facts. Legislative fictions can never be used to establish guilt, however, since only real guilt -- not pretended guilt -- can be punished. Or do you want this principle to no longer apply? Who are you to arrogate such power to yourself? Should German law and justice be sacrificed to the delusions of a few jurists of that government of foreign occupation, the Federal Republic of Germany?
Kleinmachnow,10 February 2006
 zu diesem Begriff vgl. Berber, Friedrich, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Band II Kriegsrecht, 2. Aufl., C.H. Beck Verlag München 1969, S. 132 f.
 Heydecker, Leeb, Der Nürnberger Prozeß – Bilanz der Tausend Jahre, 6. Aufl., Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1962, S. 94
 Kardinal Ratzinger „Freiheit und Wahrheit“ in
Jürgen Schwab, Otto Scrinzi, Über die Revolution von 1848 Aula-Verlag, Graz 1998
 Ernst Nolte, Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1987 S. 594 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 136)
 Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin 1993 S. 308 (Vorlesungen S. 137)
 Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 9 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 137)
 Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 304
 Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 31; (Rudolf Vorlesungen S.138)
 Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 309
 Ernst Nolte, Frangois Furet, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig, München 1998 S. 222-224
 Joao das Regras, „Um nuovo Direito International, Nuremberg“, 1947 zitiert bei Maurice Bardèche, „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“, Verlag Karl Heinz Priester, Wiesbaden 1957 S. 62
 “Atze” Brauner, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 6.5.1995.
 Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe, S. 74-79 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 138 f.)
 Ernst Nolte, Der kausale Nexus, Herbig. München 2002, . 96 f. (Rodolf Vorlesungen S. 140 f.)
 Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 122 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 141)
 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7.10.2003, S. L 37.
 R. Hilberg, Die Quellen des Holocaust. Entschlüsseln und Interpretieren, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2002; vgl. Jürgen Grafs Rezension, “Der unheilbare Autismus des Raul Hilberg”, VffG 7(1) (2003), S. 107-114.
 vgl. die offizielle Enzyklopädie des Holocaust, Argon Verlag, Bd. III, S. 1516ff.
 Nachweis bei Rudolf, Vorlesungen S. 126
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute