Horst
Mahler – Interview with a Nazi
By Michel Friedman
Translated
by Markus Haverkamp
Translator’s
note: The following translation of the interview between Michel Friedman and
Horst Mahler is based on the edited version published in
Germany
’s Vanity Fair, Nr. 45 from
1 November 2007
, pp. 82 – 91. The original interview was over two hours long (60 pages) and
can be found on the website of VF: http://www.vanityfair.de/articles/agenda/horst-mahler/2007/11/01/04423/
. Parts of interest which didn’t make it into the magazine are included
here. Footnotes and insertions in [square] brackets are by the translator.
________________________________________
Horst
Mahler is the father of the RAF [Red Army Faction]. It was he who convinced
Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin at the beginning of the 1970s to form a
“guerrilla” against the supposedly fascist Federal Republic of Germany.
Mahler is now a Nazi. As an attorney he saved the NPD [National Democratic
Party of Germany] from being banned. He has inspired the extreme Right with
his anti-Semitic theories like nobody else in Germany. If there is a connection between the left-wing insanity from back then and
the right-wing madness of today, then Mahler is the key figure.
We
realised it would not be an easy conversation when we met him on 4 October in
the Kempinski Airport-Hotel in
Munich. But we had not anticipated a two hour long battle of words. Mahler does not
wish to speak about the RAF. He wants to relate about the Jews who in his
opinion suppress the divine German Reich. He wants to talk about Hitler, his
“saviour”, and about the Holocaust that never took place for him. Should
such an interview be published? Would it be helping a lunatic infect others?
No.
Neo-Nazis listen to Mahler because he philosophically refines their lunacy. He
represents an extreme minority. Yet in
Saxony
and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania the NPD already has seats in the Landtag.
We
are publishing this interview because we believe there has never been a better
exposure of German right-wing extremism, even though he says things that are
forbidden in Germany: Mahler denies the Holocaust and uses the Hitler greeting
– after the
interview Michel Friedman, as a private individual brought charges against
Horst Mahler. – ed.).
The
following passages are a verbatim rendition of this dialogue. Our abridgements
are marked by (…). The unabridged interview can be found under www.vanityfair.de
. Mahler waived his right to authorise the interview prior to publication. We
decided not to polish it up.
_______________________________________
HORST
MAHLER: Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman.
MICHEL FRIEDMAN: How are you?
H.M. I’m
well, as you can probably see.
M.F. When
do you have to go back to gaol?
H.M. I
don’t know when I have to go back, it’s not yet determined. At the moment
everything’s open.
M.F. What
was it like for you in prison?
H.M. Oh,
you know, it’s a time where you can do things that you don’t get round to
doing anymore. That’s very useful.
M.F. From
that perspective you actually have a desire to get back there? You can be
really productive there.
H.M. Well,
I have other desires. As such you’re a little wrong with your expectations.
M.F. Yes
well, you just said that you can do things that you don’t get round to doing
anymore.
H.M. Yes,
that’s an ascertainment, which doesn’t mean that I have a desire for it. I
have a desire for the German Reich and …
M.F. Oh,
I thought you might desire love and friendship
…
H.M. You
know, these are things …
M.F. … and
a good book. (laughs)
H.M. Yes,
the things you think.
M.F. I
just thought you still have blood coursing through your veins, and that you
enjoy life. Well, better things than the German Reich come to my mind.
H.M. You
know the question is what you understand by life. By life, I understand
freedom, and part of that is the German Reich’s capacity to act. Only then
are we again free, and that is a desire.
M.F. Oh,
but you’re pretty free, aren’t you?
H.M. You
think so?
M.F. I
asked a question.
H.M. For
example, if I now say: “Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman”, then there will
certainly be charges brought against me.
M.F. You
can be sure of the fact that charges will be brought against you.
H.M. That’s
how free we are in this country.
M.F. Okay,
but you know what you’re getting yourself into, the country doesn’t have a
secret police, or secret laws. You can decide to breach the law [German:
right] and have to deal with the
consequences.
H.M. This
is no breach of right [English: law] since it is not a right which forbids
this. This is not the will of the German People, but that of foreign rule.
M.F. Do
you recognise the Basic Law?
H.M. No.
M.F. Do
you recognise any of Germany’s laws?
H.M. Of
course, the laws of the German Reich. But they’re currently not operant
because foreign rule has imposed itself upon them and determines matters.
M.F. Who
are the foreigners?
H.M. Well,
the Jews of course. This is perfectly clear. He is the lord over all lords in
the background, right? The Jew aspires to make himself prince over his lords.
He strives for world domination. Morally this is not at all condemnable.
It’s an ascertainment. And the question is how the Peoples react to this,
whether they put up with this or not, and for me this is the decisive
question.
M.F. Don’t
you have the feeling that you’re suffering from a persecution complex, that
you’re paranoid?
H.M. (laughs)
No, not at all. Look, I’m not paranoid, I just see things the way they are.
M.F. What
do you think about the Jews?
H.M.
They’re a different type of people, and I now always stress the importance
of the realisation, that when you speak of people, you also have to consider
the double nature of a person, just as Churchill put it. The Jews have a
redemption-historical mission which Martin Buber, a well-known Jew, clearly
formulated: “Jewry is the No toward the life of the Peoples.” And because
of that …
M.F. That’s
all too complicated for me.
H.M. No,
no, no, no.
M.F. I’m
not as clever as you.
H.M. Not
what you consider complicated, but what I have to say is decisive.
M.F. Yes,
yes, but I want to understand it. There’s no point in us talking and me not
understanding you. That’s stupid. I mean, I want to talk. So back to my
question … and why do you always quote others? Quote yourself. We don’t
need Churchill, and all that. I mean, you’re Herr Mahler, a clever man as
you consider yourself.
H.M. Don’t
bother me with such assumptions.
M.F. But
I’m not assuming anything. (laughs) Is it an assumption if I consider you an
intelligent man?
H.M. (laughs)
You see, what are Jews, what are Germans, what are French? Those are actually
silly questions. When we speak about Jews, everybody knows what is meant.
M.F. I
don’t.
H.M. That’s
probably a result of your being Jewish, and that you cannot see yourself the
way we do.
M.F. Then
how do you see us?
H.M. Look,
I just tried.
M.F. Yes,
but in your own words. I find that far more exciting.
H.M. They
are the embodiment of a god, who according to our understanding is Satan, and
they play a tragic role in the corruption and negation of the life of all the
other Peoples. But you probably also know from texts which you may have taken
note of that I do not connect a moral judgement to this, but that as Goethe
said …
M.F. Now
we’re back to Goethe. Look, if it’s Satan, then that’s already a moral
judgement.
H.M. Yes,
certainly. No, no, that’s not a moral judgement.
M.F. But?
H.M. Satan
is God’s servant, a part of the force that always desires evil and always
creates good.
M.F.
What would you do with the Jews? After all, they exist.
H.M. Look,
I don’t want to do anything with the Jews, I want to do something with us,
that we recognise the Jews the way they are and for what they are.
M.F. And
then what does one do?
H.M. And
then they’re powerless. Once we’ve recognised the Jews they lose their
power over us. And that is what I strive for, and that’s where I act, and
according to the definition of the Jews that’s incitement of the People. I
understand the fact that the Jews fight against this.
M.F. Well,
Frau Merkel isn’t Jewish.
H.M. No,
but she’s their puppet. This is what they aspire to.
M.F. I
see. But you’re not my puppet?
H.M. That
will be difficult to demonstrate.
M.F. The
question isn’t whether or not it can be demonstrated. The question is
whether you might not be a puppet as well. Maybe you belong in the game, the
fact that people like you are permitted.
H.M. There
are people who depict and interpret it in exactly this manner – who knows
for what reasons. But, you shouldn’t think that I would then take this to be
my own conviction. I’m not really bothered about the convictions of others.
M.F.
You started this conversation with “Heil Hitler!”
H.M. Yes.
M.F.
Tell us, who is Hitler for you? What kind of figure is he?
H.M. Hitler
was the saviour of the German People. Not just the German People. And as
saviour he was demonised by Satan so that each thought for the saviour is
eradicated from the consciousness of the German People and the world on the
whole.
M.F. To
quote you, Hitler, in order to save the German People and the world, killed
six million Jews.
H.M. That’s
what you say. I say: that is a lie, and you know it.
M.F. Auschwitz
is a lie?
H.M. Yes,
of course. I mean
Auschwitz
as a concentration camp, as a labour camp existed – just to make sure
there’s no misunderstanding here – but the systematic destruction of the
Jews in
Auschwitz
is a lie. And you know it.
M.F. Then
where did the six million go?
H.M. Well,
where did they come from? Please. We have the statistics which the Jews
themselves published in their encyclopaedia. Before the supposed destruction
of the Jews there were roughly 14 or 16 million, and afterwards it was 16
million. I ask: Where were the six million? Only gradually, after 1956 were
the figures reduced.
M.F. So
no Jews were gassed?
H.M. No.
M.F. No
Jews were killed?
H.M. I
didn’t say that. It was war.
M.F. So
Jews were not gassed in the concentration camps?
H.M. No,
that’s a lie.
M.F. That’s
a lie?
H.M. Hmm.
M.F. Tell
me … or, no, why don’t you tell me something about your father?
H.M. You
know, it’s not my intention to talk about my father. Ask me what you want to
know.
M.F. How
was your relationship with your father?
H.M. It was
a good relationship, an intact family in a seemingly intact world, and I
lovingly think back to him.
M.F. He
was a man who was near to Hitler, right?
H.M. Who
loved Hitler to the end of his life.
M.F. Your
father killed himself, right?
H.M. He
voluntarily left this life, yes.
M.F. Did
this affect you in any way, in the sense that it … What happens to a son who
is just 13 when his father kills himself? What happens to him?
H.M. At the
end of the day, that can probably be judged by a third party. One doesn’t
really reflect it in that manner. There is a feeling. It is certainly …
M.F. Did
he abandon you?
H.M. He
then no longer was. Anyway, that’s not the point. You know, we Germans have
a history, which is being robbed from us.
(…)
M.F. So,
when you say that you didn’t reflect upon the suicide of your father,
that’s remarkable.
H.M. Yes,
that’s remarkable.
M.F. That’s
remarkable, don’t you think? But instead, you prefer to talk about the
Germans, Jews and the devil. (laughs)
H.M. You
know, I know, or believe to know why my father killed himself.
M.F. Why?
What do you believe?
H.M. He
couldn’t come to terms with the defeat of the German Reich and everything
that was connected to this. He believed in it with his whole heart. And for me
he wasn’t a do-gooder of which we find so many these days, but a good
person, a kind-hearted person.
M.F. Are
you continuing his struggle?
H.M. He
wasn’t involved in a struggle in this sense. He worked as a dentist and did
his duty. And for me this event is of course a reason for me to go beyond my
mere occupation and to fight for what he too lived, for that which fulfilled
him – and above all, to fight against the exorbitant demonisation of this
time and against the lies which are being poured over us by the bucket.
M.F. Did Hitler start the war?
H.M. No, it
was downright and systematically forced upon him.
M.F. Forced
upon, maybe, but he started the war, didn’t he? (…)
H.M. You
know, the war – as a war of guns – began with the massacres of Germans in Poland. And no leader of the German Reich could watch this without taking action.
And when he then used the means permitted and given by international law
[German: jus gentium] to put an end to this, he acted legitimately. But these
massacres were part of the strategy of Roosevelt and the people behind him.
These were Jewish – not just advisors, but men of power. Then they had the
war which they wanted to force upon the German Reich, in order to cast a veil
over the charisma of the German Reich in the smoking ruins of the war.
That’s the situation.
M.F. But
Hitler definitely lost the war.
H.M. The
German Reich lost the war militarily, and that’s the prerequisite for the
victory of the German folk-spirit [Volksgeist],
just as Nahum Goldmann predicted in 1915/16. And exactly this will happen.
(…)
M.F. (…) By
the way, are Jews as valuable as non-Jews?
H.M. You
know, Jews are different. They are the negation toward the others, and as such
they bear a heavy burden. And that’s why they’re promised world
domination, as compensation for the fact that they are hated by the Peoples.
M.F. Are
they worth less, or not? Yes or no?
H.M. I do
not differentiate values. (…)
(…)
H.M. (…)
I’m trying to tell you what Jews are for me. Just as one can see a course of
development in an insect, first it’s an egg, then a caterpillar, then a pupa
and then a butterfly, in this phase of development the Jews are a necessary
factor, but in their negativity.
And that is why the Jews are hated and persecuted everywhere at all times.
This is a hard fate. It’s in Isaiah: Because they have been the hated ones.
M.F. Eighty
percent of the Germans don’t hate the Jews.
H.M. But of
course they do. The Germans are enemies of the Jews because the Jews are
enemies of the Germans. Whether that goes hand in hand with hatred is a matter
of the individual’s psychology.
(…)
M.F.
What is your faith? I always speak about belief and you always speak about the
Germans. So the answer to: Jew, I don’t like being Jewish, is: I’d like to
be a Moslem, I’d like to be a Buddhist.
H.M. You
know, according to German understanding, the Peoples insofar as they are
states are shapes of God.
And if I then conceive of myself as a German, then as a member of the German
Reich which is a state, and as a state is a shape of God. And in this God I
believe.
M.F. What
kind of god is this, a Christian God?
H.M. Certainly,
he is identical with the Christian God, who also embraces everything within
him, and who does not exclude the world and mankind and only chooses one
chosen People for himself as an instrument to destroy all other Peoples.
(…)
M.F. When
I was young, very young, you were a left-winger. Is that correct? (…)
H.M. You
know, the definitions “right” “left” are the old story of the
perspective of the person who stands in front of parliament and perceives a
right and a left half. That’s the origin of it. I have only ever been who I
am, but always developing. And if somebody outside says: “That was right”
or “that was left” then that’s a matter of the observer, and no matter
of mine.
M.F. Was
the RAF as far as your position is concerned, that the Jews are of the devil
… did Andreas Baader, Ensslin, Meinhof share your opinion already back then?
H.M. Yes
certainly, but not in the sense in which you just expressed it.
M.F.
In what sense?
H.M. In
those days the concept for us was that of “US
imperialism”, and today we can see clearer what US
imperialism is, and as such the enemy is the same. The means of fighting it
have changed with the knowledge that has grown out of this process.
(…)
M.F. So
how did you speak about the Jews back then? You must have spoken about them.
H.M. Well,
we had a feeling of guilt towards the Jews, and were embarrassed when in
Palestine, when we were in the camp of the Fedayeen, the Fedayeen came with
pictures of Hitler and said: “Good man.” That was difficult for us.
M.F. But
you didn’t need to feel embarrassed, you must’ve felt right at home, after
all he’s your best man.
H.M. No,
no. Look, back then I was not yet free of the consciousness that has been
planted in us through these lies: the feeling of guilt. That was a problem.
This whole story determines my entire life, and my life can only be understood
through this story.
M.F. Why
did you have feelings of guilt in those days?
H.M. Well,
you know, if somebody reproaches us Germans of having committed the absolute
mega-crime, of having exterminated an entire People, systematically, then that
is of great significance for Germans. After all we have a tendency to
self-reproach.
M.F. And
twenty years later, I mean, you were an adult: what didn’t you understand
back then? Twenty years later you should also have felt the inspiration that
you’ve been feeling these last years.
H.M. That’s
not an inspiration, these are facts which through the decades have been
unearthed in painstaking detail-work by the so-called Revisionists. For that
they get sent to prison, or are murdered. And these are things which only then
came about.
M.F. That
means that in the era of Baader-Meinhof an anti-Judaism, in the way you
represent it today, was not an aspect of your awareness?
H.M. Correct.
M.F. Was
it an awareness of (…) the “left-wingers”?
H.M. What
you now consider as anti-Judaism, was back then the anti-Zionism and the
criticism of the politics of
Israel
as a Jewish state in relationship to its neighbours. We were aware of this,
and in that sense we went quite far in our criticism of the Jews for the
circumstances back then. I have to tell you why I practically joined this
development called RAF – because a plastic bomb, i.e. a “Pattex bomb”
was found in the Jewish parish hall on
the 9th of November 1969
. It came from the stocks of the constitution protection service, and a group
that I knew had planted it there in order to protest against Israel. And then I said: “You can’t do that, that’s absolutely the wrong way
to go about it. We cannot do that, not with our past.” And then I developed
my ideas on how to go about it and then my conversational partner said:
“Well, if you know how to do it, then why don’t you?” That was
practically the imperative command for me to do it.
M.F. But
you went to Jordan
and were trained by the Palestinians.
H.M. Yes,
certainly.
M.F. Militarily
trained.
H.M. Of
course.
M.F. But
that does tend to speak for a couple of plastic bombs. Well, as far as I know,
back then just as today, if you are trained in such training camps then
paramilitary …
H.M. Yes,
of course. Building bombs and so forth is also part of the training. Yes.
M.F. Do
you consider force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. If
need be as cash in payment transactions between nations [German: Peoples],
yes.
M.F.
Now I really didn’t understand that.
H.M. (laughs)
You see.
M.F.
Do you consider force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. In the
sense that – and I have to say this because otherwise you’ll twist the
meaning again …
M.F.
I’m not twisting anything. You’re saying …
H.M. Peoples
[English: nations] have the right and the obligation to war and peace whenever
it is a question of their preservation and development. After all, these
antagonisms exist between the Peoples as well, and at the end of the day, when
all other means fail, these antagonisms are executed through the use of force
– and that’s the cash.
M.F. Do
you consider force in the Federal
Republic
of Germany, within the Federal
Republic
of Germany, as an instrument to assert your political goals?
H.M. Absolutely
not. This I have realised. No, and once again no. Rather, our weapons are
spiritual [intellectual] weapons, and they hit their target. And that’s why
we’re being persecuted, because we speak the truth.
M.F.
You’re smiling.
H.M. Yes,
of course.
(…)
M.F. That
means you also condemn, shall we say, you also condemn it for example when
Nazis beat up this man (* see photo). Do you know this man?
The
Briton Noël Martin who is paraplegic following a neo-Nazi attack. Friedman
confronted Mahler with this picture.*
H.M.
You know, I’m not familiar with this case or its background. I clearly
condemn it when people are attacked and have their health or life damaged due
to reasons that are not connected to self-defence.
M.F. Just a minute. Self-defence, when is it self-defence?
H.M.
Well, when I am attacked and I have to save my hide, that’s self-defence.
M.F. Okay. But there’s no such thing as political self-defence?
H.M. Cases
of political self-defence exist. Peoples [nations] often act in self-defence.
M.F. I’m speaking of Germans in Germany. I am not speaking of the World War right now. When right-wing extremists
attack a foreigner in Germany
…
H.M. Then
I clearly condemn that.
M.F. Right. We were speaking – because you’re talking about condemning
– we were speaking about the Jewish …
H.M.
But let us get back to self-defence. We are in a situation that demands
self-defence, a murder of our soul is being perpetrated against us.
M.F. A murder of the soul?
H.M. A
murder of the soul. And that also means that the People is being murdered. It
lives from within the soul.
M.F. That means you then have a right to use force?
H.M. No.
A right to self-defence with the weapons that are necessary, that is with
weapons that will overcome this necessity. The use of force [i.e. violence]
would downright strengthen the Jewish position. The Jews need that.
M.F. I see, the Jews need force?
H.M. That’s
what the Jews need.
M.F. The Jews, what do the Jews need?
H.M.
Force, so that they can portray themselves as victims again.
M.F. I see, that means the victims need Nazis?
H.M.
Yes, in the sense that you understand it; so that they can portray themselves
as Jews.
M.F. For that we have to be grateful to them?
H.M. As
I said: I am grateful to the caterpillar because I became a butterfly through
the caterpillar.
M.F. Okay. Tell me – because you said that there was no Holocaust – are
these pictures authentic? (Friedman
shows Mahler a photo of liberated concentration camp inmates. In the
background there is a horse-drawn cart. – ed.)
H.M.
They might be authentic, but what does a picture tell us? So, there are people
here who are almost starved, who …
M.F. Yes, who were liberated from a concentration camp, a German concentration
camp.
H.M. Yes,
that’s what you say. Back here I see horses, so it’s possibly a trek of
refugees. It’s possible they were taken prisoner to produce such pictures.
M.F. So you’re refuting that such things happened. Do you also refute that
Jews were in German concentration camps?
H.M. No,
no. After all, I’m not stupid.
M.F. That makes for a splendid debate. (laughs)
H.M. Yeah,
there you go. (laughs)
M.F. You refute that there were Jews in this [almost starved to death]
condition in the concentration camps?
H.M.
Yes. It may have been. You know, if you take
Bergen-Belsen
for example, there were these mountains of corpses who had starved to death
and that were shoved into a mass grave by a bulldozer. That picture haunted me
my whole life. But you have to ask: Why did they end up in this condition? We
had the typhus epidemic, we had the hunger after Allied bombers had bombed all
the supply routes – systematically.
M.F. It’s just strange that German Christians never looked like that. Nor
Muslims.
H.M.
Oh, oh, oh. Take a look at the German soldiers who then starved to death in
captivity.
M.F. But they didn’t look like this.
H.M. They
looked like this.
(…)
H.M.
(…) Not the manner in which people have thus far concerned themselves with
God through the use of the books Torah, Bible, and New Testament is decisive,
but the way in which Hegel did in German philosophy. (…)
(…)
M.F.
And why is Hegel decisive in
Christianity?
H.M.
Because he thought God – the Spirit – in pure thoughts. This is the Logic
which he developed, that God is the contradiction, the Spirit that lives. It
is contradiction which constitutes that which lives. And that which we call
Evil belongs to this contradiction as a moment of its development. We have a
thumb, in order to conceive, and that (inaudible passage) of the Jews.
(…)
M.F. No, no. Stick to your own language. I don’t need Hegel. Your language
is far more exciting than Hegel’s. I can read Hegel up myself.
H.M.
Look, the conceptual language of Hegel is a lot clearer, but when dealing with
people who have never occupied themselves with these matters, then the term
“Satan” is appropriate and correct. Philosophically Satan is the
negativity, the absolute negativity as existence of a People.
M.F. Would you wish that Germany
has world domination again?
H.M. Germany
never desired world domination in the sense that you understand it. The German
spirit …
M.F. I don’t know, I only asked. (laughs)
H.M.
The German spirit …
M.F. I don’t understand anything.
H.M. …
will – this is what Nahum Goldmann says, and he’s right – dominate in
the world, not dominate the world, for the spirit liberates.
M.F. What is the German spirit?
H.M.
The German spirit is the consciousness – that is the philosophically
cleansed consciousness – that God is not the sublime, not the jealous one
who desires to destroy the other Peoples and who chooses one People so that it
may kill the others, but rather, that we are in God and God is in us. That is
the German spirit.
M.F. What is the German Reich, and what are the German values? After all, you
don’t mean a theocratical state.
H.M.
Certainly not.
M.F. Or do you suddenly want to have a theocratical state in Germany? Hello Islamists.
H.M.
No, no. No, no. German values are thoroughness.
M.F.
Ah, now I’m beginning to understand
you.
H.M. That
one gets to the bottom of things.
M.F. Yes.
H.M. That
one wants to organise the world in a good manner.
M.F. What is “organising the world in a good manner”?
H.M. Well,
that’s a question of what you perceive to be good.
M.F. Okay. What is “organising the world in a good manner” in your sense?
H.M.
For example that a small handful of plutocrats – an expression of
Coudenhove-Kalergi – does not suck the world dry until it collapses, a
collapse that we’re possibly experiencing right now.
M.F. How do you want to stop this?
H.M. By
taking usury away from the Jew, from the plutocrat, by no longer permitting
credit as private credit, but as an economic-political measure of state and
communal …
M.F. But Herr Ackermann isn’t Jewish.
H.M.
Pardon?
M.F. You heard me right.
H.M. You
mean Ackermann?
M.F. Herr Ackermann isn’t Jewish.
H.M. No,
no. No, no. The Jews always have gentiles at their side, so that they can
always say: But that’s not the Jews, that’s the … A very clever tactic.
M.F.
So the Deutsche Bank belongs to the
Jews?
H.M.
No, just a moment. I didn’t say that.
M.F. But?
H.M.
You let the banking establishment be. However, it can be subdued at any time
through competition.
M.F. But that is not compelling. For someone who thinks thoroughly, that is
not compelling. You said, you take away usury by not allowing the Jews to do
so. Most states are money lenders, in other words states raise the credit.
Most banks are in their majority really not Jewish, even if one takes
megalomania and paranoia on your behalf into consideration. Now that I do not
understand.
H.M. Look,
it’s already in Moses: There are many Peoples which you – Jewish People
– will …
M.F. Don’t quote Moses, quote …
H.M. No.
Don’t interrupt me when I have something to say …
M.F. No, I want to talk with you.
H.M. …
to which I reply …
M.F. Look, Herr Mahler, just so that we understand each other because this
will happen each time. I don’t think much of … I would like to talk with
you. You know [if you cite] what Moses said, then I’m talking to Moses
H.M. No,
no. Just a moment, this is a fundamental point that I am making as Horst
Mahler, by saying that this is a foundation of the Jewish spirit.
(…)
H.M. …
this is precisely the principle: And you will lend to many Peoples but will
borrow from nobody. And the Lord shall make you the head and not the tail. And
you will always rise and not sink, because you are obedient to the commands of
the Lord your God, which today I command you to hold and to keep.
(…)
H.M. And
the Jewish banks have the power. These are not just banks, these are money
collecting points in general. And they also hold the others in dependence.
After all, this is the Jewish principle: to pull the strings from a second
area, and to be the actual rulers behind the rulers.
V.F. What’s also practical here is the fact that this is an assertion that
can never be proven since everything that speaks against it could also be a
manipulation.
H.M.
It is always a question of what one holds to be true. This isn’t a
mathematical proof.
(…)
M.F. What do you think of the Turks?
H.M. You
know, we have a problem with the Turks, and we will solve it.
M.F. What kind of problem do you have, and how will you solve it?
H.M.
For example: the Turks are probably one of the nations who first fell victim
to a certain Jewish tactic. Kemal Atatürk strengthened the Jewish moment in
Turkey
by fighting Islam. With great surprise I took note of the fact that since the
16th century, the upper class in Turkey
has been comprised of Turks, and that they have everywhere pulled the strings.
They were expelled from
Spain
.
M.F. You mean “Jews”? You just said “Turks”.
H.M. Yes,
I can’t separate that because the Turks are under foreign rule, just as we
are under foreign rule through Jewish forces.
M.F. Okay. And how do you solve that? So, you said that the problem of Turkey
is that it is ruled by the Jews? You said …
H.M.
Yes, certainly.
M.F. … the Turks have a problem and I want to solve it.
H.M. Yes.
M.F. My question was: “What is the problem?” and you then say the problem
of
Turkey
is that it is ruled by Jews.
H.M.
Yes.
M.F. So, how do you solve it?
H.M.
The Turks are currently solving this problem in Turkey, out of their perspective and point of interest by rising up against the
so-called White Turks. The Black Turks are the Islam oriented Turks. Against
the White Turks who are secular, that is of Jewish character and who form the
upper class.
M.F. What do you think of the Turks in Germany
?
H.M. Nothing.
M.F. Why?
H.M. They
don’t belong in Germany, they belong in Turkey
.
M.F.
Why?
H.M. The
Jews will … the Jews will probably also realise this, but the Turks will
realise that Turkey
is their home country. And they will return to their home.
M.F. Why? Why can’t a few thousand, a hundred thousand, or one or two
million Turks live in Germany
?
H.M.
We’re speaking of millions.
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Well,
because that’s not possible.
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Because
this is German territory and the German People, and it is only possible for
one People to live in a territory and to develop itself and to keep foreign
influences outside of itself.
M.F. And what about, shall we say, the one and a half or two million East
Europeans living here?
H.M.
Well, my principle is: All foreigners are to return to where they came from.
M.F. You know that there are over one and a half million Germans living
abroad. Do they have to return to Germany
?
H.M. Oh,
I’d be glad if they all returned to Germany
.
M.F.
