HORST
MAHLER
Those
Prosecuted for “Denying the Holocaust” Are Now the Prosecutors
They are exposing the Great Lie, whose days are numbered.
Translated
by James Damon
Potsdam,
7 October 2005
On
October 5, 2005 the following happened: The active Citizen of the
Reich, Dirk Reineke, accused by the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office at
Potsdam, of “Denial of the Holocaust”, handed over to the District
Court at Potsdam a statement that was drawn up by his counsel Sylvia
Stolz. She wrote that statement, expounding in it, that on the day of
liberation, those “terrible holocaust jurists” may no longer
defend themselves with the excuse that “they had not known all
that”.
Reinecke’s
complaint, which charges the subject jurists with treason and acting
as accessories in the moral assassination of the German nation,
comprises more than 1000 pages with attachments.
The
foreign domination of the German nation set a trap for itself with the
Holocaust muzzle law (Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Strafgesetzbuch
(penal code).
That
trap has now snapped shut. As we shall soon see, those who are
caught in the trap will themselves soon be standing before the court
as defendants.
The
Holocaust jurists are being stripped of their masks and exposed as
willing executioners employed by Germany’s foreign masters.
You ask: how can they be prosecuted? Well, the basic question in
every Holocaust trial is always whether the Holocaust is offenkundig
(obvious, manifest, self-evident) or not. Until now, that
question has been asked very infrequently in the German halls of
justice, and always without success. I am aware of only three
cases in which the defense was courageous enough to ask this question.
Without exception the defending attorneys themselves wound up on
trial.
Two
of these have already been convicted of “Holocaust Denial” along
with their clients.
The
“Auschwitz-ization” of the German people is finally coming to an
end. In the vassal state of the Germany, the courts themselves
are bringing down the Auschwitz myth. After successful testing,
a completely new defense strategy has been introduced in Holocaust
trials.
The
uniformity of claims of Holocaust validity in all “denial” trials
-- its “manifest obviousness” and “self-evidentness” -- makes
possible a ready-made programmatic defense patterned on the assembly
line. By and large the same motions and petitions can always be
submitted and the same information about Holocaust research fed into
the system. These are readymade presentations of precedents that
are available to all concerned as building blocks for construction of
the attack on Holocaust “manifest obviousness.”
The
present established system divides historians and researchers as
follows: Authors who support the officially approved version are
accepted as scientists and enjoy official acknowledgement, while those
who dispute the official version are labelled as “political
extremists” acting from “obvious stupidity, ineducability or
malice,” and their works are dismissed as “pseudoscientific.” (Alsberg/
Nüse/ Meyer p. 541.) They simply are not taken into
consideration, and the manifest obviousness of the official Holocaust
is defended and enforced by the manifest obviousness of the official
Holocaust.
Here
we must call attention to an important distinction: that between the
manifest obviousness of a fact and the process by which it becomes
obvious. Manifest obviousness is the result, while becoming
obvious is the processs that produces this result. If one
analyzes the production of the result instead of the result itself,
manifest obviousness quickly collapses. Facts that are
manifestly obvious enjoy great procedural privileges under the law,
since the court does not require evidence of the truth of obvious
facts. Obvious facts are granted “free admittance” into
evidence under Article 244, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court may always admit evidence,
however.
The
process by which an historical event becomes obvious plays no part in
the process by which it becomes privileged, however. The process
of becoming an obvious fact can be challenged. Like every other
fact, it can then be established or rejected during the formal
evidentiary process.
In
the fifth chapter of his Lectures on the Holocaust (“On
Knowledge and Freedom,” pp. 495 – 541,) Germar Rudolf demonstrates
that the indisputability of official historiography has been
deceptively presented. He also demonstrates how this is done:
through the violent persecution of dissidents. No judge will be
able to ignore this with a clear conscience. Confronted with
proof that the manifest obviousness of a fact was merely pretended or
imposed by a foreign power, how can a judge do anything other than
test and possibly dismiss the charges that have been brought forward
for investigation and placed under the burden of evidence?
Certain
circles, and not just the Jews, could well have an interest in
hindering the resulting explanations in the course of a trial.
The more likely the collapse of manifest obviousness, the more
pressing would be their interest. For a judge who is vitally
concerned with truth and justice on account of his office, the efforts
of these circles can not be the total measure of his actions, despite
the cost to himself. With the release of a computerized edition
of Rudolf’s Lectures, its contents are now within the purview
of judicial notice. The publication requirement specified in
Section 244 Paragraph 2 of the guide to criminal procedure has now
been met.
Even
without further action by the accused, the court must (in preliminary
hearings, before the actual trial) explore whether and to what extent
Rudolf’s factual findings comprise a serious challenge to the
validity of the official historiography that was heretofore accepted
as manifestly obvious.
Presumably
the “terrible Holocaust jurists” will continue for some time as
they did in the past, although numerous indications suggest that they
have already begun to stutter and waver. It might well be that
they will even refuse to consider the materials placed before them.
But at what price?
In
every single case that resulted in a verdict of denying the Holocaust,
we can already show that the jurists involved committed a serious
crime themselves, in clear daylight, for which they can be held
accountable. The charges against them will include not only
dereliction of duty, but treason in time of war and collaboration with
the enemy as well. For these crimes the law of the Reich, which
in the absence of a peace treaty is still in force, prescribes either
the death penalty or life imprisonment. Furthermore the terrible
Holocaust jurists will now have to be identified by name. By
means of the Internet, they will be made known worldwide as
accessories to Seelenmord (mental assassination.)
How
long will they be able to hold out? It is unthinkable that every
single jurist in government employ is a complete scoundrel and
traitor, willing to sell out his country for a few pieces of silver.
They have already been visibly weakened. Early indications
suggest that movements to amend the present procedure have already
begun within their ranks. They know perfectly well that the
Holocaust muzzle law (Section 130, Paragraph 3 of the Penal
Code) is null and void even by their own standards, on account of its
violation of Article 5 of the Constitution (freedom to express
opinions.) Thus far they have not disputed this.
The
jurist Stefan Huster argued very convincingly in the Neuen
Juristischen Wochenschrift (Heft 8/1996 S. 487 ff.) that Section
130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is incompatible with Article 5
Section I page 1 of the Constitution. Section 130 sets forth
“visibly and precisely the prime example of a norm that in this way
(minutely explained by the Constitutional Court) is directed against a
specific opinion contained therein.” (above reference, page 489,
left column). But instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that
the law must be revoked by the Constitutional Court, he worked out a
program of evasion, in order, as he expresses it, “…to open up the
desired field of application for Section 130 III Penal Code.”
Desired by whom? In whose interests?
Winfried
Brugger is still arguing along this line in 2003, in the Archiv des
öffentlichen Rechts (Archive of Public Law,) Volume 128(2003)
page 372(403.)
In
2005, the legal winds have begun to change. Holocaust trials that were
already under way have foundered and been “put on ice,” some for
years, in cases where a properly organized background is available
using the new defense strategy. These include cases against
Ursula Haverbeck and Ernst Otto Cohrs in Bielefeld district court;
against the “Bernauer Four” in Bernau district court; against Rolf
Winkler in Mühlhausen district court; against Horst Mahler before
Berlin district court and county court in Stuttgart. In the main
case against the “Group of Four,” which has been delayed for an
undetermined period, Head Prosecutor Weber declared before the Bernau
county court that “The proceedings can no longer be continued
according to Pattern F” and “We must prepare outselves in an
entirely different way.”
The
key question here is: just what did the leading prosecutor and bureau
head concede before a county court?
In
May 2005, Holocaust jurists responded publicly with a brief that
appeared in the Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift (NJW Heft
21/2005 pages 1476-.) It flowed from the pen of the head judge
in Hamburg District Court, Dr. Günter Bertram, an old campaigner on
the Holocaust front. He begins his explication with this
confession: “Section 130 of the Penal Code contains irregular
penalty law and therefore conflicts with the Constitution as well as
freedom of expression. The Gesetzgeber (parliament) must
undertake a change in direction. More than 60 years after the
end of the Third Reich, it must depart from its peculiar and well
paved path in order to return to the norms of a nation of laws.”
Bertram
chides the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) for
failing to take a position regarding Section 130, Paragraph 3 of the
penal code “…despite pressing considerations that have been
raised.” The latter is particularly noteworthy because it
contains the challenge, clearly understood by jurists, to
provisionally terminate current Holocaust trials and foist the
“Schwarzer Peter” off on the Constitutional Court by means of a Vorlagebeschluß
(motion to submit a resolution) as provided by Article 100 of the
Constitution. In the case of Dirk Reinecke, the pressure on
Holocaust jurists has been increased still more insofar as the
“Auschwitz bludgeon” (Martin Walser’s terminology) is depicted
as war waged by Alljuda against the German nation with the aim
of eradicating it. (Translator’s note: Alljuda is a Hegelian
term for the synthesis of Judaism and Zionism, an “octopus sucking
the life out of the Gojim.”)
The
point of departure for this is provided by the reflections of the
Zionist Bernard Lazare: “If the enmity and aversion toward the Jews
existed only in a single time and single country, it would be easy to
determine the cause of this fury. But on the contrary, the
Jewish race has been the target of hate of all nations in whose midst
they lived since ancient times. Since the enemies of the Jews
have belonged to the most various and diverse races, living great
distances from one another, governed by differing laws and principles
and having dissimilar customs and natures, then the general causes of
anti Semitism must have always existed in Israel, not among those who
opposed it.”[3]
Could
there be something to what the German philosopher Johann Gottfried
Fichte wrote about Alljuda in 1793? “A powerful and
hostile nation is spreading throughout Europe. It exists in a
constant state of war, and in many countries it oppresses the citizens
most horribly. It is Judaism.” (Fichte, Works,
Vol. 6 p. 149) Fichte does not see the threat of Judaism in the
Jewish tendency to create a state within the state, however. In
his opinion, it is the circumstance this state is founded upon hatred
of all others that makes it dangerous.(4)
We
are talking about war here. Alljuda is unable to wage war
in the conventional manner since it possesses no country, no
government and no army.
Nevertheless
it is capable of waging war and compelling others to wage war on its
behalf. The war being waged by Alljuda is waged with
weapons that attack the soul of the enemy rather than the body.
Here the propaganda of deceit plays a major role.
It
is generally overlooked that where enemy propaganda campaigns are
concerned (such as the implantation of a Holocaust religion in our
heads) we are not dealing with criminality that is indictable.
Rather,
we are dealing with the actions of world powers that, by means of
falsification, put through more than just their own interests and
goals that have developed over the centuries. These world powers
have access to the entire arsenal of psychological warfare with its
falsification factories and agencies for the dissemination of
propaganda such as the media and secret services.
Jurists
who are government officials naturally tend to idealize all national
efforts; to believe and rationalize in conformity with the dictates of
law and government. In a world ruled by the spirit of Judaism,
this means the total loss of reality. We can think of this loss
as the professional malaise of the German judiciary. This
malaise must be made clear in all Holocaust trials in order to
counteract the tendency to propagate injustice that arise from the
misconceptions I have described.
The
defense now raises the question of whether the power that the lie
exerts on German self-consciosness, so clearly expressed in the
Holocaust religion, has its basis in the tense relationship between
the Judaic and German national psyches.
During
his yearlong main trial before the 22nd criminal court of
the Berlin district court, the author presented a 490 page evidentiary
brief on the Jewish problem. The findings contained in this
document, now admitted in all Holocaust trials, allow the court
to consider and place into evidence facts that allow the judiciary to
break out of the conceptual box in which the German nation was
imprisoned by the tyranny of wartime victors. The halo of the
nation of eternal victims is taken away from the Jews, so that they
now appear in an entirely different light. They are exposed as
the nation chosen by Jahweh to enslave all the other nations and
annihilate them if they resist.
The
basis of this document is the historical concept of German idealistic
philosophy, particularly that of Hegel. Hegel conceived of the
world and its history as holy writ, that is, the labor and creation of
God, [5] in whom slavery and tyranny are necessary steps [6] along the
path to redemption.[7] Here it is of primary importance to
combat atheistic prejudice.
The
epigrammatic expression has been handed down from Beaudelaire:
“A very clever trick of the devil is to make us believe that he does
not exist, but his cleverest trick of all is to make us believe that
God does not exist.” This false concept is fatal.
Where
religious redemption is concerned, the enmity between Judaism and the
German national spirit is a necessary struggle. It is a struggle
between the abstract god Jahweh, a jealous murderer of nations, and
the God of love, who first came to abide in Germania. In his
love for his creation, God also loves himself, thereby acknowledging
himself in his creation. Each of the two godheads is the
embodiment of the eternal Satan of the other. (“Satan” is
the Hebrew word for “enemy,” “adversary” or
“culprit.”) For the Jewish national spirit, the German
national spirit is the devil, most recently incorporated in Adolf
Hitler. Conversely, to the German spirit Alljuda is
Satan.
The
deadly enmity between the two is best expressed in the words of Jesus
to the Jews: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you wish to
carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the
beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he is but speaking his native tongue, for he is a liar
and the father of lies. And now because I tell the truth, you do
not believe me!” (John 8, 44-45)
In
the Jewish diaspora among the nations, it was necessary for the
survival of this noteworthy society of the chosen to disguise
Jahweh’s redemption plan of lies and deceptions. At present,
Jahweh-Satan is on top and the German spirit is on the bottom. Jahweh-Satan
has all the means at his disposal to compel us Germans to see
ourselves as he sees us: as Hitler-devils.
In
this struggle, which Yahweh conducts with lies and the language of
deceit (Orwellian Newspeak) our German judiciary is hopelessly
outmatched. It lacks the basic concepts and is unable to
comprehend the meaning of the language forced upon it. Our
judiciary is incapable of protecting the German nation from plunder
and annihilation because, unknowingly, it has itself become part of
the Jewish spirit through its orientation towards everything
“modern.”
The
material collected in the evidentiary document on the Jewish problem
goes far beyond that of the familiar litanies, in which the Jewish
nature in the past was depicted as Nurschlectigkeit (completely
evil.) The document shows that negativity (the evil) in the
Jewish nature is itself an agent of individual liberation, without
which we cannot be moral persons. This concept is found only in
German Idealism. It illustrates the authentic antagonism between
Judaism and Germanism and presents it in a light of reconciliation.
These
considerations will find their way into the heads and hearts of both
Germans and Jews for the simple reason that they are true, and the
injustice associated with Holocaust tyranny is unintentional
assistance in the process. The more numerous the Holocaust
trials in future, the more German jurists will necessarily be brought
into contact with Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures” (which can be
envisaged as the hammer of Thor used against the Holocaust religion)
and the more they will be familiarized with the redeeming significance
of the German-Jewish war.
This
is the cunningness of enlightened society!
In
order to maintain the present taboo of these concepts, the institution
that was established by the Jews themselves for the creation of the
taboo will now become the center of de-tabooization of discussion of
the Holocaust and the Jewish problem.
It
is unavoidable that ever more German jurists will be exposed to the
truth. First they will liberate themselves internally from the
complex of Holocaust lies and deceptions, they will liberate
themselves outwardly and openly. They will open a pathway of
truth through the middle of society that will emancipate our people
from the Jewish yoke.
We
should now discuss whether, for sake of a faster expansion of
Holocaust trials, we Revisionists should agitate for a Selbstanzeigenkampagne
(campaign to indict ourselves as “Holocaust deniers”) or whether
we should leave the initiative to the enemy, secure in the certainty
that in his obsession he himself will increase the number of trials.
I personally favor an organized campaign of self indictment.
This is because a conscious, goal oriented freedom struggle would then
develop, that would make us into “noble men” once again.
This is quite aside from the fact that a conscious campaign directed
specifically against the manifest obviousness of the Holocaust would
accelerate the end of foreign domination of our country.
Long
live the Holy German Reich!
And
now for a final word to my Jewish friends and enemies:
“When
you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck.” (Genesis
27:40)
You
will understand.
Kleinmachnow,
7 Oktober 2005
Horst
Mahler