Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00087)

Several Blavatsky students and truth seekers may be interested in the following information:

German lawyer Horst Mahler finds out: The Holocaust - that 6 million Jews were gassed in Germany - never happened.
Several German public prosecutors proofed the case and did not find any error.

>From the theosophic point of view this good news may be a also a good starting point to have a deeper look on Hitler and start research on him and hispolicy from the standpoint of the Ancient Wisdom, but read for yourself the complete essay below:


http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/mahler4.htm


From: "Horst Mahler" hm@deutsches-kolleg.org 

To: "Adelaide Institute" info@adelaideinstitute.org 

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:47 AM 


Subject: You can't deny what never happened -  

There is no denialism because the Holocaust never happened 



Please forward!!

To whom it may concern.

The uprising of the German People for the truth has begun. Its course so far
is described in attachment 01. It will be continued. The next step of this
course is to be the establishing of a "Society for the Rehabilitation of
Those persecuted for Denial of the Holocaust", for the purpose of preparing,
in organised form, the resumption of the proceedings against the victims of
punitive and disciplinary measures, and to support them, especially
financially, in the execution of this.

The judicial foundation for this course of action is simple: § 359 StPO
[code of criminal procedure] provides the possibility for a resumption of
the proceedings in favour of a person who was legally convicted, in case the
evidential facts have changed. Even though the case that a previously
assumed obviousness of incriminating facts should no longer apply is not
considered in law, I am certain, that this gap can be bridged through
analogous deduction.

The reason for resumption is given through the fact that, due to the article
of the main editor of the news magazine DER SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer, the
obviousness of the Holocaust is obviously no longer applicable. Please see
attachment 01 for details.

In the constitutional complaint for Frank Rennicke, I explained how the role
of the judiciary is to be assessed. An excerpt of this is given as
attachment 02.

Are you prepared to join this society? The membership subscription for the
affected is Euros 3,--/month, for the non-affected Euros 10,--/month.
[Donations of any amount are welcome]. Registration of the society and
charitable benefit are not striven for. The standing rules will meet the
legal minimum requirements.

Please direct your statement of purpose with details of your complete name,
date of birth and address (no PO boxes) to

RA Horst Mahler, Weidenbusch 13, 14532 Kleinmachnow, Germany

Tel.: 0049 33203 20460 Fax: 0049 33203 21059

e-mail: hm@horst-mahler.de

website: www.horst-mahler.de


Kleinmachnow, the 29th of September 2003

Horst Mahler

If you would like to support our cause, please make your donation payable
to:
Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel, Sparkasse Herford, BLZ 494 501 20, account no. 325
015 262 0.



Attachment 01

The "Campaign against the Obviousness of the Holocaust" has started
successfully.

We were forced to learn that the German Reich had provoked both world wars,
and that the National Socialists killed 6 million Jews - of which 4 million
alone were killed in Auschwitz in gas chambers by Zyklon B. Whoever
contested the figure that is connected to the latter form of death, is/was
imprisoned for "playing down the holocaust".

Recently it is permitted to claim that not more than 356.000 people (Jews
and non-Jews) fell victim to Zyklon B in Auschwitz.

Four public prosecutor's offices - in Berlin, Stuttgart, Bochum and
Bielefeld - have so far voiced their opinion along this line.

The public prosecutor's office in Stuttgart has refused to charge, for
violation of § 130 sects. 3 and 4 StGB [penal code], the main editor of the
SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer, for writing, and the former president of the
Bundestag, Prof. Dr. Rita Süßmuth, for publishing the article "Die Zahlder
Opfer von Auschwitz - Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde" [The Number
of Victims of Auschwitz - New Insights due to new Findings in the Archives]
(in the magazine Osteuropa, 5/2002, p. 631 ff.). In this article Meyer put
forward and substantiated the thesis that throughout the time of the German
occupation of the concentration camp Auschwitz a total of 510.000 people
died, of which probably 356.000 "im Gas" (Jews and non-Jews). The relevant
note of termination was added to file reference 4 Js 75185/02 on 28.05.03.

How is it to be explained that the figure of the number of victims is now
also "officially" clearly melting away like snow in the vernal sun? Is this
due to the fact, communicated by Fritjof Meyer, that the former commanding
officer of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, confessed imaginary figures under torture
- presumably expecting that their lack of relation to reality would soon be
recognised, and that by these means the awareness would be directed to the
conditions under which these testimonies were made?

Within the framework of the "Campaign against the Obviousness of the
Holocaust" citizens of the Reich copied the article by Meyer, sent it to a
number of prominent figures of the political and cultural scene of the FRG,
and finally reported themselves for violation of § 130 sect. 4 StGB, to the
district attorney Neumann in Berlin.

In explanation of this step, the citizens of the Reich who reported
themselves stated:

The murder of the soul of the German People, the genocide committed by
Israel and the persecution of the Holocaust-disbelievers, has to stop. The
uprising against the world domination of the Jews has begun in Palestine
with the second Intifada. The struggle for liberation now continues in
Germany, with the attack against the dogma of the 6 million gassed Jews.

It was Martin Walser who, in his speech in the Paul's Church, was the first
to publicly identify the "Auschwitz-cudgel" as the weapon of our enemies.
The main editor of the news magazine DER SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer, has now
taken a swing at the Holocaust religion which will destroy it. In his
article "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz - Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue
Archivfunde", published in the scientific magazine Osteuropa, no. 5 from May
2002, he rejects the figure of 6 million gassed Jews. In contrast to
numerous historians, Fritjof Meyer does not deny the murders in the gas
chambers, but maintains that only 356.000 were killed in this manner in
Auschwitz. That is not more people than Jewish nuclear physicists burned in
the fire of "Little Boy" in Hiroshima within a few minutes on the 6th of
August 1945, with the nuclear bomb they had built. No fewer people found an
agonising death in Dresden, on the 13th of February 1945, in the firestorm
that scientists of HRH the King of Great Britain had planned. This figure
reaches nowhere near to the two million Germans who - after they had
surrendered their weapons - were killed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower on
the meadows of the Rhine with the hunger-weapon. This figure is also far
smaller than the number of Germans worked to death as work-slaves in the
Soviet camps. And it is only a tenth of the two to three million dead of the
genocide of expulsion, that was perpetrated against the Germans of the
eastern territories of the German Reich.

If the number of victims that was established by Fritjof Meyer is correct,
then "the Holocaust", in the sense of a "unique and incomparable crime of
mankind", did not take place. We reject Jewish moral, according to which
only murder of a Jew is a crime, whereas the brutal death of a non-Jew is
rather a welcome event, as a contemptuous conviction.

So far three notifications of termination have been issued by the relevant
public prosecutor's offices, in accordance with § 170 sect. 2 StPO
(insufficient grounds for suspicion): in the case of Edgar Forster, StA
[public prosecutor's office] Bochum from 06.05.03, file reference 33 Js
145/03, in the case of Ursula Haverbeck, StA Bielefeld from 27.05.06, file
reference 46 Js 171/03, and in the case of Imke Barnstedt, StA Berlin from
10.06.03, file reference 81 Js 1564/03. The result of this campaign draws
the attention to the proclamation to the Jews of the whole world, as it was
formulated by citizens of the Reich in the Verden Manifesto from the 5th of
February 2003, in the following words:

In the brave deed of the editor of the SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer, we see the
signal for the begin of the uprising against the oppressors of the German
People. We do not throw stones at the occupiers, but in the spirit of
Mahatma Gandhi we will copy Meyer's article and distribute it, in order to
testify for the German Reich, out of free choice, in front of the courts of
the regime which serves the obliteration of the Reich, and which calls
itself "Federal Republic of Germany". We accuse the Judeo-American empire of
not only having instigated World War II, in order to obtain, secure and
expand the domination of the world, but also, of having, after the end of
the war, globally caused the violent deaths of 12 to 16 million people.

The dead are now lifting up their voices through us, to call to the Jews:

"That's enough! Many Peoples bled in the 20th century. Let the world finally
settle down and allow peace to reign! Do not desire the land of an innocent
People just because it was promised to you by a bloodthirsty god 3500 years
ago. End the world war that you are currently trying to instigate. Go into
yourselves and renounce Yahweh, for he takes pleasure in genocide! Submit
yourselves to the Peoples who will receive you as brothers, if you too will
honour them as brothers. Realise that your chosenness is a curse and that
you will perish in the flames of hate that leap to meet you from those who
you despise as animals."

The Holy German Reich lives, to summon the Jews to the world court!

* * *

Account of the action on the 30th of July 2003 at the Wartburg:

The Uprising for the Truth began at the Wartburg.


Where Martin Luther - having been excommunicated by the Pope and declared an
outlaw of the Reich by the German Kaiser - once translated the New Testament
under the protection of the Teutonic Knights, where on the 18th of October
1817 on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the People's Battle of
Leipzig against Napoleonic foreign rule 500 students gathered for the
Wartburg celebration - the first civilian-democratic gathering in Germany -
under the motto "Honour - Freedom - Fatherland" in order to fight for a
unified national state, citizens of the German Reich lifted up their voice
on the 30th of July 2003 for the truth:

"There was no Holocaust."

"Truth conquers."

"The lie destroys itself."

"The German Reich regains consciousness in the uprising of the German
People."

echoed their calls from the walls of this proud castle.

Originally, this proclamation was to have taken place on the 30th of July
2003 in Auschwitz, in order to mark this place of Jewish ritual worship as
the scene of the crime of the spiritual murder of the German People.

Thanks to the friendly support of Brandenburg's Minister of the Interior,
Schönboom, who forbade Horst Mahler - the initiator of this action - the
departure from the country into Poland, this purpose was achieved, due to
the echo of the media, without the physical presence of the heralds of truth
in Auschwitz.

Due to conspicuous movements of the supporters of the Verden Manifesto from
the 5th of February 2003 in the German lands, and corresponding telephone
calls - which were meant to be bugged, and were indeed listened into (which
became noticeable through unmotivated inquiries by the CID after Horst
Mahler at possible meeting places in Thuringia) - the occupying power had
been led to believe that a substitute event would take place at the location
of the former concentration camp Buchenwald (near Weimar). An armada of
motorised observation troops of the official spying service was sent into
this area, who - unsuccessfully - attempted, in a cat-and-mouse game on
motorways and country roads lasting several hours, to unsettle the citizens
of the Reich who were determined to execute the liberating deed. (The driver
of the vehicle IK-G 135 distinguished himself especially; but the driver of
IK-VT xxx was also not bad.) At Buchenwald, uniformed police forces lay in
wait in order to hinder the public appearance of the citizens of the Reich.

In fact however, the Wartburg had been chosen for the decisive event, due to
its charisma as a location of German history. The citizens of the Reich who
were prepared for the communal deed gathered like lightning on the best
situated lookout platform under the castle, in order to put an end to the
obsequious grovelling towards the Holocaust religion by means of a solemn
ceremony. Here they were left alone by the surprised occupying power. Only a
camera team of the official spying service - the only one it seems, that was
not shaken off through driving manoeuvres - was present and filmed the
scene.

The solemn celebration was opened by Horst Mahler with an invocation of the
German folk-spirit:

 
Sieghafter Geist 
Durchflamme die Ohnmacht 
Zaghafter Seelen. 
Verbrenne die Ichsucht, 
Entzünde das Mitleid, 
Daß Selbstlosigkeit, 
Der Lebensstrom der Menschheit, 
Wallt als Quelle, 
Der geistigen Wiedergeburt. 
Victorious Spirit 
Blaze through the unconsciousness 
Of timid souls. 
Consume egotism, 
Ignite compassion, 
That selflessness, 
The life-stream of humanity, 
May flow as the source 
Of spiritual rebirth.

Rudolf Steiner, on the 20th of September 1919


After a quiet reflection he then uttered the four sentences which contain
everything, which were each repeated by two speakers from the circle of the
Reich citizens that were present:

Truth conquers!

The lie destroys itself!

There was no Holocaust!

The German Reich regains consciousness in the uprising of the German People.

Throughout the ceremony fluttered the black-white-red flag of the
Kaiser-Reich that had been restored in 1871, and the flag of the Deutsches
Kolleg - a lying black cross in a golden bed on a red field - which is
recommended as the state symbol of the German Reich that is regaining its
consciousness. Between the flags fluttered a metre-long scroll containing
over a hundred names of people who were persecuted, and in part are still
being persecuted, by the Jewish occupying power as "revisionists" and
"Holocaust deniers". They were remembered in gratitude.

The ceremonial event was ended with the hymn:

 
Nichts kann uns rauben 
Liebe und Glauben 
Zu unserem Land. 
Es zu erhalten
Nothing can rob us 
Of love and faith 
To our country. 
To maintain it 
Und zu gestalten 
Sind wir gesandt. 
Mögen wir sterben, 
Unseren Erben 
Gilt dann die Pflicht 
Es zu erhalten 
Und zu gestalten: 
Deutschland stirbt nicht.

And to organise it 
We have been sent. 
Should we die, 
Our heirs 
Are then obliged 
To maintain it 
And to organise it: 
Germany will not die.

 
After the group returned to the parking area to their cars, following a
two-hour sojourn at the Wartburg, CID officers of the FRG - the
"organisational form of a modality of foreign rule" (Carlo Schmid) -
approached Horst Mahler and informed him that an investigation had been
initiated against him due to suspicion of incitement of the People. The
reason given for this step was that "a banner with inciting contents" was
exhibited during the proclamation at the Wartburg. The leader of the CID
commando was unable to recite the wording of this banner. "There was
something about 'Holocaust' to be read." The officers made a listless
impression.

Circa 10km away from the Wartburg, the vehicle driven by Ursula Haverbeck
was stopped on the return journey to Vlotho by four cars of the official
spying service. The front-seat passenger - a GP from Bochum - was commanded
to leave the vehicle by uniformed police officials with a drawn pistol. The
vehicle was then thoroughly searched - including the luggage. As a result of
this search the banners which had been exhibited at the Wartburg, as well as
the scroll with the names of the Holocaust-persecuted, fell into the hands
of the police.

At the same time that the ceremony at the Wartburg was taking place, the CD
"Aufstand für die Wahrheit - Auschwitz am 30. Juli 2003" [Uprising for the
Truth - Auschwitz on the 30th of July 2003] which had been produced and
published by Horst Mahler on occasion of the planned visit to the scene of
the crime, was sent to roughly 300 of the most important media, diplomatic
deputies, as well as opinion forming personalities at home and abroad.

This CD contains the following text and picture files (English files are
underlined):

1. Horst Mahler: Das Deutsche Reich steht auf für die Wahrheit (7/03)
2. Horst Mahler: The German Reich arises for the Truth (translation of
no. 1)
3. Verdener Manifest (2/03)
4. Appell der 100
5. Horst Mahler: Offener Brief an Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder
(11/99)
6. Horst Mahler: Offener Brief an die Abgeordneten des 15. Deutschen
Bundestages (5/03)
7. Dokumentation: Fritjof Meyer über Opferzahlen von Auschwitz
8. Tabelle mit Opferzahlen
9. Horst Mahler: Erfolge im Feldzug gegen die Offenkundigkeit des
Holocaust
10. To be passed on - Success in the campaign against the Holocaust
religion (translation of no. 9)
11. Horst Mahler: Revisionsbegründung im Verfahren gegen Frank Rennicke
(1/03)
12. Horst Mahler: Judaismus und Christentum - Unverträgliche
Menschenbilder (8/02)
13. Karl Marx: Zur Judenfrage
14. Deutsches Kolleg: Endlösung der Judenfrage (3/01)
15. Deutsches Kolleg: Final Solution of the Jewish Question (translation
of no. 14)
16. Horst Mahler: Offener Brief an Daniel Goldhagen
17. Deutsches Kolleg: Ausrufung des Aufstandes der Anständigen
18. Deutsches Kolleg: Zur Heilsgeschichtlichen Lage des Deutschen
Reiches
19. Deutsches Kolleg: The Redeeming Historical Role of the German Reich
(I) (translation of no. 18)
20. Deutsches Kolleg: The Redeeming Historical Role of the German Reich
(II) (translation of no. 18 contd. and of no. 21)
21. Deutsches Kolleg: An den Ewigen Bund der Deutschen Fürsten (mit
Aufstandsplan)
22. Protokolle der Weisen von Zion
23. Horst Mahler: "Antisemiten" aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
24. Carlo Schmid: Rede vor dem Parlamentarischen Rat vom 8. September
1948
25. Horst Mahler: Skizze für eine neue Reichsordnung (11/99)
26. Horst Mahler: Heil Juda, wir kommen (4/02)
27. Horst Mahler: Den Juden ist die Darstellung des satanischen Prinzips
zugeschickt (6/03)
28. Eine Korrespondenz: Die Völker im Stande der Notwehr gegen Jahwe
(12/02)
29. Horst Mahler: Guten Tag und Shalom! - Eine Kriegserklärung an die
Judenheit (6/03)
30. Deutsches Kolleg: Independence Day - live (9/01)
31. Deutsches Kolleg: Independence Day - live (translation of no. 30)
32. Deutsches Kolleg: Der Untergang des Judäo-Amerikanischen Emperiums
(11/01)
33. Deutsches Kolleg: The Fall of the Judeo-American Empire (translation
of no. 32)
34. Horst Mahler: Thesen über die Moderne
35. Horst Mahler: Thesen über Juden und Deutschland als geistige Notwehr
(7/99)
36. Horst Mahler: Die Macht der Lüge - Worum geht es? (1/03)
37. Horst Mahler: Auf dem Wege zur Reichsordnung (11/99)
38. Horst Mahler: Sinn der Shoa (3/99)
39. Giselher Wirsing: Erziehung zum Krieg (excerpt from "Der Maßlose
Kontinent")
40. Hamilton Fish: Pearl Harbor (excerpt from "Der zerbrochene Mythos")
41. Dirk Bavendamm: Roosevelts Krieg (excerpt)
42. Die Septemberlüge (Bilderschau und Revisionsschrift mit
Beweisanträgen)
43. Flugblatt: Das Deutsche Volk erzwingt die Untersuchung der
Ereignisse vom 11.09.01
44. Horst Mahler: Der Globalismus als höchstes Stadium des Imperialismus
45. Die Deutschen proben den aufrechten Gang

The enemies of the German Reich should know that henceforth, every trial
because of "incitement of the People" due to criticism of Jewry and the
public profession of the historical truth will become a boomerang. The way
was paved by the main editor of the news magazine DER SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer
(Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz in the magazine Osteuropa no. 5/2002, p.
631 ff.). Due to new findings in the archives he gives the number of people
who died from gas in Auschwitz as 356.000 (Jews and non-Jews). Even though
he is, in contrast to the ever increasing number of "revisionist"
historians, still sticking to the gas chamber version, his essay is
groundbreaking because the public prosecutors of the occupying power
capitulated before the power of the SPIEGEL and declared Meyer's theory to
be "irrelevant concerning criminal law".

Between the "official" figure of first 4 million then 1.5 million dead due
to gassing in Auschwitz, and the figure claimed by Meyer, is a difference
that can only be explained by the fact that the "official" version is based
on lies and fabrications. One can now, based on the findings of Meyer, argue
against the Auschwitz Lie with the prospect of success in the centre of
society, and not only at its "right-wing fringe".

The knowledge of the truth is increasing dramatically, the lie is
collapsing. The Jewish power will disappear with it. The Judeo-American
empire will soon tumble and crash to the ground.
What a celebration that will be!


Verden an der Aller, on the 31st of July 2003



Attachment 02

Excerpt from the constitutional complaint for Frank Rennicke

Preface

For the purpose of defending the freedom of the citizen of the Reich, Frank
Rennicke, the signatory, with the following statement of reasons, is
claiming the catalogue of basic rights of the Basic Law (GG) for the Federal
Republic of Germany - in limits - as the right of the German Reich, and the
Federal Constitutional Court as a German court.

Based on the speech of the expert for national and international right,
Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid, before the Parliamentary Council on the 8th of
September 1948, this is done in the awareness that the Basic Law is not a
constitution (cf. art. 146 GG) but a modality of the occupiers' statute of
the Western victorious powers; that the Federal republic of Germany is not a
state but the "organisational form of a modality of foreign rule" and that
consequently, the Federal Constitutional Court is neither a constitutional
court nor a court of the German national state: the German Reich.

All who argue against this view of things, with the time that has lapsed and
the many elections that have taken place in the mean time, have to bear in
mind:

1. At no point in time has there been a free expression of thoughts or a
free election in the Federal Republic: The NSDAP as well as all its organs
and successor organisations were banned in May 1945 by the victorious powers
under breach of art. 43 of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare from 1907.
In its issue no. 20/2003 the news magazine DER SPIEGEL reported on page 47
of an opinion poll in the year 1948. According to this poll, 57% of the
Germans were at that time still of the opinion that National Socialism had
been a good idea. It is only the "re-education" of the Germans - which is in
breach of international right - that has been continuing for half a century
now, that may have brought about a change in this. The decisive factor would
here be the lie of the 6 million Jews that were exterminated through gas.
[The development of the Soviet Union that has demised, may serve as a
contrast here: The Communist Party of the Soviet Union which was responsible
for the physical extermination of 30 million self-employed Russian farmers,
which was actually planned and executed by Stalin's son-in-law, the Jew
Kaganowitsch, was not banned after the collapse of the Bolshevik system. Its
successor organisation is represented in the Duma and currently plays an
important part in Russia.]
The political convictions of the majority of the Germans were therefore
permanently excluded, from the very beginning, from any form of "democratic"
will formation. Still in the covering letter of the "German" governments -
the FRG and GDR - to the 2+4 Treaty, the obligation of the federal
government to suppress parties which contain National Socialist thoughts is
emphasised.
2. It is clearly expressed with the new version of article 146 GG , which
was passed with the Treaty of Unification, that even in the opinion of the
vassal regime the Basic Law is not enhanced to be a constitution of the
German People through the right that can be deduced from habit.

This clarification, which was unheard of until then, is indispensable at
this juncture because the subject of examination is the Holocaust
legislation of this foreign rule and the activity of the courts which is
based upon it, which - as is to be shown - cannot under any viewpoint
whatsoever be recognised as either a part of the German system of laws or as
the confirmation of German jurisdiction.

It could appear to be a contradiction that, in order to defend himself
against the arbitrariness of the victors over the German Reich, a citizen of
the Reich calls to an organ of the foreign rule with the desire to declare
their Holocaust legislation - which at heart is the core of the Talmudic
foreign rule over the German People - null and void.

This contradiction solves itself in the recognition that the persons who act
as "Judges of the Federal Constitution" do not themselves belong to the
foreign rule, but are merely their vassals. They are at once citizens of the
German Reich and are obliged in loyalty to it.

In itself, vassalage is not a crime. Under the circumstances of military
defeat this can even be the "lesser evil" in contrast to a public military
dictatorship of the victorious forces. Since the purpose of history is
freedom, the condition of vassalage can only ever be accepted for a
restricted period of time. In particular, it turns into treason, i.e. a
crime worthy of death, when it becomes recognisable that the foreign power
misuses the peace of the land, which is being upheld by the vassal
government, in order to murder the soul of the German People, using the
weapons of psychological warfare, with the declared purpose - however
forgotten by the victim - to destroy the German Reich and its German
state-folk for all eternity.

With his refusal to let the German army participate in the USA's illegal
raid against Iraq, Gerhard Schröder has, as chancellor of Germany, publicly
marked the beginning of the end of the vassalage. An in-depth study - as
document study so to speak - of the book of the German-Austrian analyst and
governmental advisor Gerhoch Reisegger, "Wir werden schamlos irregeführt",
Hohenrain Verlag 2003, informs about how the Judeo-American empire is
inwardly already in a process of demise, and that its external universal
violence is an expression of this fact. The avalanche that will bury the
"New World Order", which was unilaterally proclaimed by the USA, within a
period of time of 10 years at the most, has been set off with the feigned
"Attack on America" on the 11th of September 2001. No power of the world can
now hinder it. The junta which disposes over the USA has instigated the
Third World War. Only a successful coup d'état of the US military against
the Jewish rule over the USA, and the physical liquidation of the
September-crooks, could avert the catastrophe. The face of the world is now
rapidly changing. Millions upon millions - if not indeed billions - of
people will lose their lives in this war. Under these circumstances every
citizen of the German Reich who has entered into the service of the foreign
rule, is called to remember his Germanness and to act in the spirit of
Tauroggen , in order to paralyse the foreign rule and to support the
struggle for freedom of the German Reich according to his possibilities.

The world-wide Talmudic despotism - in its current stadium - is on the whole
based on four lies of the century:

1. On the War Guilt Lie: that the German Reich wilfully brought about
the First and the Second World War.
2. On the Pearl Harbour Lie: that the USA were attacked by Japan.
3. On the Auschwitz Lie: that the German Reich systematically murdered
4 million Jews in the concentration camp Auschwitz through poison gas, in
accordance with a general decision of extermination.
4. On the September Lie: that the USA were attacked on the 11th of
September 2001 by "Osama bin Laden's network of terror".

The words that Jesus directed at the leader of the Jews, and that are passed
down in the gospel according to St. John (8:44), are valid to this day:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there
is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he
is a liar and the father of it.

Frank Rennicke's struggle against the courts of the foreign rule is not a
legal masterstroke. It is a battle in the struggle for freedom of the German
People. If the signatory was to restrict himself to a traditional legal
argumentation in this struggle, then that would be the equivalent to party
treason, for he would participate in covering up the nature of this
confrontation and would submit himself to the conceptuality of the enemies
of the Reich.


I.

The course of the proceedings and the extent of the complaint

On the 22nd of November 2000 the magistrates' court of Böblingen sentenced
the affected to a prison sentence of ten months, the execution of which was
suspended, due to incitement of the People in eight cases, six of which in
union of deed with an offence against § 21 of the GjSM [act concerning the
dissemination of writings and media contents which endanger the youth].

Both the affected, with the aim of being cleared of the charges, and the
public prosecutor's office, with the aim of obtaining a higher sentence,
appealed against this sentence in accordance with formality and within the
stipulated period.

The appeal of the affected was unsuccessful. The appeal of the public
prosecutor's office was partially successful. After hearing the appeal, the
district court of Stuttgart sentenced the affected to a prison sentence of 1
year and 5 months. The sentence was suspended. The following regulations
were implemented: §§ 130 sects. 1 - 4 StGB; 21 sect. 1 nos. 1, 2, 3a; 4
sect. 1 nos. 1 and 2; 3 sect. 1 no. 4; 6 GjSM, 52, 53, 56 StGB. The sentence
was formally delivered to the signatory on the 11th of December 2002.

Contained in the complete sentence, is a sentence which is to be implemented
due to the conviction according to § 130 sect. 4 StGB, because of the
distribution of the brochure "Dokumente der Verteidigung. Unterdrückte
Tatsachen über Auschwitz und den Holocaust" [Documents of defence.
Suppressed facts about Auschwitz and the Holocaust]. The court of appeal
concluded at singles:

"With this he (the accused, Frank Rennicke) followed the purpose of bringing
this brochure to the attention of a further, undefined but larger circle of
people, especially of like-minded persons, but also to other disseminators,
beyond the first recipient Marco Rieger. The accused, Frank Rennicke, was
aware of the fact that this brochure denies the genocide against the Jews
and gypsies in the concentration camps, especially in Auschwitz, during the
National Socialist tyranny (so-called Auschwitz Lie). In the form of a
pseudo scientific presentation (Leuchter Report/Rudolf Report) it is
expounded over 30 pages that the murder of the Jews and gypsies by the Nazi
regime was not possible due to technical and factual reasons, and that it
also did not take place, at least not on the scale reckoned by recognised
historians.

Amongst other things, it states:
"After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at
Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence
overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these
locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the
alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could nor have then been, or
now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas
chambers."
This is signed by Fred Leuchter.

Simultaneously there is a call to disseminate these supposedly
scientifically proven claims, in the appendix of this brochure."

The appeal of the affected against this was aimed at demonstrating, by means
of fundamental expositions, the contradiction that exists between the legal
opinion which formed the basis of the decision of the court of appeal on the
one hand, and the interpretation of the Basic Law (which was passed under
the supreme authority of the Western victorious powers) in the interest of
the German People on the other hand.

This procedure is problematic. Contradictory patterns of thought, i.e. ones
which exclude each other, hit upon each other. The viewpoint that is to be
suspected amongst the judges could be based on power. That of the defence of
the affected, has been exposed to demonisation for decades and is wholly
powerless. Since the thinking of both poles refers to the same subject, the
differing ways of thinking are in relation to one another. This is laden
with complexes of feelings which hinder the free flow of the thoughts.

It seems useful to bring this to attention. It could happen that the court
remembers that thoughts - this includes the realm of legal arguments - are
not to be assessed according to whether they are "politically correct" or
not, but according to whether they are correct or incorrect, true or false.
It may well happen that the odd thought will strike one like a punch in the
stomach and wind the person. Then it helps to take a deep breath and ask
oneself: "Hmm, why not?" With this simple question one frees oneself from
the thought taboos which make us the slaves of foreign powers. This advice
could here be especially helpful because the Jewish Question will, in the
following, be examined in an unheard of manner. The taboo of all taboos will
be shamelessly violated, for the search for truth does not tolerate any
taboos.

The circumstances favour this attempt. The power that tries to dictate our
thoughts has exposed itself as a criminal power through the feigned "Attack
on America" from the 11th of September 2001. What this power is moved by at
heart and what it aims at, has been expertly revealed in unsurpassed quality
by Gerhoch Reisegger in his book "Wir werden schamlos irregeführt - Vom 11.
September bis zum Irak-Krieg", Hohenrain Verlag, Tübingen 2003.

By court order, in accordance with § 349 sect. 2 StPO from the 17th of July
2003, the court of appeal has rejected the appeal of the affected as
unfounded "because the re-examination of the sentence ... did not come
across a legal incorrectness that disadvantages the accused."

The Federal Constitutional Court can also - as it has the power to do so -
ignore the proof that the sentence of the affected is founded on
arbitrariness. The refusal to take note of the facts and their connection
would, however, result in the reproach of treason and perversion of the
course of justice, due to the principle of actio libera in causa. The time
of the "organisational form of a modality of foreign rule" (Carlo Schmid) -
(OMF), which has given itself the name "Federal Republic of Germany", has
run out. Under the pressure of the catastrophe that is hurtling towards us
(cf. Gerhoch Reisegger) the German People will regain its ability to act in
the uprising for the organification of the German Reich (cf. art. 146 GG).

The grounds for appeal which were presented to the regional court of appeal
were nothing other than the anticipated reasoning for the constitutional
complaint. The part which deals with the Auschwitz complex is here newly
presented:

......

......

IV.

Reprimands concerning complex B: "Documents of the defence"

......
[Retrievable under
http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org/hm/aktuelles/Revisionsbegruendung_Rennicke.h
tm]

That was the excerpt from the grounds for appeal.


The violations of the basic rights at singles:

Through the implementation of § 130 sects. 3 and 4 StGB, art. 1 sect. 1 GG
has been violated. The sovereign power unduly claims for itself to fuse the
convictions of the people who live in its sphere of influence with a decreed
truth. That is the negation of the spiritualness of the average addressee.
The normative statement of the objective constitutional right, that the
dignity of man is sacrosanct, contains a value statement which in itself
however, is based on a statement of a condition of being. This condition of
being - the "dignity of man" - which "is" independent of space and time and
which "is to be" legally realised, is constituted of the following: Every
human is a human due to his spirit which lifts him above impersonal nature,
and which enables him, through his own decision, to become conscious of
himself, determine himself and to shape his environment (similarly Wintrich,
Grundrechte p. 6, 15; Festschrift für Apelt p. 1 ff.; BayVBl. 58, 100; cf.
also Marcic, Vom Gesetzesstaat zum Richterstaat, 1957, p. 313 ff.). [Dürig
in Dürig-Maunz, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, art. 1 margin no. 17]

Apart from the fact that no person is able to become conscious of himself
"through his own decision" - just as nobody is born into this world "through
his own decision" - this commentary is the rock in the surf of opinions
which argue amongst themselves for the most diverse pictures of man (cf. to
this point the former constitutional judge Prof. Dr. Ernst-Wolfgang
Böckenförde, Vom Wandel des Menschenbildes im Recht, Rhema-Verlag, 2001).

The spiritualness of a person is a condition of being, i.e. something which
can normatively neither be questioned nor formed. Rather, this is the reason
of the inner sense of all statements whose logic is determined by a "You
shall".

Whichever contents the spirit may receive through examples, teaching of
faith, tradition, education and upbringing in associating with his own kin:
these are all, without exception, merely the malleable material at which the
subjective spirit forms itself through its own spiritual work and carves
itself out toward conviction. It is only the conviction which has been
worked out by oneself, which is this inner steadfastness, without which
human existence is a miserable there-being. This innermost being of the
spirit is only made true through its expression. Conviction is the light
which is shed upon everything in which the person is interested. It
determines all possible decisions of the person and is in itself actuality
(the emphasis being on the verb 'to act'). The suppression of the expression
of a conviction is forced hindrance of a dignified existence, for only in
the expression of his core being does man have dignity. A core being which
does not express itself is not actual. An expression which is not the
expression of an innermost being is undignified. The arrogance of being able
to determine that a certain conviction is not at all possible due to the
"obviousness of the contrary" - e.g. the conviction that the mass
extermination of Jews is a false claim - is the eternally futile attempt to
destroy the spirit. This attempt does not destroy the spirit, but those who
try to kill it. Any further comment is superfluous.

Article 1 sect. 3 GG is violated insofar as the expert courts have declared
the affected to be an outlaw, without basing their decision on valid law by
means of a legal argumentation. His case is a further example for the
general decision of the "organisational form of a modality of foreign rule"
(OMF) to declare people as outlaws who do not bow down to the foreign
power's dictates of conviction ("political correctness").

Article 2 sect. 1 GG is violated insofar as the refusal to allow the
affected to be part of the peace of right, robs him of the possibility to
communicate his convictions to other people in the normal way without
exposing himself to the danger of criminal persecution and social ostracism.
In this case, the fanning out of the general right of freedom into specific
basic rights (freedom of opinion, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly)
covers only sections. The unspecific effect of discrimination which "deniers
of the Holocaust" (as sinners against "political correctness" - pc - ) are
exposed to, extends further than the protective realm of these specific
rights of freedom.

As is shown by the sentences of the expert courts in the case of the
affected, this ostracism at once causes pigeonholing into patterns of bias,
which are resistant against criticism, and which cannot be broken by means
of legal redress.

After the abandonment of the theory that the valid relationship between the
state and the citizen influences the relationship of private people
(Drittwirkungstheorie), the affected remains wholly unprotected in the
private realm (cf. Dürig in Dürig-Maunz, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, art. 3
sect. 1 margin no. 505 ff.).

The "Uprising of the Decent" which Chancellor Schröder longed for, against
the "Nazis", "neo-nazis", "right-wing extremists" and "right-wing radicals"
has led to proper campaigns of extermination in the realm of private right:
bank accounts, jobs and tenancy agreements of the affected are terminated.
Pressure of expulsion is created through the mobilisation of animosities in
their area of living (distribution of "wanted" posters with picture and the
slogan "Nazis, get out!", gathering into mobs in front of their homes,
waylaying and attacking, break-ins with serious destruction of fixtures and
fittings, ignition of cars parked in front of the house, etc.) by the OMF's
gangs of thugs (known as "Antifa"). Ultimately, there will probably soon be
protective (custody) camps into which the affected can flee to save their
health and their lives. For, the protective guarding of the targets - to
which the signatory belongs since the 31st of July 2003 -, from the armed
mobs is far too costly for it to be generally implemented for a longer
period of time. In connection with the criminal proceedings due to
"incitement of the People", which are the subject of the complaint, the
affected and his family are acutely exposed to this pressure of expulsion
and are forced to find a place to live in an area which is less hateful.

Article 3 sect. 1 GG is violated insofar as the loss of rights negates the
equality before the law of the affected (Ipsen, VVDStRL 10 - 1952 - 80 ff.).
The reason for his unequal treatment is his viewpoint, which is
discriminated from above. Not permitted to be expressed is the opinion that,
under consideration of the supposed circumstances of the deeds, the
assertion that 6 million Jews were systematically killed with the poison gas
"Zyklon B" in the territory of the German Reich's sovereignty, is
incompatible with the laws of nature. This opinion is considered to be
political because it aims - so it is claimed - at the restoration of the
Germans' sense of self-esteem, and because it burdens - so it is said - the
relation to the Jewish minority in the FRG as a result of this. By these
means, the guarantee of the equal treatment of political opinions as it is
concretised in art. 3 sect. 3 GG is disregarded.

Article 4 sect. 1 GG is violated because § 130 sects. 3 and 4 StGB has as
its object the discrimination of National Socialist ideology and its
philosophical relatives. It follows from the legal texts that with this
punitive form "a political signal against right-wing extremist and neo-nazi
developments" is to be set (v. Bubnoff in Leipziger Kommentar, 11th edition,
1996, margin no. 42 to § 130). The punishable denying, or rather playing
down, of the Holocaust is meant to be proof of "anti-constitutional
right-wing extremism". With the sanction one wants to strike at this and
nothing else. In the sense of this clarification of the normative aim,
"anti-constitutional right-wing extremism" is first and foremost the
philosophy which determined National Socialism. This philosophy however, is
protected by article 4 sect. 1 GG just like all other ideological and
religious confessions.

The attempt to exclude the National Socialist ideology from this protective
realm, due to its supposed racist and anti-humanitarian contents, by
constructing an immanent boundary of the basic rights out of art. 139 GG, is
doomed to failure. "There is no room in the system of the GG for a type of
'special regulation for the right'." (Herzog in Maunz/Dürig/Herzog/Scholz,
Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, art. 139 margin no. 4).

It must not be overlooked that first and foremost, Judaism would be affected
by such an immanent boundary. As has been demonstrated ... the Jewish
religion and ideology is to this day characterised by racism and misanthropy
to a degree that is without equal in European history.

In order to show that this assessment of the Jews is not due to Teutonic
wrath, the thoughts of the former British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin,
are here presented (he was the successor of Anthony Eden when the Labour
Party formed the first post-war government in Britain). His parliamentary
permanent secretary, Christopher Mayhew, noted in his diary (May 1948):
"There is no doubt in my mind that Ernest detests Jews. He makes the odd
wisecrack about the 'Chosen People'; declares the Old Testament the most
immoral book ever written and says the Jews taught Hitler the technique of
terror. 'What could you expect when people are brought up from the cradle on
the Old Testament' he said to me." [Source: Avi Davis in Jewsweek Magazine
from the 21st of January 2003
http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWha
t=object&enDispWho=Article%5El17&enZone=Stories&enVersion=0&]

The incompatibility of § 130 sects. 3 and 4 StGB with article 5 sect. 1 GG
has been convincingly explained by Huster ...

Since this criminal law aims at discriminating against "right-wing
extremism" - this being admitted by the "lawmaker" - it also violates the
ban of article 5 sect. 3 GG.

Article 103 sect. 3 is violated by the dogma of obviousness.

The principle, that the accused is to be granted a legal hearing, excludes
treating the characteristics of the legal elements of the offence and other
facts, directly relevant as evidence, as being obvious
(Kleinknecht/Meyer-Goßner, StPO, 45th edition, § 244 margin no. 51 with
reference to Alsberg/Nüse/Meyer: Der Beweisantrag im Strafprozeß, 5th
edition, p. 541; LR-Gollwitzer 232 für Schriften mit strafbarem Inhalt).

The distinguishing feature of the legal element of offence of § 130 sect.3
StGB is a deed which connects to "an action committed under the rule of the
National Socialists, of the type described in § 220a sect. 1 StGB
(genocide)".

The Federal German supreme court (BGH) has dismissed this in continual
"dispensation of justice" and has, for the application of § 130 sect. 3
StGB, drawn up the statement that "the millionfold murder of the Jews in the
gas chambers of the concentration camps of the Second World War" is an
obvious fact in the sense of § 244 sect. 3 sentence 2 StPO (BGHSt 40, 97,99
containing further proofs).

Whilst the determination that has been consulted for this is a norm of
authorisation (... in these cases the court may neglect taking evidence), a
norm of prohibition, whose sanctions are reliable, has practically been made
out of this with regard to the so-called Holocaust. Neither is the court
permitted to hear evidence on the "Holocaust" nor is the accused, or rather
his defence, allowed to put forward a motion to hear the relevant evidence.
A defence attorney who disregards this - as in the case of the attorneys
Bock and Rieger - is himself persecuted and punished due to "incitement of
the People" in accordance with § 130 sect. 3 StGB. It was demonstrated above
(...) that this practice has nothing to do with dispensing justice.

Thanks to the research of the historians that are vilified as
"revisionists", the claim of the enemies of the German Reich, that millions
of Jews were killed in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during
the National Socialist rule, has long been exposed as a propaganda lie. This
has now led to timid corrective attempts from out of the centre of society,
obviously, because one fears the fit of rage that could be directed against
the Jews - without differentiating between the guilty and innocent - if the
truth becomes known to the Germans in particular and the other Peoples in
general.

The article that was recently published by the main editor of DER SPIEGEL,
Fritjof Meyer, under the patronage of the former president of the Bundestag,
Prof. Dr. Rita Süßmuth, in the magazine Osteuropa no. 5/2002 p. 631ff.,Die
Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz - Neue Erkenntisse durch neue Archivfunde [The
Number of Victims of Auschwitz - New Insights due to new Findings in the
Archives] has now paved the way for a potential breakthrough and change of
tactics.

Because of the conviction of the affected due to "incitement of the People"
and in order to hinder Meyer's article being covered by silence, citizens of
the German Reich began a "Campaign against the Obviousness of the Holocaust"
and passed the Verden Manifesto on the 5th of February. This is documented
in the appendix (...).

......

After this report had been written, a notification of termination from the
public prosecutor's office in Lüneburg from the 1st of August 2003 - file
reference 503 Js 14447/03 -, was issued to a citizen of the Reich who had
reported himself for playing down the Holocaust, this termination being
remarkable in a number of ways, the most important parts of which are
therefore quoted here:

"Concerning your self-report at the public prosecutor's office in Berlin on
07.04.2003
Dear Herr Marloh,
due to lack of sufficient suspicion, I have terminated the preliminary
proceedings specified above, the competence of which I have assumed from the
prosecutor's office in Berlin, in accordance with § 170 sect. 2 StPO.

Your self-report due to incitement of the People is based on the assumption
that you fulfilled the offence of incitement of the People in accordance
with § 130 sect. 3 and sect. 4 in connection with sect. 2 no. 1a StGB, by
simultaneously sending the article published by Fritjof Meyer in the
magazine Osteuropa, 52nd year, issue 5, May 2002, with the title: Die Zahl
der Opfer von Auschwitz - Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde to the
members of the German Bundestag Monika Griefahn, Michael Großer-Brömer and
Peter Rauen.

A deed committed in the manner described in § 6 of the International Law
Penal Code (Völkergesetzbuch) under the rule of the National Socialists is
neither denied in Fritjof Meyer's article nor is it played down. In his
essay, Meyer reaches the conclusion that a total of 510.000 people were
murdered in the National Socialist labour and extermination camp
Auschwitz-Birkenau, of which 356.000 were murdered in the gas chambers
between early 1942 and the beginning of November 1944. Meyer has therefore
not denied the National Socialist mass killings in the extermination camp
Auschwitz-Birkenau as such. Neither is the genocide committed by the
National Socialists refuted in this article on the whole, nor is it claimed
that mass killings had not been perpetrated, or that these are not proven.

In as far as that it is conceivable, that actually committed deeds of
genocide in the sense of § 130 sect. 3 StGB are played down in this article,
an expressly quantitative or qualitative trivialising of the manner, extent,
results or immorality of particular or all of the National Socialist acts of
violence is necessary, for affirmation of this feature of the offence in
respect of the law. With the number of victims he has calculated, Fritjof
Meyer may be under the figure which is given in other studies, however, the
mere assumption of a lesser number of victims does not suffice to assume an
offensive trivialising.

The offence of approval, denial, or trivialising of the genocide committed
against the Jewish population under National Socialist rule, was introduced
into the punitive offence of § 130 StGB with the Law to Fight Crime from
28.10.94. With this, the lawmaker wanted to contribute to the hindrance of
right-wing extremist propaganda. Therefore the criterion of trivialising is
only fulfilled if the person who makes the assertion, plays down the
Holocaust, whitewashes it or disguises its true magnitude. Simultaneously,
all facets of agitating incitement as well as embellished discriminating
disrespect are to be grasped (thus: BGHSt 46, pp. 36, 40). This purpose of
the law already clarifies that the mere fiddling with the number of victims
does not suffice to be counted as trivialising.

If a relativising manner of expression is to be considered, then the
significance of the contents of the complete statement of the expression
that are grasped through intelligent reading, are to be ascertained through
a textual analysis under consideration of all attendant circumstances.

A revisionist-agitating general message is not to be inferred from Fritjof
Meyer's text.

Rather, Meyer clearly distances himself in his essay from every attempt at
trivialising the Holocaust and its horrors. Meyer explicitly states in the
last sentence of his essay - and thus in a textually particularly prominent
place:

'This conclusion does not relativise the barbarity, but verifies it - a
confirmed warning of a new break with civilisation.' In the light of his
calculations, Meyer explicitly describes the acts of violence committed
under National Socialist rule as 'verified barbarity' and a 'break with
civilisation'. This conclusion of Fritjof Meyer from the figures he has
calculated leaves no space, within the frame of the general view of the
contents that are given, for the opinion that Meyer wished to express with
his figures that 'things weren't so bad after all'. This interpretation of
the article of Fritjof Meyer - which you have obviously adopted - perverts
the message that the author wanted to bring across, and indeed brought
across. The article of Fritjof Meyer which you sent to numerous members of
the Bundestag does not fulfil the offence of incitement of the People, alone
due to legal reasons, which is why no punitive deed of dissemination can be
assumed, according to § 130 arts. 3, 4 and 2, no. 1a StGB, in the multiple
sending of this article."

But what is then "obvious"? One is permitted to fiddle the figures - on
condition of the correct inner attitude. But what does this mean?

"Obviousness" is an institute of the right of evidence. Where evidence is
concerned, it is a matter of facts - equally inner and outer facts.

The Federal German supreme court considers the millionfold murder of the
Jews through poison gas to be an "obvious" fact. But if only 356.000 died in
the gas, how do things look for the obviousness of the "genocide"?

The path suggested by the prosecutor's office in Lüneburg is not passable.
It votes for the condition, that he who - politically correct -
simultaneously defends himself against that his insights be "abused" for a
propaganda that rehabilitates the German People - which is therefore branded
as right-wing extremist -, is permitted to fiddle with the figure of the
victims. To bow down pro forma to political correctness is to suffice.
Whoever thinks so harebrained is permitted to deny or play down the
Holocaust.

For the others it counts as an "obvious fact" as before.

The fact that it is - on top of things - also overseen that the "Holocaust"
is a value judgement and not a fact, is here mentioned in passing.

Who has ever shaken hands with the Holocaust? Who has smelt it, weighed it,
or even seen it? Has anybody ever touched it?

A historical fact is not a fact in the sense of the code of criminal
procedure. Facts in the sense of the latter are perceptible changes of the
internal and external environment.

If Chinese and Soviet soldiers engage in battles at the Ussuri and many die
through violence, then with the ascertainment of this fact, which is
tangible from the viewpoint of criminal procedure, the question remains
whether this was just a border incident or the begin of a war between Red
China and the Soviet Union.

If, at the same time as the events at the Ussuri, skirmishes had taken place
at other locations of the Soviet-Chinese border, then this would also not be
the equivalent of the ascertainment that a war had taken place between the
SU and Red China. Rather, these events could still be categorised under the
concept of "armed reconnaissance" (cf. Carl von Clausewitz). The parties
involved may just have followed the purpose of testing the willingness and
fitness for war of the other side, without intending to start a war.

Only if divisions equipped for war had been put on standby in the relevant
area, and some of these had been led into a general conflict in accordance
with a military plan and under participation of all arms of the services,
only then would the historians be justified to infer, from the observable
facts, that a war had taken place between the SU and Red China.

If 4 million Jews had indeed been gassed, then one would be permitted to
conclude that this was based on a plan of extermination by the Reich
government.

If however, only 100 or 1.000 or 10.000 Jews had been killed in this manner,
then one could not seriously speak of a planned extermination of the Jewish
people. If 100.000 or 350.000 murders through gas are up for debate, and if
circumstances are mentioned - as Meyer does (loc. cit. p. 633) - which
suggest a different motive for the killings than the "destruction of the
European Jews", namely considerations on checking the spread of diseases,
then the Holocaust theory is very questionable indeed. In November 1942
Himmler ordered, under strictest secrecy, - according to Meyer - to "gas"
"all Jewish prisoners that are frail, ill or unfit for work" "in order to
prevent the spread of epidemics".

If the reference, that Himmler himself withdrew this order "with a bill"
around the 27th of April 1943 - i.e. after 6 months - and decided that in
future only "mentally ill convicts" were to be killed, and that all other -
including the bedridden - convicts that are unfit to work are to be excluded
from the killings, and are to be given work "that they can also do in bed",
and that this order was "to be followed to the letter" (Meyer loc. cit. p.
633, footnote 9 with reference to documents of the International Military
Tribunal - IMT - in Nuremberg), then the supposition of a planned
"industrial" murder of the Jews with the aim of "the liberation of Europe
from the Jews" becomes unlikely.

Furthermore: If the "millions" of victims have to be decreased by millions,
and only less than half a million remain for debate, then how do things look
for the evidence on which the thesis of the obviousness of the "millionfold
murder of the Jews" is based? They must have lied and falsified the facts
beyond belief.

How has Fritjof Meyer "fiddled" the figure?

He deletes the supposed main location of the murders through gas in
Auschwitz, the mortuaries I and II: the attempts that had taken place there
had been failures "because the ventilators were counter-productive and
because in the following eleven months, the expected mass of victims did not
arrive." Immediately, the mass murders are relocated to two farm houses
which are situated outside the camp - of which nobody ever spoke about
before the mortuaries were found to have been unsuited. There is nothing
left to be seen of the farm houses. Their foundations have only "recently"
been discovered. The location and procedure of the crime must have been
wholly different than has always been claimed to be "obvious".

After all, there are thousands of eyewitness statements which declare with
certainty, to have seen the crime in the mortuaries of the crematoria I and
II. The mass-killings were grotesquely recorded according to their
statements: labour convicts who pulled the corpses of those who had been
killed in the gas out of the mortuaries of the crematoria I and II, with
their bare hands, topless, covered in sweat, without gas masks, whilst
smoking.

Like almost all of the so-called revisionists, Meyer takes the laws of
physics and technical experiences into his considerations, in order to show
that the horrendous figures of numerous millions of dead through gassings
belong into the realm of fiction.

The Dokumente der Verteidigung, due to which the affected was sentenced,
contain nothing other than this.

What is now - after the power of the news magazine DER SPIEGEL, which is to
be assumed behind Meyer, has entered the arena with its extensive archives -
still "obvious" in the opinion of the High Jurists? What should, what may, a
timid person take to be the truth when the subject is the "Holocaust"? How
can Emily Yokel be helped, who reveals her naive mind to a judge and thus
possibly makes herself liable to prosecution:


The Trial of Emily Yokel
A tragic comedy by Ursula Haverbeck


Emily Yokel reported herself, in connection with a criminal charge which was
brought against Rita Süßmuth and Fritjof Meyer by Horst Mahler for
trivialising the Holocaust in an article which was published in the magazine
Osteuropa in May 2002, because of distribution of this article. Here, now,
are excerpts from the protocols of the four days of the trial.

The first day of the trial

Judge Core: Why did you report yourself?
Accused: In order to make it possible for German judges to publicly examine
this question, which is a nightmare for the German People.
Judge Core: We are not dealing with a question here, but with a generally
known, obvious fact.
Accused: What does obvious mean in this case?
Judge Core: That the matter no longer needs proof, since it is true and
unique.
Accused: To which fact does this apply?
Judge Core: In the National Socialist state, the German People committed the
greatest - i.e. unique - crime by gassing millions of Jews.
Accused: You mean gassed with Zyklon B?
Judge Core: Yes.
Accused: What determines the uniqueness? This is just an indefinite term.
Judge Core: It is not at all indefinite. It means: mass murder by use of the
most modern technology.
Accused: But was the guillotine not also the most modern technical means for
the mass killing of humans of its time? And what about the nuclear bomb on
Hiroshima? It too was the most modern development of weapons technology and
killed hundreds of thousands within seconds.
Judge Core: Yes, but not six million.
Accused: So it's the number of victims which is decisive? But precisely this
figure has been drastically reduced, especially in the last ten years. It is
no longer obvious. Please read the most recent publication of Fritjof Meyer.
Judge Core: I've read it. Meyer only ascertains a reduction of the figure
for Auschwitz. This does not mean that millions were not murdered elsewhere.
Accused: Oh, now I see what is meant. Could you please tell me where these
other locations are and what their names are? Up until now it was always
claimed that Auschwitz was the main scene of the crime - thus the term
"Auschwitz Lie" which is relevant to the courts. But this would incorrect if
you say that it was not Auschwitz. Where then?
Judge Core: Today's hearing is finished.

The second day of the trial

Judge Core: Are you aware of the fact that, according to § 130 section 4
StGB, denial of the Holocaust is punishable with up to three years prison?
Accused: Is it possible to deny something which did not take place?
Judge Core: No, of course not. But the fact that its denial is punishable,
proves that the Holocaust must have taken place.
Accused: Oh, I see. But this paragraph was passed only after Auschwitz had
also been thoroughly examined by chemists, and the story of the 4.5 million
Jews gassed in these buildings was no longer credible. Fritjof Meyer has
just confirmed precisely this to be the truth. As such the location is
unknown.
Judge Core: But this is not a matter of the location, but of the facts.
Accused: But a fact of such a gigantic extent, with 6 million dead, needs a
location in order to be provable as a fact, as an event.
Judge Core: How can you deny this dreadful crime, for which there are
hundreds of witnesses? This is outrageous.
Accused: I'm not denying anything. I just don't know where it took place,
after Fritjof Meyer - with the approval of Prof. Dr. Rita Süßmuth, we may
assume - proved that it was not Auschwitz. Currently, the scene of the crime
is unknown, and as such, obviousness is not given.
Judge Core: You're neglecting the fact that there were many other places:
Majdanek, Treblinka, etc.
Accused: But I know hardly anything about these. In public and in the media,
only the connection between Auschwitz and the Holocaust was always
presented. Auschwitz was the place where the millions were gassed. And
that's now been proven to be wrong, to be a lie - the Auschwitz Lie.
Judge Core: It is punishable to say this. And anyway, already tomorrow new
insights which refute Meyer could be available. Scientific statements are
seldom definite.
Accused: This means that there is no obviousness, but at the most
provisional insights? Is that what you mean?
Judge Core: I don't mean anything, and hereby end the hearing.

The third day of the trial

Judge Core: Do you admit your guilt according to § 130 section 4 of the
Penal Code?
Accused: I thought that I'd made myself guilty, by distributing this
article, but following the previous two hearings, this seems questionable to
me.
Judge Core: Why?
Accused: Because it can hardly be considered guilt to serve the finding of
truth. And because it has become obvious that not only I, but obviously you
too, know very little about the scene of this enormous crime.
Judge Core: I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out that it is not a
matter of the scene of the crime but of the fact of the Holocaust.
Accused: That is correct, but you have not said how a Holocaust can take
place on this earth without a location. And in case a new location is found,
it will now also have to be carefully and extensively examined so that a new
mishap doesn't happen, and that it isn't again said: four million Jews were
here gassed, and a few years later it's only a couple of hundred thousand.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]