Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00089)

"There is No Religion Higher Than Truth"

This was the arguement of Socrates, that 
ther is a Truth that should be aspired for. Meanwhile, the Sophists did not=
believe 
that there was an "Objective Truth." They believed that if you can argue co=
nvincingly 
and enough people accept your arguement as sound, than this is what is acce=
pted. Many 
of Plato's Dialogues are between Sophists and Socrates. Socrates used aguem=
ent to 
getter closer to the Truth. And he argued that that was the true objective =
of 
arguement.

Now, I'm not sure, but maybe what we are dealing with here in today's 
world and in the example below is the return of the Sophists. Now, if enoug=
h people can 
be convinced that the World is flat, will it make the world flat? If we can=
get perhaps 
88% of the world population to believe the world is flat, maybe we can make=
it True? What 
do you think?

Ariel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" 
<ringding@b...> wrote:
> 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 happene=
d.
> 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 his policy from the sta=
ndpoint of 
the Ancient Wisdom, but read for yourself the complete essay below:
> 
> 
> 
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/mahler4.htm
> 
> 
> From: "Horst 
Mahler" hm@d... 
> 
> To: "Adelaide Institute" info@a... 
> 
> 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@h...
> 
> 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 oft=
he
> 
SPIEGEL, Fritjof Meyer, for writing, and the former president of the
> Bundestag, 
Prof. Dr. Rita Süßmuth, for publishing the article "Die Zahl der
> 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 th=
e
> 
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 Ma=
y
> 
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 o=
n
> 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 fr=
om
> 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 i=
n
> 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 command=
ed
> 
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 t=
he
> 
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 centu=
ry
> 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 ac=
t
> 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 n=
ow
> 
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 enemie=
s
> 
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 i=
n
> 
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 b=
e
> 
suspected amongst the judges could be based on power. That of the defence o=
f
> 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 u=
s
> 
(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 t=
he
> 
convictions of the people who live in its sphere of influence with a decree=
d
> 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 ki=
n:
> 
these are all, without exception, merely the malleable material at which th=
e
> 
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 whic=
h
> 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 - ) ar=
e
> 
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, i=
s
> 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&enDispWh=
a
> 
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 ab=
ove
> 
(...) 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 [T=
he
> 
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 "Holocaus=
t"
> 
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 relevan=
t
> 
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 no=
t
> 
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 t=
o
> 
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]