Sylvia Stolz, The German Joan of Arc

Published by admin on Tue, 2011-09-27 22:37

Sylvia the Proud

What’s in a name? Quite a bit

in the case of Sylvia Stolz.

“Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that word describes Sylvia very well: proud and undaunted. No wonder her patriotic supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.”

___________________________________________________________________

Miss Sylvia Stolz is an attorney in the Federal Republic of Germany (FDR) who gained notoriety as one of the defense attorneys for Ernst Zundel in his trial there for “Holocaust Denial” or “inciting the public” (with the truth).

In exercising her vigorous defense of Mr. Zundel, she herself was charged with “Holocaust Denial” and is, as of this writing, undergoing her own trial under said charge.

Here is a news article from that time describing the proceedings:

Apr. 5, 2006.
MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - A defence lawyer of far-right activist Ernst Zundel, charged with denying the Holocaust, was physically carried from the courtroom Wednesday after defying a ruling banning her from the trial on grounds she tried to sabotage the proceedings.

Two female police officers had to carry Sylvia Stolz from the Mannheim courtroom after she refused the judge's order to leave.

"Resistance! The German people are rising up," Stolz shouted as she was taken from the room.

Some of the scores of supporters of Zundel, a 66-year-old German deported from Canada, also quit the courtroom. Zundel, who emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001, has been standing trial since November on charges of years of anti-Semitic activities including denying the Holocaust - a crime in Germany - in documents and on the Internet.

The presiding judge halted the trial on March 9 to ask for Stolz's removal after she denounced the court as a "tool of foreign domination" and described the Jews as an "enemy people" in earlier sessions.

Sylvia Stolz is a committed resister of what she calls the OMF-BRD (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign rule–Bundesrepublik) – which means the Federal Republic is not a sovereign state, but exists under foreign rule imposed on Germany by the Allied victors after WWII. She and other patriots continue to speak out on this matter at the risk of their lives and liberty. They claim that since the elected government of the Third Reich never surrendered, that constitution is still the valid law of the land but is prevented from functioning as such.

During November 2005, Sylvia Stolz wrote the following letter and legal brief, explaining her approach to the Zundel defense:

In this stage of persecution, the principal danger is coming from professional judges who have been enlisted to do the will of the foreign power occupying Germany .

As citizens of the Reich, their duty is to assist fellow citizens who are threatened by the enemy (§ 323c StGB).

The law requires that they assist the lay judges by “opening their eyes” to the basic explanations in the defense brief of 18 October 2005 .

Once they are able to see clearly and perceive the situation, the lay judges will fulfill their duty to come to the assistance of their endangered fellow citizen, since they are also citizens of the Reich.

Mannheim, 8 November 2005

Sylvia Stolz

Attorney at Law

Sylvia continues:

When I submitted this, I intended only to draw attention to the existing legal situation.

After intensive consideration, I pointed out how the legal questions resulting from the military defeat of the German Reich appear to me.

Unfortunately the jurists of the so called courts of the OMF-BRD are interpreting the proper and dutiful activities of the defense attorney as nothing more than “confusing the lay judges!”

But, what was their actual duty and obligation?

In order to remedy the “confusion of lay judges,” they should have analyzed the legal situation and informed the lay judges of the results of their investigation, if this were really their concern.

But they neglected their duty – for obvious reasons.

After all, what would they have had to explain to the lay judges?

The motion had put them in a position in which they had to discuss concrete questions.

Protocol demands that the answers would have to be treated as “significant formal elements of the case,” or at least retained in a documented footnote or remark.

This requirement of documenting a legal point or argument exposes the jurists of the OMF-BRD to a significant danger:

They would unequivocally have to ignore the continuing pronouncement of law by the Federal “Constitutional” Court, thereby ignoring the continued existence of the Reich; declare the Basic Law to be a Constitution and thereby ignore Article 146 of Basic Law, with its determination that the Basic Law is not a constitution; and pronounce the explanations of Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid as invalid. Prof. Schmid, the “Father of the Bundesrepublik” carefully explained that the Federal Republic is not a state, but rather an “organizational form of a modality of foreign rule” and thus a violation of international law forced upon Germany by its victorious enemies. By doing this they would debase the lay judges with deliberately false instructions, turning them into spineless tools of treachery. They would be clearly and openly committing treason against their country.

According to Reich law they would have to expect accountability for their crime, as soon as the present form of foreign rule loses its power to hinder the functioning of the Reich.

For the informed and attentive observer, this return of functionality is already coming into view.

In some instances, the OMF jurists have reacted with unadulterated hatred, especially the 6^th Superior Criminal Court of Mannheim.

They speak of “incitement” and “slandering the Federal Republic” and even threaten criminal prosecution.

It is as though these traitors and collaborators had slept through all the lectures on state, national and criminal law during their days as law students.

Similarly, the so called “Federal Constitutional Court” has established a “Constitutional Complaint” that even includes a “penalty for misuse” in the amount of 1500 Euros.[10]

In most cases, however, the outcome has been a continuance of the trial, and this has occurred even in “Constitutional Court.”

The latter has allowed “Constitutional” appeals (that is, appeals dealing with the irreconcilability of Section 130 Paragraph III of Penal Code with Article 5 of Basic Law) to continue for years without conclusion.

In May of 2005, Holocaust jurists responded openly with an article in the Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift (New Judicial Weekly) NJW Heft 21/2005, pages 1476-.

The article flowed from the pen of Chief Judge Dr. Günter Bertram of Hamburg District Court, himself an experienced campaigner on the Holocaust front.

He begins his elucidation with the following confession:

“Section 130 of the Penal Code contains irregular emergency law.

Therefore, and insofar as this is true, it contradicts constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and opinion.

Sixty years after the end of the Third Reich, it is imperative that German lawmakers bring about a change of direction.

They must abandon their “Sonderweg” (peculiar path) if they want to meet the normal standards of a nation of laws.”

Bertram accuses the “Constitutional Court” of refusing to take a position regarding Section 130, Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code “irregardless of concerns that have grown ever more intense and insistent.”

The matter is especially significant for the court system, since it clearly poses the imperative of suspending the endless Holocaust trials, at least temporarily.

By means of a resolution to submit evidence under Article 100 of the Basic Law, it would pass this “Schwarzer Peter” (the card one wants to get rid of) to the “ Constitutional Court .”

What happens if an OMF “judge” is guided by his conscience, and arrives at the same conviction as I have?

What if he, loyal to his duty and in accordance with his oath, then acts on the strength of his conviction?

Like General Reinhard Günzel of the Bundeswehr, he would immediately feel the hard fist of foreign rule and be driven from office.

Would this be a confirmation or refutation of the opinions I have presented here?

The OMF jurists are obviously aware of this dilemma.

They show this awareness by inevitably refusing to take a position regarding these questions.

The pattern is perfectly consistent.

Thus far, there has not been a single instance in which a judge confronted this question, from Amtsrichter all the way up to the judges of the “Constitutional Court .”

It is entirely appropriate to speak of a conspiracy of silence here.

However, this conspiracy rests on a false assumption.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the “Constitutional Court” will be able to protect the Holocaust jurists from their deserved punishment.

The power to punish treason rests with the German nation, which most certainly will not allow this attempt to destroy the spirit of our nation to go unpunished as soon as it can again assert itself in the struggle against the enemy.

The cowardly judges serving the OMF will never be able to change the legal situation I have described.

Despite their treachery, the situation will continue the same as it is.

And even if the OMF judges, in order to continue receiving their blood money from the enemy, should today unanimously share this legal insight, it must still change course, since not all OMF judges are scoundrels.[11]

Many OMF judges are suffering conscience pangs, and some of them are going to show courage and discontinue collaboration with the enemy.

When that happens, some dams will break.

Those judges who hesitate too long will drown in the flood of liberated popular anger.

What really occurred at Mannheim?

The Third Court of Appeals of the Superior District Court of Karlsruhe used the events of the main proceedings against Ernst Zündel in 6^th Superior Court of Mannheim District to remove me from the defense team.

Now the Mannheim Court’s determination to rigorously suppress any defense of the accused that might be worthy of the name, has been realized, under cover of quoting maxims from the Supreme Court.[12]

The Superior District Court has closed its eyes to this, however.

It acts as though Dr. Meinerzhagen in Mannheim were directing a fair and impartial criminal trial with the goal of establishing truth.

My references to Dr. Meinerzhagen’s deceptive practices, including those in my oral presentation, were dismissed by Mr. Bauer, the chairman of the Third Court of Appeals in Karlsruhe .

He remarked that the Court was not interested in the conduct of Dr. Meinerzhagen.

He said the Court is interested in my conduct of the defense, and nothing else.

Mr. Bauer might not realize it, but his remark clearly shows that he and the entire Karlsruhe Court of Appeals has completely failed to grasp the legal situation.

The Karlsruhe Court did not realize the fact that both the disorderly conduct of Dr. Meinerzhagen and my reaction to it are a unit, growing arising from the same incident, and therefore cannot be divided.

One part cannot be judged separately from the other.

The role played by Dr. Meinerzhagen and colleagues is the defining moment in the main trial, therefore it must be considered more closely.

The ruling of the Mannheim Court of 7 November 2005 contains the allegation that the alleged genocide of Jews, called “Holocaust,” is “assumed to be the facts of the case” in Section 130 III of the OMF-BRD Penal Code, and that any submission of evidence that would tend to deny it is therefore ruled out. (Page 2.)

We must emphasize the circumstance that the Mannheim judges can refer to a decision by the Supreme Court in support of their contention. [13]

It would be a dereliction of duty bordering on treachery toward his client if a defending attorney in this situation should reassure himself with the thought that a higher authority might come to the rescue of his client.

The bending of the law inherent in the “assumption regarding the facts of the case” found in Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is derived directly from this “higher authority,” and it would be a miracle if a change of heart should come about in this case in the critical time frame.

Our foreign masters leave nothing to chance.

There can be no doubt that they have been careful to allow only such judges to advance to the OMF Supreme Court, whose loyalty as vassals is beyond doubt.

Any vestigial traces of the German spirit are to be expected least of all from such as these.

In this connection we are reminded of Adolf Hitler’s penetrating observations that he made in a similarly critical situation of our nation.

Beginning on page 759 of “Mein Kampf” he writes the following:

The Armistice of November 1918 ushered in a policy that was bound to lead gradually to total submission. Historical examples of a similar kind show that nations which lay down their arms without compelling reasons prefer in the ensuing period to accept the greatest humiliations and extortions rather than attempt to change their fate by a renewed resort to force.

This is humanly understandable. A shrewd victor will, if possible, always present his demands to the vanquished in installments. And then, with a nation that has lost its character (and this is the case of every one which voluntarily submits) the victor can be sure that the defeated nation will not regard one more of these individual oppressions as an adequate reason for taking up arms again. The more extortions are willingly accepted in this way, the more unjustified it strikes the citizens to finally defend themselves against a new, apparently isolated, though constantly recurring, oppression, especially when, all in all, so much more and greater misfortune has already been borne in patient silence. The fall of Carthage is the most horrible picture of such a slow execution of a people through its own deserts.

That is why Clausewitz in his “Drei Bekenntnisse” (Three Declarations) in his incomparable fashion, singles out this idea and nails it fast for all time, when he says: ‘'The stain of a cowardly submission can never be effaced; this drop of poison in the blood of a people is passed on to posterity and will paralyze and undermine the strength of later generations… On the other hand, even the loss of this freedom after a bloody and honorable struggle assures the rebirth of a people and is the seed of life from which some day a new tree will strike fast roots.”

Of course, a people that has lost all honor and character will not concern itself with such teachings. For no one who takes them to heart can sink so low; only he who forgets them, or no longer wants to know them, collapses. Therefore, we must not expect those who embody a spineless submission suddenly to look into their hearts and, on the basis of reason and all human experience, begin to act differently than before. On the contrary, it is these men in particular who will dismiss all such teachings until either the nation is definitely accustomed to its yoke of slavery or until better forces push to the surface, to wrest the power from the hands of the infamous spoilers. In the first case these people usually do not feel so badly, since not seldom they are appointed by the shrewd victors to the office of slave overseer, which these spineless natures usually wield more mercilessly over their people than any foreign beast put in by the enemy himself.

The development since 1918 shows us that in Germany the hope of winning the victor's favor by voluntary submission unfortunately determines the political opinions and the actions of the broad masses in the most catastrophic way. I attach special importance to emphasizing the broad masses, because I cannot bring myself to profess the belief that the commissions and omissions of our people's leaders are attributable to the same ruinous lunacy. As the leadership of our destinies has, since the end of the War, been quite openly furnished by Jews, we really cannot assume that faulty knowledge alone is the cause of our misfortune; we must, on the contrary, hold the conviction that conscious purpose is destroying our nation. And once we examine the apparent madness of our nation's leadership in the field of foreign affairs from this standpoint, it is revealed as the subtlest, ice-cold logic, in the service of the Jewish idea and struggle for world conquest.

The “Tatbestandliche Voraussetzung“ (Assumption Regarding the Facts of the Case) Concerning “Holocaust” is Bending the Law

In my personal response to Dr. Meinerzhagen’s personal attack on me, which I delivered in the session of 9 March, I stated the following:

“Let us put this to a little test.

Given this assumption regarding the facts of the case, would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case, even if he himself (possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust”) were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry” is a Jewish fabrication?[14]

Such a ruling would constitute a verdict against the truth as perceived by the judge.

Any judge who issued such a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath, namely: “I swear to the best of my knowledge and conscience to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.”

Would Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign statements to the effect that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the oath they took as judges?

This would be extremely unlikely.

The point to be made is: in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings about “Holocaust” clearly constitute a hindrance to his deciding against conviction. When this happens in a trial, the efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by means of verifiable evidence cannot legitimately be suppressed as “alien to the defense.”

A motion to present such evidence would in fact be the Königsweg (High Road) to a verdict of “not guilty,” thus making it incumbent upon counsel to follow this very path.

In view of this, do the above named jurists still persist in their illegal and unethical refusal to consider evidence? Do they prefer to leave it to chance and co-incidence, whether or not, on basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has doubts concerning “Holocaust?”

The only way this thought-experiment can be rejected as unacceptable is by accepting the proposition that doubts about “Holocaust” are unthinkable.

One has to assume that “Holocaust,” in defiance of the teachings of René Descartes (the father of modern epistemology) simply can not be doubted. [15]

Only if the sentence “The Holocaust can be doubted” could be logically proven false, would a judge blessed with normal human intelligence fail to have doubts about “Holocaust,” or fail to be persuaded that “Holocaust” has been pretended since the very beginning.

However, if it can not be ruled out that a person applying sound reasoning can conclude that “Holocaust” is nothing but a lie, then it can not logically be ruled out that such a conviction can be adopted by judges as well, since judges are human.

Or is there someone who maintains that all judges lack the capacity for rational thought?

Who will climb into the ring and prove René Descartes wrong?

It was Descartes who demonstrated that man can doubt everything except one thing: namely that he thinks, since he is doubting; and that he exists, since he thinks (cogito ergo sum).

I am not the only one who is of the opinion that it is possible to challenge the “Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust” with objective evidence.

The Petition Committee of the Bundestag shares this opinion as well.

This committee’s Beschlußempfehlung (recommendation for a ruling) Pet 4-12-07-45-5699 (Deutscher Bundestag 12. Wahlperiode – Drucksache 12/2849), which by the way was suggested by a “revisionist,” states the following:

The petitioner requests a more specific explanation of the prerequisites for application of the doctrine of Manifest Obviousness, as provided in Section 244 of Penal Code.

In view of this request the Petition Committee refers to the fact that, in accordance with Section 244 Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, the Criminal Court, in order to determine the truth, is required to take evidence as part of its office.

This includes all facts and material evidence that are of significance in making the decision.

According to Section 244 Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Criminal Code, one exception exists in which such presentations of evidence are concerned.

The presentations become unnecessary in case of “Manifest Obviousness.”

Such manifestly obvious facts can be common knowledge with which reasonable persons normally are endowed, or concerning which they can easily inform themselves from reliable sources and without need of specialized knowledge.

In addition, facts known by the Court to be true can also qualify as “manifestly obvious.”

These include such facts as the Court in the course of its official functions has reliably taken into experience.

Thus the Supreme Court has acknowledged the assumption of Gerichtskundigkeit (“known to the court”) as “unthinkable” in areas which are themselves the background of events, and yet create grounds for a larger number of similar crimes.

However, the assumption of manifest obviousness never unreasonably limits the possibilities of defense for the accused.

The Court has the obligation of discussing such facts as it considers “manifestly obvious” in the main proceedings, thereby giving the accused the possibility of taking a position.

Furthermore we must consider that “Manifest Obviousness” need not remain unchanged for all time.

New discoveries or events can come along that justify a differing decision.

If the participants bring before the Court circumstances that have not yet been taken into consideration, the matter deemed manifestly obvious can be refuted, and a renewed presentation of evidence concerning the facts of the case will become necessary.

This way, the accused and the defense have the possibility of bringing about, through well founded presentation the taking of evidence on facts that are manifestly obvious as well.

Thus the decision about the “manifest obviousness” of a fact is entirely dependent on the particular acknowledging Court and left to the independent judgment of the jurists.

Furthermore, in separate trials, entirely different decisions can result.

Whoever holds the opinion that “Holocaust” can not under any circumstances be doubted (more precisely, receive official permission to be doubted), must be able to explain the basis of his opinion.

Who would be able to (or even want to) maintain an opinion for which he did not need to state a reason?

Only God can do such a thing, if we believe in Him.

But the Jews are not God, although we sometimes have the impression that they think they are.

On the contrary: Jesus called them “Children of the devil” and called their father “a murderer since the beginning” and “the father of lies” (John 8:44)

Do these OMF jurists intend to deliver the Germans to the children of the devil and their lies?

Most of them are themselves of German blood, and the basic trait of being German is honesty.

We have this in our blood.

Therefore: dare to be honest!

Regardless of how often “Holocaust” jurists may argue in future that evidentiary motions which serve to refute the doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” are inadmissible conduct on the part of the of defense and should therefore be punished as “Holocaust Denial,” we dare to throw into their faces, before the whole world, that they –- whether from capriciousness, cowardice or maliciousness -- are themselves nothing more than common criminals.

These collaborators are exercising an arbitrary power against our nation that has been bestowed upon them by our enemy, thereby contributing to the success of his intent.

Our relentless foe is determined to destroy our very soul, killing it with lies about gas chambers.

We Germans – that is, we Germans who still want to be German, and who remain loyal to the Reich – refuse to obey those whom we know to be murderers of the German soul.

It was my duty as well as my legal right to do everything – I mean everything – in order to awaken in Dr. Meinerzhagen and colleagues doubt about “Holocaust” or better yet, to convince them that the doctrine of Manifest Obviousness of “Holocaust” has been a deception from the very beginning.

As presiding judge, Dr. Meinerzhagen is now suffering the consequence that his bending of the law, committed in the bright light of day, is obvious to the public.

How does he hope to exonerate himself?

Will he pretend to be too dumb to understand the intellectual process involved here?

I doubt that.

Can the judges of the Third Court of Appeals of the Superior District Court exculpate themselves with the excuse that they are unable to think logically?

Probably not.

We see through you.

Don’t believe that we will wait to call a thief a thief until he agrees to be called a thief!

When we look at you, we know with whom we are dealing.

You have chosen to take the side of our enemy.

You have made yourselves willing slaves of the oppressor of the German people.

But if this realization causes you to blush with shame, there is still hope for you / as sons and daughters of the German Nation.

The Sixth Criminal Court ruling dated 7 November 2005 states its intention to disallow reading of the duly announced motions.

Dr. Meinerzhagen and his colleagues were pleased to designate these motions as “Incitement,” and stated their intention to “emphatically reject” any attempt to publicly spread such “Incitement.”

They have rigorously put their intention into action; in so doing, they have crossed the Rubicon of a show trial.

What does the attorney for the defense do when, on the basis of his professional expertise, he realizes that the jurists, in concert with the foreign rulers of the country, have conspired to plan a “lynch party?”

Shouldn’t the candidates for the lynching try, with all their strength, to break the silence in order to wake the populace and call them to their assistance?

Isn’t it the very point of public and oral proceedings in criminal trials that, when dire emergency arises, their cries of “Murder and Mayhem” can be heard, understood and passed on?

The defense could have but one tactic against Dr. Meinerzhagen and colleagues: to make public the “show” nature of this trial.

This was my motive: not to hinder the determination of truth, but to make it possible.

Do the district judges of Karlsruhe claim to have not realized that?

It is all too obvious:

When “Holocaust” is invoked, OMF jurists cease to think.

Well, what did you learn in law school?

Are you unable to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice?

Are you unable to perceive the sophisticated methods the Jews are using to attack German legal thought, down to its very roots?

It is time for you to comprehend what a gamut the truth is forced to run in our country!

The chain of repression grows ever longer:

1. Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code was designed to hinder public utterance of the truth.

2. If this prohibition is violated just one time, the evildoer is hauled before the court where he and his defender are threatened with novel punishments, and now they are forbidden to follow the principle that lying is not allowed and only truth may be spoken in court.

3. If this denial of the truth is ignored as well, then the public is effectively (in the Talmudic manner) shut out, by compelling both the accused and his attorney to submit in writing whatever defense they present, and disallowing open and public oral presentations.

4. Incredibly, this is still not enough for the Mannheim Criminal Court.

It wants to burden even this “Submissionsverteidigung” (submission defense) with threat of punishment.

“Motions that might incite the masses” – that is, are motions debunking the Manifest Obviousness of “Holocaust” -- now lead to punishment, even if read in nonpublic negotiations, or submitted to the Court in written form.[16]

Why are they doing all this?

It is because “The Court has to deal with these motions in making its decisions about the motions and reaching its verdict, both of which must be announced publicly (Section 173 Par. 1 GVG).

In this way the essential content of these motions would become known even if the public had been excluded during their submission, and they would have the effect of disturbing the peace.”[17]

This in turn creates the criminal act of Volksverhetzung in mittelbarer Täterschaft (Incitement Through Indirect Participation in a Crime)!”

In this novel transgression the Unmittelbarer Täter (immediate or direct culprit) is the Court itself since, as required by law, it publicly discusses and elucidates the contents of legal motions.

The Mittelbarer Täter (accessory) is the attorney for the defense, who presents and thereby disseminates “inciting” evidentiary motions before the Court!

Thus the judicial system of the OMF-BRD has liquidated itself.

It is necessary to introduce here what I attempted to introduce in my response to the charges against Ernst Zündel in the main proceedings, when my presentation was interrupted by Dr. Meinerzhagen.

I recapitulate these here, with some supplements:

Every judicial layperson with a primary education should be able to understand the arguments developed here, as well as the significance of the results for the Zündel trial…

The signers of the court order of 7 November 2005, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm and Mrs. Krebs-Dörr have aligned themselves with the tradition of the “International Military Tribunal” set up by the victors over the German Reich, who agreed among themselves to “drop the discussion of whether the proceedings of IMT were violations of International Law or not.”

They decided to declare “what international law is, so that there will be no discussion of whether it is international law or not.”[18]

The persons responsible for that field day of atrocity propaganda had turned their backs on any search for truth and any consideration of justice.

They were interested only in lending the appearance of some kind of justice to their brutal and disgraceful murders of the leading personalities of the Reich…

“In the motion of 18 October 2005 (page 26), the undersigned announced that the defense would attack the dogma of Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust” with all means at her disposal and demonstrate that this dogma is pretense and propaganda manufactured by Germany’s enemies as part of their perpetual war against the Reich.

The above named jurists used my procedural announcement as a pretext to formulate and introduce their deceitful conduct of the main proceedings as follows:

“Insofar as it attacks the manifest obviousness of the Holocaust, the motion relies on familiar pseudo arguments offered by so called revisionists past and present (see Supreme Court St 47, 278.)

These pseudo arguments do not refute the clearly proven, therefore manifestly obvious genocide, particularly against Jews, that took place under the National Socialist dictatorship (Rspr. Bundesverfassungsgericht und Bundesgerichthof, see BVerfGE 90, 241, 249; BGHSt 40,97, 99,; 46, 36, 46 f.; 47, 278)

Regarding the body of facts in the case, this genocide is assumed in Section 130 III of the Penal Code, therefore all evidence offered in denial is disallowed (BGHSt a.a.O.)

With this, Dr. Meinerzhagen and his colleagues unmistakably abandon the dogma of “Manifest Obviousness.”

That is the good news.

The bad news is their refusal to allow evidence despite the collapsed dogma of Manifest Obviousness of “Holocaust.”

What is going on in the heads of these jurists?

What are “show arguments?”

In the context of the Nuremberg Show Trials, “Show Arguments” are apparently arguments that might be capable of proving a verdict rendered in compliance with the will of foreign rulers, to be unjust.

For that reason such arguments must be suppressed.

And what are “familiar” Show Arguments?

“Familiar” Show Arguments are apparently those to which judicial arbitrariness has been successfully applied in the past.

And what are “tatbestandliche Voraussetzungen” (presuppositions concerning the facts of the case)?

Presuppositions regarding the facts of the case, means nothing less than abandonment of the penal code, just as the term implies.

In criminal law, punishment is court ordered compensation for a debt, just as debt is a deficit that should not appear in a transaction.

If there is no transaction there obviously can be no debt.

In order to distinguish terror from legal punishment, the penal code designates transactions as punishable by labeling them “Tatbestandsmerkmale“(characteristics of culpability), thereby separating them from permissible activity.

The culpability characteristics extend to the transaction in the narrower sense of an act or failure to act, as well as accompanying circumstances that are significant for determination of the demerit.

In a narrower sense, the action classified in Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is an expression of opinion.

The circumstance accompanying the demerit is a certain contemporary historical event (“called ‘Holocaust.”)

It is the task of the judge to determine the accompanying circumstances involved in the case. In the present instance this consists of a certain expression of opinion with its accompanying circumstances. The judge must determine what is to be considered as “given” and whether the facts of the case correspond to any action that can be classified as punishable.

The citizen under law can adapt his intent to avoidance of the classified action.

The statement of facts of a punishment norm also guarantees the freedom from punishment of actions that do not meet the criteria of punishable (nulla poena sine lege – “no punishment without law.”)

Within the realm of actions classified as nonpunishable, one can live free from fear of being punished.

This is what distinguishes a nation of laws from tyranny.

The statute of the victors’ tribunal at Nuremberg violated this basic principle (and that is unanimous opinion.)

Egged on by the High Court of the OMF, Dr. Meinerzhaben and his colleagues are likewise engaged in tearing down the boundary between justice and tyranny.

Where “Holocaust” is concerned, they intend to set aside the burden of proof that is obligatory in a real court. They intend to do this with allegation of a fiction that does not even appear as such in the OMF’s own penal code (Paragraph 130 III of Penal Code.)

What is the source of this legalistic and dogmatic mistake of Dr. Meinerzhagen and the Supreme Court of the OMF?

In their “argumentation,” they dogmatically refer to the so called “Holocaust” as though it were a factual entity in time and space, and they postulate that any and all doubts concerning “Holocaust” are unthinkable.

Thus they have defected from the ranks of the truth-seekers and joined the ranks of the religion-founders.

Religion requires that we rule out doubt and substitute belief in its stead.

The true believer vehemently rejects every attempt to introduce reason into his consideration, since reason is the harbinger of doubt.

The act of believing demands unquestioning trust in the priestly caste, which functions simultaneously as faith police.

In the hazy realm of Holocaust dogma, the legal apparatus of the OMF has degenerated into an inquisition.

There is a cynical calculation of power in this.

Following World War II, world Jewry recognized the possibility of using the Holocaust lie to found Israel and create a world empire to support and secure it against all opposition.

World Jewry knows from experience that almost everyone can be made to believe almost anything if it can be suggested to them that most people believe it.

Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media, the “Holocaust” has indeed become the inculcated belief of almost everyone.

When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI made the following observation on the subject of this power of world Jewry to manipulate world opinion:

‘The feeling that democracy is not yet the proper form of freedom is rather common, and is continuing to spread… Is there not an oligarchy consisting of those who determine what is “modern” and “progressive,” and what the enlightened person should think? The cruelty of this oligarchy, and its power to make the public do its will, is all too familiar. Whoever blocks its path is an “enemy of freedom” for the reason that he is allegedly hindering free expression of opinion… It is difficult to have doubts about the power of these interests, whose dirty hands become more visible all the time. And besides: is the system of majority vs. minority a system of true freedom?’[19]

If it is to be universally suggested that the Holocaust lie is “believed by nearly everyone,” then the real truth must be sunk in a bottomless spiral of silence. And this can succeed only if contradiction of the “Holocaust” lie is forcibly suppressed -- obviously through a modern inquisition.

Criminal law serves the cause of justice through atonement for crime by punishment, while inquisition serves the enforcement of a particular belief through the destruction of heretics.

However, it is the general will of Western civilization that involuntary beliefs of all kinds should be abolished.

That is precisely what comprises freedom of belief, the nucleus of recognizing the individual as a person.

This general will constitutes the difference between modern and medieval times.

Inquisition is the purest atrocity, since it destroys freedom of belief.

Inquisition has nothing to do with the application or reestablishment of justice through punishment.

The enforcement of “Holocaust” law is inquisition, hence unmitigated crime.

As Plato pointed out, inquisitional law is the worst kind of injustice because it pretends to be justice.

However, the attempt of the Holocaust jurists to disguise their criminal activities as application of the law has miscarried.

They pulled their allegation that the Holocaust has been “frequently proven” out of the thin air.

This circumstance alone would disqualify them in a real court; and the very opposite of their allegation has long since been forensically proven.

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History of Vienna University arrived at the following conclusion as court appointed expert in his report to the District Criminal Court of Vienna dated 10 January 1991 (Az.: 26 b Vr 14 184/86):

“…in the course of research into the literature on the subject, it developed that a relative scarcity of scientific and objective literature is offset by an abundance of eyewitness accounts and subjective summarizations. I found numerous contradictions, retractions, omissions and inadequate references to sources. Furthermore, substantial doubts about basic questions have been reinforced by a number of court exonerations in relevant trials.

These exonerations resulted from expert reports presented to both national and international courts. Thus the mere extrapolation of court verdicts and evocation of judicial notoriety of the familiar stories of gassings of Jews at Auschwitz no longer suffice as a basis for reaching verdicts -- at least not in the context of any democratic concept of justice. Thus in this expert report, it was proven necessary to undertake the necessary corrections of relevant literature as well … In the course of this research it became clear that resources from certain archives were inadequately utilized in previous research. Thanks to political events of the last few years, resources that were heretofore unavailable to us in the West have now been made available. I am referring in particular to documents of the Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (Central Reich Security Office) in Potsdam, a huge resource of Auschwitz documents (several tons) that are stored in various archives in Moscow …”

The historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte also refers to the baselessness of using this inquisitorial device of assumed manifest obviousness in order to protect the Holocaust lie against consideration by the court:

The widely disseminated notion that all doubt concerning the prevailing concept of a ‘Holocaust’ with six million victims is to be automatically treated as though it were maliciousness and inhumanity, and therefore repressed by all means, can under no circumstances be accepted by objective science. This is because of the fundamental significance of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est’ (everything is to be doubted) for objective science… This attitude must be rejected as an attack on the principle of freedom of research. [21]

Although I consider myself more challenged by ‘Revisionism’ than most contemporary German historians, I soon arrived at the conviction that the Revisionist school has been treated in a subjective and unscientific manner. In established literature it has met rejection, suspicions about the motivation of its authors and above all, dead silence. [22]

Radical revisionism is much more prevalent in France and the USA than in Germany. There can be no doubt that its forerunners are well informed and have carried out extensive investigations in the field.

As far as mastery of source material is concerned, and especially criticism of source material, these investigations probably surpass those of established historians in Germany. [23]

At any rate we must give the radical Revisionists and their provocative theories credit for having forced established historiography to reassess its positions and find firmer basis for their assumptions and conclusions, as Raul Hilberg has done. [24]

“…The questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the significance of documents, technical impossibility of certain procedures, credibility of numbers quoted, and the persuasiveness of the circumstances are permissible and legitimate. Not only are they permissible, but they are procedurally indispensable, and every attempt to dispense with Revisionist arguments and evidence by imposing total science or banishing them from the world, has got to be illegitimate.[25]

If radical revisionism were correct in its assertion that there was no ‘Holocaust’ in the sense of a comprehensive and systematic program of annihilation ordered by the highest levels of government, I would have to arrive at the conclusion that National Socialism was not a ‘bizarre copy of Bolshevism,’ but rather that it was simply leading the struggle for survival of a Germany that had been forced into the defensive worldwide. No author wants to admit that nothing of his work has survived except rubble and so I too have a vital interest in proving that Revisionism is incorrect, at least in its most radical manifestation. [26]

This formulation provides the key to understanding our present world. It is not just the scientific work of Ernst Nolte that would be lying in ruins. The very foundations of the Jewish American world empire would be shaken. The German Empire would again be perceived as the power that had defended the Christian West “to the last drop of its blood” against Talmudic Mammonism (Satan.) Adolf Hitler would no longer be the devil, he would be the savior. The world would recognize the profound truth concerning the Nuremberg Tribunal as revealed by the Portuguese expert on international law, Dr. Joao das Regas:

“In actuality, two mutually incomprehensible worlds faced each other at Nuremberg. The materialistic world of Mammonism and hypocritical democracy opposed to the idealistic and heroic conception of a nation that was defending its right to exist… How could the sated and materialistic world understand the unflinching and heroic will to survive of a nation that, despite its exasperation over diminished territory, had presented our culture with immortal works for centuries, and before the Second World War had stood at the forefront of critical scientific progress in our century?

It was characteristic of the depraved mentality of the international press to continue their attacks on the leaders of the German nation despite the noble manner in which they conducted themselves throughout their disgraceful treatment and unjust death sentences. As precursors of social justice built on a national basis, the condemned German leaders went to their deaths at Nuremberg with a glowing confession of love for their nation and their ideals. Theirs was a truly heroic deportment, worthy of our highest admiration.” [27]

In order to understand the legal problems posed by the Zündel trial, one must understand the “Two Worlds” theory, which provides the key to understanding the problem.

The evil spirit arrayed against the German nation is represented by the concept of the “One World” economic system.

It is illustrated in an answer that Alan Greenspan, the chief of the US Federal Reserve System (and Jew of course) presented before the Congressional Committee on Credit and Banking on 7 June 1996. [28]

Question of the Chairman of Congressional Committee to Alan Greenspan:

Can you assure us here, the Select Committee, that with your policy of regulating the money supply, we will never have another crash like that of 1929 followed by a prolonged depression?

As you well know, in 1987 we had a stock market crash with one day losses greater than those of Black Friday 1929.

Alan Greenspan’s reply (NOTE: RETRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH)

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, monetary techniques and details can not save us from another crash.

Nothing but our firm and fervent belief in the strength of our money and our free and democratic Constitution can do that.

When we no longer believe in the US dollar and the wondrous strength of the United States with its world mission of bringing prosperity and freedom to all, we are lost, and the powers of darkness waiting to bring us to ruin will gain the upper hand.

As always we can be saved only by divine Providence and God’s merciful will toward us as long as we believe in the redeeming strength of our money, believe as firmly as we believe in God and our Constitution.

That is because our independent Federal Reserve in its wisdom is, along with our Constitution under God, our only guarantee of freedom, justice and democracy.

For this reason we should pray every day for the grace that is entrusted in the Chief of the Federal Reserve by the People of the United States and their President.”

Any empire that believes as firmly in the saving grace of money as in God, and has thereby placed Mammon in God’s stead, is clearly the empire of Satan.

Adolf Hitler recognized this truth.

He also showed how Satan’s rule over the German nation could be broken by providing an alternative to the “One World” theory of Mammon and the followers of Satan -- every nation must be allowed to follow its own national path.

Adolf Hitler did not completely fail in his mission to deliver Germany from One World Mammonism.

The Mannheim District courtroom witnessed a renewed collision of the worlds, where it was clearly demonstrated that the Great Lie upon which the empire of Mammon is founded, is destroying itself.

The process of self destruction has begun.

Once again we able to recognize the true nature of Judaism, and it has again aroused our survival instinct.

It was not Adolf Hitler but the Zionist Bernard Lazare, living in Paris around the end of the 19^th Century, who pointed out the quintessential element of the Jewish problem.

He wrote the following:

If dislike of the Jews had existed in only one country and in only one age, it would be easy to understand the cause of the dislike.

But on the contrary, this race has been hated by all the nations among which they have lived.

But since the enemies of the Jews have belonged to the most diverse races, living in regions widely separated from one another and possessing differing laws, governed by widely differing principles having neither customs nor manners in common, and possessing dissimilar temperaments, then the causes of universal anti-Semitism must have always existed in Judaism itself rather than among those who opposed it.[29]

With unsurpassed clarity, Adolf Hitler expressed the contradictions between these two worlds, the Arian and the Judaic, in his book Mein Kampf.

This is the reason why he, like Jesus Christ, represents Satan for the Jews. [30]

He writes:

The question of the inner origins of the Aryan’s significance can be answered to the effect that they are to be sought less in a natural instinct of self-preservation than in the special type of its expression.

The will to live, subjectively viewed, is everywhere equal and differs only in the form of its actual expression.

Among the most primitive living creatures, the instinct for self-preservation does not go beyond concern for their own ego.

Egoism, as we designate this urge, extends so far that it even embraces time; ? that are to come.

In this condition the animal lives only for himself, seeks food only for his present hunger, and fights only for his own life.

As long as the instinct of self-preservation expresses itself in this way, every basis is lacking for the formation of a group, even the most primitive form of family.

Even a community between male and female beyond pure mating, demands an extension of the instinct of self-preservation, since concern and struggle for the ego are now directed toward the second party; the male sometimes seeks food for the female as well, but for the most part both seek nourishment for the young.

Nearly always one comes to the defense of the other, and thus the first, though infinitely simple, forms of a sense of sacrifice result.

As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of larger organisms and finally formal states is created.

In the lowest peoples of the earth this quality is present only to a very slight extent, so that often they do not go beyond the formation of the family.

The greater the readiness to subordinate purely personal interests, the higher rises the ability to establish comprehensive and extensive communities.

This self-sacrificing will to give one's personal labor and, if necessary, one's own life for others is most strongly developed in the Aryan. The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.

The source of the Aryan's capacity for creating and building culture does not lie in his intellectual gifts. If he had just this alone, he could only act destructively, in no case could he organize; for the innermost essence of all organization requires that the individual renounce putting forward his personal opinion and interests and sacrifice both in favor of a larger group. Only by way of this general community does he again recover his share. Now, for example, he no longer works directly for himself, but with his activity articulates himself with the community, not only for his own advantage, but for the advantage of all. The most wonderful elucidation of this attitude is provided by his word 'work,' by which he does not mean an activity for maintaining life in itself, but exclusively a creative effort that does not conflict with the interests of the community. Otherwise he designates human activity, in so far as it serves the instinct of self-preservation without consideration for his fellow men, as theft, usury, robbery, burglary, etc.

This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. From it alone can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity. Yes from it alone can we understand how so many are able to bear up faithfully under a scanty life which imposes on them nothing but poverty and frugality, but gives the community the foundations of its existence. Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, official, etc., who works without ever being able to achieve any happiness or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this lofty idea, even if the deeper meaning of his activity remains hidden in him.

What applies to work as the foundation of human sustenance and all human progress is true to an even greater degree for the defense of man and his culture. In giving one's own life for the existence of the community lies the crown of all sense of sacrifice. It is this alone that prevents what human hands have built from being overthrown by human hands or destroyed by Nature.

Our own German language possesses a word which magnificently designates this kind of activity: Pflichterfullung (fulfillment of duty); it means not to be self-sufficient but to serve the community.

The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call idealism to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

How necessary it is to keep realizing that idealism does not represent a superfluous expression of emotion, but that in truth it has been, is, and will be the premise for what we designate as human culture, yes, that it alone created the concept of “man.”

It is to this inner attitude that the Aryan owes his position in this world, and to it the world owes man; for it alone formed from pure spirit the creative force which, by a unique pairing of the brutal fist and the intellectual genius, created the monuments of human culture.

Without his idealistic attitude all, even the most dazzling faculties of the intellect, would remain mere intellect as such -- outward appearance without inner value, and never creative force.

But, since true idealism is nothing but the subordination of the interests and life of the individual to the community, and this in turn is the precondition for the creation of organizational forms of all kinds, it corresponds in its innermost depths to the ultimate will of Nature. It alone leads men to voluntary recognition of the privilege of force and strength, and thus makes them into a dust particle of that order which shapes and forms the whole universe.

The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge.

How correct this is, and how little true idealism has to do with playful flights of the imagination, can be seen at once if we let the unspoiled child, a healthy boy, for example, judge. The same boy who feels like throwing up I when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give his young life for the ideal of his nationality.

Here the instinct of knowledge unconsciously obeys the deeper necessity of the preservation of the species, if necessary at the cost of the individual, and protests against the visions of the pacifist windbag who in reality is nothing but a cowardly, though camouflaged, egoist, transgressing the laws of development; for development requires willingness on the part of the individual to sacrifice himself for the community, and not the sickly imaginings of cowardly know-it-alls and critics of Nature.

Especially, therefore, at times when the ideal attitude threatens to disappear, we can at once recognize a diminution of that force which forms the community and thus creates the premises of culture. As soon as egoism becomes the ruler of a people, the bands of order are loosened and in the chase after their own happiness men fall from heaven into a real hell.

Yes, posterity forgets the men who have served only their own advantage; but it praises the heroes who have renounced their own happiness. [31]

--------------------------------------------

[1] Die Darlegungen der Verteidigung zur Lage des Deutschen Reiches und der sich daraus ergebenden Rechtsnatur des § 130 StGB-BRD finden sich im Schriftsatz vom 18. Oktober 2005 auf den Seiten 3 ff. diejenigen zur zerbrochenen Ofenkundigkeitsthese auf den Seiten 27 bis 45

[2] „zetern“ : Das rechtserhebliche Klagegeschrei erheben. Bei einem Überfall u.dgl. mußte der Gefährdete zur Feststellung der Untat sofort einen Klage- und Hilfeschrei ausstoßen, auf den hin die Nachbarn zur sofortigen Hilfe eilen mußten. „mordio“ := Notschrei wie „diebio“, „feurio“ (Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 23. Aufl. , Berlin 1995

[3] BVerGE 13, 132, 149; 47, 182, 187

[4] RGSt 75, 11, 13: KG StV 86, 142; OLG Düsseldorf StV 91, 521 mwN.

[5] Die völkerrechtlichen Befugnisse einer Besatzungsmacht sind im 3. Abschnitt der Haager Landkriegsordnung von 1907 bestimmt. Die darin niedergelegten Regeln waren jedenfalls im Zeitpunkt des Ausbruchs des Zweiten Weltkrieges allgemein geltendes Völkerrecht ohne Rücksicht auf ihre vertragliche Geltung. Friedrich Berber, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts – II. Band: Kriegsrecht, 2. Auflage, C.H. Beck-Verlag , München 1969, S. 73 unter Berufung auf das Urteil des Internationalen Militärtribunals (Nürnberger Militärgerichtshof) vom 1. Oktober 19 46, und S. 124

[6] Seite 16 2. Absatz des Beschlusses des Senats vom 31. März 2006

[7] Friedrich Berber, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Bd. II – Kriegsvölkerrecht -, C.H.Beck Verlag, München 1969 S. 135

[8] Schutzschrift vom 18.10.05 S. 12

[9] Berber a.a.O. S. 133

[10] in Sachen Dr. Rigolf Hennig durch Beschluß vom 8. Februar 2006 – 1 BvR 187/06 -

[11] Halunke:= aus dem Tschechischen holomek: Bettler, Gauner, Diener Knecht, im Deutschen erhält es die Bedeutung „Schurke“ (Kluge, aa.O.)

[12] BGHSt 47, 278

[13] BGHSt 47, 278

[14] Vorlesungen über den Holocaust - Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör, Germar Rudolf Castle Hill Publishers PO Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, UK April 2005

[15] René Descartes lebte von 1596 bis 1650. Er eröffnete die philosophische Neuzeit. Sein philosophischer Neuansatz bestand darin, alles Erkennen auf den methodischen Zweifel zu stellen. Nur der Zweifel verhilft kraft seiner Überwindung im Denken zur Erkenntnis der Wahrheit.

[16] Dr. Meinerzhagen läßt jetzt sogar Deutsche wegen Verbreitens „volksverhetzender Schriften“ bestrafen, die einen Brief an Ernst Zündel in die Zelle geschrieben haben – Strafbefehl des AG Mannheim vom 10. März 2006 AZ. 27 Cs 503 Js 15654/05

[17] In ihrem in der Hauptverhandlung vom 9. Februar 2006 verkündeten Beschluß, mit dem Anträge auf Ausschluß der Öffentlichkeit abgewiesen wurden.,

[18] Heydecker, Leeb, Der Nürnberger Prozeß – Bilanz der Tausend Jahre, 6. Aufl.,Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1962, S. 94

[19] Kardinal Ratzinger „Freiheit und Wahrheit“ in Jürgen Schwab, Otto Scrinzi, Über die Revolution von 1848 Aula-Verlag, Graz 1998

[20]Ernst Nolte, Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1987 S. 594 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 136)

[21] Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin 1993 S. 308 (Vorlesungen S. 137)

[22] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 9 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 137)

[23] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 304

[24] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 31; (Rudolf Vorlesungen S.138)

[25] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 309

[26] Ernst Nolte, Frangois Furet, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig, München 1998 S. 222-224

[27] Joao das Regras, „Um nuovo Direito International, Nuremberg“, 1947 zitiert bei Maurice Bardèche, „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“, Verlag Karl Heinz Priester, Wiesbaden 1957 S. 62

[28] Proceedings US -Congress Vol. 555 p. 732 f Bookshelf Library of Congress, Capitol, Washington DC

[29] Bernard Lazare in „Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses ca uses“, Paris 1934, 1. Band, S. 42, hier zitiert nach Jonak von Freyenwald « Jüdische Bekenntnisse », Nürnberg 1941, Fasimile S. 142

[30] Rabbiner lehren, daß Jesus von Nazareth in der Hölle in kochende Exkremente getaucht werde ( Shahak , Israel , „Jüdische Geschichte, Jüdische Religion“, Lühe Verlag, 1998, ISBN 3-926328 -25-8, S. 52,

[31] Mein Kampf S. 325 ff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In February 2006, another attorney and compatriot, Horst Mahler, wrote the following article on the proceedings of the Zuendel trial, revealing the fiery courage of Miss Stolz.

The Zündel Trial - Round Two

The Genie is Out of the Bottle

by Horst Mahler

Translated from the German by James Damon and Patrick McNally

Zündel’s defense attorney Sylvia Stolz, responding to the statement by the Mannheim Holocaust Judiciary:

“The Holocaust Laws of the OMF-Bundesrepublik (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule of the Federal Republic of Germany) are pure treason!”

On the first business day of the recently resumed show trial against Ernst Zündel for “Denying the Holocaust,” Dr. Meinerzhagen (pottering about as head judge) proved to be extremely irritable. After numerous but fruitless attacks against Sylvia Stolz (chief defense lawyer for Ernst Zündel), he finally lost his composure and muzzled the defense. Unprecedented events have indeed taken place. After the rather timid reading of the charges against Zündel by two prosecutors, the assistant defense lawyer, Attorney Schaller of Vienna, had responded with an eloquent appeal for observance of the rules that characterize court procedure in a state of laws, which the Mannheim justices are obligated to observe.

Following Schaller, Sylvia Stolz addressed the court as follows:

“The defense rejects the accusations against Ernst Zündel, a citizen of the German Reich. This is not a legal prosecution under the laws of the Reich or any other legal system. It is an exercise of power that is illegal under international law, by a puppet government called “Federal Republic of Germany.”[1] To use the expression coined by the professor of international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, the Federal Republic of Germany is an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.” Henceforth we shall refer to this foreign occupation government as “OMF-FRG.”

I described the legal structure of OMF-FRG in the court document dated 18 October 2005, complete with lengthy quotations from the founding speech of the OMF-FRG Parliamentary Council presented by Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid. I also quoted pertinent remarks by the professors of International Law Prof. Friedrich Berger and Prof. Otto Kimminich and elucidated the conclusions to be drawn as they relate to the case of Ernst Zündel. In its meeting outside the main trial, that is, in the absence of the presiding judges, the “Sixth Superior Criminal Court of Mannheim District has given notice that it intends to simply ignore the duly submitted argument made by the defense. The decision of the Criminal Court states that “The legal profferings that the defendant submitted in his petition cannot be accepted by this Chamber. They and the conclusions at which they arrive, appear to be ultimately devoid of judicial relevance.”

The defense refuses to accept this peremptory dismissal. Every layman with at least a primary school education should be able to understand the arguments developed therein, as well as the significance of their conclusions for the Zündel trial. As counterproposal, the defense will read its submission dated 18 October 2005 in the main trial, including basis for its arguments, so that the hesitant attitude of the ‘professional judges’ will be recognizable and the court of appeals will be able to correct their capricious refusal to accept our submissions.

The signers of the ruling of 7 November 2005, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Dr. Hamm, and Mrs. Krebs-Dörr are conducting themselves in the tradition of the International Military Tribunal of the victors over the German Reich, who agreed to disregard all discussion about whether their actions were violations of international law. Those so-called ‘judges’ and ‘prosecutors’ resolved that ‘we will simply declare what international law is so that there can be no discussion of whether it is international law or not.’[2] The persons responsible for that atrocity propaganda show had expressly abandoned any quest for truth and concept of justice in order to make their lynchings of leading Reich personalities appear to be legal. I shall return to this later in my presentations.

In my motion of 18 October 2005 (page 26) I gave notice that the defense would attack the dogma of 'Offenkundigkeit' (Manifest Obviousness) of the ‘Holocaust’ with all the resources at its disposal. I said the defense would show that in the continuing war against Germany by the enemies of the Reich, ‘manifest obviousness’ has been feigned and assumed from the very beginning.

The above mentioned jurists have taken this statement as occasion to, express their intent for mendacious procedure in the main trial as follows:

‘As far as manifest obviousness of the Holocaust is concerned, the motion recapitulates familiar pseudo arguments that have been proffered and continue to be proffered by so-called revisionists (see BGHSt 47,278) without raising bona fide doubt about the historically proven and therefore manifestly obvious genocide, particularly of the Jews, by the National Socialist Dictatorship (stdg. Rspr. des Bundesverfassingsgerichts und des Bundesgerichthofs vgl. BVerfGE 90, 241, 249; BGHSt 40,97, 99,; 46, 36, 46 f.; 47, 278.) This genocide is factually assumed in Paragraph 130 III of the Penal Code (See BundesGerichthofStrafsachen, Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters, 47, 278). Thus any evidentiary exhibit that would deny this is forbidden in Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters and other publications.

With this reasoning, Dr. Meinerzhagen and his colleagues have obviously abandoned the dogma of Manifest Obviousness. That is the good news. The bad news is the withdrawal of permission to submit evidence, which took place despite the abandonment of ‘manifest obviousness.’ What is going on inside the heads of these judges? What is the definition of Scheinargumente (show arguments)? In imitation of the Nuremberg Tribunals, these jurists use the term ‘show arguments’ to designate arguments that are likely to prove, in support of the will of the foreign occupation government, any previously established ‘verdict’ as illegal and unjust. Such arguments have to be repressed. And what are ‘familiar show arguments?’ ‘Familiar show arguments’ are apparently arguments on which OMF/FRG judicial arbitrariness has been successfully tested.

And what in Heaven’s name are ‘factual presuppositions? The term ‘factual presupposition’ or ‘presumed factuality’ refers to the court’s complete disregard of the criminal law. In criminal law, punishment is court ordered compensation for a debt. Debt is a deficit appearing in a transaction that should not be there. But if there is no transaction, there can be no debt. In order to distinguish terror from punishment, the penal code typifies certain transactions as punishable by designating them “Tatbestandsmerkmale“ (factual characteristics), thereby separating them from permissible activity. The facts of the case extend to the transaction in the narrower sense of an act or failure to act, as well as to accompanying circumstances that are significant for determination of the demerit. In a narrower sense, the action classified in Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is an expression of opinion. The circumstance accompanying the misdeed is a certain contemporary historical fact (called ‘Holocaust.’)

It is the task of the judge to determine the given life circumstances involved in the case.) In the present instance this consists of a certain expression of opinion, along with accompanying circumstances. The judge must determine what is to be considered as “given” and whether the facts of the case correspond to an action that can be classified as punishable. The citizen under the law can adapt his intent to avoidance of the classified action.

The statement of facts of a punishment norm also guarantees the freedom from punishment of all actions that do not meet the criteria of punishable (nulla poena sine lege – “no punishment without law.”) Within the realm of actions classified as nonpunishable, one can live free from fear of being punished. This is what distinguishes a nation of laws from tyranny. However, the statute of the victors’ tribunal at Nuremberg violated this basic principle (that is unanimous opinion.) Egged on by the High Court of the OMF/FRG, Dr. Meinerzhaben and his colleagues are likewise engaged in tearing down the boundary between justice and tyranny. Where “Holocaust” is concerned, they intend to set aside the burden of proof that is obligatory on the judge. They intend to do this with allegation of a fiction that does not even appear as such in “the law” (Paragraph 130 III of Penal Code.)

What is the source of this legalistic and dogmatic mistake of Dr. Meinerzhagen and the High Court of OMF/FRG? In their “argumentation,” they dogmatically assume that the so called Holocaust is a given fact in time and space. They postulate that any and all doubts concerning “Holocaust” are unthinkable. They have defected from the ranks of the truth-seekers and joined the ranks of the religion-founders. Religion requires that we rule out doubt and substitute belief in its stead. The true believer vehemently crushes every attempt to introduce reason into his consideration, since reason is the harbinger of doubt. Believing demands unquestioning trust in the priestly caste, which functions simultaneously as the faith police.

Within the hazy realm of Holocaust religion, the legal apparatus of the OMF/FRG has degenerated into an inquisition. There is a cynical calculation of power in this. Following World War II, world Jewry recognized the possibility of using the Holocaust lie to found Israel and create a world empire to support and secure it against all opposition. World Jewry knows from experience that almost everyone can be made to believe almost anything if it can be suggested to them that most people believe it. Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media the “Holocaust” has indeed become the suggested belief of almost everyone.

When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI said the following on the subject of this power of world Jewry:

‘The feeling that democracy is not yet the proper form of freedom is rather common, and is continuing to spread… Is there not an oligarchy consisting of those who determine what is “modern” and “progressive,” and what the enlightened person should think? The cruelty of this oligarchy, and its power to make the public do its will, is all too familiar. Whoever blocks its path is an “enemy of freedom” for the reason that he is allegedly hindering free expression of opinion… Who can have doubts about the power of these interests, whose dirty hands become more visible all the time? And besides: is the system of majority vs. minority a system of true freedom?’[3]

If it is to be suggested that the Holocaust lie is to be “believed by nearly everyone,” then the real truth must be sunk in a bottomless spiral of silence. And this can succeed only if the contradiction of the “Holocaust” lie is forcibly suppressed -- obviously through a modern inquisition. Criminal law serves the cause of justice through atonement for crime by punishment, while inquisition serves the enforcement of a particular belief through destruction of heretics. However, it is the general will of Western civilization that involuntary belief of all kinds should be abolished. That is precisely what comprises the substance of freedom of belief, the nucleus of recognizing the individual as a person. This general will constitutes the difference between modern and medieval times.

Inquisition is the purest atrocity, since it destroys freedom of belief.
Inquisition has nothing to do with the application or reestablishment of justice through punishment. The enforcement of “Holocaust” law is inquisition, hence unmitigated crime. As Plato pointed out, inquisitory law is in fact the worst kind of injustice because it pretends to be justice.

Exclaiming “ Enough of that!” Dr. Meinerzhagen then interrupted Attorney Stolz, taking away her right to speak and terminating the session. He fled into the conference room with his colleagues and returned after a quarter hour. Dr. Meinerzhagen then proclaimed the directive of the court that in future, Attorney Stolz would have to submit all her motions in writing, and would not be allowed to read them aloud before the court.
With this ruling, the show trial has become another “Ghost Trial” (Rainer Hamm, Counsel for Defense, 94, 457.) The public will no longer be allowed to hear the arguments of the defense. The Holocaust judges are attempting to introduce the “silence of the grave” in the courtroom (see Scheffler, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 94, 2194.) However, their attempt to disguise their illegal action as legal procedure is still doomed to failure. They are chanting the allegation that the Holocaust has been “proven many times” into empty space. The undeniable fact that the opposite has long been proven, is enough to completely disqualify it.

The court appointed expert witness Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the University of Vienna Institute for Contemporary History (A 1090 Wien, Rotenhausgasse 6) demonstrated that the opposite is true in his written report submitted to the Landesgericht für Strafsachen (District Criminal Court), Vienna, on 10 January 1991. See Az. (Archiv für Zivile Praxis): 26 b Vr (Verwaltungsrundshau)14 184/86.)

Prof. Jagschitz presented his findings as follows: “…in the course of research into the literature on the subject, it developed that a relative scarcity of scientific and objective literature is offset by an abundance of eyewitness accounts and subjective summarizations. I found numerous contradictions, retractions, omissions and inadequate references to sources. Furthermore, substantial doubts about basic questions have been reinforced by a number of court exonerations in relevant trials.
These exonerations resulted from expert reports presented to both national and international courts. Thus the mere extrapolation of court verdicts and evocation of judicial notoriety of the familiar stories of gassings of Jews at Auschwitz no longer suffice as a basis for reaching verdicts -- at least not in the context of any democratic concept of justice. Thus in this expert report, it was proven necessary to undertake the necessary corrections of relevant literature as well … In the course of this research it became clear that resources from certain archives were inadequately utilized in previous research. Thanks to political events of the last few years, resources that were heretofore unavailable to us in the West have now been made available. I am referring in particular to documents of the Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (Central Reich Security Office) in Potsdam, a huge resource of Auschwitz documents (several tons) that are stored in various archives in Moscow…”

The historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte also refers to the baselessness of using this inquisitorial device of assumed manifest obviousness in order to protect the Holocaust lie against consideration by the court:

“Not until the rules of examination of witnesses have been generally applied and testimony is no longer evaluated according to political criteria, will secure ground be won for any attempt at scientific objectivity regarding the ‘final solution’.[4] The widely disseminated notion that all doubt concerning the prevailing concept of a ‘Holocaust’ with six million victims is to be automatically treated as though it were maliciousness and inhumanity, and therefore repressed by all means, can under no circumstances be accepted by objective science. This is because of the fundamental significance of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est’ (everything is to be doubted) for objective science… This attitude must be rejected as an attack on the principle of freedom of research. [5]

Radical revisionism is much more prevalent in France and the USA than in Germany. There can be no doubt that its forerunners are well informed and have carried out extensive investigations in the field.

As far as mastery of source material is concerned, and especially criticism of source material, these investigations probably surpass those of established historians in Germany.[7] At any rate we must give the radical Revionists and their provocative theories credit for having forced established historiography to reassess its positions and find firmer basis for their assumptions and conclusions, as Raul Hilberg has done.[8] “…The questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the significance of documents, technical impossibility of certain procedures, credibility of numbers quoted, the and persuasiveness of the circumstances are permissible and legitimate. Not only are they permissible, but they are procedurally indispensable, and every attempt to dispense with Revisionist arguments and evidence by imposing total science or banishing them from the world, has got to be illegitimate.[9]

The above formulation provides the key to understanding our present world. It is not just the scientific work of Ernst Nolte that would be lying in ruins. The very foundations of the Jewish American world empire would be shaken. The German Empire would again be perceived as the power that had defended the Christian West “to the last drop of its blood” against talmudic mammonism (Satan.) Adolf Hitler would no longer be the devil, he would be the savior. The world would recognize the profound truth concerning the Nuremberg Tribunal as proclaimed by the Portuguese expert on international law, Dr. Joao das Regas: “In actuality, two mutually incomprehensible worlds faced each other at Nuremberg. The materialistic world of Mammonism and hypocritical democracy opposed to the idealistic and heroic conception of a nation that was defending its right to exist… How could the sated and materialistic world understand the unflinching and heroic will to survive of a nation that, despite its exasperation over diminished territory, had presented our culture with immortal works for centuries, and before the Second World War had stood at the forefront of critical scientific progress in our century?

It was characteristic of the depraved mentality of the international press to continue their attacks against the leaders of the German nation despite the noble manner in which they conducted themselves throughout their disgraceful treatment and unjust death sentences. As precursors of social justice built on a national basis, the condemned German leaders went to their deaths at Nuremberg with a glowing confession of love for their nation and their ideals. Theirs was a truly heroic deportment, worthy of our highest admiration.”[11]

The Evil Empire that, true to its nature, is forever demonizing others (the goys) has mobilized all the material and intellectual resources at its disposal in the effort to hinder dissemination of the truth. The truth can no longer be held back, however. For the first time, the leader of a large and wealthy nation is directing his country’s national policy toward exposing the Holocaust lie. His intention, born of self defense, is to remove the Zionist settler state of Israel from the map, thereby making it possible for Jews and Arabs to once again coexist in peace. It marks the beginning of the end for the Great Lie that has long held our nation in bondage. The reaction of world Jewry to Achmadinedschad’s announcement of the convocation of an international commission to investigate the “Holocaust” shows that the conspiracy of silence surrounding Revisionism has finally been broken. The Jews are no longer able to suggest that “nearly everybody believes in the Holocaust.” We are witnessing the end of the greatest lie in the history of mankind. He who still continues to defend the lie and thereby soils his hands will be left behind. In the words of Michael Gorbachev, “Life punishes those who get left behind.”

Some other remarks by Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte on the subject of Revisionism are noteworthy: “I do indeed feel challenged by Revisionism, but I am unable to join those who demand that the state and the police intervene to repress Revisionism. For this very reason I find myself compelled to ask the question of whether Revisionism has/represents real arguments, or really does consist of mere deceptive agitation. The general all around quality of the individual historian comes into play here. The real historian knows that revision is the daily bread of scientific history.

Real historians also know that in the final analysis, some Revisionist theories are going to be acknowledged by established historians, or at least taken into the discussion… For example, during a recent congress of historians it was not specifically mentioned that during the War and immediately afterwards there were many allegations that the Germans had carried out mass executions by the use of hot steam in sealed chambers, electric shocks on giant electrical plates, and quicklime. By its complete silence, the congress declared these allegations to be as irrelevant as the rumor of soap made from Jewish corpses. (Incidentally, a well known film director has recently resurrected those rumors in German newspaper announcements.)[12]

Even the testimony of the SS leader and Bekennende (Confessing) church member Kurt Gerstein, probably the most widely circulated “Holocaust” account of the 1950s, is no longer accepted in documentary collections, even by the most orthodox scholars. And it is well known that Jean-Claude Pressac, who despite his peculiar precedents is still acknowledged to be a serious researcher, recently reduced the number of Auschwitz gas chamber victims from four million down to around half a million. Their abandoned allegations do not differ fundamentally from individual corrections of the kind that, to my knowledge, have been brought forward only by ‘Revisionists:’ The corrections that the first confessions of the Auschwitz commandant Höß were extracted under torture; that giant flames leaping from crematory chimneys, reported by numerous eyewitnesses, are best explained by mistakes of visual perception; that the technical prerequisites for cremating up to 24,000 corpses per day were simply not available; and that the cellar morgues in crematories of camps that had to accommodate around 300 “natural” deaths per day were indispensable during the typhus epidemics of those days and could not have been utilized for mass murders, at least not during epidemics.

Such ideas can hardly surprise a historian. He knows from his own day to day experience that, since Herodotus’ time, it has been necessary to treat large figures with suspicion, insofar as they do not originate with official statistical bureaus. The historian understands no less well that large groups of people exposed to stressful circumstances and confusing events that are now and have always been rumor incubators…[13]

The testimony of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß was obtained under torture. Without doubt, his confessions contributed greatly to the collapse of the defense in the Nuremberg trials. His testimony would not have been admissible in any court of law that complied with Western legal and judicial standards. The so-called Gerstein documents contain so many contradictions and objective impossibilities that they must be discarded as worthless, while the few actual eyewitness accounts consist of hearsay and mere assumptions.

Thanks to the Soviet and Polish communists, a thorough investigation of Auschwitz by an international commission of experts did not take place after the end of the War. This stands in contrast to the case of the mass graves at Katyn Forest discovered by the Wehrmacht in 1943. The publication of photographs of crematoria and some cans with the label "Zyklon B Poison Gas" has no value as proof of murder since crematoria had to be constructed near large camps and Zyklon B was the best know disinfestant of the time. Zyklon B was indispensable wherever masses of people were forced to live under crowded conditions.

The integrity of the scientific discipline of historiography demands that it be allowed to question the established and “politically correct” version of history – namely that mass murder in gas chambers has been proven by numerous eyewitness accounts and incontrovertible facts, and therefore is not open to doubt. If historiography is not allowed to do this, then science as such is inadmissible.[14]

The basic issue is the assertion that on the basis of scientific findings or technical facts, either there were no mass gassings or else they could not have taken place, certainly not in the scope and number heretofore assumed. Here I am referring to the chemical investigations or expert reports on the residues of cyanide in the disinfection chambers on the one hand and the cellar morgues of the crematoria on the other. I have in mind the reports of Leuchter, Rudolf, and Luftl as well as the unusually detailed studies of Carlo Mattogno on extremely detailed questions such as the length of time to burn corpses, the coke required, et al.

No fundamental objection can be made against the Revisionist argument that the scientifically or technically impossible cannot have occurred, even though hundreds of witness reports and testimonies might have stated the opposite. The conclusion is unavoidable that humanities people and ideological critics have absolutely nothing to say in this matter.”[15]

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung expressed a similar opinion in the following:[16]
"Raul Hilberg and Ernst Nolte agree that one must read the eye witness reports of the celebrated Elie Wiesel with extremely critical attention. Hilberg`s most recent book and grandiose work of his elder years, ‘Sources of the Holocaust, has silently taken leave of many of the most familiar but obviously unreliable witnesses, such as Kurt Gersten and Jan Karsky… liars and propagandists must be seen as complementary to our age.”

What effect does the following confession of Raul Hilberg, the Pope of the Holocaust Church, have on the minds of holocaust believers?

"But what began in 1941 was not a previously planned annihilation (of the Jews), organized centrally by a single office, there were no plans and no budget for these annihilation measures. These measures developed step by step, one after the other; and not through the execution of a plan, but rather by an extraordinary meeting of minds, a coincidence of views within a comprehensive bureaucracy." [Quoted in Rudolf, Vorlesungen, Page 187.]

Did not all the world believe that the annihilation of the Jews was centrally planned and decided in the "Wannsee Villa" on January 20, 1942? [18] How are we to reconcile all this? The Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer, director of the International Institute for Holocaust Research in Jerusalem, ridicules the fact that “…Just as before, the public keeps repeating the foolish story that the annihilation of the Jews was agreed upon at Wannsee.”[19] Professor Dr. Eberhard Jackel, co-editor of the official Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, addressed the issue in the Frankfurter Allgemeine on 22 June 1992:

“Historian Jacke: Purpose of the Wannsee Conference Disputed: The decision to murder the European Jews was made earlier… Jackel said that the protocol for the Conference does not contain a single word about a decision to murder Jews. Furthermore the participants at Wannsee lacked authority to do make such a decision… He pointed out that the actual purpose of the Wannsee Conference is disputed. He stated that an English colleague had remarked forty years before that the Conference was simply ‘a sociable lunch, and that the list of participants proves the conference played no role whatsoever in the deportations, since there were no representatives of the Wehrmacht or the Reich Ministry for Transportation present. Jaeckel is of the opinion that a corresponding order of Hitler’s to annihilate the Jews followed the meeting that took place between Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich on September 24, 1941, i.e. three months before the Wannsee Conference.

Conjectures, absurdities, forgeries, and lies - thus the foundations of the " Manifestly Obvious Holocaust" were created, and now we are supposed to swallow this swindle as "factually presumed." Just how stupid do you think that we Germans really are, Dr. Meinerzhagen? Can’t you see what you are representing to the entire world, and for the history books yet to be written? Does the High Court still want to hold fast to the assertion that the Holocaust has been completely and undeniably proven? How are the “Redrobes” [High Court judges] setting themselves up to be characterized in future? Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen, "the emperor has no clothes." Or do you really see clothes where there are none? How do you propose to cover your own nakedness? You should take to heart the knowledge that there are insurmountable limit for every lawmaker: he can not decree facts. This is what distinguishes politicians from magicians and Almighty God.

Do you think this limitation does not apply to judges as well? The legislator -- not the judge -- can under certain circumstances manipulate facts. Legislative fictions can never be used to establish guilt, however, since only real guilt -- not pretended guilt -- can be punished. Or do you want this principle to no longer apply? Who are you to arrogate such power to yourself? Should German law and justice be sacrificed to the delusions of a few jurists of that government of foreign occupation, the Federal Republic of Germany?

Kleinmachnow,10 February 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] zu diesem Begriff vgl. Berber, Friedrich, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Band II Kriegsrecht, 2. Aufl., C.H. Beck Verlag München 1969, S. 132 f.
[2] Heydecker, Leeb, Der Nürnberger Prozeß – Bilanz der Tausend Jahre, 6. Aufl., Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1962, S. 94
[3] Kardinal Ratzinger „Freiheit und Wahrheit“ in Jürgen Schwab, Otto Scrinzi, Über die Revolution von 1848 Aula-Verlag, Graz 1998
[4] Ernst Nolte, Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1987 S. 594 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 136)
[5] Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin 1993 S. 308 (Vorlesungen S. 137)
[6] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 9 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 137)
[7] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 304
[8] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 31; (Rudolf Vorlesungen S.138)
[9] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 309
[10] Ernst Nolte, Frangois Furet, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig, München 1998 S. 222-224
[11] Joao das Regras, „Um nuovo Direito International, Nuremberg“, 1947 zitiert bei Maurice Bardèche, „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“, Verlag Karl Heinz Priester, Wiesbaden 1957 S. 62
[12] “Atze” Brauner, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 6.5.1995.
[13] Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe, S. 74-79 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 138 f.)
[14] Ernst Nolte, Der kausale Nexus, Herbig. München 2002, . 96 f. (Rodolf Vorlesungen S. 140 f.)
[15] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 122 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 141)
[16] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7.10.2003, S. L 37.
[17] R. Hilberg, Die Quellen des Holocaust. Entschlüsseln und Interpretieren, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2002; vgl. Jürgen Grafs Rezension, “Der unheilbare Autismus des Raul Hilberg”, VffG 7(1) (2003), S. 107-114.
[18] vgl. die offizielle Enzyklopädie des Holocaust, Argon Verlag, Bd. III, S. 1516ff.
[19] Nachweis bei Rudolf, Vorlesungen S. 126

Main menu

Sylvia Stolz, The German Joan of Arc

Sixty years after the end of the Third Reich, it is imperative that German lawmakers bring about a change of direction.

They must abandon their “Sonderweg” (peculiar path) if they want to meet the normal standards of a nation of laws.”

Such manifestly obvious facts can be common knowledge with which reasonable persons normally are endowed, or concerning which they can easily inform themselves from reliable sources and without need of specialized knowledge.

The Court has the obligation of discussing such facts as it considers “manifestly obvious” in the main proceedings, thereby giving the accused the possibility of taking a position.

Furthermore we must consider that “Manifest Obviousness” need not remain unchanged for all time.

The persons responsible for that field day of atrocity propaganda had turned their backs on any search for truth and any consideration of justice.

The above named jurists used my procedural announcement as a pretext to formulate and introduce their deceitful conduct of the main proceedings as follows:

What is going on in the heads of these jurists?

What are “show arguments?”

In the context of the Nuremberg Show Trials, “Show Arguments” are apparently arguments that might be capable of proving a verdict rendered in compliance with the will of foreign rulers, to be unjust.

And what are “familiar” Show Arguments?

Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media, the “Holocaust” has indeed become the inculcated belief of almost everyone.

If dislike of the Jews had existed in only one country and in only one age, it would be easy to understand the cause of the dislike.

But on the contrary, this race has been hated by all the nations among which they have lived.

Category

Newsletters

Most Popular Articles

My Articles

Ein Anderer Hitler

Wenger Family Archive

The German Reich

Race & History

Women & Family

Art & Culture

Main menu

You are here

Sylvia Stolz, The German Joan of Arc

Sixty years after the end of the Third Reich, it is imperative that German lawmakers bring about a change of direction.

They must abandon their “Sonderweg” (peculiar path) if they want to meet the normal standards of a nation of laws.”

Such manifestly obvious facts can be common knowledge with which reasonable persons normally are endowed, or concerning which they can easily inform themselves from reliable sources and without need of specialized knowledge.

The Court has the obligation of discussing such facts as it considers “manifestly obvious” in the main proceedings, thereby giving the accused the possibility of taking a position.

Furthermore we must consider that “Manifest Obviousness” need not remain unchanged for all time.

The persons responsible for that field day of atrocity propaganda had turned their backs on any search for truth and any consideration of justice.

The above named jurists used my procedural announcement as a pretext to formulate and introduce their deceitful conduct of the main proceedings as follows:

What is going on in the heads of these jurists?

What are “show arguments?”

In the context of the Nuremberg Show Trials, “Show Arguments” are apparently arguments that might be capable of proving a verdict rendered in compliance with the will of foreign rulers, to be unjust.

And what are “familiar” Show Arguments?

Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media, the “Holocaust” has indeed become the inculcated belief of almost everyone.

If dislike of the Jews had existed in only one country and in only one age, it would be easy to understand the cause of the dislike.

But on the contrary, this race has been hated by all the nations among which they have lived.

Category

Newsletters

Most Popular Articles

Search form

My Articles

Ein Anderer Hitler

Wenger Family Archive

The German Reich

Race & History

Women & Family

Art & Culture

User login