Zundel Videos

Ingrid's Veterans Today Articles

Zgrams

File Index

The Genie is out of the bottle!

zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Fri Apr 21 11:21:51 EDT 2006










(Please note:  The following arrived with paragraphs mangled by 
faulty e-mail.  I did my best to reconstruct this submission as I 
believe it was meant to be.)


http://www.therebel.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4733&newlang=eng



The Genie is Out of the Bottle

Posted by: Horst Mahler on Apr 20, 2006 - 02:23 AM Germany       

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 spreadŠ 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 opinionŠ 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:


"Šin 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 Š 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 MoscowŠ"


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 scienceŠ This attitude must be rejected as an attack on 
the principle of freedom of research. [5]


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.[6]


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] "ŠThe 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]


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.[10]


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 existŠ 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 discussionŠ 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 incubatorsŠ[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 KarskyŠ 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


"ŠJust 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 earlierŠ 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 make such a decisionŠ 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060421/8c63c0df/attachment.htm


More information about the Zgrams mailing list
ADS4711