|
|
|
|
|
|
Horst Mahler
Dramatic Turning Point in the Lüneburger Trial of Dr. Rigolf Hennig for Disparagement of the Bundesrepublik.
As Witness for Prosecution, Official in Department of State Security Demolishes Basis of Indictment.
Did the state deliberately make an emergency exit from a trial that was growing dangerous for the OMF-BRD?
>>Translated by James Damon<<
The trial of Dr. Hennig continued on Monday the 12th and Tuesday the13th of December 2005. He is accused of having disparaged the Bundesrepublik in the Reichsboten, a periodical that he publishes. He is specifically accused of denying the Bundesrepublik’s legitimacy. His critique is based on the arguments of Carlo Schmid, the “Father of the Basic Law,” who referred to the Bundesrepublik as the “Organizational Form of A Modality of Foreign Rule” (OFM).
Just as on the first day, the visitors’ seats were all taken, and the general mood was friendly -- decidedly so on the part of the justice officials. The dainty lady prosecutor who had been present on the first day of trial did not appear this time. In her place appeared the robust Mr. Vogel, who throughout the proceedings brilliantly issued threats against Attorney Sylvia Stolz, counsel for the defense. He threatened that she would be making herself liable for charges of incitement and disparagement of the Bundesrepublik if she continued as she was doing and said he would not hesitate to press charges against her. But with every threat, Sylvia Stolz expressed her gratitude to Herr Vogel, saying that with his unusual conduct he was reinforcing her thesis the proceedings constituted a show trial.
It was her contention that what was being applied was not German law, but rather the will of a dominant foreign power.
The proceedings began with the formal pronouncement by presiding judge Knaag that the members of the court had taken cognizance the Basic Law speech delivered by Carlo Schmid before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948. It was officially acknowledged that according to the Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid, the leading attorney for state and international law in the Parliamentary Council, the German Reich had never ceased to exist, either through capitulation of the Wehrmacht on 8 May 1945 or any subsequent event. The Reich continued to exist although it was rendered incapable of acting as a legal instrument of national and state law.
Carlo Schmid effectively demonstrated that the Bundesrepublik is not a sovereign state. It is in fact nothing more than the “Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft“ (organizational form of a modality of foreign rule), and he went on to demonstrate the following:
The Basic Law of the Bundesrepublik is not a constitution but rather a statute of the Occupation;
The intervention of the victorious powers in domestic relations on German soil was a violation of international law and the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, therefore the Basic Law and all purportedly sovereign acts based on it have no legal significance, but rather a purely factual one;
The Basic Law can never be expanded to a German constitution through belated measures of the Bundestag;
Self-determination of the national German state can be realized either in struggle against the Occupation forces or in conjunction with them; and
The expulsion of the Germans from the Eastern regions of the Reich was illegal and must never be acknowledges as legally binding and that no part of the Reich can be abandoned, since this is a matter of national honor.
What a dilemma for the so-called Court! Could it take the position that Carlo Schmid had merely blurted out nonbinding nonsense?
Would it declare that acceptance of and compliance with Carlo Schmid’s concepts are punishable offenses? If so, on what basis?
Was Acquittal “For Lack of Evidence” the Solution?
Hardly noticed by the public, a dramatic turning point was reached at this point, as it became clear that the criminal act of which Dr. Hennig was accused could not be established. Acquittal for “lack of evidence” suddenly became unavoidable, since the prosecution’s case was based on reprints of articles that appeared in several issues of Reichsboten in 2004. Sylvia Stolz had mentioned in passing at the Monday sitting that it is not clear who printed and circulated these reprints or when. She suggested that Dr. Hennig had nothing to do with it, and he made no statement in this regard. Stolz said he was responsible for distribution of the various issues of the original Reichsboten and nothing else, and that these were not objects of prosecution.
Her Vogel immediately grabbed the opportunity to exonerate Dr. Hennig on traditional grounds. On the next trial day he brought along an official named Morgenstern from the Verden District Attorney’s office as trial witness, who reported on the findings of the house search carried out against Dr. Hennig. From Hennig’s file Mr. Vogel knew that this witness could report nothing except exonerating materials, which is exactly what happened. Not a single reprint of the publication had been found in Dr. Hennig’s apartment, nor were any other “signs of criminal activity” to be found. Dr. Hennig acknowledged responsibility for the original Reichsboten and nothing more -- he said not a word about the reprints.
It may seem to laypeople that the charges against Dr. Hennig could simply be applied to distributing the original copies of Reichsboten.
However, the trial verdict has barred that door. Every count of the prosecution must always be the precise historical event designated in the opening statement of the trial. In relation to the distribution of reprints, the distribution of the original Reichsboten is a separate and distinct event that is not named in the opening statement. Furthermore, because of the short statute of limitations specified in the press laws of Niedersachsen, the time for prosecution on charges of distribution of the original Reichsboten has already expired.
For the public, the high point of the third day of the trial was attorney Sylvia Stolz’s reading of her motion. This was not a motion to present evidence or make enquiries. Rather, Attorney Stolz moved that the court “take cognizance” of certain facts and information concerning contemporary history that had been prepared by the defense. The defense believes that this information will alter the hermeneutischen Horizont (methodological horizon) of the court. By this, Attorney Stolz is referring to the general foreknowledge without which historical events and developments cannot be correctly understood and evaluated. Changing the court’s “hermeneutic horizon” can “open the court’s path to a just decision.” The defense motion reads as follows:
“From the point of view of the Reich movement, it makes no difference whether or to what extent OMF jurists take into cognizance the information presented to them. The corresponding knowledge can now be imputed to them. One way or another, their good faith belief in the OMF-BRD is now a thing of the past.
From now on, their responsibilities will be determined according to the laws of the German Reich.”
The Basis of the Motion is documented as follows:
I. Preliminary Remarks
We are not dealing with a motion to take evidence, nor to make inquiries. We hope this request to take in cognizance will change the hermeneutic horizon of those who consider themselves to be judges, and thereby open the path to a just decision.
Political content, contemporary movements and developments are not objective facts in the sense of demonstrable conditions or events in the outside world. Here we are dealing with complexes of indicators whose “objectivity” is always relative to a specific interest.
The bearers of hermeneutic (methodological) interest are always the peoples that are geschichtsbefangen (caught up in history.)
Historical truth, therefore, is n-dimensional. Every national character is determined by its particular truths and realities.
At present the German nation is undergoing the experience of having to recognize the relativity of historical truth as such. This is because it has been violently alienated from its own interests and forced to live in foreign interest, so to speak. As a result, the German people are perishing. The key sentences of the reeducation program imposed on the Reich by the victorious powers (see Medium No. 15 p. 2) are evidence of a program of annihilation. As Schaffner expressed it:
that the members of the NSDAP were a small and distinct group whose removal would democratize German political life. This would be dangerous, since thereby the organic coherence between Nazism and Germanism would be unrecognized and misunderstood. The important thing was that character and personality should distinguish the German from the nonGerman.
The individual German should take on the German character that would make him acceptable in his fatherland, but at the same time a “misfit” among the other nations. The German governments were supposed to correspond exactly with the German character but at the same time, stand in contradiction to the ways of other nations.
Or, in Levy’s words, “the principal mission of the military government is the transformation of German psychology.”
Grieving over the loss of ego creates the effort to overcome its absence through exploration and realization, that is, to escape alienation and find one’s way back to himself.
Whether or to what extent the OMF jurists acknowledge the information offered to them. From now on, we can assume they have this knowledge. For whatever reason, their good faith in the OMF-BRD is a thing of the past. From now on their responsibilities are determined according to the laws of the Reich.
II. The Relation of Media Contents to the Confrontation Between Dr. Rigolf Hennig and the OMF-BRD.
A total revision of history worldwide is beginning as an insurrection against Jewish world dominance. As a result of this, the demand of the German Reich for reinstatement of its ability to function will be acknowledged. The realization of historical revision will then be inevitable.
A few days ago, on 27 November 2005, Gilad Atzmon introduced the most radical blow that has as yet been struck against the political indoctrination forced on us.
This is to be found in Exhibit No. 1 . Because he is himself a Jew and highly esteemed worldwide, his words carry especial weight. In his appeal to the Germans he is quoted as follows: “In Israel, one is imprisoned if one disagrees with official opinion.”
This is particularly true with regard to the past. In his books, Gilad Atzmon attempts to “rearrange this past.” He describes the historiography of the Second World War and Holocaust, so familiar to us, as a complete falsification invented by Zionists and Americans. He shows that the real enemy was not Hitler but Stalin.
The Germans must finally realize this and stop feeling guilty -- and above all, to stop feeling responsible. “It is You who are the victims” Atzmon says.
He reminds the Germans that
the bombing attacks on German cities took place because the Americans had plenty
of bombs and wanted to use them; the same happened in Vietnam and now in
Afghanistan and Iraq. He reiterates that the true evildoers of our time are
George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon.
(Source: Ruhrnachrichten (News of the Ruhr,) Bochum, Tuesday, November
29, 2005
The breach opened by Gilad Atzmon makes it possible to get a new understanding
of what Konrad Adenauer, the first Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of
Germany, related in his Memoirs - Exhibit No. 6 - about the physical
genocide against the German people in 1945.
"A total of 13.8 million Germans were driven out of the eastern parts of
Germany, Poland, Checkoslovakia, Hungary etc. according to facts established by
the Americans. Of these 7.8 million came to the East Zone but mostly to the
three West Zones. Six million disappeared from the face of the earth. They died
or were wiped out....A large part of the men and women who were able to work
were dragged off to slave labor in the Soviet Union. Endless suffering has been
caused by this expulsion of 13 to 14 million people from their homes, where
their forefathers had lived for hundreds of years....The expulsion was based
upon the Potsdam Agreement of August 2, 1945. I am convinced that sometime in
the future world history will harshly judge that document."
(Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs)
It certainly required extraordinary efforts to conceal the extent of this
shameful deed from the history books and to wipe it away from the memory of the
grievously mistreated German people. Is not there precisely here a motive for
what Atzmon calls the "complete falsification."
A few days after Atzmon's statement, a second powerful blow struck the Holocaust
religion. In Mecca, the most important pilgrimage site in the Muslim world, the
Iranian head of state Ahmadineschad publically acknowledged that he is a
holocaust denier and proposed a highly logical solution to the Jewish question.
On December 8, 2005, the Reuters News Agency referred to the Arabic source IRNA
and quoted the president as follows:
"Many European countries insist on asserting that Hitler killed millions of
innocent Jews and they even insist that every person who advances a counter
proof will be judged guilty and thrown into prison." IRNA quoted Ahmadineschad
as saying.
IRNA then continued: "Of course we do not accept the truth of this assertion,
but if we did, then this would be our question for the Europeans: Is the killing
of innocent Jews by Hitler the reason why you sponsor the occupation of
Jerusalem? If the Europeans were honest, they would give some of their provinces
in Europe to the Zionists, for example, in Germany, Austria or other countries…
You sacrifice a part of Europe and we will support that."
This brings us to the 2005 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature, the British writer
Harold Pinter. In his Nobel Lecture on December 7, 2005, he corrected the
benevolent general image that the West's leading nation has created for itself
in the consciousness of the world’s people.
Harold Pinter’s Nobel Lecture of December 7, 2005
"In 1958 I wrote the following:
‘There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor
between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true
or false; it can be both true and false.'
...But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be
found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil
from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are
blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your
hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost....
But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be
adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the
spot....
Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this
territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us,
are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power.
To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that
they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What
surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed."
Is there anyone who could convincingly contradict Pinter? But just what has he
said, without directly naming names? If this power, which he does not call by
name, is to maintain itself, if the people are to remain in ignorance, then the
lie must be inculcated precisely where people are conditioned to expect the
truth - in the "temples of science." Since in an allegedly "open society" based
on science, it is inconceivable that truth would be researched and taught at the
universities and then mysteriously transformed into institutions based upon
sheer lies, we must conclude that the universities and the other research
institutes are there to serve as incubators of the lie.
Pinter continues: "As everyone here knows, the justification for the invasion of
Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of
mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about
appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were
told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for
the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was
true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the
world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.
The truth is something entirely different. The truth has to do with how the
United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.
But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past,
by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World
War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some
kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.
Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe
during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities,
the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully
documented and verified.
But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been
superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone
recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth
has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to
a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States'
actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte
blanche to do what it liked.
Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured
method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity
conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower
than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect
the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the
gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued -- or beaten to death -- the
same thing -- and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit
comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has
prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I
refer....
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every rightwing
military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I
refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the
Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the
United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be
forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries....
The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious,
remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to
hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power
worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant,
even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the
road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very
clever....
Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American
people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to
think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your
intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does
not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and
the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which
extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer
sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table
without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United
Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and
irrelevant....
What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these
words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days --
conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our
shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at
Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years,
with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This
totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva
Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called
the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a
country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think
about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them?
They pop up occasionally -- a small item on page six. They have been consigned
to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are
on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in
these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up
your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the
British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime
Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said:
to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're
either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism,
demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The
invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies
and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended
to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East
masquerading -- as a last resort, all other justifications having failed to
justify themselves -- as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force
responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent
people. We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable
acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and
call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass
murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would
have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the
International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not
ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American
soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned
that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is
therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if
they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away
on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and
missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their
deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead.
'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks…
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting
its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now
defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full
spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant
resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world
in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't
quite know how they got there but they are there all right. The United States
possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on
hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is
developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British,
ever cooperative, are intending to update their own nuclear missile, Trident.
Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Doakes? China?
Paris? Who knows?
What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened
use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political
philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent
military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are
demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as
things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety,
uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is
unlikely to diminish.”
With this, the ground is prepared for unbiased consideration of the documentary
video ”Geheimakte Hess“ (The Hess Secret File) – Exhibit No. 7 – as well
as the digression “Pearl Harbor,” Exhibit No. 4.
These exhibits document the fact that Great Britain and the US were not in the
least concerned with “liberating” the German people from National Socialism.
Their war aim was to totally destroy the Reich for all time and to obliterate
the German nation. “The Hess Secret File” documents the numerous peace
initiatives of the Reich along with their categorical rejection by Great
Britain.
Germany’s self-deprivation is concisely presented in the article by Ambassador
Hans Arnold, “Deutschland muß sich selbst entmachten” (Germany must deprive
itself of power) – Exhibit No. 5.
The author’s main points can be summarized as follows:
1. The future Germany will be economically integrated, politically domesticated
and militarily powerless as a “Europeanized” Germany.
2. Germany will have no capacity to utilize its economic power for its own
political benefit purposes in this peculiar future Europe.
3. In future it will no longer be enough that wars are no longer launched from
German soil: Germany shall become the vehicle for the denationalization of the
European nation states.
4. In its own interest, and in the interest of Europe, Germany in future must
wither and shrink under the control of all Europe and with guarantees of
military insignificance.
5. The initiative for such a three sided integration of Germany into the future
Europe must arise from Germany itself. This is because, for one thing, it is the
historic task of German policy. The main reason, however, is to avoid a future
Versailles complex that could easily be created if this withering and shrinking
of Germany were imposed from outside Germany.
The Knochenerweichung (“softening of Germany’s bones”) that is necessary to
accomplish this is to be accomplished by means of the “Holocaust Religion.” This
new religion is being fabricated also as a cover to hide the fact that both
world wars of the 20th Century were deliberately, premeditatedly engineered by
that shadowy world power that believes itself chosen by divine providence to
rule and exploit our planet.
Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust” - Exhibit No. 12 - literally
extirpate the Holocaust religion by going after its roots, while the motion to
place in evidence Jewish materials pertaining to the Jewish question --
Exhibit No. 14 – removes the halo of eternal victim from that national cult
group. It also brings Pinter’s image of the “vast tapestry of lies” into the
realm of the comprehensible.
In a very abbreviated study, (Evidentiary Motion pp. 365 –) we indicate the ways
and means by which that shadowy background power has succeeded in taking over
the USA as military power base for its talmudic- mammonistic imperium.
With Exhibits 8 to 11, we demonstrate that the cynicism and hubris of
these masters of lies have now surpassed all boundaries. Here we present a
painstaking investigation of readily available photographs of the events of 11
September 2001 and their evidence in New York and Washington. Through
irrefutable logic the rational observer is made to realize that the “attack on
America” was launched not from outside the United States, but from within it.
The conspiracy behind the attack is the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC,)
which is nothing but an alternate name for the “global terror” (Al Gore) that is
now entering a new stage. The background power is described in the essay “Zur
Endlösung der Judenfrage“ (Towards Permanent Solution of the Jewish Question) in
conjunction with the Evidentiary Motion on Judaism - Exhibit No. 14.
Exhibit No. 16 is a monograph on the state of the German nation by Horst Mahler.
From the point of view of the German Reich, It attempts to present an overview
of the current situation, along with an overview of the the ways and means of
this first phase of the German and European war of liberation against Alljuda.
The “beobachtende Öffentlichkeit“ (spectators) contributed a long round of
applause to these presentations which the presiding judge tolerated, limiting
himself to the rather mild warning that in case of a recurrence, he would call
off the hearing and have the chambers cleared of spectators -- “regretfully,” as
he emphasized.
After Attorney Sylvia Stolz had emptied a bulky Pultordner (document organizer)
filled with the exhibits (always in five copies) and handed them to the
presiding judge, who in turn passed them on to the panel of judges and Mr.
Vogel, the proceedings were adjourned until the coming
Thursday 22 December 2005 / at 9:30 am,
So that the court would have opportunity to take the material into cognizance in
“Selbstleseverfahren” (by reading for ourselves.)
The summaries of Mr. Vogel and Sylvia Stolz, along with final words by Dr.
Hennig will then be presented. It is not yet known whether the court will
pronounce judgment at that time.
The Motion of the Defending Attorney reads as follows:
In the Criminal Trial of Dr. Rigolf Hennig
In Lüneburg District Court
-21 KLs 3/05 -
I hereby move
That Cognizance be taken of the contents of following exhibits:
1. Newspaper Ruhrnachrichten issue of 29 November 2005, being the account
of the appearance of the Israeli
artist and author Gilad Atzmon at the Langendreer Railroad Station on 27 Nov
2005
(http://www.westline.de/nachrichten/archiv/index_mono.php?file_name=20051128231021_630_001_2315688&jahrgang=2005&stichwort=atzmon&&start=0&order=datum&ort=bo)
2. SPIEGEL-online / for 8 December 2005 /
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,389336,00.html
– containing the report on
remarks by Iranian Head of State on the Holocaust;
3. Nobel Lecture by the British author Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize Winner of
2005, held 7 December
2005,http://www.svenskaakademien.se/litiuminformation/site/page.asp?Page=3&IncPage=1082&Destination=158;
4. An important digression on the significance of Pearl Harbor written by
Hamilton Fish: Der zerbrochene Mythos – F.D. Roosevelts Kriegspolitik 1933-1945
(The Shattered Myth: Roosevelt’s War Policy 1933-45) / published by Grabert in
Tübingen in 1982; pages 157-166 / Chapter XV / “How the United States were Drawn
Into the Second World War.”
5. Article “Deutschland muß sich selbst entmachten” (Germany must deprive
herself of power) written by former Ambassador Hans Arnold / in the newsweekly
Die Zeit / of 18 May 1990
6. Konrad Adenauer, „Erinnerungen 1945 – 1953“ (Memoirs 1945-53), DVA,
Stuttgart, 1965, S. 186
7. DVD Video „Geheimakte Heß“ (The Secret Hess File) submitted in 5 copies
8. DVD Video „Jimmy Walter – Confronting the Evidence“ (submitted in 5 copies);
9. DVD-Video „Painful Deceptions“ by Eric Hufschmid (submitted in 5 copies)
10. Data-CD „Septemberlüge“ (The Lies of September) by Horst Mahler (submitted
in 5 copies)
11. Evidentiary motion submitted to the Hamburg District Court on 14 April 2003
in the trial 141b – 125/02 concerning the phantom attack against the Pentagon on
11 September 2001 (submitted in 5 copies)
12. Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust (a computer copy is included in the
court documents);
13. Horst Mahler, Essay “Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich
ist, das ist vernünftig – Zur Endlösung der Judenfrage” (What Is Reasonable Is
Real, and What is Real is Reasonable: On The Permanent Solution to the Jewish
Problem.) Submitted in 5 copies
14. Horst Mahler, “Motion to Submit Evidence on the Jewish Question in the
Berlin Judaism Trial in 2004/2004.” Included among trial documents.
15. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, Character Laundering: The Policy of American
Reeducation in Germany / Ullstein Publishing House / Berlin, 1996, pp. 137 --
16. DVD Video Containing a Monogram by Horst Mahler on the State of the German
Nation.)
German version
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute
