ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                                  September
2008                                      
                                                                    No 411  

21st Anniversary -17 August 1987

  Eisernes Kreuz I. Klasse

Awarded the Iron Cross First Class

RUDOLF HESS: The Witness

Twenty-one years ago he was murdered at age 93, said to have been a suicide. It would have been the only horizontal hanging recorded in human history. 

Forty-one years earlier, standing before his accusers, he uttered these words:

"I regret nothing.  If I were to begin all over again, I would act again as I did—even if I knew that what awaited me in the end was the stake at which I was to be burned alive.  It makes no difference what men may do to me.  One day I shall stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal.  To Him I shall answer; and I know that He will pronounce me innocent." 

He was known as the conscience of the Movement. He stood closer to the Führer than any other man. He tried to stop a tragic war among Aryan kindred. His name was—RUDOLF HESS. 

On 17 August, 1987 — after spending nearly a half century in a lonely prison cell at Spandau Prison, Berlin — he was foully murdered by the powers of Darkness on this Earth.  And so, on this Day of Witness, we again pause to pay solemn homage to the eternal memory of this hero and martyr and pledge ourselves anew to the Holy Cause for which he fought.

______________________________________

Dr. Claus Nordbruch – info@nordbruch.org

The “Kanzlerakte” – Agitation Under a False Flag

Translated by J M Damon – jamesmdamon@yahoo.com

For around ten years the rumor has circulated, especially among people attracted by conspiracy theories and simple solutions, that every newly elected German chancellor has to present himself in the United States in order to sign the socalled Kanzlerakte (Chancellor’s Document) before taking his or her oath of office. The rumor holds that this “document” defines the continuing German obligations toward the Allies.  It said to be part of a secret state treaty dating from 1949, according to which the Allies were assured of (among other things) sovereign control over the media in the BRD until the year 2099.  If these allegations are true, the Kanzlerakte proves that every chancellor of the Federal Republic from Adenauer to Merkel has been a puppet of the World War II Allies.

In September 1999, the monthly magazine Unabhängige Nachrichtren announced that Hearst Publishing House of New York would soon publish a book in which a Prof. James Shirley would present evidence of a secret supplementary agreement to the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) of the German Federal Republic.  According to Unabhängige Nachrichtren, German publishers were unwilling to publish the book because “...a secret agreement concerning the Federal Republic’s Basic Law contains a clause according to which the licensed media (press, radio, television, and publishing houses), both in the present and far into the future, must remain under control of the Allies.”i

Following this sensational announcement, nothing more was heard of Kanzlerakte for several years.

The debate over the ominous document flared up again in 2007 when Major General Gerd-Hermut Komossa, formerly Chief of the Federal German Military Counterintelligence Services, seemed to confirm the existence of the Kanzlerakte in his book Die deutsche Karte. Those for whom the existence of such documents fits into their world view and who “always knew such things existed” were jubilant and quickly concluded that the Kanzlerakte were not just rumor but fact.  The exact wording was not known, but still, the very monstrousness of the fact of the existence of a secret treaty was taken as evidence that the BRD had deceived the German nation for many decades.ii

General Komossa stated the following without qualifications: “The Geheime Staatsvertrag (Secret Treaty) of 21 May 1949 was classified by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) as Strengste Vertraulichkeit (Strictly Confidential.)  In it, the victors of World War II set forth their limitations on the sovereignty of the Federal Republic until the year 2099.  Hardly anyone knows about this today...  For one thing, it established ‘...control of the Allied Powers  over German radio and television media’ until the year 2099.  In addition, it directed that every German chancellor must sign the socalled Kanzlerakte before taking the oath of office.  In addition to this, the gold reserves of the Federal Republic were attached and impounded by the Allies as surety.”iii

On the last point there can be no doubt: the German gold reserves are indeed stored in the cellars of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.  There is no record of German officials having ever been allowed to inspect their financial reserves.  But what about the actual contents of the Kanzlerakte?  At present, the only evidence of the actual existence of the secret treaty and Kanzlerakte is a photocopy of a letter dated 14 September 1996 written by a mysterious government minister named “Dr. Rickermann” and sent to an unnamed government minister.  There are in fact two known versions of this photocopy.  One does not need to be a criminologist to notice some striking peculiarities:

Peculiarity #1

Although at present more than 500 persons in Germany bear the name “Rickermann,” there has never been a minister in the Federal Republic with that name.iv

The title “Staatsminister” is a title bestowed by the President of the Federal Republic on recommendation of the Chancellor and with approval of the responsible minister, according to § 8 ParlStG (Section 8 of Parlamentare Staatssekretäre Gesetze (Laws Governing the Parliamentary Secretariat.)v  There are government ministers in both the Chancellory and the Foreign Office.  However, the mysterious Dr. Rickermann was purportedly active, not in any government ministry, but rather in the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND -- Federal Intelligence Service!)

Peculiarity #2

If there were a government minister in the intelligence service, he or she would outrank the president of the Federal Intelligence Service.

As we learn from the “BNP Paper” however, Rickerman was assigned to the Kontroll-Abteilung (Control Department) II/OP of the BND.  In that case, however, he would be simply a departmental head and not a minister. Furthermore, the reference to “Kontrollabteilung II/OP” is also suspicious.  The BND consists of 8 departments, but its own monitoring department is not included in the official description.vi

Peculiarity #3

The letter was obviously written on an antiquated typewriter, which brings up the question of whether the Intelligence Service was still using antiquated typewriters in 1996.  For the sake of argument, we will say they were.  Even if they did use antiquated typewriters, however, the secret foreign service, like all government agencies, institutions and bureaus, also used printed letterheads that included the department’s various addresses, telephone numbers and FAX numbers.  It is is unrealistic to assume that in 1996 the control section of BND would have used nothing except an amateurish top line of capital letters as letterhead.  And this does not even take into account the fact that the official reception stamp is also missing.  This would have been unusual in any official correspondence, and incomprehensible in the bureaucratic routine of civil servants.

Peculiarity #4

Why does “Dr. Rickermann” bother to explain the Kanzlerakte and secret international treaty when it would normally be assumed that the “honorable minister” to whom the letter is addressed would be intrimately familiar with its existence and contents?  Why would he irresponsibly reveal the contents of a secret document in a letter, greatly increasing the danger of indiscretion?  Having “Dr. Rickermann” nonchalantly chat about a classified subject is obviously contrived to introduce the uninitated reader to the contents of the “Kanzlerakte!”

Peculiarity #5.

The “Rickermann” letter is liberally sprinkled with mistakes of logic and institutional etiquette.

A. It is significant that ministers are not addressed directly or personally.  Instead, correspondence addressed to them always begins with the formulaic “Sehr geehrter Herr Minister” (Honorable Minister.)  Furthermore there is nothing in the letter that tells us to which minister the letter is actually addressed.

B. An obvious discrepancy exists in the remark “Please destroy the original” which is written in Sütterlinschrift (old fashioned German handwriting.)  The archaic characters have been overdrawn, with the author obviously copying the letters from a handwriting guide.  It is clear that the composer is not familiar with Sütterlinschrift.  He has laboriously drawn one letter after another.  “Dr. Rickermann” then adds “z.d.A. (zu den Akten) in barely legible writing, followed by a notation of date, suggestively confirming that he has received the original.

C. Neither on 21 May 1949 nor at any time before or since has there been a “Provisional Government of West Germany.”  This designation has never been customary, not even under the four zonal governments of the immediate postwar occupation. Such usage is suggestive of the Soviet occupation government and its “Provisional Government of East Germany.”  Does this perhaps offer a clue to the real identity of the author of the letter?

Peculiarity #6

The security level mentioned is particularly significant.  This level is purportedly “VS (Verschlußsache) - Nur für den Dienstgebrauch” (Classified Matter, For Official Use Only), but there is also the notation “Official Secret” in the top margin.  In Section 11 of the departmental handbook we read that the reference “Amtlich geheimgehalten” is used only with the security classifications “streng geheim,” (top secret), “geheim” (secret) / and VS-vertraulich” (confidential).  The handbook prescribes that the notation “amtlich geheimgehalten” should be printed in the top and bottom margins of every page.  As for documents with the security classification “VS-NfD” (Nur für den Dienstgebrauch – For Authorized Persons Only), on the other hand, the additional remark “Amtlich geheimgehalten” (Official Secret) is not used at all.  Furthermore we note in the same handbook that documents with the security designation “VS-NfD” must be furnished with date and file number, and the abbreviation “VS-NfD” is to be added to the file number at the end of the message.  The letter from “Staatsminister Dr. Rickermann” contains neither date nor file number.

Peculiarity #7

The numerous errors of composition in the text are very striking.  They lead us to suspect not only sloppiness but a low educational level as well.  Where government ministers are concerned, we must rule out a low educational level.  In our letter, “Staatsminister Dr. Rickermann” strongly recommends “denying the authenticity of the secret treaty between the Allied powers and the provisional government of West Germany.”  He also uses the expressions “Medienhoheit der allierten Mächten” (media supremacy of the Allied Powers) and closes with “Hochachtungsvoll” (Respectully yours.)  On top of everything else a second version of this letter is now circulating in the media and Internet as well, showing a dilettantish attempt to correct the above mentioned errors.  In this second version it is quite obvious that the line lengths are different from those in the first version, providing clear evidence that at least one version of the letter is a counterfeit.

Peculiarity #8

We know for certain that the Federal Republic was founded on 23 May 1949.  How then could it be possible for a “Federal Republic of Germany” to conclude a “secret treaty” on 21 May 1949?  Thus, the main question is whether Komossa was really relying on the “Rickermann Paper.”

He confirmed this to the magazine Junge Freiheit in December of 2007, stating that he had “...a copy of the referenced paper of the Federal Republic” that he believed it to be a document from the year 1949.  He wrote: “In view of the security classification, I am using the so-called “BND Paper” that was available to me as part of my duties.  However, I could not and did not wish to evaluate it.  Even today I do not know whether it is genuine or fake.  I rather suspect the latter.  It was certainly a mistake not to have noted this in the book...  Regarding the reference to the “rights of the Allies,” it was not my intent to create or spread the impression that these rights are still in effect today.”vii

He went on to state:  “Unfortunately, the whole thing was misunderstood because the manuscript was so condensed in editorial reporting.  I regret this very much.”viii

These are astounding remarks!  It is unquestionably true that the Allies still exercise special rights in and over Germany.  And it is unquestionably true that the “enemy clause” of the 1949 UN Charter identifying Germany as an “enemy state” is still in effect, and that  the Transitional Treaty of 1955 specifies the Allied occupation rights that specifically continue in effect following conclusion of the Two Plus Four treaty in 1990.  Nevertheless, the “referenced paper of the Intelligence Service” cannot possibly be considered a “contemporary document” of the year 1949.ix

It is clear from “Rickermann’s” notation dated 14 August 1996 that the letter was not produced before the 1990s, rather than being composed in 1949.  The Federal Intelligence Service had not even been founded in 1949!  According to Reinhard Gehlen, head of the organization that preceded the BND, the new German intelligence organization “...was financed by the Americans, which is evidenced by the fact that the financing for it did not come from the occupation costs.  That is why the organization turned over all its findings to the Americans.”x

From the BND’s official description we read: “The BND began its activities as a government agency attached to the Federal Chancery On 1 April 1956.”  Another statement of the Federal government of those days states: “A federal intelligence agency has been created...  It is attached to the chancellery.xi

In addition to this, Komossa remarked to a reader of the magazine Deutsche Stimme that the document had been available to him in conjunction with his official duties.  This can hardly have been possible, since the document, even if genuine, is supposed to have been written in 1996, long after Komossa retired.  It is much more likely that he received it through the mail and used it in his book without questioning its authenticity, which would seem very unlikely for a professional like himself.xii

As a grotesque culmination to all this: In September 2006 the magazine Politische Hintergrundinformationen (PHI), which in the past had often published controversial but unverifiable material, unequivocably stated the following: “This story is built on a pure fabrication by a Herr M. of Munich, since deceased, who was a long time subscriber to PHI and was a close personal friend of a PHI editor... Herr M. was a nationalist with strong convictions.”

“He showed our editor the original of his fake letter as well as the old typewriter on which he had written it.  In support of his counterfeit, he declared that the victors and the Jews had falsified so many documents to Germany’s disadvantage that he too had falsified a little something.  His purpose was to undermine the authority of what he called the ‘West German puppet government.’  He told our editor that he had invented a story to go with the letter as well, and  that someone in the Chancellery was searching the archives for a copy of the letter or some other corrspondence that made reference to the Kanzlerakte...  Our Herr M. invented this correspondence and sent the alleged copy to various organizations on the right, who industriously disseminated it, until an American professor even wrote a book on the subject.”xiii  

One would think that it would be easy to obtain a copy of this book, but such is not the case.  Late in 2007 the magazine Unabhängige Nachrichten published this announcement: “As early as 1999, we reported the ominous story of the Kanzlerakte with great reservations, since we could not confirm the authenticity of our information.  All our attempts to locate this Prof. James Shirley, who was said to have written a book on the subject, were unsuccessful.  The same has been true of our investigation of the title of the book as well as the alleged publisher, the Hearst Group in the USA.”xiv

This investigation produced the same results as our investigation of the author.  The Hearst Corporation is a major US publisher of newspapers and magazines (Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Oprah), located in New York, that has also moved into television talk shows.   They have no record of having ever published anything by anyone named James Shirley.  Back to the Internet!  On the website Direkt zur Kanzlerin!, anyone can contact the office of Chancellor Merkel and ask questions.  On 6 October 2007 someone did just that, to contact Merkel regarding the Kanzlerakte.  Referring to Komossa’s book, this person asked whether the allegations were true.

The answer of the Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung (BPA), dated 19 November 2007, was as follows:

“The socalled Staatsvertrag to which you refer belongs in the realm of legend.  No such treaty exists.  It is absolutely not true that Chancellor Merkel was ordered by the Allies to sign any socalled Kanzlerakte before taking her oath of office.”xv

Of course, one can point out that the BPA is also capable of lying.

This is undoubtedly true, but in view of the overwhelming totality of evidence, one is inclined to believe the BPA in this instance.  Furthermore, can one seriously support the naive assumption that the political string-pullers in the background (such as Bilderberger, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) would not be in a position to influence or control every chancellor or head of state in the anglo American sphere of influence by intrigues, Secret Service operations, media manipulation, etc. without requiring him or her to put his signature on an abstruse piece of paper?

It is encouraging to note that the heads of the national opposition in Germany have retained a clear head and not fallen for the conspiracy theorists.  “What at first glance seemed a sensation, proved on closer inspection a total falsehood” is the studied and reasonable comment of Deutsche Stimme.xvi

There is unquestionably a great deal if evidence that the governments of the Federal Republic have not acted in the interests of the German nation.

In this regard we should mention the Federal Republic’s one sided, legally enforced anti-German historiography as well as its decades-long immigration policies, whose obvious intent is to change Germany culturally and demographically.  We should mention the relentless Islamization of the heart of Europe combined with increasingly drastic pro Zionist positions, increasing out-migration of Germany’s intellectual elite, the descent of layers of the native population into chronic poverty and the sending of German troops in support of Nato’s pro-Zionist expansionist policies. There is no need for abstruse conspiracy theories to explain the causes of these devastating developments.

An analysis of the basis on which the Federal Republic was founded  leads to the answers we need.xvii 

Here we have the acceptance of the doctrine of German collective guilt.  This is precisely what constitutes the heart and soul of the Federal Republic!  Many decades ago the political scientist Theodor Eschenburg formulated the foundations on which the West German state was constructed in the postwar period.  He wrote: “The acknowledgement of uncontested sole guilt of Hitler is in fact the foundation of the policies of the Bundesrepublik.”  The publicist Sebastian Haffner (in reality Raimund Pretzel, who immigrated to Britain in 1938), a strong supporter of the division of Germany and architect of postwar German “re-education,” also shared this opinion.  According to Haffner, anyone who disturbed the status quo was a threat to the peace of Europe. 

And President Philipp Jenninger, in his address to the German parliament on 9 November 1988, acknowledged that every political question in the Federal Republic relates to “full consciousness of Auschwitz.”  In 1994, former District Court President Rudolf Wassermann expressed his agreement: “Whoever disputes the truth about National Socialist extermination camps damages the foundation on which the Federal Republic was founded...  Whoever denies Auschwitz attacks not only the human dignity of the Jews but also the foundations of the self image of our society.”xviii

As early as 1987, Joschka Fischer designated Auschwitz as the Federal Republic’s “Reason of State.”  While foreign minister, he reiterated his opinion in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung issue of 18 February 1999:  “Every democracy has a basis, a foundation.

For France this is 1789 (the French Revolution.)  For the USA it is the Declaration of Independence.  For Spain it is the Spanish Civil War.

Well, for Germany it is Auschwitz.  It can be nothing but Auschwitz.

In my eyes, the only basis for the new Berlin Republic can be remembrance of Auschwitz, ‘Never-Again-Auschwitz.’”  There are countless other similar expositions of the foundations of the Federal Republic.  The mentality of the representatives of the present system correspond to their deeds.

On 20 June 2008 General Komossa sent the following email to the author: “It is particularly irritating that nobody objects today when the mass media continues to disseminate disproven allegations about the Wehrmacht during World War II, namely that they committed mass atrocities, in contrast to their opponents.  It is very irritating that in the year 2008, politically manipulative movies are shown on German TV, with the intent of disparaging and vilifying the surviving German veterans in the eyes of the world. The volume of such misinformation is increasing as the generation that experienced the war dies out. It is simply incomprehensible that German judges allow the common German soldier to be depicted as a murderer.  How courageous it would be if the so-called critics would intervene against this vilification of the German soldier, who is risking his life in many areas of unrest all over the world.  This vilification goes on day after day.  The insults against the military honor of our fathers and grandfathers who fought in good faith for our country, risked their lives for six years and lost so much – these insults violate the honor and dignity of the German soldier in our own day. The Bundeswehr was not created by murderers, it was made up of conscientious and responsible soldiers who had been required to fight for their country in the past and who agreed to serve their country again.”xix

The general’s estimation is entirely correct.  Such wretched policies as exist today could have grown nowhere except from the soil of the Federal Republic, and they have no need of fictitious “Kanzlerakte.”

The apologists for these fantastical policies have contributed greatly to paralyzing critical thought in Germany and to our inclination to fatalism and nihilism.  Both of these factors result in political passivity.  Those who disseminate the Kanzlerakte lie are supporting the present regime.

Footnotes:

i http://www.fk-un.de/UN-Nachrichten/UN-Ausgaben/1999/UN9-99/artikel1.htm

ii See »Die Kanzler-Akte« in: Der Reichsbote, Nr. 1/2008, p. 8.]

iii Gerd-Helmut Komossa, Die deutsche Karte. Das versteckte Spiel der geheimen Dienste, Graz  2007, pp 21-

iv www.verwandt.de/karten/absolut/Rickermann.html

vhttp://www.bundesrepublik.org/Bundesregierung/Staatsminister/0/DETAILS/Staatsminister+(Begriffserklärung)/

vi These eight departments are organized as follows:

* Abteilung 1 - Operative Aufklärung. Klassische nachrichtendienstliche Arbeit. Gewinnung und Steuerung geheim operierender Informanten. Pflege der Beziehungen zu Nachrichtendiensten anderer Staaten. Schlüsselstellung sog. Residenturen, d.h. Auslandsdienststellen des BND.

* Die Abteilung 2 – Technische Informationsgewinnung mit technischen Mitteln durch Filterung der internationalen Kommunikationsströme. Bearbeitung verschlüsselter Nachrichten.

* Abteilung 3 - Auswertung. Start- und Endpunkt der gesamten nachrichtendienstlichen Arbeitskette im BND. Die operativ und technisch beschafften Nachrichten werden zusammengeführt und analysiert. Über die Ergebnisse werden die Bundesregierung und andere Behörden informiert. Weiterhin ist hier das Lage- und Informationszentrum (LIZ) angesiedelt, in dem rund um die Uhr das aktuelle weltpolitische Geschehen beobachtet wird.

* Abteilung 4- Steuerung und Zentrale Dienstleistung. Verwaltung von Personal, Finanzen und Rechtwesen.

* Abteilung 5 - Operative Aufklärung / Auswertung. Operative Beschaffung und Auswertung von Informationen über „asymmetrische Bedrohungen“ (Internationaler Terrorismus und Drogenhandel, Geldwäsche, Terrorfinanzierung, illegale Migration)

* Abteilung 6 - Technische Unterstützung. Versorgt die anderen Abteilungen mit technischen Dienstleistungen. Wesentliche Arbeitsfelder: Forschung und Entwicklung von nachrichtendienstlichen Techniken, Signalverarbeitung aus Kommunikationssystemen, Softwareentwicklung, DV-Unterstützung bei der nachrichtendienstlichen Arbeit

* Abteilung 7 - Schule des Bundesnachrichtendienstes u.a.mit Laufbahnlehrgängen für den öffentlichen Dienst als auch Fortbildungen in den Bereichen nachrichtendienstliche Methodik und Technik sowie Sprachen.

* Abteilung 8 – Sicherheit, Geheimschutz und Spionageabwehr ist zuständig für den Schutz der Mitarbeiter und der nachrichtendienstlichen Verbindungen vor sicherheitsgefährdenden Angriffen als auch für den Schutz von Einrichtungen und Gegenständen sowie Arbeitsmethoden und Arbeitsergebnissen.

vii Hans-Joachim von Leesen, »Ein Windei von Verschwörungstheoretikern« in: Junge Freiheit, 18 Jan 2008.

viii Email from Gerd-Helmut Komossa to the author, 20 June 2008

ix The correct name of this document is ›Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen vom 26.5.1952‹. It is an addition to the supplementary treaty to the Deutschlandvertrag between der BRD, USA, Great Britain und France und part of the Pariser Verträge that were signed on 23 Octobeer 1954 in Paris and took effect on 5 May 1955.

x Reinhard Gehlen, Der Dienst, Mainz-Wiesbaden 1971, p. 149.

xihttp://www.bnd.bund.de/cln_027/nn_355470/DE/Wir__Ueber__Uns/Geschichte/Geschichte__node.html__nnn=true

xii Holger Szymanski, »Die Kanzlerakte. Vermeintliche ›Enthüllungen‹ eines ehemaligen Bundeswehrgenerals«, in: Deutsche Stimme, Nr. 2/2008, zitiert nach http://www.deutschestimme.de/Ausgabe2008/Sites/02-08-Akte.html

xiii http://freezonechef.servertalk.in/viewtopic.php?t=2741

xivhttp://www.fkun.de/UNNachrichten/UNAusgaben/2007/UN12-07/2007-12-1.htm

xv http://www.direktzu.de/kanzlerin/messages/13569

xvi http://www.deutschestimme.de/Ausgabe2008/Sites/02-08-Akte.html

xvii Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, München 2001, also Nordbruch, Der Angriff. Eine Staats- und Gesellschaftskritik an der Berliner Republik, Tübingen 2003 and Nordbruch, Machtfaktor Zionismus. Israels aggressive Außenpolitik, Tübingen 2008.

xviii All quotations are from Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland, München 2001, pp. 41-.

xix Email from Gerd-Helmut Komossa to C. Nordbruch, 20.6.2008.

 ________________________________________

From: Steve Campbell callstevec1@yahoo.com  
Sent: Saturday, 23 August 2008 4:42 AM
Subject: Sylvia Stolz: Final Words to the Court

 

SOME OFFICIAL HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM:

Until 1989 there were twenty plaques at Auschwitz all claiming that 4,000,000 Jews were killed there in WW11. Since 1989 the new plaques say 1,500,000 Jews were killed there. Now that's a revision of 2,500,000! Was anyone jailed for this revisionism?

MORE REVISIONISM:

For many decades we were told that hydrogen cyanide gas came out of shower heads to kill the naked Jews, who were packed by the thousands into the gas chambers. But Steven Spielberg knew that was scientifically impossible, so the shower heads in the movie "Schindlers List" poured out water - not gas.

WHY ISN'T Spielberg in jail for changing official history?

The new story is that pellets soaked with hydrogen cyanide were thrown down holes in the roof [the non-existent holes in the roof] Historical Revisionism, by exposing the truth, has forced the lying officials to moderate their outrageous claims against the Germans. Nevertheless, the list of jailed revisionists is growing all the time, with Sylvia Stolz now on the list along with David Irving, Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf and Fredrick Töben.

________________________________

Sylvia Stolz: Final Words to the Court

Sylvia Stolz, lawyer on trial for Holocaust Denial, accuses court of Talmudic Inquisition

German Patriot Defence Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years. Below Sylvia's comments to the court.

She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of "Holocaust," making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting "Holocaust Denial." How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of "Holocaust" was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.

Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of "abuse of courtprocedure." ...  She has hope and faith that the German Nation will someday bring this treacherous Court to justice.

Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court's desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that "Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act." Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt.

Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions "domestic and foreign" court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany's enemies. It featured witnesses with "built-in credibility" and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.

She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of "Holocaust?" Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the "Holocaust" game (or "Holocaust Industry" as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it, he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War.) This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the "Hermann Case" in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.

Sylvia demonstrates that the Court's procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as "abuse of Court procedure," which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney's closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse.....Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive.

She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler's writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: "Put that in too!"

Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: "We are going to cut off your final address if..." But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls "I'm warning you!" but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany's plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.

Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks: "Is he German? Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye?"

Then she turns to the Bench and asks:

"What about you - are you Germans?" "German" stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as "honorable." In this court, the only "justice" is inspired by the Talmud!"

Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and "the truth will win out." She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction - she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. To the Bench she says

"And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace... Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people.... Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects... Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!"

Sylvia replies:

"If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison! It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government... My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me."

Also: If Americans Knew AIPAC ADL Zionist control of America http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FLSdd166Cqg

5 min 37 sec

U.S. foreign policy is dominated by Israel's interests, entirely to America's detriment. A few informed commentators proffer their insights into a situation that the average American is largely unaware of.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/doc/Sylvia.Stolzs.Last.Words.in.Court.htm

________________________________________   

This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression
Seumas Milne, The Guardian,  August 20, 2008


The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered".

George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

--- Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives?

Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=2481


Breaking the Israeli Siege of Gaza
Ghada Karmi, University of Exeter  August 20, 2008


The courage and determination of one small group who refuse to stand by and watch Gaza starve is a lesson to us all. Meanwhile, the rest of the Arab world looks on, unable or unwilling to help the people of Gaza. Arab communities in the Diaspora are little better. They make charitable donations or support aid agencies, and talk about the tragedy of Gaza. But none has taken the bold and fearless action this emergency needs. Much has been written and said about Arab inertia in the face of blatant injustice, often at the hands of dictatorial regimes. Yet this cannot explain or justify the Arab position on Gaza.

This should have been the rallying point for all Arabs to unite in rejection of a vicious punishment unjustly imposed on an innocent people. It could have been the first move to reinstate Palestine's cause to where it had been, at the heart of the Arab world. Not one, but a fleet of Arab ships should have visited Gaza daily to break the siege. It is an indictment of us all that it took a foreign crew and foreign volunteers to breach the walls of Gaza's prison and defy its cruel jailers.

http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=2480


Large U.S. Bank Collapse Ahead, Says Ex-IMF Economist


The worst of the global financial crisis is yet to come and a large U.S. bank will fail in the next few months as the world's biggest economy hits further troubles, former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff said on Tuesday. "The U.S. is not out of the woods. I think the financial crisis is at the halfway point, perhaps. I would even go further to say 'the worst is to come'," he told a financial conference. "We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper, we're going to see a big one, one of the big investment banks or big banks," said Rogoff, who is an economics professor at Harvard University. Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSSP21695020080819


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute