Göring was sentenced to hang, but even today, the terms of imprisonment imposed for such “crimes” are often longer than those inflicted on murderers. Such peculiar laws are incompatible with a civilized society. “Civilization” is sometimes defined as “an advanced stage in social development” (Oxford Concise Dictionary), thus of cultivation, of improvement in the sense of freedom from oppression—a state most of us believed we had attained. Yet we are returning to a dark age of restriction instead. On the one hand, contemporary society seems to be obsessed with such superficial freedoms as the legalisation of same-sex marriage; on the other, the basic right to freedom of expression is penalized anew. The new empires, or blocs, have no single societies as such, but only multicultural mixes. This mishmash of humanity allows freedoms to be trampled more easily than would have formerly cohesive communities. Less advanced societies had high penalties for lèse majesté. In Thailand, where the King is still held to be sacrosanct and inviolable, lèse majesté may be punished with 15 years in jail. In Scotland, a law against sedition still exists, but it has not been prosecuted since 1715. If it is really the intention of governments who have gagged their people with these laws to revert to totalitarianism, instead of using euphemistic blather about “discrimination” and “racism,” they should state openly the true nature of their cause and thus the true letter of their law: “Whoever speaks ill of Jews will be prosecuted,” as was the case under Lenin (“law against anti-Semitism,” introduced July 27, 1918. Lenin had issued a ukase ordering that any active anti-Semite could be shot without going through any court procedures.) Isn’t that what it’s really about?
Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions -- while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable “holocaust” occur -- gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonours the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.
In order to destroy the prestige of heroism for political crime, we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every kind of abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt. (allegedly forged Protocol No. 19)
A mass show trial, in which 42 people were indicted, but which was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence, began in Washington D.C., on April 17, 1944:
Under pressure from Jewish organizations, to judge from articles appearing in publications put out by Jews for Jews, the new indictment even more than the first was drawn to include criticisms of Jews as “sedition.” It appeared that a main purpose of the whole procedure, along with outlawing unfavourable comments on the administration, was to set a legal precedent of judicial interpretations and severe penalties which would serve to exempt Jews in America from all public mention except praise, in contrast to the traditional American viewpoint which holds that all who take part in public affairs must be ready to accept full free public discussion, either pro or con. (UPI, sedition trial 1943)
Lawrence Dennis, one of the defendants, commented later that: “One of the most significant features of the trial was the utter insignificance of the defendants in relation to the great importance which the government sought to give to the trial by all sorts of publicity-seeking devices.”
According to Dennis, it was the design of the sedition trial to target not the big-name critics of the Roosevelt war policies, but instead to use the publicity surrounding the trial to frighten the vast numbers of potential grass-roots critics of the intervention in the Eurasian war into silence, essentially showing them that, they, too, could end up in the dock if they were to dare to speak out as the defendants had in opposition to the administration’s policies.
“What the prosecutor was essentially trying to do,” according to Lawrence Dennis, was “to perfect a formula to convict people for doing what was against no law. It boiled down to choosing a crime which the Department of Justice would undertake to prove equalled anti-Semitism, anti-communism and isolationism. The crime chosen was causing insubordination in the armed forces. The law was the Smith Act, which had been enacted in 1940.”
Defence attorney Henry Klein minced no words when he told the jury that Jewish organizations were using the trial for their own ends: “We will prove that this persecution was instigated by so-called professional Jews who make a business of preying on other Jews by scaring them into the belief that their lives and their property are in danger through threatened pogroms in the United States [and that] anti-Semitism charged in this so-called indictment, is a racket, that is being run by racketeers for graft purposes.”
Day after day, the trial wore on. Page after page of publications authored by the defendants was introduced into evidence, giving rise [among] all in attendance to the idea that it was their writings which were really on trial. The government announced that it intended to introduce 32,000 exhibits. It became obvious that what the defendants were really being prosecuted for was “Jew-baiting” which gave an indication of one principal source of the prosecution’s support. It became one of the longest and most expensive trials in U.S. history. In essence, the trial was little more than an assault against free speech.
On November 22, 1946, Judge Bolitha Laws of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the charges against the defendants, saying that to allow the case to continue would be “a travesty on (sic) justice.” (Author Roger Roots, quoted in A Mockery of Justice – The Great Sedition Trial of ١٩٤٤, Michael Collins & Ken Hoop)
In the better informed, educated and more sophisticated countries, so-called hate crime laws are being passed as fast as legislatures composed of fools and hypocrites can be influenced to pass them. (The same folks who urge and legalize the mass immigration of economic and often criminal “refugees.” Many refuse to be registered, with the result that they do not officially exist, are untraceable by the police, can disappear into existing gangs or “clans” in major cities, commit crimes, and then disappear again.) In Austria, France, Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the UK, among other countries, it is an offence to deny “the Holocaust.” At least six people in Germany have recently received long sentences for this “crime”:
Horst Mahler (12 years) -- has been in intensive care for several months, as a result of losing first one foot and then the entire leg to gangrene, the effect of poor prison care, his advanced age and diabetes. He expects soon to hear if he must return to jail or may be allowed to live his last months in a wheelchair, but in freedom.
Ernst Zündel (7 years)
Wolfgang Fröhlich (6 years)
Germar Rudolf (4 ½ years)
Gerd Honsik (4 years)
Sylvia Stolz (3 ¼ years). On February 25, 2015, she was sentenced, in Germany, to 20 months more without parole, this time for a presentation about “Freedom of Speech” at a conference in Switzerland, where some footling Bernese lawyer had filed charges—or was instigated to file charges—against her under the Swiss anti-racism law.
Horst Mahler is 79, so his conviction amounts to a life sentence. Mahler is Germany’s most famous political prisoner or prisoner of conscience. How’s that again? Political prisoner? They had or may still have political prisoners in Cuba, certainly in the Ukraine, and in the U.S., inconvenient thinkers are sometimes entrapped and railroaded to jail (Edgar Steele, Bill White), but in civilized, enlightened Western Europe?
Yes, indeed. Laws have been invented just to lock away dissidents. These laws establish a dual-justice system. Traditional law still covers general crimes, but a parallel “bias-motivation” system has been invented. Crimes of “prejudice” are vigorous
ly prosecuted. Such crimes include “verbal violence” (i.e. criticism) against protected groups, such as Jews. Germany’s Grundgesetz or “Basic Law” of 1949 (the nearest Germany has come to a constitution) states very clearly in Article 5, (1): “Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.” / “Everyone has the right to express and to disseminate his opinion freely in word, writing or image and unimpededly to instruct himself through commonly accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through broadcast and film are ensured. Censorship does not occur.” Yet, official German policy towards Israel includes self-censorship and thus the voluntary suppression of basic democratic rights.
Memo from today: January 5, 2015. On the subject of censorship not occurring, PEN (Poets, Essayists, Novelists) International has released a report entitled “Global Chilling: the Impact of Mass Surveillance on International Writers.”
The report reveals that:
Concern about surveillance is now nearly as high among writers living in liberal democracies (75%) as among those living in non-democracies (80%). The levels of self-censorship reported by writers living in liberal democratic countries (34%) is substantial, even when compared to the levels reported by writers living in authoritarian or semi-democratic countries (61% and 44%, respectively).
And more than half (53%) of the writers worldwide who responded to PEN’s survey think that mass surveillance has significantly damaged U.S. credibility as a global champion of free expression for the long term.
“Fear of government surveillance is prompting many writers living in democratic countries to engage in the kind of self-censorship associated with police states,” said Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of PEN American Center. The new report shows that the impact of mass surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), other US government authorities and US allies is limiting freedom of expression around the world. Writers around the world are engaging in self-censorship due to fear of surveillance. The respondents were asked whether they had engaged in different types of self-censorship in their written work, personal communications and online activity.
Writers living in liberal democratic countries have begun to engage in self-censorship at levels approaching those seen in non-democratic countries, indicating that mass surveillance has undermined writers’ trust in democratic governments respecting their freedom of expression and right to privacy. Because of pervasive surveillance, writers are concerned that expressing certain views even privately or researching certain topics may lead to negative consequences. Self-censorship has a devastating impact on freedom of information: If writers avoid exploring topics for fear of possible retribution, the material, particularly controversial material, available to readers may be greatly impoverished. Mass surveillance programmes by the US government have damaged its reputation as a protector of free speech in the United States.
The report indicates that particularly in other “free” countries, writers do not believe freedom of expression is better protected in the US than in their countries. Even in countries classified as “partly free,” nearly one third of the writers think freedom of expression enjoys less protection in the US. See more at: http://www.pen.org/press-release/2015/01/05/new-pen-report-demonstrates-global-chilling-effect-mass-surveillance#sthash.qASpQDOh.dpuf
In 2007, Germany made a bid to make “Holocaust” denial a crime across the EU. The last such attempt failed in 2005, after objections from several governments which apparently felt uncomfortable about imprisoning people for saying what they think. Justice applied selectively is a form of injustice. “Denial” laws prohibit dissentient opinions about only one subject, from which it must be clear who is agitating for such laws.
Presently, German authorities claim the right to prosecute anyone anywhere for expressing dissident views on “the Holocaust” that can be accessed online in Germany, even when such expressions of opinion are entirely legal in the country where they are posted, and regardless of the language in which they are written.
Before she left for Israel, Merkel said that, because of its history, Germany was committed to the state of Israel:
The Shoah was something that is unique and which calls to us always and again to learn the lessons of the past. And for me that connects directly with Israel’s right to existence as a raison d’etat for Germany. (www.bundesregierung.de, February 25, 2014)
Apart from the repulsive nature of such grovelling, the Oxford dictionaries define “raison d’état” as “a purely political reason for action on the part of a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved.” The Oxford Reference states: “Raison d’état” (much less frequently in the English “reason of state”) dates from arguments in international law at the time of the formation of the modern states‐system in the seventeenth century. It means that there may be reasons for acting (normally in foreign policy, less usually in domestic policy) which simply override all other considerations of a legal or moral kind.
Raison d’état is thus a term which fits easily into the language of political realism and Realpolitik. As those doctrines have declined in acceptability the term raison d’état declined with them. So this codicil to the German constitution by “Kohl’s Mädchen” or Helmut Kohl’s protégé, as Merkel was known, has a doubtful legal or moral basis. Luckily for the chancellor, no lawyer was prepared to sue Merkel before the constitutional court for her eccentric interpretation of Germany’s “Grundgesetz.”
In a biography, Kohl did not exactly give the impression of having been impressed by Frau Merkel, perhaps another indication that she was imposed on him as his replacement, even then. Merkel’s grandfather was Polish, her father changed his name to “Kasner” in 1930, but Angela Merkel could just as well be “Aniela Kazmirczak,” for all the loyalty she shows to Germany.
Though a puppet too (In 1996, the Jew Egon Bahr described all chancellors from Adenauer to Kohl as “unofficial collaborators of the CIA,” “Germany –Made in the USA –How US agents steered Germany after the war”), Kohl was old guard and probably resented this Komsomol-type upstart he had to groom for leadership. Contrary to the popular concept of the westernisation of the DDR, the reunification of Germany is thus an example of “waters flowing eastward.” Kohl is quoted as saying of Merkel: “Mrs. Merkel didn’t even know how to eat correctly with a knife and fork. She loitered so much during official dinners that I often had to call her to order,” and “Merkel is clueless....” (Die Welt, October 6, 2014)
“First we had the cabbage, now we have the entire salad.” (i.e. “now we’re in a fine mess.”)
Of course the assertion of Auschwitz’s predominance is not new: “People will remember Auschwitz until the end of time as a part of our German history.” (Philipp Jenninger, speech before parliament, November 9, 1988)
Whoever denies the truth about the National Socialist extermination camps betrays the foundations on which the Federal Republic of Germany has been constructed. Whoever denies Auschwitz attacks not only the dignity of Jews; he also shakes the roots of the self-perception of this society. (Rudolf Wassermann, Die Welt, March 8, 1994)
Joschka Fischer had already called Auschwitz a reason of state in 1987. As Foreign Minister, he confirmed his opinion in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on February 18, 1999:
All democracies have a basis, a foundation. For France, it is 1789. For the USA, the Declaration of Independence. For Spain, the Spanish Civil War. Well, for Germany, it is Auschwitz. It can only be Auschwitz.
So this semi-educated little theorist, an erstwhile petty criminal and violent street-demonstrator who used the Green Party as a mechanism for self-advancement and then exchanged its natural attachment to environmentalism for obedience in NATO-led military adv
entures, reduced the justification for existence of his great nation, Germany, now a democracy in name only, to the inflated significance of a single place-name and that, a lie. Only in Germany could such a politicized nebbish succeed. He has received no fewer than five awards—all Jewish.
It is particularly unfortunate that the German “68ers” and others of the re-educated generation are now in positions of authority, and, through their self-imposed thraldom to Israel, take it as their duty to spread their sadly biased view of their own country’s history, in an attempt to perpetuate onto eternity their own people’s guilt, for presumed acts of which present generations can have no knowledge, and for which they cannot be held responsible. But it is of course precisely because they are ignorant and misinformed that they can be victimized.
Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of lodgement in it—yet merely to destroy it. Then, indeed, that body’s flesh dissolves into a swarming colony of insect life: but who in looking on that body’s self, would hold it still for living? (Richard Wagner).
Exterminate Anti-Semitic Termites as Our Ancestors Did 2,500 Years Ago (Rabbi Leon Spitz, American Hebrew, 1 March, 1946).
Gudrun Ensslin, later a leader of the RAF, declared on June 2, 1967, after the student Benno Ohnesorg had been shot in the back of the head by a Berlin policeman (later discovered to have been a member of the East German Secret Police, Stasi): “This fascist state is determined to kill us all. This is the Auschwitz generation—one can’t reason with them.”
The Red Army Faction, 1970-1998, although “responsible for 34 murders, many bank robberies, kidnappings and bomb attacks” (Wikipedia), was initially an unarmed Marxist protest movement, which was from its inception infiltrated by diverse government agencies, rendering these naive rebels against postwar German conditions mere marionettes in the struggle for political leverage. In the course of its life, the RAF, in its various incarnations, radicalized and armed itself, most likely acquiring weapons and explosives from NATO’s stay-behind network “Gladio” (created 1948 – exposed 1990), whose aim was to stir up fear in the 13 European countries in which it was present, and thus create the need for a strong right-wing state (“strategy of tension”).
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 34