Datum: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:32:56 +0200
Betreff: Mahler-Prozess in Potsdam - Bericht vom ersten Prozesstag - 08.10.2008
Translated by J M Damon
The Mahler Trial in Potsdam --
First Day (8 Oct 2008)
On 8 October 2008, the attorney Horst Mahler appeared as a defendant before the District Court of Potsdam.
He had appeared as a defendant before this court several times before, always for allegedly denying “Holocaust,” denigrating the dignity of Jews, and expressing contempt for the present German government and its organs.
The trial that began yesterday was unique in one respect.
The charges against him had recently been dropped by a different jurisdiction for exceeding the statute of limitations.
The Potsdam District Court was of a diffferent opinion, however.
It decided to resurrect the abandoned prosecution of the “Guru of the Right.”
This official tug-of-war gives a good indication of the growth of disunity within the German judicial system over trials enacted under Section 130 of the criminal code, which concerns “Incitement of the Masses” and “Denying ‘Holocaust.’”
Can such trials legitimately be staged or not?
The visitors’ section of the courtroom was filled with 38 visitors representing “the public.”
Among the visitors were several journalists and reporters of the semiofficial Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasting System (RBB.)
Most of the audience were followers or sympathizers of Horst Mahler as well as persons interested in the political significance of the proceedings.
The “Extreme Left” was thinly represented, as was the “Extreme Right” of freie Kameradschaften (loosely affiliated supporters.)
We found this surprising since we expected the “Gutmenschen” (politically correct do-gooders) would send whole classrooms in order to indoctrinate schoolchildren in condemnation of a “horrible criminal.”
We also expected the “rightwing scene” to be marching in order to demonstrate unity with the defendant.
None of this took place, however.
Not even PDS (far Left party) or Antifa (“antifascist”) were present, which was quite surprising.
Three or four journalists were present, all presumably affiliated with the official state broadcasting system RBB (Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcasters).
Still another surprise was that that the police were not in evidence in front of the courthouse.
Just a few months ago in Frankfurt/Oder, a hundred-member SWAT team came marching “at the double” when Mahler was a visitor (not defendant) at the trial of the “Bernau Four” before the district court there.
This too was a trial under Section 130, “Incitement” and “’Holocaust’ Denial.”
At the very beginning of proceedings, Mahler mentioned with some satisfaction the discord within the Berlin and Brandenburg judiciaries that are so evident in his case.
In his most recent trial, the Head Prosecutor of Cottbus, Cäcelia Cramer-Krahforst, had praised him for his integrity and expressed her respect.
Such a remark was an “absolute absurdity” as far as the ruling elite were concerned, and certainly unheard-of in the judiciary of the BRDDR.
Unfortunately her praise of Mahler’s integrity cost the judge her remunerative position.
The judge’s firing was intended to serve as an internal “warning shot” directed at all jurists, judges and prosecutors who might be tempted to express their respect for Mr. Mahler or their distaste for the inquisitorial Section 130.
At any rate it is obvious that sailing in the judicial circles of BRDDR is not nearly as smooth as it formerly was.
It is clear to all concerned that there are internal struggles.
Now even the most dedicated supporter of our clearly unconstitutional judicial system has reason to pause and reflect, at least where “’Holocaust’ Denial” is concerned.
Here in Potsdam we are witnessing a trial that a large faction of the Federal judiciary tried to avoid.
They tried to avoid it because they were afraid Mahler would use the trial to disseminate his legal theories and radical views from the courtroom.
Allowing visitors to hear his views means that the public will once again be exposed to his ideas, at a time of national and global economic crises that many persons believe are caused by Jews.
A large faction of the judiciary would prefer to treat Mahler with total silence, in order to deny him publicity.
They wanted to discontinue this trial, since going through with it would cause greater political damage to the ruling elite than the dissemination of Mahler’s views has caused until now.
Obviously this faction did not prevail, with the result that Mahler now has a larger podium than ever from which to expound and disseminate his theories.
The clique of jurists now proceeding against Mahler has prevailed, with the objective of convicting and incarcerating him for many years thereby “removing him from traffic,” although at the risk of granting him publicity and a podium for his ideas for several weeks.
These jurists also hope to benefit from continuing the intellectual terror directed at “heretics” who dare to violate official government taboos.
Convicting Mahler and barring the path of the “intelligent terrorist” and “intellectual leader of the Right ” in Germany will, they hope, strike such a heavy blow against the Right that it will never recover.
In order to accomplish this, they are willing to risk the dangers of an additional trial, even in this time of crisis...
Five judges were sitting on the “judges’ bench”, three professionals and two lay judges.
It took two prosecutors almost an hour just to read the exhaustive and wide-ranging indictment.
On this first day of the trial, the head prosecutor did not make known the punishment he is demanding.
Thus we do not know the number of years for which the prosecution wants to incarcerate Mahler.
The media are speculating that it will be up to 15 years...
He is charged with having disseminated his writings and other texts over the worldwide Internet and with “inciting hatred” against Jews and other parts of the German population.
The prosecutors enumerated these texts and
writings individually, one after another, along with the dates of their posting,
as well as the names of their recipients.
Court and Defendant Continue to Be at Cross Purposes
Mahler’s appearance in Potsdam was once again a “Sternstunde” (moment of destiny) – he keeps getting better!
It was a rare privilege to hear him addressing the Court, like a professor of law.
He presented his theses very succinctly, with clear thinking and a thread of continuity that he never lost throughout his presentation.
He never digressed from his planned presentation -- it was indeed splendid!
Mahler never fails to grip and fascinate his audience.
He succeeds in explaining even the most complicated judicial detail clearly and expertly, so that even laypeople can easily understand.
Very few people have this gift.
Many a university professor could take him as an example.
Nevertheless, the eternal opposition between Mahler and the judges remains unchanged.
They completely talk past one another.
It did not help that Mahler used all his forces of persuasion and explained his theses slowly and clearly, step by step, so that any pupil from remedial school would have been able to understand him.
Even though the Court did not adopt his theses, they were still easily comprehensible and well presented.
Everyone in the courtroom understood his theses.
They applauded him in their hearts for being open and candid, but the judges of course remained mute and impassive.
On the judicial bench there was nothing but silence and long, impassive faces.
These five handpicked judges were unable to understand what he was saying or else they were determined to not understand, or else they were not permitted to understand for purely political reasons.
If they gave any indication of sympathy or understanding they would immediately have been replaced!
The daily press is also reporting the trial in their relentlessly “politically correct” fashion.
In the various newspapers of the “deutsche Einheitspresse” (unitary German press) one can read opening statements such as these:
“The rightwing extremist and former attorney for the German Nationalist Party Horst Mahler called Holocaust eyewitnesses ‘comedians...’ and characterized himself as a racist.”
This is of course at best a half-truth, as present newspaper reporting tends to be.
When reporting on political events, contemporary journalists have a strong tendency to deliberately take words and statements out of context and present them one-sidedly.
A newspaper reader who is unfamiliar with Mahler and the technique of slanted reporting is likely to believe that he has durchgeknallt (has cracked) if he describes “Holocaust” eyewitnesses as “laughable.”
But the slanderous BRDDR press always operates this way, so why would we expect anything different?
The truth is that Mahler presented his statements carefully and based them on good evidence; but we cannot expect accurate and impartial accounts in contemporary newspapers!
Mahler most certainly did NOT categorically characterize all Auschwitz witnesses as “laughable,” as the slavish German press would have us believe.
He makes great distinctions between witnesses.
What he actually observed was that, in the notorious Nürnberg show trials, which as is well known resulted in a great many death sentences for German prisoners of war, several former inmates of Auschwitz Concentration Camp testified as witnesses.
The purpose of their testimony, of course, was to incriminate German leaders.
Under cross-examination by the defense, these witnesses contradicted themselves and each other to such an extent that a consistent and comprehensive statement concerning events at Auschwitz could not be made.
It was impossible for even the Allied Military Tribunal to make their testimony comprehensible.
It was THIS testimony and THESE contradictions by witnesses at Nürnberg that were absurd, illogical, and unrelated to the facts.
The events they related could not possibly have occurred as they said, and that is why Mahler called them “laughable.”
The Allied Tribunal itself stated that this witness testimony could not be used because of its obvious absurdity and illogicality.
It was this false testimony that Mahler characterized as “laughable,” certainly not all the testimony of all the survivors, and this is a very great difference.
The venal hacks and scribblers who
deliberately write such false reports should be held accountable under the press
laws, since they are obviously lies and slanders.
As for the report that Mahler called himself a “racist,” the following must be made clear.
Just what does the term “racist” mean?
For Mahler, it has positive connotations.
He is attempting to protect Germany from being overwhelmed by alienation and ethnic amalgamation.
He is a “German racist” in the sense that he wants to preserve and protect the German race, which is a legitimate and desirable goal.
He could just as easily be called a “protector and conservator of the homeland.”
Hypocritical dogooders inevitably take offense at the word “racist,” but every European who loves his people and his homeland is a racist in the positive sense.
It is normal and natural.
Only the Germans are forbidden to protect and nurture their own.
It is an absolutely incredible situation.
Everyone who opposes ethnic amalgamation and advocates protecting the German character and German nature is attacked as a “racist.”
The most racist people in the world are the Jews, who do not allow ethnic amalgamation.
The gutmenschen of course do not acknowledge this.
The fact remains that the Jews are extremely racist, whereas the Germans are not allowed to be racist.
The Americans too were very racist until the 1960s; it is a matter of history that they excluded blacks, Hispanics (Mexicans) and indigenous Indians from white society.
Again, the gutmenschen do not accept such historical facts.
The most powerful argument of all is: the worst form of racism is “Multikulti” (multiculturalism.)
Either those on the Left have not yet realized this or else they are unwilling to acknowledge it.
If “Multikulti” continues on its present trajectory, in fifty years we will have what the gutmenschen are striving for – a grey Afro-Arabo-Asiatic amalgamate population.
Thus, Multikulti is the most vicious racism of all because it means the eradication of race!
Of course the Gutmenschen deny all this, and they continue passing
Laws forbidding Germans to protect ourselves – from our own eradication!
It is difficult to imagine a greater absurdity than this policy.
Mahler, the Jews and Rule by Plutocracy
Early in his address to the Court, Mahler mentioned the reason for all his actions, namely his desire to liberate Germany from the lies in which it is imprisoned, as well as to liberate it from enemy powers that have been illegally occupying and ruling it for many generations.
In Mahler’s words: “The disarming of the German Reich was nothing but the necessary condition for realization of the goal of permanently subjugating and occupying Germany.
Even following the decimation of the German nation by around 20,000,000 Germans, mostly killed after the War was over, the annihilation of the German nation as desired by its enemies was still not complete.
The war continued and was carried on in the form of psychological warfare following unconditional capitulation of the Wehrmacht... Our enemies then proceeded to the “cultural and intellectual annihilation of the German nation.”
Horst Mahler is attempting to publicize and oppose this cultural genocide and to protect Germany from this utterly ruthless act of aggression by our enemies, this cultural and intellectual annihilation.
He fails to understand how the BRDDR can forbid this.
In fact, he wonders how he can be charged with any crime at all.
Mahler next explicated the philosophy of Hegel, his favorite philosopher, and presented an excellent hour-long introduction to Hegelian Philosophy.
He also referred to the philosophers Kant, Fichte and Herder, and included several quotations from Pope Benedict XVI.
He movingly quoted the Pope’s writings to the effect that Democracy as by no means the best and highest level of human existence.
Then he moved on to explain the present situation of Germany: “Individualism is sinking into its grave.“
Instead of the egotistical individual, Germany needs the ethical person, who sees himself as part of an organic social whole – the person who feels responsible for the nation and correspondingly acts according to the principle “the common good takes precedence over the desires of the individual.”
Since time immemorial, this principle has constituted the soul of German folk customs and our national character.
The age of ethical personalism began with the ascension of the German nation in the year 1933 under National Socialism.
Unified in this spirit, the German Nation was large enough and powerful enough to throw off the yoke of interest slavery and assume the leadership of the anti-Mammonistic revolution throughout the world.
In the home countries of individualistic grandiosity -- Great Britain, France and the United States of America -- National Socialism was a deadly threat to liberalism and the old order of things because of its example.
In the face of this danger, and under leadership of the plutocrats, the powers of the old order, even though they were enemies of one another, conspired to subdue the Reich.
With their united forces, they were determined to banish it from the world stage forever.”
Mahler then described for the Court the “reformed and revitalized National Socialism” for which he is striving.
The judges, suddenly awake, listened in amazement, their faces twitching.
Some of them wiped their brows while others sat hunched in their chairs.
It was visibly unpleasant for them to have to listen to such a presentation.
However, they did not interrupt Mahler.
As he inevitably does, Mahler had again broken a powerful taboo.
He had dared to describe National Socialism as though it were a normal, natural and desirable system of government!
Although these uninformed and politically
stunted functionaries on the bench were visibly uncomfortable, Mahler continued
in his animated and uninhibited fashion.
Mahler then came to his favorite subject, the Jews.
He tried very hard to dispel the impression that he is a “Jew-hater,” which is of course the principal sin or “crime” for which he is certain to be convicted.
He said that the opposite of the Court’s assumptions are true: “I have no desire to murder Jews!”
He chided the judges and prosecutor for having partially and selectively read his writings.
He pointed out that they have arbitrarily torn portions of text out of context, reassembled them and called their creations “unconstitutional.”
He urged the judges to read the entire text with the intent of actually wanting to understand it.
He pointed out that we are still allowed to read the Bible and the Talmud without fear of prosecution, even though this is highly displeasing to the Jews.
Then he quoted several extremely anti-Jewish quotations from the Bible, the Talmud and even from Jewish authors such as Baruch Spinoza and Martin Buber.
He devoted almost an entire hour to the theme of “Jews and Hatred of the Jews.”
He was visibly making a great effort to convince the judges’ bench of the historical correctness of his theses by explaining and clarifying his remarks, sentence by sentence.
Needless to say, it was wasted effort.
Mahler repeated his well-known theories about the “healthy reactions of the nations to protect themselves from the Jews,” which are familiar to the whole world.
This concerns the relationships of the world’s nations to the Jews and the reason why they have been hated in every age by every nation.
While he was explaining that this is “normal” and a healthy sentiment to assure national survival, one of the judges could no longer contain himself.
He abruptly interrupted him, saying “Herr Mahler, you must be living in a different world!
We are unable to follow you!”
The judge said it is altogether fitting that the BRDDR does not allow criticisms of a part of its population that attack their dignity or incitement hatred against them and, in the opinion of the judge, Mahler persisted in doing just that.
Mahler denied this, saying repeatedly that this was not the case and that he was continually and deliberately being misinterpreted.
He said the judges were refusing to consider his remarks in context and in their entirety.
Mahler then explained that the world is again facing the abyss, referring to the financial and economic crisis that began in the USA in October 2008.
He pointed out that the entire world economy is in process of collapsing, and that this is once again the result of rule by the enemies of the whole world, namely Mammon and the Jewish plutocracy.
[Translator: this was apparently a reference to the book Der Kampf gegen die Hochfinanz (The Struggle Against Globalism) written by German economist and Member of the Reichstag Gottfried Feder in 1933. A number of economists have drawn parallells between the crises of 80 years ago and those of today.]
The judge again exploded:
“Herr Mahler, you really are living in a different world!
We are unable to follow you!
Nothing is collapsing here, and furthermore the Federal Republic is a very stable country!”
This remark evoked laughter in the courtroom.
“No Concentration Camps in the BRDDR”
Mahler then stated that he was spiritually and emotionally prepared to disappear behind bars for many years, possibly the rest of his life.
“Go ahead and convict me, lock me up in a concentration camp with the other political prisoners” he said, then with great emotion in his voice, “You can sentence me to life without parole, but I am warning you, you will be making a big mistake, because you will someday be held accountable!”
The judge, struggling for composure, and was visibly annoyed that Mahler was assuming the role of martyr and dared to use the term “concentration camp” in conjunction with the “teddy bear” BRDDR.
“Mr. Mahler, there are no concentration camps in the Federal Republic, thank God” he remarked.
In top form, Mahler then related the story of Rumpelstilzchen to the Court.
Again, the judges were visibly irritated.
A fairy tale in the courtroom?!
Mahler went on to explain why the story of “Rumpelstilzchen” was significant and relevant, for Germany as well as the whole world.
If we call the Jews by name and expose the misdeeds that they have been committing for thousands of years, they can be exposed and intercepted.
Then they would be unable to continue robbing, gouging and plundering the world because no one would deal with them.
“Who would voluntarily submit to being robbed?” asked Mahler.
“This is precisely the message that we get from the story of Rumpelstilzchen!”
The evil gnome Rumperstilzchen had always succeeded in keeping his name secret from the public because if his name were known, he would lose his power.
Rumpelstilzchen exuberantly danced around the fire shouting “Ach wie gut daß niemand weiß, daß ich Rumpelstilzchen heiß”! (What a wonderful thing that nobody knows my name is Rumpelstilzchen!)
But then along came someone who simply called out his name.
Rumpelstilzchen was exposed and that was the end of him.
He “exploded” in helpless rage and disappeared, never to be seen again.
The conclusion, according to Mahler, was
that the Jews are Rumpelstilzchen, and they too will go the way of
“All we have to do is call them by their name.
We don’t have to fire a single shot or harm a hair on their head.
They will take care of themselves and leave the world in peace.”
[The visitors to the trial were divided on this subject as they discussed Mahler’s testimony during the pause.
Some were of the opinion that it was a delusion on Mahler’s part to think the Jews would voluntarily cease their machinations.
They said this would never come to pass and concluded that Mahler is a dreamer.]
The judge’s response came quickly: “If you think you can convince us that three plus three are six, you are sadly mistaken, Mr. Mahler!”
Laughter was heard in the courtroom; the judge was visibly irritated as he responded to Mahler’s presentation.
Obviously the judge had meant to say, “If you think you can convince us that three and three are seven...” but he did not notice that he had misspoken.
His “Freudian slip” was a favorite topic of conversation during the pause.
Several days have been set aside for this trial, which might last until mid December.
This is a distinct possibility, given
Horst Mahler’s penchant for lecturing...
The first day’s proceedings ended at around 3 pm.
No Solidarity on the Right
Several of Mahler’s supporters found it strikingly shabby that not a single official of the DVU (German Peoples’ Union) or NPD (National Party of Germany) were present at the trial, even though the date had been well publicized.
Horst Mahler has done a great deal to help the Right in the past.
We recall that the friendly and generous Attorney Mahler represented the NPD before Karlsruhe Court of Appeal and defeated the government’s attempt to outlaw it.
One would expect that representatives of the party would attend the trial, at least as private persons.
This is not what political solidarity looks like, ladies and gentlemen – especially you who happen to be officials in these parties!
The visitors to the trial have concluded that the DVU and NPD representatives are either ashamed to appear in support of Mahler or else afraid that an appearance at his trial would lead to political consequences for them.
Nowadays they are trying to cultivate a cuddly relationship with SPD and CDU in order to rid themselves of the tattered image of political street urchins.
They are deceiving themselves, however, and this ploy is bound to backfire.
The Left (PDS) and the established parties of the present political system will never remove the “street urchin” nimbus from DVU and NPD, no matter how violently they contort themselves.
They will continue to isolate them whether they show solidarity with Mahler or not.
Dear DVU and NPD representatives, ingratiating oneself to traitors and opportunists has never led to the desired political goal.
The discussions about DVU and NPD during intermission were loud and heated.
By and large, the visitors agreed in their criticism of these parties’ shabby conduct toward Horst Mahler.
Summarization and High Points of Today’s Proceedings
What did we learn from this first trial day in Potsdam?
The Federal judiciary is trying to maintain the appearance that the “BRDDR” is a legitimate national government. However, BRDDR is the result of the merger of the provisional BRD (the vassal state established by the Western Allies following World War II) with the provisional DDR (the vassal state established by the Soviet Union.) The present government has never adopted by the German nation in plebiscite.
The BRDDR judiciary has split into several factions over the question of how to handle Mahler, including the “just ignore him” faction and the “lock him up” faction.
All jurists that exhibit the slightest hint of sympathy with Mahler are immediately and brutally removed from the state justice apparatus, just as in DDR days.
In the words of the presiding judge: “Herr Mahler, fairy tales are for children”
“Mr. Mahler, there are no concentration camps and political prisoners in the Federal Republic.”
“In the Federal Republic, everyone can think and say what he wants as long as he obeys the law.” (Another judge)
“Three and three are six – remember that Mr. Mahler!”
Whether a person is a Jew or Christian or has no religion at all does not concern us, everyone is treated the same!” (The presiding judge.)
Gratitude is not a political commodity! Not a single representative from the DVU or NPD was present at this first day of Horst Mahler’s trial!
Only Jews are allowed to preserve their race – Germans are not allowed that privilege!
It is a fact that many eyewitnesses in the Nürnberg Trials contradicted themselves and other witnesses and gave absurd testimony that the Allied Tribunal was unable to use.
Notice: This report is not a judicial evalution of the day’s events, it is a spontaneous literary account made by non-jurists.
Horst Mahler did not commission this report, nor was it created for purposes of juridical consideration.
This depiction should be considered a “peoples’ report” of the trial.
It is a layman’s summarization of the
first day of trial as seen, heard and understood from the visitors section of
Berlin, 10 October 2008
Please distribute this report as widely as possible!
Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason! Sir John Harrington 1561-1612.