Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

Do you care to know about how the people you have trusted all your lives have lied to you?

If anything were to ever convince you of the terrible Jewish lies about World War II, this would be that document. You can’t possibly read this compilation of sources by hundreds of serious minded examiners and still believe the lies that mainstream accounts have forced upon you as “the truth” of World War II.

Many thanks to my friend “pdk” in France.
Please read as much as your mind can tolerate. You will never find as many courageous truth tellers represented in one place.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

BehindHoloJBcampbell

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

Posted on October 12, 2013
Sourced from Veterans Today

What was Hitler’s Unforgivable Sin?

Hitler resisted Judaism. When you’re a little kid in school or at the movies, resisting Judaism can be made to seem a very wicked thing. As an adult, you can be made to think that to resist Judaism is the very worst, the most dangerous thing. When you see what has happened to people who have resisted Judaism, well – you certainly don’t want that to happen to you.

Adolf Hitler was, is and will always be the most dangerous character in history due to his resistance against Judaism, combined with his eloquence in explaining why Judaism must be resisted.

Some of us “Jew-fighters” have a personal motto, delenda est judaica, or Judaism must be destroyed. Or, Defense Against Jewish Aggression. When we have studied the history of whatever period you care to name, or just looked at the news, true humans react with the natural urge to remove this cancer from society. The most astonishing example of the Jewish mentality was last year’s murderous assault against the humanitarians attempting to bring food, medicine and building materials to the people of Gaza. Jewish ways are repellant to the human mind and are not examined overmuch for that reason.

Judaism can be simply described as very bad behavior.

Hitler never attempted to destroy Judaism but rather to isolate it and perhaps remove its adherents from Europe. This followed attempts to train Jews to be productive human beings in places such as Dachau and Theresienstadt. As Evelyn Kaye writes in The Hole in the Sheet, orthodox Jews do not work. They are allergic to work, preferring instead to occupy themselves by reading the Talmud and arguing endlessly with other Jews about what they read. So this is a big problem with Jews, their refusal to work and produce something that is not based on ripping off and confounding their victims.

Hitler’s attempt to re-train Jews, which didn’t work, and then to remove Jews from Europe was a work in progress. Since the Khazars had infiltrated Europe from the east, his plan for relocation was to put them back in the Pale whence they came. This scheme depended upon the success of Operation Barbarossa, the great assault against the Soviet Union which was always the ultimate and stated objective of the National Socialists. Communism had to be destroyed so that Judaism could be re-confined to its traditional home in the Pale of Settlement. Hitler’s basic plan for Jews was somehow to confine and isolate them in a place in which they could be prevented from doing humanity more harm. This is a very difficult thing to do because there are so many aspects to Judaism, the most dangerous of which is banking, which is the main point of this piece.

Because now I’m seeing that the main purpose of keeping alive the Holocaust is to protect Jewish banking practices.

Before we get to that, let’s examine the Holocaust briefly. It’s a big subject but the whole subject is demolished by the videotaped visit to Auschwitz by a young American Jew named David Cole, which took place back in 1992. For example, a dozen years ago I was visited by a reporter named Dave Hendrix from the Dallas Morning News. He was interviewing me for a big story he was writing on the militia and the general resistance movement in America. He would spend four days interviewing me at my home in Carmel, California. When we were first introduced, no doubt knowing my attitude, he made a disclosure: “I must tell you before we begin, that I am a believer in the Holocaust.” I immediately responded, “Not a problem.” And nothing more was said about it for a day or so. On the second day, before he retired to his hotel, I asked if he would be willing to look at a film? He agreed. I showed him David Cole’s Visit to Auschwitz and when it was over said, “Well, there’s another viewpoint.” Dave, however, was speechless. He finally said, “That was devastating to everything I’ve ever believed.”

By the fourth day, I had persuaded Dave to drop the militia/resistance project and instead write a big piece on Oklahoma City, since my good friend Cheri Seymour had so much primary  information on the subject in her files. Reluctant at first to attack that subject, he eventually requested and got the green light from Dallas. This nearly got him killed. Dave met with Cheri and me a week or so later in Hermosa Beach and received his first load of documents from Cheri. He went back to his apartment and was felled by a severe heart attack. His wife was fortunately and unusually at home and got the EMT people there in time to save him, which he would not have been able to do for himself. When he finally recovered, the OKC story was canceled and Dave was made a story editor, never again to investigate and write as he had been doing for many years. When we met again, he said simply, “They got me. It was not a natural heart attack.”

faurisson2

Faurisson: “Show me a gas chamber! Draw for me a gas chamber!”

As you will see in the Cole video, the holy gas chamber is a fake. Which makes the entire Holocaust story a fake. You can study it for a day or for a lifetime and your conclusion will be the same. There was never a plan for exterminating Jews and there was never an instrument. As Professor Robert Faurisson has asked for years, “Show me a gas chamber. Draw for me a gas chamber.” It can’t be done because there was never such a thing.

There is the matter of the Six Million. As we in the anti-Jewish movement well know, the Jews were claiming years before, during and after the First World War that six million Jews had been exterminated by the Germans. Of course, no one took this seriously. By 1943, American Jews were once again claiming that six million Jews were in danger of annihilation or had in fact been annihilated, years before the same wild claim would start up again around 1960. Now, why is this?

We now know that the insane Jewish liars are guided in this by a mystical attachment to the number six, as seen with their national symbol, the six-pointed star. Six, or six hundred, or six thousand, or six hundred thousand, or six million Jews must be removed before the messiah returns or Israel reappears or whatever. It’s not important to us, just that this is a magic number to them. And they should be wholly burnt in ovens. Hence, Holocaust (wholly burnt).  Read: Jewish History and the Scriptual Orgin of the 6 Million Dollar Number.

The six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis depended in large part (66%) on Auschwitz, where four million of them were infamously done to death. Thanks to Ernst Zundel and the International Red Cross, Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 released to the Red Cross the captured death records from Auschwitz. The forty-six volumes cover the period of 1941 to ’43 and record about 69,000 deaths, mainly from disease or natural causes. The IRC had investigated all the German and Polish camps during and after the war and estimated about 200,000 deaths, some of them Jewish. When the US Army liberated Dachau, for example, of the 32,000 inmates, about 1,200 were Jews. Jewish representation was so tiny during WWII as to be insignificant, except in their minds. In their minds, the 60 million actual deaths of real people were insignificant, not worthy of consideration.  Read:  Long-Hidden Death Certificates Discredit Extermination Claims.

We can read and read and the more we read the bigger the swindle is revealed. That’s why the main thing is to watch David Cole’s video and not get too wrapped up in the Holocaust, one way or the other. But we should understand the real purpose of Holocaust indoctrination, which I now believe is this: our money.

Our money is our lifeblood. Without money, of course, we die as individuals. Without a proper money system, society dies, which is pretty much what is happening to our society now. This is due to the Jewish money system imposed on us by the aliens who own the private money-making company they call the Federal Reserve System.

We are today witnessing the dangers of precious metals. The only metals that are precious to me are steel, lead and brass. Gold and silver, while intoxicating in their wonderfulness, are just as dangerous and volatile as liquid intoxicants and just as likely to make you lose your wits – and your fortune. There is nothing righteous or magical or even necessary about a nation’s currency being “backed” by gold or silver. This was proved by Adolf Hitler during the 1930s. It was proved so conclusively that the Jews want to make sure that it’s never tried again. The best way to ensure this is to associate debt-free currency with mass murder!

For some reason, the Jews of the world wanted to destroy Germany.

We can probably never understand their insane drive to do this but the facts cannot be denied. They also wanted to destroy the Russian ruling class and the Russian people, as we saw happen following their takeover of Russia in 1917. And we see that they apparently wanted to destroy the American people from an early time, dating at least since 1913.

The destruction of the Russians, Germans and Europeans in general depended on their takeover of the American banking system in 1913, because it was followed closely by the totalitarian devastation that began in 1914 with the assassination of the Austrian archduke by Gavrilo Princip.

Henry Ford Sr.  copy

World War I ended in 1918 and this began Germany’s great misery. They were blamed by the victors for starting the war and were forced to pay “reparations” that became so extreme by  the early 1920s that their money became worthless. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death because of the money and because of a blockade by England and America to prevent food from getting in. A food convoy was organized by Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover and Norway’s Vidkun Quisling to rescue the starving people of Germany and others in Europe. Quisling’s name has been turned into a dirty word by the Jews and is misused today by people who should know better. He was a great humanitarian and took Germany’s side against the forces of Judaism and Bolshevism for over twenty years.

Adolf Hitler, like Franklin Roosevelt, came to power democratically in January, 1933, in the depths of the world depression. Both Germany and America were starving because of the actions of the Federal Reserve System, now twenty years old. They were starving because the Fed had “deflated” the money supply, withdrew currency from circulation and refused to issue new currency. Credit to farmers and businesses and individuals was denied for no particular reason. Roosevelt outlawed gold and began its confiscation in April, with punishment of ten years in prison and ten thousand dollars in fines. Once he got all of our gold, which was then priced at about twenty dollars an ounce, he raised the price to thirty-two dollars. That made it the biggest, boldest swindle up until that time. Of course, the Federal Reserve System swindlers got the gold – and the massive increase in value.

Hitler came to power over a bankrupt and starving country with unemployment at roughly 50%! The Americans had stolen all Germany’s gold by the early ‘20s, so there was no basis for a monetary system other than to keep borrowing from the Jewish crooks on Wall Street that had given Germany the Young Plan and the Dawes Plan of perpetual indebtedness to private bankers masquerading as the “central bank.” What to do?

Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht issued debt-free currency based on Lincoln’s debt-free currency. What they did led to the swift regeneration of the German economy and the world’s greatest prosperity of the working class, while the rest of the world stayed mired in the Great Depression being run by the sadistic central bankers. This was the worst possible crime and had to be punished by the most terrible war in human history, including fire-bombings of entire cities and deliberate mass starvations of millions following the war. Our nuclear bombs would have dropped on Germans but they weren’t ready in time, so they were dropped on Germany’s allies who were trying to surrender.

GermanyMust PerishNewHeader 700 copy

In this nauseating little book, Kaufman suggested that every German male be castrated. Time Magazine’s response? — “A sensational idea!”

Please refer to Theodore Kaufman’s charming little book, Germany Must Perish, which was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, executed mercilessly by Dwight David Eisenhower, which resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of Germans.

Ellen Brown and Bill Still have provided us with debt-free currency plans that will deliver us from the Federal Reserve racketeers and eliminate our indebtedness to the pinstriped scum-rats in less than one year, based on the Hitler model, which they don’t want to say. John F. Kennedy declared war on the Fed racketeers by issuing four billion dollars in debt-free US Notes in April of his last year on earth. Abraham Lincoln first issued debt-free currency when the bankers whom he’d approached for war loans wanted 34% in interest. He only survived a few days longer than his war for crimes against the bankers.

So let’s understand what’s behind the Holocaust. Why don’t Brown and Still, both monetary geniuses, want to credit Hitler and Schacht with the secret to economic prosperity in the face of total meltdown? Why, because of the Holocaust! The greatest economic miracle in history occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who ignored the central bankers intent on raping the world, seizing real property, through high interest and deflation. The Russians have recently confirmed suspicions that the American legend of the Depression (“As bad as it was – nobody starved.”) is a lie. Russian investigators have revealed that millions of Americans actually died of starvation and exposure during the years 1929 to 1941 but their deaths were written off to natural causes.

As Hitler remarked in his declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, he had delivered Germany from the doubly devastating conditions of the Versailles Treaty and the general world Depression by 1935 while Roosevelt kept mighty America in abject misery with his Federal Reserve starvation policies right to the present time (December, 1941). He stole all the people’s gold and then increased its value by 60%. And he refused to do what Lincoln had done before him and what Kennedy would do after him: he refused to issue debt-free currency  and rescue the American people from aggravated poverty, degradation and death by starvation.

How could that be? How could Hitler state such a thing? Because it was true. It was simple and it was true. The secret to general and permanent prosperity is for the government of any country to issue debt-free currency in amounts necessary for commerce and growth. That is what the founders had in mind with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. We should read that over from time to time. Clause 5 says that the “Congress shall have power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Clause 6 is even better: “Congress shall have the power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

FED_dees

AMERICA IN CHAINS

You can see where this puts the owners of the counterfeiting company called the Federal Reserve System.

The proposed punishment for counterfeiting was execution by hanging.

Anyway, let us recognize the Holocaust for what it is, a device to make the idea of debt-free currency repellent to our minds, because anyone who would do it really just wants to gas the Jews.

—–

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”,  Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012  was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

 

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM

CarloM300

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide.  At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example  the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert  wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly  presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung,  a Jew, by someone or another   (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag  12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court”  the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of  “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a  fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first  principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail   circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt  Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote  that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.  

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court”  I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of  the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken.  I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged.  The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not 

My motion of  January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct.  I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

[Read more…]