The defense rejects the accusations against Ernst Zündel, a citizen of the German Reich. This is not a legal prosecution under the laws of the Reich or any other legal system. It is an exercise of power that is illegal under international law, by a puppet government called “Federal Republic of Germany.”[1] To use the expression coined by the professor of international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, the Federal Republic of Germany is an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.” Henceforth we shall refer to this foreign occupation government as “OMF-FRG.”
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Zündel is doomed...
... with an attorney like this:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why doesn't the defense lawyer say ZOG and be done with it? Clearly what they meant....
ReplyDeleteIs it time for the old argument "the German government is illegal"?
ReplyDeleteThat won't get them far.
It's true though. I don't see why it is wrong to underscore that this is a political trial and that the facts of the case were established by the WWII Victors 60 years ago. Soon the defense will be prosecuted for defending the accused.
ReplyDeleteZündel needs a psychiatric hospital, not jail.
ReplyDeleteGerman government is recognized both by the international community and the German nation. This makes it as legal as possible. End of story.
ReplyDeleteObviously, this isn't Sylvia Stolz speaking but ex-RAF member and convicted terrorist Horst Mahler.
ReplyDeleteScott is kinda right in saying that it is a political trial, but all trials are political. Suppose as a 'true communist' I claim in court that 'ownership is theft'and therefore 'I can take what I want' I make a political statement, I can make it part of my defense but like Zündels lawyer I fail.
And of course, 'the facts' aren't made by the victors and it is very unlikely that the defense will be prosecuted for defending someone.
Roberto gave some nice references in the VT Opening statment concerning German Penal law, I suggest you read them.
Germany as a nation was founded in 1871, present day Germany is its direct descendent. If the Germans don't agree the way their country is run they can vote about it, big deal.
Isn't that kind of analogous to a French defendant claiming as a defense that the act of which he's accused wasn't illegal under the laws of the Second Empire?
ReplyDeleteThe sheer disregard for reality is breathtaking. It reminds me of the cockamamie reasoning and magick formulae you see from "tax protestors" in the USA.
I wouldn't be surprised either if the 'Volksverhetzung' article was made up during the 3dReich era ;-)
ReplyDeleteEdwin said:
ReplyDelete<< And of course, 'the facts' aren't made by the victors and it is very unlikely that the defense will be prosecuted for defending someone. >>
No, they'll just keep dismissing his defense attorneys until they get a stooge that can play the charade the way they want it played.
<< Germany as a nation was founded in 1871, present day Germany is its direct descendent. If the Germans don't agree the way their country is run they can vote about it, big deal. >>
Following Unconditional Surrender, Germany's sovereignty is so within strict limits, just like an American state is allowed certain spheres but cannot opt out of the Union--which is to say that it is a territorial-administrative unit that votes but is not sovereign.
In fact, modern Germany is an economic colony to the postwar world order. If the Germans get out of line they will become part of the Axis of Evil quicker than you can say Ahmadinejad. That is one of the reasons why the Germans so dutifully market themselves as non-Nazis, and that is why they are charging ethnic-German Zündel with Thoughtcrimes that he did not even even commit in Germany.
When treason prospers, as the saying goes, none dare call it treason.
Following Unconditional Surrender, Germany's sovereignty is so within strict limits, just like an American state is allowed certain spheres but cannot opt out of the Union--which is to say that it is a territorial-administrative unit that votes but is not sovereign.
ReplyDeleteThis is just so hoolabaloola one doesn't know where to begin debunking it. By whom is Germany controlled? By the USA? And that's why Germans totally opposed US war with Iraq? By Russia? That's why Germany so strongly supported EU expansion to the East, which undermines Russian influence there?
Show any proof that Germany is not a sovereign state.
Dear Roman, you do know that accoring to revisionistic logic you have to prove the opposite of what Scott is saying?
ReplyDeleteaccorig=according
ReplyDeleteRoman said:
ReplyDelete<< Show any proof that Germany is not a sovereign state. >>
The Germans would be crushed if they displayed any sort of serious economic nationalism. The financial New World Order would not permit it, nothing more than tokenism or empty rhetoric at best.
Deutschland would be reduced just like Apartheid South Africa.
Even now the Bundestablishment is begging forgiveness for not joining Blair and the other poodles with Intervention in Iraq, the goal of which is to keep oil markets and therefore global financial markets stable by installing American military bases in the oil zone.
To be a world power without getting on the sh*tlist, Germany has to play ball according to the rules set by the big boys in places like New York and Washington. Hence they give Israel a gift of submarines, and plutonium for nuclear weapons (oh wait, that last was perfide Albion).
The Germans would be crushed if they displayed any sort of serious economic nationalism.
ReplyDelete1. Who says "economic nationalism" is a good policy? Many countries prefer free market economy.
2. Germany does have economic nationalism. It's job market is closed for workers from the "new EU" states. They subsidize their industry quite a lot by Western standards. They sometimes intervene in international mergers on their home turf (Vodafone deal). Spending a lot money on welfare for their citizens also counts as economic nationalism, IMHO.
3. Germany cannot discriminate against foreign investors, for example, because it joined, by free will. international treaties which prohibit that. This is called "international law". The same treaties guarantee that German investors won't be discriminated against by other countries. That's why such treaties were created.
You may also note that Germany is in the Euro zone and its economy is a part of the EU economy. The EU as a whole is a very strong player which does not hesitate to defend its interests (steel wars with the USA, outrageous protectionism on the food market). That's why in many cases Germany does not have to resort to "economic nationalism" to defends its companies: the defence is being collectively done on the EU level. Why would they resort to XIXth-century tactics when new tactics work better?
Deutschland would be reduced just like Apartheid South Africa.
Ah, so you're complaining about the fact that Germany would have some international troubles if it decided to reduce, say, Turks to the level of second-class citizens. Not bloody surprising, given the number of human rights treaties Germany ratified. Are you against the principle of non-discrimination, Scott?
Many SA economical troubles were direct consequence of their treatment of blacks, not the foreign influence. Nevertheless, as for Africa, they are doing splendidly.
Even now the Bundestablishment is begging forgiveness for not joining Blair and the other poodles with Intervention in Iraq
How?
To be a world power without getting on the sh*tlist
The problem is, Germany does not aspire to be a "world power".
Germany has to play ball according to the rules set by the big boys in places like New York and Washington.
... and Zion, I suppose.
Germany could ignore its neighbours and political allies but this comes at a price (like being equally ignored by them). This is nothing surprising and nothing to complain about.
Or do you think that Germany is destined to rule the world and anything less is a major insult to them? Luckily, most Germans do not share your view.
Roman said:
ReplyDelete<< 1. Who says "economic nationalism" is a good policy? Many countries prefer free market economy. >>
Sure, they do, if they are rich countries with access to lots of resources and cheap labor and can set global trade preferences, like the former British Empire or the United States international banking establishment. All countries have to import pied noirs as cheap labor that has no bargaining power and must be marginalized from society while the plutocracy lives in their gated communities.
Still, supra-national or regional economic unions often make sense, such as the BeNeLux countries forming the basis of the EEC by operating the coal mines and iron works as a single efficient economic unit, just as the Nazis had done with their European war-economy during the war. If armaments industries are integrated among many states, then it means that war between them is no more likely than that the South will ever rise again.
Germany and France's economic futures and policies should be theirs to decide, however, not foreign investors. The reason that North Korea has not crumbled is because, unlike modern Germany or even the former South Africa, their people can survive on a very low standard-of-living.
<< 2. Germany does have economic nationalism. It's job market is closed for workers from the "new EU" states. They subsidize their industry quite a lot by Western standards. They sometimes intervene in international mergers on their home turf (Vodafone deal). Spending a lot money on welfare for their citizens also counts as economic nationalism, IMHO. >>
Their plutocracy has to import cheap labor just like ours does, in contravention of immigration laws. These people have no bargaining power, are socially and culturally marginalized, and undermine the value of citizen-labor, fostering deep resentments all around. And all the "Island Niggers" blowing up subways in London didn't get there because they prefer the climate.
<< 3. Germany cannot discriminate against foreign investors, for example, because it joined, by free will. international treaties which prohibit that. This is called "international law". The same treaties guarantee that German investors won't be discriminated against by other countries. That's why such treaties were created. >>
Sovereign states who can make treaties can break them at will. And they should if they serve no national interest or have no ultimately favorable national outcomes or overriding diplomatic ramifications--bearing in mind that sometimes goodwill and a long history of trust-relationships is often diplomatically valuable for its own sake.
But if foreign investors start calling the shots, then a country becomes an economic colony; it becomes owned. Even a colossus like the United States is threatened with debt servitude if its national government does not wake up and realign the stars to start limiting the power and political corruption of global corporations operating in and out of the country with carte blanche.
<< You may also note that Germany is in the Euro zone and its economy is a part of the EU economy. The EU as a whole is a very strong player which does not hesitate to defend its interests (steel wars with the USA, outrageous protectionism on the food market). That's why in many cases Germany does not have to resort to "economic nationalism" to defends its companies: the defence is being collectively done on the EU level. Why would they resort to XIXth-century tactics when new tactics work better? >>
Because the German worker is being dispossessed from his own country. Still, the Germans are not alone. I am not necessarily against collective European endeavors anymore than I would favor balkanizing the fifty American states.
<< Deutschland would be reduced just like Apartheid South Africa.
Ah, so you're complaining about the fact that Germany would have some international troubles if it decided to reduce, say, Turks to the level of second-class citizens. Not bloody surprising, given the number of human rights treaties Germany ratified. >>
If a nation's freedom and independence requires "international troubles," then bring it on. The Germans, however, have the attitude of a defeated people, and this is not surprising.
<< Are you against the principle of non-discrimination, Scott? >>
That depends. Brotherhood is one thing, but not the Brother pulling the hood over the other. Apartheid South Africa was never workable because the Whites were in the minority and they needed the Blacks for labor even if they wanted them otherwise invisible. They did not import the labor because it was cheaper than the White workers already building the country.
In the United States I would solve immigration problems as follows: By using the military gallavanting in foreign lands to secure the borders. Any state which cannot control its ports and borders is not sovereign. By putting employers who hired illegal aliens as workers into prison for long terms and confiscate their property. By making felons out of illegals and deporting them.
And very importantly, by taking steps to improve the bargaining power of American workers such as eliminating the "Right to Work" laws in the 22 poorest American states which undermine collective bargaining by allowing workers who vote for union representation to not pay union dues, and by putting tough "laborfront" commissioners into power who have the power to fairly arbitrate between the interests of Capital and Labor. Presently even Big Labor gets nothing more than lip service from even non-hostile politicians and is completely cowed by global corporations because all they have to do is close their doors and relocate their sweat shops overseas. The result is that Labor is left trying to organize the service industries, babysitters and maids instead of the real jobs. Even highly-educated engineers have no real economic bargaining power in the United states compared to an accountant or a marketing weasel.
<< Many SA economical troubles were direct consequence of their treatment of blacks, not the foreign influence. Nevertheless, as for Africa, they are doing splendidly. >>
I'm not a defender of Apartheid South Africa, nor any other country but my own, really. I'm an Isolationist.
<< "Even now the Bundestablishment is begging forgiveness for not joining Blair and the other poodles with Intervention in Iraq"
How? >>
Chancellor Merkel was quick to see the light upon taking over. There are amusing caricatures of her dressed in stars and stripes like Uncle Sam. And British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw schmoozing Condoleeza is rather amusing too.
<< "To be a world power without getting on the sh*tlist"
The problem is, Germany does not aspire to be a "world power". >>
It can't helpp it unless it intends to be a Third World country or an economic colony. It is the keystone state in Europe. That why Britain had to wreck her empire to destroy her from 1871-1945. Britian's place in the firmament, on the other hand, has been determined by the United States since 1939.
<< "Germany has to play ball according to the rules set by the big boys in places like New York and Washington."
... and Zion, I suppose. >>
Zion is a tool, nothing more. The Fundamentalist Christian and Jewish electorate in America like the idea of Zionism and the "rapture" that leads to Jesus' coming, but this "aircraft carier" is ultimately very expendable.
<< Germany could ignore its neighbours and political allies but this comes at a price (like being equally ignored by them). This is nothing surprising and nothing to complain about. >>
I'm not saying that they should ignore or not get along with their neighbors.
And American Isolationism, as I see it, does not mean ignoring the world but only not exploiting it and not (usually hypocritically) trying to save it from itself.
<< Or do you think that Germany is destined to rule the world and anything less is a major insult to them? Luckily, most Germans do not share your view. >>
Germany does not need to rule the world. Never has. But her place in the world was secured simply by nearly-unified nationhood in 1871, and powerful global forces had to combine to thwart that. Still do.
Germany does not need to rule the world. Never has. But her place in the world was secured simply by nearly-unified nationhood in 1871, and powerful global forces had to combine to thwart that. Still do.
ReplyDeleteI really don't have the time to debunk the rest of your post, but answer just one question: why Germany? Why didn't the "powerful global forces" combine against, say, France or Britain? Why not against the USA? Why is everybody feeling the urge to go after poor innocent Germany?
Roman said:
ReplyDelete<< I really don't have the time to debunk the rest of your post, but answer just one question: why Germany? Why didn't the "powerful global forces" combine against, say, France or Britain? Why not against the USA? Why is everybody feeling the urge to go after poor innocent Germany? >>
Because German finance was more national than imperial, and domestically rather than globally-minded as a young (unified) nation. America was certainly nationally-minded too but it had been furiously developing a vast frontier on its own continent and not colonizing the globe.
French foreign policy from the time of Richelieu to Napoleon was largely directed against Germany, or Prussia and Austria, whereas Albion's was directed against France as the preeminent continental power and rival until the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
Keeping the continent balkanized was the strategy of the global British Empire and their "Athenian democracy" against any "totalitarian Sparta" on the continent. This was also the march of international-finance Capitalism, as frontiers pushed onward and upward, the Anglo-Saxons being in the lead (though in service of an Internationalist idea).
The balance-of-power changed radically with German unification in 1871 and the Kaiser building a capital ship navy. By mid World War I, international-finance-capital had fully enlisted American support in reducing Germany and begun to transfer its stakes from London to the New York counting houses--with the world as its oyster once the American Isolationists could be fully neutralized (which was complete by 1945).
Again, Germany had to be reduced from 1871-1945 to an economic colony simply because her financial system had been more nationally-minded than in England or America (which had its own dynamically expansive national frontier until the 20th century).
For viability, Democracy-Capitalism requires exploitation of and access to global financial markets. The Americans dismantled the trade preferences of the British Empire when they emerged from the war as the preeminent global superpower; now any Capital can play the free-markets, not just Anglo-Saxon but even Japanese and German Capital.
Make no mistake, however, that access to markets for global capital, and the predatory exploitation and enforcement of debts and obligations, was still the rule--regardless of whether it was with Reagan's 600 ship Navy or with modern smart bombs and U.S. Marines instead of with Royal Navy gunboats.
<< Scott said:
ReplyDeleteBecause German finance was more national than imperial, and domestically rather than globally-minded as a young (unified) nation.
Roman said:
Eh? The Germans tried hard to build an empire, but they failed. >>
They failed with overseas colonies because the Kaiser could not build a capital ship navy on par with the Royal Navy before the outbreak of war.
This does not change my point, though, that German finance was more national than the Entente, which was global, and which determined where the Anglophile Americans would cast their lot in the war.
<< Roman said:
Bismarck's Kulturkampf, which was also directed against Poles, is a nice counterexample to what you claim. The Germans weren't above dominating other nations when they had the chance. >>
Because the Poles were Roman Catholic fundamentalists. Ever since the Thirty Years War, German unity required secularization because it was divided between Lutherans and Catholics.
<< Scott said:
By mid World War I, international-finance-capital had fully enlisted American support in reducing Germany
Roman said:
Again, why? Was making business with Germans less profitable than doing business with the British? >>
Because the Royal Navy was able to prevent any trade with Germany, even by neutrals, and the German U-Boats were not able to likewise prevent the Merchants of Death (as they were called by postwar U.S. Senate investigations) from trading with England.
Plus, the East Coast plutocratic establishment in the United States tended to be staunchly Anglophile, although they would have loaned money and sold munitions to the Germans too if the could.
When Russia began to falter and it looked like Germans would win the war, the Merchants of Death called for American intervention to guarantee their Allied war-loans. They were outraged by U-Boat sinkings but not by the British Blockade.
After the war they loaned to the Weimar government and kept it compliant with Versailles and addicted to debt until the Depression caused the whole corrupt postwar system to fail completely. Hitler never could have come to power if he had equivocated on the Versailles treaty like the bourgeois Weimar politicians.