Anti-Patriotic Repression in Germany
POLITICALLY AWARE Americans, accustomed to long-standing constitutional rights guaranteeing freedom of speech, may find it difficult to comprehend fully the level of government repression of Politically Incorrect thought and opinion which exists in the Federal Republic of Germany, the largest European “democracy.”
In November 1993 an American citizen, Fred Leuchter (pictured), was arrested and imprisoned in Germany solely because he had expressed an opinion based upon scientific and engineering research which contradicted the official German government line on the so called “Holocaust” of the Second World War. The American government uttered not one word of protest.
In August 1995 the same fate befell another American citizen, Hans Schmidt, who was arrested while visiting his 92-year-old mother and incarcerated in a German prison for more than five months because he had written things in the United States on the “Holocaust” which irritated the German government. Again the American authorities remained silent.
Then in August 1996 U.S. citizen Gerhard Lauck was sentenced to four years in prison by a court in Hamburg because his political activities had violated German law — even though these activities had been carried out entirely on American soil. Lauck had actually been arrested while visiting Denmark from his home in Nebraska the previous year and extradited at the request of the German authorities.
Not only did United States authorities take no action to protect the legal rights of its own citizens in these cases, but the evidence points to the collaboration of these authorities in helping to bring about their incarceration. This suggests a coordinated international campaign on the part of the so-called “Western democracies” to use the political and judicial system imposed upon Germany after 1945 as a basis for a system of “international law” designed specifically to serve the purposes of the New World Order by transcending existing national constitutions and curtailing nationalist activities.
Such a campaign already has made substantial progress across Europe, where the European Union recently incorporated German laws making Politically Incorrect statements about the “Holocaust” and “incitement to racial hatred” criminal offenses. Up until this point EU citizens, such as British historian David Irving, who were judged to have breached such laws, were banned from entering Germany on threat of imprisonment. Now the path is clear for a continent-wide enforcement which pays no heed to national borders or laws.
Actually, precedents already have been set in this area using powers conferred by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty of the European Union, which was a further substantial step toward destroying the separate national sovereignties of European countries. In May 1995 the German secret police conducted a series of raids on private houses throughout the Federal Republic aimed at patriots responsible for developing nationalist computer networks. One of the individuals on the list, however, was neither a German citizen nor a German resident. He was a Dutchman, Martyn Freling, who in addition to being a resident of the Netherlands is an elected official of the Rotterdam city council.
One Dutch daily newspaper, Trouw, in a report on December 22, 1995, reported that the raid on Freling’s home, which took place in his absence, “was conducted at the request of German authorities.” The report also claimed that Freling would have to answer charges concerning the matter at a series of special hearings presided over by a Dutch judge and two agents from the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the German equivalent of the FBI. In fact, Freling’s case marked the beginning of full-scale, cross-border collaboration between German and Dutch authorities, which was confirmed in September 1996 when the secret police of both countries conducted further simultaneous raids on the homes of nationalists.
These events marked an intensification of German government pressure to extend its laws to the whole of Europe and to create a Europe-wide police force to clamp down on what it considers Politically Incorrect activities. This intention had been made clear in August 1994, when the Luxembourg authorities had been persuaded to arrest 180 German citizens who had crossed the border merely to take part in a memorial service for Rudolf Hess. Indeed, in January 1996 government spokesman Herbert Kempfler confirmed the government’s desire for increased German police authority to carry out operations in foreign countries, on the basis that “it is often necessary to follow leads early on, and not just in the border countries of Germany.”
Of course, while wanting to create a border-free Europe so as to make its own activities easier, the German government has been determined to restrict the cross-border activities of German patriots. Prominent German nationalists have been banned not just from countries such as Poland and Russia, but also from European Union countries such as Britain. The German government also has undertaken concerted action to monitor the private lives of Politically Incorrect citizens. The intensity of these efforts is evidenced by the government’s own statistics for court-approved wiretaps. In 1992 the figure was 2,499 wiretaps, and by 1994 it had risen to 4,000.
Such activities also have extended to the attempted disruption of perfectly legal computer networks, which provided German patriots with an important means of organizing themselves after various nationalist political parties were banned in 1992-3. This repression has included government restrictions on the use of the worldwide Internet. At the end of 1995, in the face of strong pressure from the Bonn regime, the U.S.-based firm CompuServe agreed to close off access to over 400 computer news groups in Germany. The covert purpose of this action was to set a precedent of Internet censorship of Politically Incorrect material, though government officials falsely claimed that the measures were necessary to limit the distribution of child pornography. Given the lenient treatment handed out to child molesters in modern-day Germany, however, such claims seem pure fabrication. One example of this leniency from 1995 was the case of an elementary school teacher who was found guilty of 69 counts of child molestation and was given a mere 3 years in jail–the same sentence that has been meted out to patriots who are caught giving the pre-1945 German salute.
On November 8, 1995, Meinholf Schînborn, chairman of the Nationalist Front (NF), was sentenced to two years and three months in prison because he was alleged to have continued to distribute political propaganda material after the NF had been declared “unconstitutional.” After handing out two additional sentences of ten months each to two of Schînborn’s colleagues, Judge Manfred Reichel justified the harsh sentences on the grounds that he was defending the “principles of free democracy.”
The following day, the “principles of free democracy” were again put into effect when then National Democratic Party (NPD) leader Günther Deckert was arrested on “suspicion of inciting hatred.” The basis of this action was Deckert’s recently published account of his 1995 conviction for “Holocaust denial,” which resulted in his being given a suspended prison sentence. Such a punishment had been considered much too lenient by the German media and political establishment, and there was a storm of protest, with even Chancellor Helmut Kohl decrying it as “outrageous.”
What really upset the German authorities was the evident objectivity and fairness of the presiding judge, Rainer Orlet, who stated in explaining his decision: “Let us not forget the fact that Germany, even today, fifty years after the end of the war, is still forced to meet the political, moral, and financial demands of the Jews, as a result of the persecution of the Jews, whereas the massive crimes committed by other peoples remain unpunished, at least according to the viewpoint expressed by the accused.”
Consequently, an orchestrated campaign of government pressure was initiated in order to invalidate the sentence. Judge Orlet was smeared as being “mentally ill” and suspended from the bench. Then on December 15, 1995, Deckert’s suspended sentence was overturned by a Karlsruhe court, and he was subsequently ordered to serve two years in prison. Deckert’s book The Günther Deckert Case was merely a factual account of these events, but the state attorney declared that such a description in itself amounted to a denial of the “mass murder of Jews by the Nazis” and ordered his arrest. While awaiting trial on this new charge, Deckert was forced to begin serving his two-year sentence for “Holocaust denial.”
This Orwellian behavior of the German political establishment and of German society in general increasingly reveals a deep-seated sense of insecurity. In 1995 a small booklet was published entitled The Law vs. the Right (Recht gegen Rechts) by the government-funded Youth Information Center of Munich. The 32-page manual offers explicit advice on how to identify and counter dangerous forms of thought crime and Politically Incorrect behavior. Such illegal activities, it asserts, could take place in a pub and amount to certain individuals singing the banned “Horst Wessel Lied,” just one of the many patriotic songs banned in the Federal Republic of Germany. It advises people not to ignore it or walk away but to phone the police.
Other scenarios outlined for informing the police include overhearing someone shouting “Sieg Heil,” which would bring about an 18-month prison sentence for the culprit. Advice is also given to observe whether acquaintances end their letters with the complimentary close “with German greetings” (mit deutschen Grüss). If so, the writer might be harboring unconstitutional nationalist sentiment and might be liable to a three-year prison term. Even the local flea market, which may at first glance appear quite harmless, could in reality be a virulent breeding ground for “fascists” buying and selling World War Two memorabilia. When in doubt as to the legality of such a situation, the recommendation is a phone call to the police.
The booklet states that a vigilant citizen must be especially on guard against patriots who publicly hand out leaflets. The advice given is to phone the police and then give them a copy of the flyer when they arrive. Even if the distributor has left by this time, “the state attorney will take care of him,” because in Germany it is illegal for the publisher’s address not to be printed on the leaflet. Regardless of the nature of the material, a leaflet with no address will bring the distributor a one-year jail sentence: “Even if a fascist flyer contains no illegal content, but the address is missing, at least [we] can get him because of that.”
What is most revealing about this booklet is that it is now being officially sponsored by the German government. At the end of 1995 it was republished at the initiative of Peter Caesar, minister of justice in the state of Rheinland-Pfalz, and distributed throughout the German public school system. In his introduction to the new edition, Caesar explained his motivation with unconscious irony: “Every one of us is hereby called upon to do his part to insure that the climate of freedom and tolerance which has shaped the Federal Republic for the past 40 years not be destroyed.”
This “climate of freedom and tolerance” which is so representative of the Federal Republic of Germany has certainly been displayed in recent years. Some of the many examples include 84-year-old Otto-Ernst Remer, who was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 1992 for questioning Second World War atrocity allegations. He was forced to seek political asylum in Spain. Another 84-year-old, Tiudar Rudolph, was imprisoned under the same laws. Germar Rudolph is a young German chemist formerly with the prestigious Max Planck Institute who, as a result of his own scientific research, cast doubt on the “gas chamber” claims of Auschwitz. He lost his job and his chance to complete his doctorate, was indicted for “defaming the dead,” and was compelled to take up sanctuary in Spain.
Other recent examples of the German government’s “freedom and tolerance” include fining 85-year-old Franz Ruby $4,000 because he publicly stated that Germany should remain populated by Germans, and sending 22-year-old Marcus Privenau to jail for three months for using adhesive stickers to rename a street sign “Rudolf Hess Platz.” In February 1996 a young nationalist leader, Christian Worch, of Hamburg, received a two-and-a-half-year prison term for “leading a banned organization”: a spurious charge that has become a favorite with the government, along with “Holocaust denial,” for persecuting German patriots.
The spiteful degradation which free-thinking Germans, old and young, suffer under the current government regime, was most noticeably highlighted in 1995 by 75-year-old Reinhold Elstner. Mr. Elstner could take no more of the hypocrisy and lies promoted by his country’s politicians during the so-called “liberation” festivities which celebrated his nation’s Second World War defeat. Consequently, on the steps of the Feldherrnhalle in Munich, Germany’s monument to its martyrs and heroes, he took his own life by dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself alight as a symbolic protest against the degradation of his people.
Later a letter was found which explained Elstner’s motivation: “Fifty years of unrelenting smear campaigns and the demonization of an entire people are enough. Fifty years of incessant insults hurled at war veterans are enough. At the age of 75, not much is left for me to do, but perhaps through my act of self-immolation I can give a clarion call and set one visible example of reflection. If even one German wakes up and finds his way back to the truth, my self-sacrifice will not have been in vain.”
Throughout history, such acts of martyrdom in the face of blatant injustice and tyranny have laid the seeds for political revolution, and Reinhold Elstner’s act of altruistic sacrifice suggests that the Federal Republic of Germany is beginning to live on borrowed time. A society that forces a 75-year-old man to commit an act of symbolic self-immolation is a society whose moral legitimacy is crumbling fast, a society that is fundamentally sick and degenerate. In fact, not just the German political establishment but the whole culture of modern German society is based upon an unnatural and completely artificial guilt-complex that has corrupted the minds of many Germans to an almost ludicrous degree.
This reality was highlighted in January 1996 in the wake of the deaths of ten so-called “asylum seekers” in a fire in a Lübeck hostel. Almost immediately, without any evidence, there developed what appeared to be a coordinated media and government propaganda campaign designed to lay the blame for the fire at the feet of German “neo-Nazis.” Lübeck’s Black residents were encouraged to take to the streets, supported by a motley crew of politicians, clergymen, and “anti-fascists.” President Roman Herzog exclaimed melodramatically that “if it turns out that this was really an arson attack, then my patience is finally at an end.”
The theatrics reached their height as the teary-eyed mayor of Lübeck, Peter Bouteiller, appeared before television cameras calling for civil disobedience in defiance of the “inhumane” living conditions supposedly experienced by asylum seekers. And the theatrics continued at a later public meeting when “the weeping mayor” demanded that asylum seekers no longer be required to live in state-run houses; he also encouraged private German citizens to defy the government by harboring illegal foreigners. Taking their cue from their political leaders, “anti-fascist” thugs then launched a violent attack with flare guns and rocks on one of that city’s traditionalist fraternities (Burschenschaften), justifying their action on the grounds that its members were “spiritual arsonists.”
In fact, the whole performance was one big charade which merely confirmed the underlying unnaturalness and degeneracy of German society. Although four German youths were arrested on suspicion of the arson attack, they were soon released through lack of evidence. The bubble finally was burst when, after declaring a complete news blackout concerning the fire, police officials admitted that they had in their custody a man who had confessed to the arson: Safwan Eid, a Lebanese asylum seeker who had lived in the Lübeck hostel. It subsequently emerged that Eid had confessed his responsibility to a member of the Red Cross medical team, Jens Leonhardt, who had helped treat some of the victims of the fire on the way to the hospital. The Lebanese admitted that the cause of his action was a feud with other asylum seekers in the hostel.
Even this fact did not deflect the vast majority of the controlled media from continuing its nauseating defamation of the German nation. The arch-liberal weekly Die Zeit even went so far as to voice its sympathy for the arsonist, implying that Germany in a collective sense was still somehow to blame for the deaths: “Is Germany’s asylum policy driving foreigners to desperation?” it asked rhetorically on January 26. The likelihood that Die Zeit would have expressed a similar understanding for a suspected German arsonist who was driven to desperation by his country’s asylum policy is more than remote.
The extent of the self-hate afflicting modern German society was confirmed in an article in the Christian weekly paper Das Sonntagsblatt on January 26, 1996. Remarkably, it took a Negro correspondent from the African nation of Togo, Christian Kodozo Ayivi, to point out the spiritual sickness corrupting the German people. Under the heading “Germans and Africans continue to remain strangers,” Ayivi wrote that the groundless accusations and insults hurled at Lübeck’s White residents by Africans as a result of the arson attack actually had their origins in the collective guilt-complex (“Sippenhaft”) displayed by many Germans.
He describes an encounter with a German couple, Marlene and Jens, who, suffering from a very acute case of “Sippenhaft,” had sought out some Africans in order to apologize and express their shame at being German. Instead of having their liberal consciences appeased, however, they had the horrifying experience of hearing an African woman angrily telling a French journalist that all Germans were racists, while another African called Jens a “fascist.” The outbursts apparently left the pathetic Marlene and Jens with a feeling of helplessness: “That is the very reason why we went there, to show our solidarity with the victims, and show that (we) really aren’t that way,” whined the lamentable Marlene.
Such spiritual degradation, promoted by the controlled media and the controlled political system, threatens to have devastating biological repercussions. Germany now has the highest Third World immigration rate in Europe. Between 1985 and 1994 more “asylum seekers” entered the country than all other European Union countries combined. In many of the larger cities, young Germans are outnumbered by young, non-White foreigners. In Frankfurt alone, the student population, from elementary school up to the university level, is now 70 per cent foreign.
Alongside Vietnamese black-market cigarette vendors and Turkish fast-food stands, Black businesses are sprouting up in many German cities catering to a Black clientele. The “African Consciousness Movement” has headquarters in Bremen, and the African magazine Invisible, available at newsstands throughout the country, urges the creation of a common African front in Germany and Europe based on the “gospel” of Black Nationalism.
Thousands of Jews, moreover, are being encouraged by the German government to settle in Germany from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Described cryptically in the press as “contingent refugees” in need of humanitarian assistance, these Jews are guaranteed unlimited residence and work permits, welfare benefits, and free German language courses. According to Der Spiegel in 1995, since the Soviet Jews began entering Germany, the German Jewish population has doubled its numbers to 50,000.
Not surprisingly, German politicians are bending over backwards to encourage this process and cater to Jewish demands. In November 1995 Bavarian Minister-President Edmund Stoiber held a joint press conference with Bavaria’s head Jew Simon Snopkowski announcing plans for a far-reaching “contract” between the Bavarian state and its Jewish community. The arrangement turned out to be a financial commitment on the part of the Bavarian state government to provide the Jewish community with a yearly grant of 2.7 million marks. And some hint of what part of the money would be used for was given by Snopkowski, who noted with satisfaction that of recent Jewish arrivals to Germany, 3,000 have already settled in Bavaria, “with an additional 10,000 on the way.”
In fact, Jewish political influence in Germany is increasing at a remarkable rate, considering the complaints about Germany still coming from Jews. The leader of Germany’s Central Jewish Committee, Ignatz Bubis, is also a highly vocal member of the Liberal Party (FDP), and his political influence extends across the political spectrum. In 1995, for example, he led a delegation of Green Party officials to Israel as an attempt to counteract any possible sympathy for the Palestinians in the party.
Another influential Jew is Michel Friedman, born in Paris in 1956 to Jewish immigrants from Poland. Besides being a senior official of the Central Jewish Committee, Friedman is a member of the leadership board of the governing Christian Democratic Party (CDU). He has worked consistently to deprive individual German nationalists of their civil rights granted in Article 18 of the Constitition. This method, he believes, is much more convenient than the complicated procedure of banning “rightist” organizations.
Friedman’s aims and influence were highlighted in February 1995, when two young Germans were cleared by a Hamburg court of inciting public disorder by publicly declaring that Steven Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List won Oscars for “keeping the Auschwitz myth alive.” His response was to launch a public campaign attacking the judgment, alleging that such rulings encouraged those people who “want to bring inhumanity, discrimination, racism, and anti-Semitism to the fore.” Not surprisingly, German government officials were soon dancing to the Jew’s tune. Horst Eylmann, the head of the Bonn parliament’s legal committee and a fellow member of Friedman’s CDU, issued a public statement asserting that the Hamburg court ruling would have to be overturned by a higher court.
Such blatant injustice from so alien a system is helping to generate a potentially explosive situation in Germany. This is exacerbated by growing social discontent caused by unprecedented levels of unemployment and increasing economic stagnation. Government authorities estimate approximately 50,000 “right-wing extremists” in Germany, and in 1993 they began openly speculating about the possible beginnings of organized armed resistance “on the right.” The banning of nationalist political groups was seen as having encouraged the development of small, tightly organized “cells,” which were better coordinated and more secure.
In fact, what the German authorities are most concerned about is the development of new types of nationalist leaders who understand the realities of the situation developing around them and who have the capacity to develop appropriate organizational forms in response. In recognition of this, certain German politicians are now pressing for even greater repressive powers to combat them. Brandenburg’s Minister of the Interior, Alwin Ziel, believes that Germany should copy Austrian laws, which are even broader and more far-reaching, in banning all forms of “National Socialist-related activities.” In the past few years several leading Austrian patriots, such as Gottfried Küssell, have received vicious jail terms of up to 15 years merely for advocating a National Socialist form of government in their country.
Such behavior merely confirms the underlying instability of German “democracy.” It shows a system which has little confidence in itself and which lacks moral legitimacy. Like a cornered rat which realizes that its time is running out, the German government is becoming more vicious, more hysterical, and more unrestrained with each passing year. But a system based upon so many lies, so many injustices, and so much illegitimate repression cannot and will not last. As the German nationalist Günther Deckert poignantly commented in regard to his outrageous treatment at the hands of the German authorities: “This is a country that is in fear, that is uncertain of its democratic foundations.”
* * *
Source: National Vanguard magazine No. 117 (March-April 1997)