HEIL HITLER!
The official blog of the site “Der Stürmer” – http://der-stuermer.org
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Saturday, December 27, 2025
Jews and Christianity – Part II
Part II
„The Jew is not satisfied with de-Christianizing, he Judiazizes, he destroys the Catholic or Protestant faith, he provokes indifference but he imposes his idea of the world of morals and of life upon those whose faith he ruins. He works at his age old task, the annilation of the religion of Christ.“ (Benard Lazare, L’Antisemitism, p. 350; Rabbi Benamozegh, quoted in J. Creagh Scott’s Hidden Government, page 58).
„Today the Gentile Christians who claim of holy right have been led in the wrong path. We, of the Jewish Faith have tried for centuries to teach the Gentiles a Christ never existed, and that the story of the Virgin and of Christ is, and always has been, a fictitious lie. In the near future, when the Jewish people take over the rule of the United States, legally under our god, we will create a new education system, providing that our god is the only one to follow, and proving that the Christ story is a fake...Christianity will be abolished.“ (M.A. Levy, Secretary of the World League of Liberal Jews, in a speech in Los Angeles, California, August, 1949)
„Why should we believe in God? We hate Christianity and Christians. Even the best of them must be regarded as our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor, and pity, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is a hinderance to the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor; what we want is hatred. We must know how to hate, for only at this price can we conquer the universe...The fight should also be developed in the Moslem and Catholic countries, with the same ends in view and by the same means.“ (Lunatcharski, The Jewish Assault on Christianity, Gerald B. Winrod, page 44)
Judeo-Christian Heritage a Hoax: It appears there is no need to belabor the absurdity and fallacy of the „Judeo-Christian heritage“ fiction, which certainly is clear to all honest theologians. That „Judeo- Christian dialogue“ in this context is also absurd was well stated in the author-initiative religious journal, Judaism, Winter 1966, by Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz, chairman of the department of Jewish philosophy, at the Hebrew Theological College when he wrote: „As to dialogue in the purely theological sense, nothing could be more fruitless or pointless. Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism. What is usually referred to as the Jewish- Christian traditions exists only in Christian or Secularist Fantasy.“ There is no doubt this is true! And the fantasy exists in Christian and Secularist minds only because it was implanted there by the persistent propaganda of the masters of intrigue of the ADL-AJC Network. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that knowledgeable theologians, Jewish and Christians who constantly allude to „our Judeo-Christian heritage“ are for their own specious purposes perpetuate a grotesque and fantastic hoax.
„The newly founded Society of Jesus...Saint Ignatius. His secretary Polanco, the only person present at his deathbed, was of Jewish descent. So was Lainez, one of his first and greatest converts, was of Jewish descent...In a short time, as the young Jesuit organization became a power for Catholic reform and propaganda, Jews were attracted to it, as they are always attracted to centers of influence, in such numbers that it was found difficult to keep out those who wished to destroy the order and the Church under pretext of working for them. Thus a nephew of the great and Catholic Jew Polanco followed him into the society, and caused such difficulties and dissensions that for years he nearly drove his superiors to despair.“ (Philip II, William Thomas Walsh, p. 95)
„The doctrines which the Jews have been spreading throughout the lands for years could not but have helped to undermine the Church’s power.“ (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 272).
„So against both the Albigenses and Huguenots this (Jewish) pope now directed all his fury...The beautiful city of Beziers was razed to the ground. ‘We spared neither dignity, nor sex nor age’ writes the monk. Arnold, to his Holy Father, the pope. ‘Nearly twenty thousand human beings perished by the sword. And after the massacre the town was plundered and burnt, and the revenge of God seemed to rage over it in a wonderful manner.“ (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 224).
„It is the Jews who originated biblical exegesis (a critical analysis of the Bible), just as they were the first to criticize the forms and doctrines of Christianity...Truly has Darmesteter written: ‘The Jew was the apostle of unbelief, and every revolt of mind originated with him.’„ (Bernard Lazare, Antisemitism: It’s History and Causes, London: Britons Publishing Co., 1967, pp. 149-151).
„Jewish Talmudism owes its existence today to the indifference with which it is regarded... The Jew is prejudiced against the Bible, doing what he can to destroy public honor of the Book.“ (The International Jew, Vol. III, p. 16).
„Mrs. Van Hyning, I am surprised at your surprise. You are a student of history -- and you know that both the Borgias and the Mediciis are Jewish families of Italy. Surely you know that there have been Popes from both of these house. Perhaps it will surprise you to know that we have had 20 Jewish Popes, and when you have sufficient time, which may coincide with my free time, I can show you these names and dates. You will learn from these that: The crimes committed in the name of the Catholic Church were under Jewish Popes. The leaders of the inquisition was one, de TorQuemada, a Jew.“ (Woman’s Voice, November 25, 1953)
„A Jewish question exists, and there will be one as long as the Jews remain Jews. It is an actual fact that the Jews fight against the Catholic Church. They are free thinkers, and constitute a vanguard of Atheism, Bolshevism and Revolution...One should protect one’s self against the evil influence of Jewish morals, and particularly boycott the Jewish Press and their demoralizing publications.“ (Pastoral letter issued in 1936. „An Answer to Father Caughlin’s Critics,“ page 98)
„We were also at pains to ask the Governments represented at the Conference of Genoa, to make, by common agreement, a declaration which might have saved Russia and all the world from many woes, demanding as a condition preliminary to any recognition of the Soviet Government, respect for conscience, freedom of worship and of church property. Alas, these three points, so essential above all to those ecclesiastical hierarchies unhappily separated from Catholic unity, were abandoned in favor of temporal interests, which in fact would have been better safeguarded, if the different Governments had first of all considered the rights of God, His Kingdom and His Justice.“ (Letter of Pope Pius XI, On the Soviet Campaign Against God, February 2, 1930; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 22)
„...Bolshevism in its proper perspective, namely, as the most recent development in the age-long struggle waged by the Jewish Nation against...Christ...“ (The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 48)
„The anti-religious campaign of the Soviet must not be restricted to Russia. It must be carried on throughout the world.“ (Stephanov, quoted in J. Creagh Scott’s Hidden Government, page 59)
Because of this hatred toward Christ and the Christian way of life, we would ask: Is the Christian more dangerous to Judaism and the other religions of the world, because God forbids them to injure his brother, is the same God before whom we are both one day to appear in judgment; is that God less tremendous to the wicked, or less favorable to the just, because on His word we believe him to be one in essence, though three in persons? This hatred of the Jews which is becoming more and more frenzied, which even the pagans and infidels themselves could not justify on such pretexts as they present for public consumption. What fanatic rage must it be that blinds the Jews, when in contradiction with themselves, they applaud the toleration of the ancient Philosophers, who, though disbelieving the mysteries of Paganism, never attempted to rob the people of their religion; while on the other hand they incessantly conspire against Christians and Christianity under pretence that it contains some sort of mysteries.
Another objection not less extravagant, is that against Revelation itself. It is God, they say, whom the Christians declare to have spoken; hence there can be no further liberty of opinion in man on matters of faith. The so-called defenders of liberty and equality is then authorized to rise in arms against Christ and Christianity and its way of life which, they say, denies people of their liberty. Such is thier arguments. But to what length does their frenzy carry them? Rabbis for hundreds of years have conspired to overthrow every altar, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, or any of the other Christian sects. What stupid idea is this? Can reason be traced through plots and conspiracies, of which the sole tendency is the overthrow of the religion of the White Race, under the pretence of liberty of worship; we have heard all sorts of false ideas to crush the God of the Christians
For 2000 years we have seen them conspire and use every artifice of cunning intrigue to rob the world of the religion of God, of Christianity. And because they utter the empty sounds of Liberty, Equality and Toleration, people mistake their utterings as that of profound men, when they are nothing but empty shells, trying to escape the judgment they know is coming. Perhaps most telling of all is that ‘it was American Roman Catholic bishops in the middle and late 19th Century who demanded the removal of Bible reading from public schools...’ Why? The full weight of history confirms that the Bible has been and continues to be opposed by those seeking to destroy freedom, but those seeking to bring mankind into bondage. This speaks volumes about the worth and the truth of the Bible. The West’s tyrants of tomorrow are even now painting heavily against it, and in particular, the 17th- century King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus (also banned by Rome) with Hebrew and Greek texts differing from all other modern verses, which come from the Judaized Alexandrian texts, and contains many errors.
Dr. Albert M. Gessman, writing in the Winter 1969 number of the conservative Jewish journal, „Issues.“ After contrasting critically almost nine pages of glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity to the disadvantage of the latter, and after reviewing the back-grounds of both religions, he concludes that, „A Judeo-Christian heritage or tradition in the proper sense of that hyphenated word does not exist; it has no foundation in historical fact.“ There is Edom [Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8. And Edom is in ‘Modern Jewry’ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41.
„A Cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, and who distrusts Big Government.“ (Janet Reno, in a speech before an ATF luncheon, Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Monday, December 22, 2025
Saturday, December 20, 2025
The Nature of the Beast
by Dr. William Pierce
Last week we spoke about the growing trade in White sex slaves in Israel and the reaction – or lack of reaction – to that trade in America. I read to you from the June 16 edition of one of Israel’s major newspapers, the Jerusalem Post, in which two Israeli feminists reported on the luring of Gentile girls from Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Hungary, and other eastern European countries to Israel with the false promise of high-paying jobs as secretaries or teachers and then the grabbing of these girls by Jewish slave dealers as soon as they land in Israel. The girls are raped, beaten, and terrorized by the Jewish slave dealers to make them compliant, and then they are auctioned to the owners of brothels and sex clubs, where they are kept in locked apartments and forced to work as prostitutes. The Jerusalem Post article also reported that the reason Israel is the center of the international trade in White female slaves is that in Israel it is perfectly legal to buy and sell human beings and to own slaves, provided they are not Jews.
And we spoke about the fact that Americans still support the state of Israel with billions of dollars in military and financial aid every year, and we still behave as if the attempt by the Germans 60 years ago to rid their country of Jewish influence – the so-called „Holocaust“ – was the most terrible crime in the history of the world. Our news media here still refer to the slave state of Israel as a „bastion of freedom and democracy“ in the Middle East. Our President welcomes the prime minister of Israel at the White House with open arms, instead of sending our Navy to the eastern Mediterranean to blitz Tel Aviv with cruise missiles and smart bombs until the Jews free all their White sex slaves and permit an army of United Nations „peacekeepers“ to occupy Israel so that country can be taught that slavery is a „no, no.“
Why is that? Why are Jews not held to the same standards as other people? Indeed, I received some reactions from listeners to last week’s broadcast who told me that Jews cannot be held to normal standards of behavior because they are „God’s people“ – did you get that?: „God’s people“ – and it is wicked to criticize them: it says so right in the Bible, these listeners told me.
Our first tendency might be to dismiss such listeners as hopelessly primitive Bible-thumpers. Why should we take seriously any White person who believes literally and lets himself be governed by the Jews’ own collection of superstition, myth, and pseudo-history? Well, one reason for taking the thumpers seriously is that, unfortunately, there still are a lot of them out there – and many of them, aside from their habit of Bible thumping, are not really bad people. They have been deluded by preachers and churches; they have had a lot of nonsense pounded into their heads when they were young. But really, are people who believe that the universe was created in six days and that the Jewish fortune teller Isaiah was able to make the sun reverse its course across the sky – are they any more ignorant or gullible than people who maintain that the only difference between Whites and Blacks is the color of their skin? Is the religion of the Bible worse than the religion of egalitarianism, the TV religion?
A better reason for listening to the thumpers is that they have a good point: a point that is relevant to our own concern with the Jews. The Jews are the „chosen people,“ the so-called „people of the Book.“ It’s not just the more primitive Christian sects that make that claim; it is the Jews themselves. That claim, in fact, is the fundament on which all of their religion, all of Judaism, is based, and it merits our serious consideration. We don’t have time on this program for a comprehensive study of the Bible, but I recommend strongly such a course of study to anyone who is seriously interested in the Jewish question.
We can note quickly a couple of things about the Jews’ Bible, however: about the Old Testament. It does condone slavery; it does condone the buying and selling of human beings. The Jewish god, Yahweh, or Jehovah, also sets his own stamp of approval on slavery in the Jews’ Bible; he gives specific instructions to the Jews on buying and selling slaves. Slavery, of course, was an institution practiced by others as well as the Jews during the period of the Old Testament. What makes it relevant to the subject under discussion here is that Judaism is the most conservative of religions practiced in the world today. The Jews always have regarded every word of their Bible as inerrant. For centuries their rabbis have quibbled legalistically over the tiniest details, and their quibbling is set down in the Talmud, to serve as a guide for all observant Jews today. Every comment in the Old Testament about diet or clothing or grooming is taken as a divine commandment, which must be obeyed today by Orthodox Jews.
The Jews have insisted that the Christians change their religion to suit the Jews, and the Christians have been disgustingly accommodating. The New Testament accounts of the crucifixion, for example, have been drastically reinterpreted to absolve the Jews of all blame. The New Testament describes the Jewish mob which handed Jesus over for crucifixion and then demanded that the crucifixion be carried out, threatening to riot and screaming that they and their descendants would take the blame. When the Roman official in charge wanted to acquit Jesus of the Jews’ charges against him, the Jews insisted that he be crucified and said, „His blood be on us and on our children.“ But in modern times the Jews complained that this New Testament account had led Christians to hold a grudge against them. And so the Christian theologians and church officials got busy and announced that it wasn’t really the Jewish population of Jerusalem the New Testament was talking about in its accounts of the crucifixion – it isn’t the Jews who must bear guilt for the shedding of Jesus’ blood – it is all of humanity. That is the new interpretation.
And the rewriting of the account of the crucifixion is only one example of the ways in which the Christians have changed their religion in a vain effort to please the Jews. As a general rule, whenever the Jews yell, „Jump!“ every Christian leader, from the Pope down to the most primitive radio evangelist, immediately responds, „How high, sir?“
But with the Jews it is quite different. Nobody even asks them to change their religion in order to make it less offensive to Christians or Muslims or others. And the Jews wouldn’t dream of making any changes anyway. The interpretation in the Talmud is inerrant. If Yahweh told the children of Israel 4,000 years ago that it’s okay to buy and sell slaves, then it’s still okay today.
And in the state of Israel today even the atheistic Jews in the government are very careful not to offend Orthodox Jews.
When the Romans conquered Gaul and Britain and parts of Germany, every Roman legion which marched north from Rome was followed by Jewish slave dealers, ready to buy from the Roman commanders their prisoners of war and the civilian inhabitants of conquered towns and villages. It wasn’t just that some of the slave dealers happened to be Jews; buying and selling slaves was almost a Jewish monopoly, to the extent that being in the fur business or being a diamond dealer in New York is a Jewish monopoly today. There’s no law against a Gentile setting up a shop on New York’s 47th Street and buying and selling diamonds, but no Gentile in his right mind would consider doing that. The Jews would gang up on him and have him fleeced and bankrupted within a week. An so it was with the buying of captives from the Roman Army. Jews, in fact, like to boast that they have been in some parts of Germany longer than the Germans have been there. And that’s true to the extent that in the settlements that grew up around the permanent Roman camps along the Rhine and other places, the Jewish slave dealers had their own trading posts attached to the camps. When the Germans later forced the Romans out, some of the Jewish traders stayed.
A thousand years later the Jews still were buying and selling slaves in Europe to an extent which scandalized their Christian neighbors, resulting in a number of royal edicts during the Middle Ages prohibiting Jews from owning Christian slaves. After the discovery of the New World and the beginning of large-scale commerce in Black slaves between Africa and the West Indies, the Jews of the Netherlands – especially those who recently had been expelled from Spain and Portugal – were quick to grab a substantial part of the commerce in Black flesh for themselves. They were well positioned to do so, because they were prominent among ship owners and those already engaged in international trade.
My reason for making these historical and theological digressions is to establish the fact that slave dealing is sanctioned by both religion and tradition among the Jews. They can’t get away with it in Europe or America these days, but in Israel, among themselves, they see no reason why they shouldn’t follow their natural inclinations. They must disguise those inclinations, of course. But disguise, deception, is something that also comes naturally. The Jews have a modus vivendi that really is unique among the races of man. For at least the last 2,600 years – that is, ever since the so-called „Babylonian captivity“ – and perhaps even much earlier, the Jews have striven to maintain their own separate identity and at the same time to live as a minority in non-Jewish societies. Other races have chosen one course or the other: either to be themselves, among their own kind, or to lose their own identity and assimilate into another society. The Jews always have wanted to have it both ways, and their skill at disguise and deception has been essential in the degree of success they have had.
And that gets us to the question I want to discuss with you today. What are the Jews really like? Which is the true Jew: is it the leering, hook-nosed slave dealer in Tel Aviv who brutalizes our women because his religion and the laws of his country permit him to do so, or is it the sensitive, violin-playing philanthropist Jew presented to us by Hollywood? More generally, is the real Jew the Israeli citizen who, while not a slave dealer himself, is comfortable with the traditions of his people and with the fact that his fellow Jews are still in the slave business – or is it the friendly Jew who owns the clothing store at the mall where you shop and seems no more sinister than any other shop owner? Is it the alien-looking Orthodox Talmud-Jew, with his long sidelocks and yarmulke and black garb, that one sees in New York’s „diamond district,“ or is it the normal- looking Jewish economics professor one had in college, who seemed like a nice guy?
Well, of course, the question is misleading. All of these Jews are „real Jews,“ but no one of them has all of the characteristics as an individual Jew that all of them together have. The fact is that there is quite a bit of diversity among the Jews. As an illustration of this, in Israel today the
Orthodox Jews – that is the Jews who take Judaism seriously – and the rest of the Jews are practically at war with each other over policy issues. The Orthodox Jews are actually burning down the synagogues of the non-Orthodox Jews. They are calling each other „Nazis.“ The atheistic and other non-Orthodox Jews outnumber the Orthodox Jews in Israel, but the latter are more tightly organized and more fanatical. The point is that Jews do disagree on many things.
So is it at all meaningful to associate things such as the White slave trade in Israel or the promotion of interracial sex between Whites and non-Whites in America with the Jews as a whole?
And the answer to that question is yes, it is meaningful to assign certain characteristics to Jews as a whole – as a people, a race, a nation – and also to hold the whole Jewish people accountable for certain policies and certain actions: „His blood be on us and on our children.“ That is something which has been understood for a long time, much longer than 2,000 years. Yet, a great many Americans today have been so confused by the brainwashing propaganda of the past few decades that they no longer understand it. They think that it is a reasonable policy for newspapers not to mention the race of a criminal, for example, because to do so might prejudice people against Blacks. You might argue that if a Black rapist or a Black mugger is on the loose, our people should know about it, so that they can protect themselves. They should know what he looks like. Yet, the liberal will argue that since not all Blacks are rapists or muggers, it’s bad to mention the race of some who are, because that will cause our people to be wary of Blacks generally.
And of course that’s true. People do generalize. People do stereotype. That’s why we’re still on this earth. It’s a survival trait. Our ancestors a million years ago saw what happened when one of their people got bitten by a poisonous snake, and they began avoiding snakes generally, even though many snakes aren’t poisonous. Better to be safe than sorry, they thought, even though our bad opinion of snakes generally might not be justified. The White women who got stripped and probed by Blacks and Puerto Ricans in Central Park a little less than a month ago had failed to generalize. They had failed to conclude that it’s a good idea to stay away from any area with a high concentration of non-Whites, just because some non-Whites are like those they encountered in Central Park.
The Whites of Rhodesia also failed to generalize when they turned their country over to Black rule more than 20 years ago. Their politicians and their media people and their preachers said to them, „All Blacks are not terrorists. There are many hard-working, law-abiding Blacks. The terrorists are only a minority. It will be all right to let the Black majority rule our country, because they will keep the terrorists under control. It would be wrong to generalize about Blacks and Black-run countries. It would be racist.“ And the Rhodesians believed their politicians and media people and preachers. They failed to look around them at the Black-ruled countries of Africa, every one of which is a pest-hole and a basket case. They failed to consider the lesson of history, to look at Black behavior generally over the centuries. They believed that it would be wicked of them to come to a general conclusion about Blacks as a whole, as a race, because not all Blacks are the same; some Blacks are not bad, and it would be unjust to lump them in with the rest by generalizing. And so now history is phasing out the White Rhodesians. They have proved themselves unfit to survive. Since Mugabe was reelected a few days ago the attacks on White farms and on White farm families have been stepped up. More and more of them are being forced off the farms they have owned for generations. Soon all of them will be gone.
So now, why is it fair to lump the nice Jewish economics professor you had in college, the nice Jewish shop owner you know, together with Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon and the White slave-owners of Israel? It is fair because if we fail to do it – if we fail to draw correct conclusions about the Jews as a whole, as a people – we ourselves will not survive as a people. The Jewish shop owner, the Jewish professor, do not exist in a vacuum; they exist in an ethnic context. They are not simply individuals; they are members of a racial community, a national community. They are Jews, and that word has a real meaning for them. They are Jews whether they are religious or not, whether they ever have entered a synagogue or not. They are Jews whether they are in the White slave business in Israel or in the television business in America or simply shop owners or professors.
In Israel there are Jews who believe that permitting Israel to become the world center for the trade in White slaves was a tactical error that may end up costing the Jews as a whole more than it’s worth, just as there were some Jews in Germany before the Second World War who believed that the promotion of communism was a tactical error for the Jews as a whole and might end up costing the Jews as a whole more than they would gain from communism. But when it comes to making a choice, the Jewish shop owner and the Jewish professor will not turn against their own people just because they believe that the Jews’ trade in White slaves is a tactical error. The Jews in America overwhelmingly favored the bombing of Belgrade last year by Madeleine Albright in order to force the Serbs to be nice to the KLA terrorists who were trying to take over Serbia’s Kosovo province. But they would not favor bombing Tel Aviv to force the Israeli government to stop the Jewish trade in White slaves. The friendly Jewish shop owner and the nice Jewish professor overwhelmingly favored the sending of troops into Kosovo to force the Serbs into line with the New World Order, but I will guarantee you that they would not favor the sending of troops into Israel to break the Israeli Jews of some of their nasty habits – such as forcing Russian and Ukrainian and Latvian and Hungarian girls into prostitution – or torturing Palestinian prisoners or sending Mossad assassination teams into other countries to murder people the Jews don’t like by squirting poison into their ears or planting radio-controlled bombs in their telephones. No honest person who really knows the Jews will contradict me on that.
I’ll reiterate: despite their diversity, the Jews are a unit, and if we are to survive, we must understand that and act accordingly. In deciding our own policies we must consider the effects of the Jews as a whole on our society and on our people. The salient fact is not that the Jewish economics professor we had in college seemed to be a nice guy; the salient fact is that Jews own Hollywood and Madison Avenue and are using that ownership to persuade White girls that it is fashionable to have sex with Blacks. The salient fact is not that the Jewish shop owner we know is a friendly and helpful guy; the salient fact is that we have an open-borders policy which is flooding America with sub-human trash from Mexico and the rest of the Third World, and that policy is favored by the great majority of Jews in America, but by only a small minority of non- Jewish White people.
The salient fact is that if we do not think about the Jews as a whole and do something about them as a whole, history will phase us out just as surely as it is phasing out the White Rhodesians.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Inconvenient History - Volume 5
DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT.
Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare.
Sunday, December 14, 2025
Friday, December 12, 2025
Freedom of Science as a Fundamental Human Right
Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/freedom-of-science-as-a-fundamental-human-right/
By Germar Rudolf
November 1, 1994
Speech presented at a Frankfurt Student Fraternity in 1994.
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished Presidium, dear brothers in color, dear guests!
If a Germar Rudolf is to say a few words today on the subject of academic freedom in our country, I know that he is not expected to give a Sunday Speech. But before the Working-day speech follows, a few fundamental questions on the subject must be discussed:
· What is science?
· Why should science be free?
· Why does the freedom of science require the protection as a fundamental human right?
· What are the limits to the freedom of science?
What Is Science?
Generally speaking, science is any investigation and its systematic presentation that can be verified by outsiders. Verifiability means that anyone can understand the investigation on the basis of defined conditions in experiments and logical conclusions. Furthermore, the source to which the investigator refers must be comprehensible. This means that conclusions based on documents or external scientific studies must be identified as such in such a way that the outsider can find the documents and publication references of the external studies. In addition, a scientific approach requires the inclusion of at least the most important existing scientific opinions and counter-opinions in the investigation, i.e. also a systematic treatment of known works on the same topic. Furthermore, a scientist must disclose the premises of his investigation, i.e. make a recognizable distinction between facts and value judgments, and point out the limits of his professional competence, unless this is already clear from the context of the publication.
This essentially corresponds to the self-definition of science. But how does our judiciary define science? The Federal Constitutional Court stated in a ruling on January 11, 1994:
“The protection of the fundamental right to scientific freedom depends neither on the correctness of the methods and results, nor on the soundness of the argumentation and evidence, nor on the completeness of the points of view and evidence on which a scientific work is based. Good and bad science, the truth and falsity of results can only be judged scientifically. […]
Freedom of science therefore also protects minority opinions as well as research approaches and results that prove to be erroneous or flawed. Unorthodox or intuitive approaches also enjoy the protection of this fundamental right. The only requirement is that it is science; this includes everything that can be regarded as a serious attempt to determine the truth in terms of content and form. […]
However, a work cannot be denied scientific character simply because it contains one-sidedness and gaps or takes insufficient account of opposing views. […] It is only removed from the realm of science if it fails to meet the requirements of science not only in detail or according to the definition of certain schools, but systematically. This is particularly the case when it is not directed towards the knowledge of truth, but merely gives preconceived opinions or results the appearance of scientific acquisition or verifiability.
The systematic suppression of facts, sources, views and results that call the author’s opinion into question can be an indication of this. On the other hand, it is not sufficient for a work to be disputed as scientific in intra-scientific controversies between different substantive or methodological directions.”
Our judiciary thus defines the concept of science very generously and much more broadly than science itself does, granting us a generous freedom in defining science.
Why Should Science Be Free?
Science is the basis of human knowledge and therefore the basis of all human life and action, which differs specifically from the life and action of animals. Science serves as the basis for decision-making at both individual and political level.
In order to be able to make decisions that conform to reality, scientific knowledge must be truthful.
This means that science must bring truth to light. Truth as the only guiding principle of science means that any other external influence (economic or political) must be excluded. Science must be kept free of such influences.
Why Does the Freedom of Science Require the Protection as a Fundamental Human Right?
Fundamental and human rights are rights of the individual vis-à-vis fellow human beings, organizations and above all: vis-à-vis the state.
The state (in its current holy trinity) poses the greatest potential threat to human rights due to its concentration of power, as there is no institution that could impose any kind of restraint on it.
The freedom of science is above all a right of the scientist against influences from the state, especially in areas of political or politically effective science (contemporary history, sociology).
What Are the Limits of Academic Freedom?
According to Article 5 paragraph 3 of our constitution, the freedom of research and science is not subject to any restrictions.
In general, however, fundamental rights can only be invoked as long as third parties are not impaired in their fundamental rights.
Case of Conflict: Holocaust Research
Question: Does a study that fulfills the formal criteria of scientific research but comes to the conclusion that the mass murder of the Jews in the Third Reich did not take place in the way described so far, or did not take place at all, violate the fundamental and human rights of third parties?
The answer of certain circles is: Yes, because these people have a right to have their suffering or that of their ancestors fully recognized. This also includes, and in particular, the Third Reich’s unique and heinous method of mass extermination, especially in gas chambers.
However, my answer to this question is: under no circumstances can such a research result violate the fundamental rights of others! Reasons:
1. The restriction of the freedom of science can only refer to the methods of finding the truth, but never to the result of the scientific investigation. No one will deny that those who use unlawful or even inhuman methods to find the truth violate the fundamental rights of others. However, if the state wants to prescribe the results of science or prohibit other results, it is committing the very infringement of human rights that Article 5 (3) of the Basic Law is intended to protect against.
2. No one has a right to a certain result of scientific research, not even the Jews. No one’s dignity can depend on where scientific truth is sought and found and where it is not.
3. Whoever prescribes results for science kills science, because science can only create true knowledge if it is allowed to question everything and every result is possible in principle. It must therefore never be accepted that the search for truth is forbidden by powerful minorities.
4. Anyone who abolishes scientific freedom proves that he can no longer defend himself argumentatively and thus admits that he is wrong.
The Real Reasons for the Abolition of Freedom of Science
Here are a few quotes from a competent source. The retired judge Rudolf Wassermann stated after the notorious judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court on the first verdict against Günter Deckert, head of Germany’s National-Democratic Party and interpreter of U.S. Holocaust revisionist Fred Leuchter during a speech the latter gave in Germany (for which Deckert was sentenced to a prison term):
“Anyone who denies the truth about the National Socialist extermination camps is abandoning the foundations on which the Federal Republic of Germany was built. This state is supposed to be a pugnacious democracy that defends itself when anti-democrats try to undermine it.” (Wassermann, “The judiciary has clarity”, Die Welt, April 28, 1994. p. 4)
Hence, anyone who has a different opinion on certain historical details is also exposed as an anti-democrat. This is about as logical as saying that it is colder at night than outside.
During the debate on tougher penalties for Holocaust revisionists, Dr. de With, a member of the Bundestag from Germany’s leftist Social-Democratic Party, was applauded by all parliamentary groups when saying:
“Anyone who plays down or denies the National Socialist mass murder, i.e. the Holocaust, must know that he is touching the foundations of democracy” (Dr. Hans de With, Member of Parliament, SPD parliamentary group on May 18, 1994 in the Bundestag, Bundestag minutes, p. 19,669).
The German daily Die Welt stated on the self-image of our society:
“Anyone who denies Auschwitz […] is also shaking the foundations of this society’s self-image” (March 16, 1994, p. 6)
At the end of 1993, Germany’s weekly Die Zeit cited the following reason why Holocaust deniers must be silenced by the judiciary and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution:
“The moral foundation of our republic is at stake.” (Dec. 31, 1993, p. 51)
The daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was most explicit six days after the publication of the revised verdict against Günter Deckert:
“If Deckert’s [revisionist] view of the Holocaust were correct, the Federal Republic would be founded on a lie. Every presidential speech, every minute of silence, every history book would be a lie. By denying the murder of the Jews, he denies the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.” (Patrick Bahners, “Objective Selbstzerstörung”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 15, 1994, p. 21)
The Green politician Joschka Fischer, after a conversation with German Federal President von Weizsäcker in 1987, reported that the raison d’être of the Federal Republic of Germany is also answered in a similar way at the very top of the political hierarchy, namely in the Office of the Federal President:
“[Federal President R. von Weizsäcker is] closer to the Greens in his understanding of the state than Kohl: not NATO, but Auschwitz as the raison d’être.” (Joschka Fischer, after a conversation with Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker, quoted from Der Spiegel No. 28/1987, p. 23).
And last but not least: In the judgment of the court of honor of my original student fraternity, which was composed of a respected, professionally experienced lawyer, my not yet legally binding exclusion from this Cartellverband fraternity was also justified, among other things, by the fact that the Holocaust was the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany. Anyone who questioned this would be violating the Cartellverband’s Patria principle on a massive scale.
If these voices are right, then the Federal Republic of Germany is not worth a dime, because a state that is based solely on a possibly untrue detail of contemporary history and has to defend it by all means cannot stand up to history.
But these voices are wrong, because the legitimacy of this democratic constitutional state is based on the one hand on the at least de facto consent of its citizens. Although the deletion of §146 of the Germany’s Basic Law [old version] in the course of the adoption of the Unification Treaty with the German Democratic Republic in 1990, which was in violation of the Basic Law and international law, finally prevented us Germans from accepting our constitution by vote, there should be no doubt today that this constitution would be accepted by the German people in an overwhelming majority. In democratic states, this at least de facto approval by the people is the basis of their existence. On the other hand, leading representatives of this state repeatedly and rightly emphasize in Sunday speeches that the inalienable human and international rights form the foundations on which the modern German state rests, even if it may be noted here that our state only ever seems to concern itself with international law when it works to its disadvantage. German rights and entitlements under international law, on the other hand, are generally given away.
Nowhere is it stated that the Holocaust forms the basis of the modern German state.
Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong, legally speaking. De facto, however, the Holocaust belief is the basis of power of the left-internationalist, liberal-extremist elites of the Federal Republic of Germany. They merely label the inquisitorial defense of their power base with the false label of state protection.
In defense of their position of power, these elites are prepared to do the following, among other things:
They sacrifice the independence of the judiciary. At the latest since the events surrounding the revised verdict against G. Deckert, even the last backwoodsman should be aware that there is no longer an independent judiciary in trials concerning issues of contemporary history. Whereas in the past, all evidence relating to the objective facts of a case was regularly and unlawfully rejected if the alleged events of the time were to be investigated, it is now openly enforced that the subjective facts of the case are no longer investigated either: Revisionists are in principle evil people with dishonest intentions and therefore to be sentenced without mercy.
They abolish the human rights to freedom of expression and freedom of science in decisive areas.
I can only think of Article 20 of our Basic Law, which gives each of us the right to resist those who want to abolish the free democratic basic order of our country.
Thank you for your attention!
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)