A victory for justice — Letter from Michael James to the Oberstaatsanwalt (Senior State Attorney) — Letter from the Senior State Attorney confirming prior refusal to prosecute at request of the Jews — Philosophical objections to historical narratives — Jews reject Rachel Corrie donation — Acknowledgements and the current situation.
60313 Frankfurt am Main
Geschäftszeichen: 6111 Js 228014/08
Bearbeiter: OSta Claude
20. Juli 2008
Dear Senior State Attorney, Herrn Claude
I thank you most kindly for your considered and edifying reply, following that of State Attorney Frau Niesen, in regard to a polite theological question I asked the ZJD (Central Council of Jews in Germany) some months ago, and for this I am most appreciative.
However, I still take umbrage at the ZJD’s claim that my question was motivated by “Volksverhetzung” — “Incitement of the masses (ostensibly against other races or ethnic groups)” — and I ask myself why they have not apologised to me.
I know that you are sufficiently conversant with these matters, but I still feel impelled to set the record straight. I simply posited an enquiry regarding biblical interpretation and mentioned a number of genealogical facts that are permissible to utter, even in Germany. The well-known truism that the six million number is based on a Kabbalistic numerological interpretation of Leviticus, Chapter 25, Verse 10 was confirmed and established by learned Rabbis throughout the centuries, including Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides) and, most recently, by the religious Israel historian and Haaretz journalist Tom Segev.
“And thou shalt sanctify the fiftieth year, and shalt proclaim remission to all the inhabitants of thy land: for it is the year of jubilee. Every man shall return to his possession, and every one shall go back to his former family.” — Lev. 25:10
The Hebrew version: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0325.htm
Please note that the Hebrew rendition is not accurately transcribed in European translations, nor is it is published as such in the form given in the Torah of the laity and would rarely be written as such even in the Priestly Torah. Other renditions can be found in various versions of the Remez and the Sod, both works of which deal with hidden and esoteric meanings. However, notice the markings above and below each letter.
To the casual reader who does not understand Hebrew beyond its fundamentals, or the way in which reversals and simple annotations by Rabbis on just one single letter can change the entire structure and meaning of a sentence, this verse in the Remez or Sod makes very little sense. However, the symbolic calibration of this line in many Kabbalistic versions of the Torah written in Hebrew does in fact change the entire sense of the sentence to one that states: “The return to the land will not occur until the Lord has been offered a holocaust [burnt offering] of six million”. (The wording differs in some versions of the Remez and Sod, although not in the Midrash.) It is, of course a contrivance by deft of hand.
Every Jew who has had an intensive education in the Torah, Talmud and Kabbalah knows this. My Jewish friends at school knew this. My religious teacher knew this (and, by the way, I was top of my class in Religious Instruction). However, neither Frau Knobloch nor Herr Kramer of the ZJD seem to be in any way aware of this well-known theological fact, which concerns me deeply because, being Jews, they should be in a position to know. Why didn’t they simply write to me and say, “Sorry, Mike. We just have no idea. Why not teach us?”
When I humbly ask someone a straightforward question, I do not expect him or her to call out the National Guard and convene a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. I simply expect a reply. That is the English way; and contempt for my English education, English cultural mores, English sceptical empiricism, and English sense of fair play is something that can be construed as a form of racism. Perhaps Frau Knobloch and Herr Kramer bear some kind of animosity toward English people. What other reason could there be?
To have originally accused me of the same (incitement toward hatred of a particular race or ethnic group) appears to be premised on their belief that I despise every member of their race, the Kazaks.
Not only is this not true on the face of it — I have friends from all ethnic and racial commonalities — it is intellectually impossible to hate an entire race or ethnic group. The concept of “group hatred” does not exist in traditional western jurisprudence, which has always sought remedies for violation of personal rights by treating plaintiffs and defendants as individuals. In most pre-EU nations (and still today in the United States) this was the basis of tort (civil) and non-tort (private) law. (I was also second in my class in Law, by the way).
The reason for this was, sensibly, quite simple. It is philosophically and psychologically impossible for a human being to hate an entire kindred. One may be given to articulate such sentiments, whether jokingly, in a moment of peer-group camaraderie, or as a generalisation intended to make a simple point, but the human psyche is so neurologically configured that it can only hold feelings of detestation against an individual, and, even here, not against the individual as a whole, but only an aspect or a trait of that individual’s personality. This was ably demonstrated by the psychologist Wilhelm Reich, famous for his prize-winning study “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”. No modern psychologist would ever testify that it is within the scope of the human psyche to bear unremittingly the emotional burden of hatred for an entire race.
It is quite common these days to hear people say, “I hate Turks,” yet most, if not all, of them have Turkish friends and dine with them in Turkish cafes. I, for instance, dislike fruit, vegetables and grains because I have a digestive intolerance to cellulose, lactose and gluten, but I love strawberries, which I can eat on occasion. Therefore, it cannot really be said that I ‘hate’ all fruit, and I am certainly not given to verbally insulting apples and oranges or physically abusing cartons of milk whenever I visit the supermarket.
The concept of Volksverhetzung was introduced into Soviet law by Lenin in the early stages of the Bolshevik-Zionist revolution owing to widespread resentment among the Russian people of the large number of Zionist-Jews who ran the Politburo and headed the dreaded secret police, the Cheka. It is therefore born of a communist mindset and is completely alien to the idea of a modern “Rechtsstaat” (a state governed by the Rule of Law). I was also the top of my class in history, incidentally.
Laws against ‘incitement and group or race hatred’ are therefore laws premised on the Bolshevik organisation of the state on the basis of a hive mentality and have no place in a modern, liberal democracy, or even our current “Scheindemokratie” (illusory democracy).
These laws, as you know, were designed to reinforce a particular narrative which requires the support of statutes (statutorily enforced history), which must be seen in the perspective of solicitation to perjury for those born after these events were reported to have taken place.
No policeman would ever ask someone born in 1959 to stand in the dock before a judge and swear on the Bible that he had witnessed a crime that allegedly took place twenty years before he was born. Such a policemen would surely find himself charged with corruption and the witness would be incarcerated for perjury.
Indeed, anyone who forces another person to affirm an alleged crime he has not personally witnessed is guilty of incitement to bear false witness, which is a felonious violation of both German law, the law of Moses and the Law of God Almighty, Jesus Christ. (Aufwiegelung zur Meineid, Aufwiegelung zur Gotteslästerung.)
One of my earliest memories was as a child watching the ceremonial funeral of the war criminal Winston Churchill on black and white television. I’m almost sure I can say that he did indeed live and die, but I cannot prove it, for I never met the man, nor did I attend his last rites at his bedside. In my mind he is simply a story, a picture book narrative of a man who played (or may have played) a role in the affairs of the world. I’m inclined to believe that Churchill existed because the laws of cause and effect indicate that he is one of the many dots that connect us to our present time.
I was born on 20 December 1959, but probably only became intellectually aware of the world around me in a way I could commit to memory and analytical comprehension at some point between 1961 and 1962. Therefore, everything that “happened” in the world before 1962 is not true for me. It didn’t “happen”. It represents nothing more than second-hand or third-party information transmitted by other people whom I am told to “trust” or by the electronic media, history books and newspapers fashioned by those who may sometimes try to be objective, but either make mistakes or are subject to controllers whose aim is to propagate a slanted version of reported “events”.
However, I can prove that I was the 1973 and 1974 champion in the 800 and 1600-metre inter-school South Fylde Olympics, because I was a witness to my own victory, have personal experiential memories of the event and the gold medals to prove it. It may not be true for you and you don’t have to believe me (I won’t sue you or send you to prison), but I was there, crossed the line and wrote an additional line in my own personal history book.
Ever since the dawn of Sumerian civilisation, history books have been re-written countless times to include new information or exclude details that were proven false and based on fantastically colourful myths. My Grammar School history teacher was an honorary professor of Oxford University who taught me that, in contrast to mathematics, history is a ‘moveable feast’, meaning that it is always subject to review depending upon the emergence of new data that comes to light. History is a work in progress, and it is a book that will remain eternally under the editor’s lamp.
We now know that Christopher Columbus was not the first European to set foot on North American soil. We know that William Wallace never personally met Robert the Bruce. We now know, by the CIA’s own recent admission, that the ‘Bay of Tonkin’ incident never happened. We now know that Marie Antoinette was falsely attributed by Rousseau to have said, “Let them eat cake.” She never said it.
We now know that Sir Walter Raleigh did not introduce potatoes to England (they originated in Italy). We now know that Nero did not play the fiddle as Rome burned, for the fiddle was invented 1,600 years later. We now know that the Dutchman Abel Tasman discovered Australia, not Captain Cook. We now know that America gained her independence on 3 September 1783, not on 4 July 1776. We now know that Peyton Randolph was the first president of the United States, not George Washington. We now know that the ancient Gaels of Ireland developed Sanskrit and a prototype of the Hebrew language.
We now know, thanks to DNA scientists, that the Palestinians were the original Children of Israel and never left the Land of their Fathers. We now know that, for all but a minority of the Palestinian Sephardim, the “Diaspora” is largely a myth created by a people who originated north of Kazakhstan, converted to Judaism centuries later and then migrated to Eastern Europe.
We now know that the world is not flat.
Why do we now know all these things? Because men and women asked questions. Incredible, isn’t it?
In England, children are taught: Believe nothing you hear, only half of what you read and question everything. This is life-saving, good old fashioned British advice, and I observe it daily. It is an integral part of my cultural upbringing and is as essential to my being as the very heart that pumps blood through my veins.
To recapitulate: No matter what “happened” before the development of my intellectual facilities in 1962, it didn’t happen. The “world” for me did not exist before 20 December 1959, and it did not become “real” to me until some point in 1962. From my perspective, all events prior to 1962 do not constitute history, simply stories told to me by strangers with unknown motives. Novels and poetry. A fantasy matrix of moving pictures and scripted political drama. The Twilight Zone of a world in which video killed the radio star. Bubbles in my bathtub.
In a society where intellectual and historical enquiry is punishable by law, it cannot be said that we are living in either a democracy or a Rechtsstaat. It is a selective oligarchy that ring-fences individuals into preferential and non-preferential groups by means of social engineering and is therefore, as was the case with the USSR and other Bolshevik regimes, a dysfunctional administrative entity that will eventually implode under the pressure of its own internal contradictions.
As you are aware:
“It remains the case that the German Reich [established in 1871] survived the collapse of 1945 and did not cease to exist, neither through capitulation nor the exercise of foreign power in Germany on the part of the allies; it possesses today, as it always has, legal and judicial sovereignty. The BRD (Federal Republic of Germany) is not the legal successor of the German Reich.”
– Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), 31 July 1973 (Urteile 2 Bvl.6/56; 2 BvF 1/73; 2 BvR 373/83; BVGE 2,266 (277); 3, 288 (319ff; 5.85) 126; 6, 309, 336 und 363).
I understand that jurists are under enormous pressure to square this impossible circle so that it does not become known that the European Union, by virtue of every treaty signed by the unconstitutional BRD, is an illegal political construct. When the people of Germany, Britain, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Italy, France and all other members of the European Soviet of Zionist States became fully conversant with the truth, there will follow a period of upheaval in Europe and a return to natural nation-state democracy. I guarantee it. Because I’m the messenger.
However, following the reinstitution of the German Reich in the coming years, whereupon civil servants will be required to reapply for their positions, please be assured, that since you and State Attorney Niesen have handled my case with a measurable degree of equanimity, I shall ensure that the newly-empowered authorities will receive from me personal letters of commendation that speak very highly of you.
In addition to my work as a creative writer and editor, I work very hard for Germany by helping to promote the export of German goods by means of brochure journalism. Sadly, although you have rejected the Jews’ charges against me and left me free to explore this beautiful country at will, I am now giving some thought to leaving Germany once I can afford resettlement outside of the European Soviet Union because I cannot live in a state that tells me what I can and cannot think and say, for such prohibitions actually make me feel physically sick to the bottom of my stomach.
You cannot imagine how sad this makes me feel, for I truly love this country and the German people, all of whom have been betrayed by oafishly incompetent, self-serving politicians who should be stacking shelves in supermarkets and greedy, money-grubbing lobbyists in Berlin.
It also angers and grieves me that the ZJD, in common with the Israeli government and their other sister agencies, have refused to meet the donation for personal damages amounting to 10,000 euros to the Rachel Corrie Fund. I encourage you to learn more about this heroic, beautiful and intelligent young American woman, whose life was wilfully and maliciously crushed out of her by an Israeli bulldozer as she attempted to prevent the destruction of the homes and lives of Palestinian farmers (the genetic descendants of the Children of Israel).
Despite all the contention of the past few months, I thank you and State Attorney Frau Niesen for your intuitive understanding of equitable justice and sense of fair play.
May you walk in peace with God Almighty, Jesus Christ.
Letter from the Senior State Attorney to Michael James
Staatsanwaltschaft b. d. LG – 60256 Frankfurt am Main
Geschäftszeichen: 6111 Js 228014/08
Bearbeiter: OSta Claude
Durchwahl: 60 78
Konrad-Adenauer- Str. 20
60313 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: (069) 1367 – 01
Telefax: (069) 1367 – 2100
Auf die Strafanazeige
des Michael James in Friedrichsdorf vom 13.6.2008
gegen Verantwortliche des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland
wegen Vorwurfs der Volksverhetzung pp
wird die Einleitung eines Ermittlungsverfahrens abgelehnt (§ 152 Absatz 2 i. V. m. § 170 Absatz 2 der Strafprozessordnung).
Aus der Strafanzeige ergeben sich keine zureichenden tatsächlichen Anhaltspunkte für eine Straftat.
Die Angezeigten haben den Anzeigeerstatter — völlig zu recht — wegen Verdachts der Volksverhetzung angezeigt (6111 Js 222524/08). Seine offenbar damit zusammenhängende Strafanzeige enthält nichts, was einen Anfangsverdacht für ein strafbares Verhalten der Angezeigten begründen könnte,
GESTEMPELT / Beglaubigt / Laudage / Justizangestellte
Acknowledgements and the current situation:
Let me first apologise to all my readers who have sent me heaps of supportive e-mail and letters by permission of my online editors. I have spent the best part of the last three weeks immersed in German law books and am concurrently suffering from a form of gastric influenza in addition to a prolonged bout of CFS. I have not forgotten you. You are MY PEOPLE.
My very special thanks go out to Ingrid Zundel who not only sent me a very generous “Nachschub” with which to nourish my ailing constitution, but also Ernst’s latest book recounting his ordeal in Mannheim (“Setting the Record Straight”) and an excellent DVD (“The Ernst Zundel Saga”), both of which I must eventually stow away in a safe place lest the authorities decide to raid my apartment for forbidden literature. Ingrid was also kind enough to give me a special write-up in her newsletters. I would also like to take this opportunity to tell Ingrid that I shall complete the assignment given to me once I have cleared my present backlog and regained a modicum of health, although some special ‘advice’ will follow per e-mail (the @bellsouth address bounces my mails, by the way). Please be patient, Ingrid. I love you.
Ronnie Lambert, a fellow Geordie and superb musician and singer for the band “Busker”, was also kind enough to send me a CD of his latest album “Geordieland”. This is what I call real music, straight from the heart, real and raw like you’ve never heard before. Ronnie suffers from crippling pain owing to his past work as a man who made a real contribution to society by helping to build homes. Please visit his website http://www.geordiesongs.com and order the best music you’ll ever hear this side of the Great Wall of China. I’ll be writing to you shortly, Ronnie. May God bless you.
I must also extend my appreciation to Fredrick Töben from the Adelaide Institute in Australia, who phoned me twice with messages of support and e-mailed me some extra courage. I am also the lucky recipient of a wealth of newsletters and updates he sent me, kindly mentioning my efforts and mobilising moral support.
As ever, my soul brother, Holger Haffke, of http://gnosticliberationfront.com was there as the Good Samaritan to carry some of the weight of my heaviest downers, and my Christian Orthodox friend Brother Nathanael Kapner took a massive hit on his phone bill by phoning me thrice from New York to tell me that he was praying for me and that we would defeat Satanic Zionism with the power of the Cross.
So where do I go from here? First I must rest a while and clear my desk to pay the bills. Then I will pick another fight with the Dark Powers of International Zionism, perhaps more wisely and with a better game plan in mind.
As for leaving Germany, I have agonized over this option for the best part of two years. But there is something that keeps me here.
Over the last 16 years I have seen the German people slowly lose their sense of purpose, their courage, their pride and their dignity. I have watched these descendants of the fearsome Teutonic warriors who once scattered entire legions of the Roman Empire and defended the gates of Europe against a formidable Mongol invasion shrug their shoulders in nonchalant resignation with the passage of every nation-destroying statute and anti-German ordinance handed down by the parasitic Zionist elites in Berlin.
Most of them have lost the will to fight. But I haven’t, and I never will. I shall show them once more how to fight, and how to win. For I am reminded of an old paraphrased Jewish proverb:
“If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”
Michael James, an Englishman, is a former freelance journalist resident in Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland.