Modern Germany Is An Illegal State

Germany is an illegal state

We are all aware that in the modern Germany, under the Merkel regime and governments headed by her predecessors, there have been many injustices perpetrated on the German people. Whether it be through their means of media censorship, of censorship of open debate, or the total outlawing of entire political parties, many Germans have found themselves in conflict with an unjust legal system.

It is thought that as many as 100,000 Germans have had issues with the law purely for daring to speak their minds about the second world war or the National Socialist period of their history. They have been sacked from jobs, had their assets seized and their families broken apart, all in the name of “protecting the constitution” of the so-called Bundesrepublik.

The fact of the matter is that this high and mighty constitution that the usurpers of Germany use to police the thoughts of ordinary people is totally illegal. The German government’s claim as being the de jure state of Germany is highly dubious, and in fact a constitutional court in Germany has ruled to that effect*. Below I have included an article written by a South African banker, Stephen Goodson, who is a parliamentary candidate for the Abolish Income Tax & Usury Party of South Africa. Goodson worked for the South African central bank for a number of years, and he has also published multiple written works, including “The History of Central Banking and The Enslavement of Mankind”.

*According to a resolution of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgericht) of 17 August 1956, “It is upheld that the German Reich has outlasted the collapse of 1945 and has never gone under or fallen, either through capitulation or through the exertion of foreign state authority in Germany by the Allies, or in the later course of time; it is still an entity with legal capacity, even though it is not fully operable as a government due to a lack of organization. The Federal Republic of Germany is NOT the successor of the German Reich”.

In this article, Goodson describes meeting Professor Hans-Peter Schneider, a former member of multiple provincial constitutional courts in Germany. In this meeting, he poses a number of difficult questions to the professor, which he details in the article below, forcing the expert in German law to concede that actually, the constitution of the modern Germany is not valid because another constitution already exists and never ceased to exist. Furthermore, Goodson goes on to explain the truth about Germany and the real price that the allies exacted from their adversary in 1945.

Source: Veteran’s Today

It is not often that one has an opportunity to confront one’s adversaries and ask penetrating questions without fear of arrest or retribution, as may well have been the case if the following encounter had taken place in the allegedly “freest” Germany of all time.

On the evening of Monday, 24 January 2011, I attended a symposium entitled “21 and 15 years on: To what Extent Can Germans and South Africans Enjoy their Respective ‘Living’ Constitutions?”, sponsored by the German Consulate General in Cape Town.

The South African panelists were advertised as Pius Langa, former president of the South African Constitutional Court, and Roelf Meyer, former Minister of Constitutional Affairs, who was chief negotiator at Kempton park, Johannesburg (1992-1996) and who played a leading role in selling South Africa out to the international banking cartel behind the smokescreen of majority rule. After his election, President Thabo Mbeki personally thanked David Rockefeller for his invaluable support in this regard.

The German panelists were represented by emeritus Professor Hans-Peter Schneider, a former member of a number of provincial (Laender) Constitutional Courts, and Professor Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, a former Minister of Justice (1998-2002) and member of the Bundestag.

During her term of office Frau Gmelin was responsible for introducing same sex “marriages” or civil unions, and for fining and jailing hundreds of “thought criminals”. But she was fired from her post in 2002 after comparing the methodology of President George W Bush in Iraq to that of Adolf Hitler. Her leader, SPD chief Gerhard Schroeder, who apologized profusely to Bush, said at the time that he could not sit at the same Cabinet table with someone who had connected Bush to a “criminal”.

In the event, of the four invited panelists, only Professor Schneider was present. The South Africans were indisposed and Frau Gmelin’s flight was delayed.

Three Points

In the spirit of clarification, I directed the following three points to Professor Schneider:

(i) Two days prior to the enactment of the German constitution on 23 May 1949, a Secret Treaty (Geheimer Staatsvertrag) was signed, which gave complete Allied control over electronic and print media, film, culture and education until the year 2099.

As a result thereof, there are still 100,000 occupation troops in Germany; after 66 years there still has been no peace treaty concluded between Germany and the Victorious Allied Powers; and all of Germany’s gold reserves are held in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in which the Rothschilds have a 57% shareholding.

This treaty has been confirmed by Major-General Gerd-Helmut Komossa, former head of German Military Intelligence in his book “Die Deutsche Karte” (The German Card).

(ii) There appear to be two constitutions. According to a resolution of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgericht) of 17 August 1956, “It is upheld that the German Reich has outlasted the collapse of 1945 and has never gone under or fallen, either through capitulation or through the exertion of foreign state authority in Germany by the Allies, or in the later course of time; it is still an entity with legal capacity, even though it is not fully operable as a government due to a lack of organization. The Federal Republic of Germany is NOT the successor of the German Reich”.

It needs to be noted that the Constitution of the Third Reich dates back to the North German Constitution of 1866. The principal reason why it still exists is because only the German High Command surrendered on 8-9 May 1945, and not the German Government.

Furthermore, the 1949 Constitution is termed the Basic Law, because it is a provisional constitution, pending unification of the lost territories. So far, only central Germany has been reunified – 3 October 1990. The eastern territories, as defined by the 1937 borders, still remain under Polish and Russian control.

(iii) Freedom of expression is guaranteed by Section 5 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), but it is clearly contradicted by Section 130 of the Criminal Code (Strafsgesetzbuch) under the heading ‘Agitation of the People’. Any alternative view of the Establishment’s version of history is punishable by up to 5 years in prison (12 years in the case of Horst Mahler), and thousands of innocent people have been jailed or fined.

I will give two brief examples. Dr Wilhelm Staeglich from Hamburg was forced to resign as a judge and lost 20% of his pension for five years for publishing a book about World War II, “Der Auschwitz Mythos”. In a letter to me dated 21 October 1990, he wrote:.”…In Germany the book has been banned forever.”

My second example concerns Germar Rudolf, who graduated in Chemistry at Bonn University and was a researcher at the Max Planck Institute. In 1992 he wrote a scientific report about the so-called concentration camps in the east, which was peer-reviewed by over 300 professors of Inorganic Chemistry. Not one of them could find a single mistake. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for writing this Report.

Finally, I wish to quote a sentence from Professor Dr Ernst Nolte, who was a witness at the recent Kevin Kaether trial in Berlin: “Such questioning must be allowed, or else scientific truth in this area of history is ruled out – this is simply not a possibility.”

The Result

Halfway through the third question, the moderator of the symposium requested a “termination”, in other words, he wished to stop the questioning. Professor Schneider only replied to this, the third question, saying flatly that freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution and that the Criminal Code is there to protect it from “hate” speech.

After the symposium ended for the public, I expanded on the rest of my question to him as well as mentioning that the famous German historian, Professor Helmut Diwald, had had his book, “Geschichte der Deutsche” pulped in the late 1970’s, after he had written (p.165) that whatever happened to the Jews who were evacuated to the east after 1940 is “still unexplained with regard to the central questions, in spite of all that has been written.” Professor Schneider seemed to agree that such questions needed to be treated more seriously.

Regarding the secret Treaty discussed in point (i) above, Schneider said that he was unable to say whether it was true or false. There has been much debate about its authenticity, but the fact is that the provisions contained in it have all been applied.

Concerning the constitution of the Third Reich never having been abrogated, as discussed in point (ii) above, he admitted that it still exists, but apparently only so that those who worked during that period could still receive their pensions!

The Crux 

The crux of any constitution is the unfettered right to freedom of expression. This has recently (3 June 2010) been formulated by the Human Rights Council, a subsidiary of UNESCO, as follows:

“The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and is instrumental to the development and strengthening of effective democratic systems.” Until this righthas been restored in Europe, injustice and repression will persist, notwithstanding Germany’s false claim of being a Constitutional state (“Rechtsstaat”).

During the discussions, it was revealed that there had been a steady decline in the participation of the German people in the party political system. Furthermore, large-scale violent riots had erupted because of the dumping of nuclear waste in Lower Saxony and the construction of a new underground railway station in Stuttgart, indicative of general dissatisfaction and possibly a new direction.

Another indication was the finding by a recent opinion poll that 89% of Germans do not believe the official version of 9/11, a hopeful development, no doubt spurred on by the Internet.

The response to my questions and points from the audience of about 60 people was muted, and was epitomized by the glum look on the face of the Consul General. However, afterwards a former Jewish student of political philosophy and a black film maker both said that they found it an intriguing revelation that Germany was still under the control of foreign powers.

Hopefully, the Germans will one day have the opportunity to write their own constitution, free of foreign interference, and one which would fully reflect their own culture and traditions.

(Stephen Goodson, the author of this article, graduated in Roman-Dutch Law at the University of Stellenbosch).

William is a writer based in England, Great Britain.