We received the following text from Gerhard Ittner four weeks ago. It explains a little more thoroughly his legal case in Germany (on which we reported elsewhere) as well as his attitude toward his harassment by the “German” judiciary. Unfortunately, and as expected, the German judges trying his case did not heed Ittner’s appeal for freedom of the human spirit, and sentenced him on Nov. 17, 2015, the 27th day of the trial, to another 18 months of imprisonment – without probation (see the defamatory report by the Bavarian government TV station "Bayerischer Rundfunk").

I have been “out” for 12 days – after three and a half years in prison at a time – and am in the process of “getting back into life.” Right after my release from prison, I did not feel that way. Now, however, it’s becoming more obvious. I have to get used again to everyday things; for example shopping. The day after my release from prison, if it had not been for Sandra, my fiancée, I almost would have marched out of the Müller drugstore without paying for the items in my hands. It simply did not occur to me that one had to go to the checkout and pay. (Maybe nobody would have believed me, but that is how it was.) Initially I also left the water running in the bathroom; I did not turn off the faucet. In prison in Nuremberg, you could not turn the faucet on and off – it was a push button there. Barely half a liter of water came out, and then it turned off until I pressed it again. There was no turning it off.

Gerhard Ittner, Nov. 17, 2015, in the Nuremberg courtroom where he was sentenced on that day to another 18 months of imprisonment.

After the end of my imprisonment in Bayreuth (served to the last day without any easing of detention conditions), I was immediately transferred to the Nuremberg jail due to a new indictment for “inciting the masses.” I arrived at Nuremberg on October 16, 2014, and on October 16, 2015, I was unexpectedly released from custody. The arrest warrant had been vacated. The trial continues. The cancellation of the arrest warrant took place on October 16, 2015, in the courtroom during the 25th day of the trial. The Inquisition had thought that by mid-June the trial would be over after 14 days of hearings. By early August, I had already worn them down with my deliberations to such a degree that they dropped 13 of the 18 charges, hoping to wrap up the trial faster. Yet I remained faithful to my line.

At that point, there had already been 25 trial days, and there is no end in sight. To that end, I make the Inquisition realize that the further duration of the trial has to be measured not in months, but in years. They are tired of it and desperate at this point, these sorcerer’s apprentices. They wish they had never started the trial. Already on the first day of the trial, which is taking place in Nuremberg Courtroom #600 – the same room where the infamous International Military Tribunal was once staged – I told the court: “Those who put Gerhard Ittner on trial, will have to deal with trying Gerhard Ittner!” At that time, they probably thought that this was only idle patter. After 25 days of wrangling, however, they may look at it differently.

On 7 October 2015, the 23rd day of the trial, the court offered to release me from pre-trial detention if I abstain from filing any more motions. My answer was: “I will not be blackmailed!” At the next hearing, on October 15, I began at once with a new 37-page motion. It dealt with my request that the court specify the legal basis permitting the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to “confiscate” a non-citizen of the FRG living abroad who has neither an identity card nor a passport of the FRG (as was the case with me) – much as negro slaves were captured in Africa in the past. They did so by making false claims to the local authorities about my nationality, claiming that I was a German citizen [Ittner had renounced his German citizenship a while ago—ed.], in order to kidnap me for the purpose of committing a violation of human rights by means of prosecuting me for thought crimes in the FRG.

Two more motions of mine followed.

As happens during almost every hearing, I got thrown out of the courtroom on October 15 as well. I frequently get thrown out of the court room several times a day – due to “impropriety” or “insulting the court”. (If one is already in pre-trial detention, one can hardly be threatened with detention…) However, no progress can be made this way, because they cannot continue without me without creating a serious ground for an appeal. So I am brought back after a while, and the game continues. A lot of time is wasted that way, though – which is precisely what the court does not want to happen…

On October 16 we were at it again hammer and tongs; I was thrown out of the courtroom for insulting the court, was put into a cell in the basement, as usual – and when I was brought back, the presiding judge told me that my arrest warrant had been vacated and that I was a free man. No one had expected that. Perhaps the court speculates that I might lose some interest in a long, drawn-out trial if I am a free man.

Here is an example of how I argue in court in my motions:

“The prosecution of thoughts expressed with words or in writing is a crime against the spirit and against the most elementary human dignity. Because if you deny people the right to freely express their thoughts and views on things, you deny them the essence of their dignity as creatures capable of independent thought. For a person endowed with intellect, such mental slavery is worse than physical bondage. For this reason, the FRG is not only the most vicious and excessive dictatorship against dissidents, who are even kidnapped by it from abroad for the punishment of thought crimes, as in my case. This state is furthermore a dictatorship of the mind against the God-given human spirit. It tramples human dignity underfoot.

“It is revealing that one pseudo-argument of this dictatorship is the claim that expressing an opinion disliked by the system and by the mafia of do-gooders would ‘violate the human dignity’ of this or that putative victim. This pseudo-argument is at once perverted and easy to see through, and is used to justify the unjustifiable violation of human rights committed with this prosecution of thought crimes. Expressing an opinion, however, is simply unable to endanger human dignity; quite to the contrary, human dignity absolutely requires freedom of expression as an inalienable right. It is at all events unworthy and a sign of egomaniacal conceit for anyone to be 'unable' to endure discomfiting expressions of opinion. After all, who is more violated in his human dignity: the one who subjectively feels insulted by the views of others, because he arrogates that in a world of 7 billion people nobody should express other views than his own; or the one who, like I, gets kidnapped with criminally violent methods by the judiciary from abroad and thrown into jail merely because of his completely non-violent, disfavored expressions of opinion?

“There is no doubt that the violation of one’s human dignity is more extreme in a case like mine, where a non-citizen of the FRG gets kidnapped from abroad with criminally deceptive, false claims about his nationality, gets thrown into jail, gets deprived of his rights, is tormented and mistreated by the prosecution for thought crimes in a criminal violation of his civil rights, and all this in utter disregard of the fact that, by taking away his right of freedom of expression, one inexorably also denies him his human dignity.

“Just as it is impossible to take away someone’s heart or brain without at once ending his earthly life, it is also impossible to take away someone’s right to freedom of expression without taking away his human dignity.

“This basic, well-thought-through consideration – that such an utterly disproportionate thought-crime prosecution driven by perverted feelings of hatred, as it is practiced by the FRG as but the latest Dictatorship on German soil, violates the defendants’ human dignity far more than anyone else’s human dignity can possibly be violated who dislikes that others express critical views – should make it impossible for a truly liberal, democratic state under the rule of law to commit this violation of human rights. A quarter-century after the demise of communist East Germany, one might hope that this would be generally recognized, just as the insight should be that dogmas ordained by means of penal law, which can be maintained only by suspending the right of freedom of expression, inevitably foster doubt of their credibility in every individual capable of critical thinking.

“Those committing this breach of civilization in the 21st century, this very real crime against humanity called thought-crime prosecution by means of a political inquisition, should also be aware of the following: opinions, which are expressed thoughts, emanate very much from the personality of the person thinking these thoughts. To really understand the essence of these expressions of opinion, it is necessary to know the personhood of the individual having these thoughts underlying these opinions. I believe that the deeper layers of one’s personhood, the formative influences on one’s spirit – svabhava, as it is called in Sanskrit – cannot be appreciated or understood by merely considering the present life. We also need to consider previous incarnations of the core personhood, the atman, in the case of a person who can establish a continuity with previous incarnations, which I think I can do.

“So I object to having my human dignity violated by the western, secularist conception of disconnecting me from my previous incarnations, which are inseparable parts of me.

“The disseverance of the atman’s continuity through death is an illusion, just as death itself as the end of one’s existence is an illusion. Birth, death and re-birth are events in the existence of the soul, which follows its dharma.

“The governmental crime of thought-crime prosecution is a crime against the spirit, which pervades and shapes a spiritual being from incarnation to incarnation, as well as in the transitional worlds. A true understanding of a person and his thought processes resulting in his expressed views is only possible if one knows that person’s previous incarnations. This means that both my thought processes and also my emotions, which both are at the base of my expressed opinions, can only be fully understood when my previous incarnations are included in the considerations – if that is at all possible for third parties. Therefore, when deliberating about my personal circumstances (which continues apace) I will also have to deliberate about my previous incarnations. This may take years.

“With my last words I finally want to explain, among other things, that every human being must be allowed to have their own thoughts, to come to their own conclusions, and to express those thoughts and conclusions about anything and everything – which of course includes the 'Holocaust' narrative. Just as Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’

“This is clearly and unequivocally formulated and has marked every attempt of prosecutorial intimidation and persecution of dissidents as a clear violation of human rights and thus as a governmental crime and a mark of dictatorship and terror against dissidents!

“I therefore want to point out that no regime in the world has the right to prescribe to free-born men, which opinions about things or about the stories told by others they may or may not express; or to prescribe, which opinions are permitted, and which are not; and to prescribe under the threat of imprisonment what they must believe and may not doubt, critically contest, and openly say that they simply do not believe in it.

“I want to point out that this crime of thought-crime prosecution as a violation of human rights is the most disgusting barbarism of judicial criminality of the 21st century.

“I want to show that the ‘judicial notice of the Holocaust’s obviousness’ is legally binding only for official decision regarding lawsuits about restitutions, in terms of courts do not have to rule in each single lawsuit for reparations whether or not a 'Holocaust' did indeed occur. This alone is the legal purpose of the court’s ‘judicial notice of the Holocaust’s obviousness’!

“If a politicized judiciary misuses the ‘legal notoriety of the Holocaust’s obviousness’ to prescribe to every single human being and every private individual what they have to opine about the Holocaust narrative as canonized by the victors’ historiography, then this is not only a false application of this legal fiction, but it amounts to raping the rule of law. On the contrary, the German state under rule of law, notably the free, democratic, constitutional state, created ‘judicial notice of the Holocaust’s obviousness’ quite explicitly only in order to stipulate that exclusively the decisions of specialized courts, but not penal courts, are bound by it, but most certainly not in order to curb individuals in their constitutionally guaranteed human right to free speech.

“There are, for example, medical issues which are considered self-evident, but anyone may contest these issues as wrong or pure nonsense as much as he likes – as long as he is not a surgeon operating on people. It is rather similar with legal issues deemed self-evident: anyone must be allowed to contest as wrong or pure nonsense also and especially these issues, as they are based on findings by the current regime and are entirely man-made and thus ultimately quite arbitrary, quite in contrast to scientific knowledge. That is, as long as he does not make official decisions as a professional judge in relevant actions of so-called Holocaust survivors. But even then the questions may be asked, how any politically imposed, yet legally binding rule of 'self-evidence' can be reconciled with the idea of an independent judiciary, particularly when such a rule is applied beyond its original scope where it has no place to begin with: in political trials to punish dissidents for expressing their opinions!

“I want to show that and why I have the absolute and unalienable right, regardless of any rule of self-evidence of the Holocaust, to think and to opine about the official Holocaust narrative whatever I like; in particular to express doubts about the credibility of the narrative and to justify these doubts, or to fail to justify them. In that I am not even concerned about the ‘self-evidence of the Holocaust.’ I am not addressing this. I am only concerned about my personal views of the official Holocaust narrative; to be allowed to form my own opinion about this Holocaust narrative and to be permitted to express it publicly under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“An allegedly ‘liberal and democratic state under the rule of law’ which cannot even cope with that much freedom of expression, is neither liberal nor ruled by the law. It can wither away – as did communist East Germany in 1989.

“Hence I want to show that and why I must be allowed to have personal doubts, and to express them, about the official Holocaust narrative, which is prescribed by force. This entirely without touching on the issue of ‘self-evidence of the Holocaust’ which I am not interested in and which I will not address. (For all I care, the FRG, which is not my government, can make compensation payments due to the 'Holocaust' until it goes broke – the sooner the better). In my final words I want to show how I am thinking and how I come to my conclusions. I want to show with my own devices how I deal very thoroughly with any item of my interest, of which there are many; how I question things, how I doubt, verify, refute, consider from all possible angles, and correlate things to one another. This does not merely apply to the 'Holocaust.' But my thinking and the formation of my opinion with respect to the 'Holocaust' can only be understood or at least classified, if some basic issues are known about the way I think and form my opinions.

“But hardly anything is more difficult than to convey to others our own thinking, how we form our opinions – that is, the processes of our minds. Therefore I want to approach this very systematically and thoroughly. As a civil-rights activist for freedom of speech, I hope to reveal the enormity of the crime committed against the human spirit with this type of violation of human rights called thought-crime prosecution [officially this type of crime is called “propaganda offense” in Germany—ed.]. For this purpose, I will divide my last word into faculties: the Faculty of History and Politics, the Faculty of Philosophy and Religion, the Faculty of Exact Sciences, the Faculty of Humanities, and the Faculty of Arts.”