Horst Mahler’s urgent communication


Urgent Notification
April 6, 2017

Today (April 5, 2017), I received the notice to start serving my prison sentence, issued by the public prosecutor’s office Munich II.

According to the letter, I am supposed to turn up at the place of detention JVA Cottbus­Dissenchen, Oststr. 2, 03052 Cottbus by April 19, 2017 at the latest, in order to serve the remaining 1,262 days (3.5 years) of my sentence.

On that point:

By August 2015, I had served two thirds of the overall sentence (altogether 10 years and two months). In accordance with § 57 StGB of the German criminal code, the remainder of the prison term had to be suspended, and I was released from prison whilst remaining “on parole”. However, the resolution of the Potsdam Regional Court has now been cancelled by the Higher Regional Court in Munich, in response to the objection of the state prosecutors with Munich II.

Moreover, in August 2015, I was declared unfit for prison with respect to my condition, as my left lower thigh had been amputated and other serious health issues had been detected, leading to the suspension of enforcement.

Since December 18, 2015, I have been “on the loose”, staying with my family in Kleinmachnow.

On January 23, 2017, I completed the 81st year of my life.

What the general public doesn’t know:

In the “Horst Mahler Case”, legal authorities are playing a frivolous game, presumably with lethal consequences for the accused.

My release from prison after serving two­thirds of the sentence had been ordered by the judge who is in charge of the execution of sentence, Mr Ligier. The decision has now been revoked because of a putative negative “legal prognosis”, meaning they assume that I will commit criminal offences in the future.

Despite the fact that my evaluations and assessments by prison authorities had been positive, this prognosis rested on the fact that the state prosecutor’s office in Cottbus had pressed charges of alleged incitement (§ 130 StGB) against me in March 2014.

Up to this day (i.e. after more than three years), authorities have still not made a decision as to whether these charges are justified.

According to the current legal situation, a verdict of not guilty is inevitable.

And yet, the legal authorities refuse to duly reject the charges. In this way, they block my


release after serving two­thirds of the prison term.

The article of accusation is the publication of my book “The End of Wandering ­ Reflections on Gilad Atzmon and Jewry”, which I had written during my imprisonment. It is a philosophical book that is not immediately accessible to everyone.

The main ideas have been made accessible to lay readers by Swiss cultural historian A. Loepfe in his review published in the world wide web. The author presents my argument as follows:

First of all, Horst Mahler’s work is a valuable collection of literary and historical documents: from the Torah, the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch, numerous testimonies of politicians dealing with Israel, Zionism, and Jewry, a collection of valuable quotations of well-known Jewish and Zionist authors etc. It is impossible to arrogantly dismiss this work and to silence the debate by crying “anti-Semitism”.

Above all, however, this book, which comprises more than 300 pages, is also a theory of history that places the Jewish question at the centre of every reflection possible. Is this justified? The answer will depend on whether or not we accept Hegel’s philosophy of history: namely the idea that Judaism, Yahweh’s Mosaic religion, has manifested the infinite energy of negation. The Mosaic religion proposes a God, Yahweh, who is conceived of as the absolute spirit: an invisible, unimaginable, supernatural, transcendent deity who will overcome the “idols” of the non-Jews (Goyim), he is totally separated from the sensuous world.

This Yahweh (i.e. the Jew who embodies him, thus reflecting him) is not yet aware of the fact that absolute power includes the sensuous world and human beings – otherwise, it would not be absolute, but limited! The religion of Yahweh represents the negation of life, especially of the lives of non-Jewish peoples, who are still stuck in magical thinking. Hegel wants to salvage the Christian religion; he wants to strip it of its mythical veneer and rationally justify its existence in the face of Enlightenment criticism, which is unable to accept a metaphysical deity beyond the God of the intellect (the hidden God of Deism). According to Horst Mahler, Hegel completed and overcame Mosaism (reminiscent of the words of Jesus Christ).

Hegel drives Mosaic rationalism to a point where it is cancelled out. He does so via abstraction from the sensuous world in pure thought, arriving at the necessary conclusion that the world and God cannot be two separate entities: the world itself is a manifestation of God; God is not an object that is external to us. Rather, human thought is God, and God perceives himself as the human embodiment of the infinite spirit, limited by finite reason. In principle, this is what happens with Jesus Christ.

It is the divine mission of the German people – since Jacob Böhme at the latest – to complete the history of salvation and to overcome Mosaism. Horst Mahler emphasises the fact that this is a philosophical, spiritual task rather than a matter of “race” or ethnic-cultural discrimination. After all, rational thinking (a way of thinking that represents separation), is not exclusive to the Jewish people: even if it rose to power with the help of Judaism and its incomplete spirit, it gained prominence in the world after the Enlightenment at the latest. Moreover, even today, Judaism needs to be defined spiritually, rather than racially, biologically or scientifically.

Mahler believes that the definition of the Jewish people as ‘Semites’ is a cover-up devised by Jews to distract us from the spiritual and world-historical relevance of the Jewish question. According to Horst Mahler, the catchphrase “anti-Semitism”, which had emerged in the 19th


century along with the notion of the “Jewish people”, was a stroke against German Idealism. Hegel in particular had highlighted the role of Jews in the course of world history as rationalists and men of the intellect, and thus, as a negative energy, which, however, is meant to drive the Weltgeist (world spirit) into absolute positivity, forcing it to fully realise itself in self-consciousness.

Indeed, diaspora Jewry has moved away from their religion since the dawn of modernity. Jews themselves had declared their religion dead 200 years ago. The transcendent, zealous, authoritarian Yahweh, the fear and terror of the people he owned, fell into oblivion due to his sheer negativity. What survived was his message of negating the world of nature deities, magic and wonder, as it was promoted by the emerging positive sciences. The scientific worldview has no place for God. Thus, the transcendental monotheism of the Mosaic religion ultimately paved the way for atheism (which is merely the magic hood of the Jewish spirit, according to Mahler).

Hegel extrapolates how the sensuous world (externality) finds a new home in pure thought (in inwardness): as a duplication of the pure, timeless spirit. In this duplication in nature and its highest expression, in man, God loves himself. Hegel’s thought represents the externalising inwardness of God. In the beginning, God merely knows that he exists, but he does not know who or what he is. His life is a development (Jacob Böhme) of his knowledge about himself. Only with God’s complete knowledge of himself, man encounters a loving God – in Christ. As human beings – the son of man – we are God’s consciousness.

As a religious community, therefore, the Jews represent an idea of God whose time is up. But he wants to stay alive! And his followers do not shy away from the most abhorrent tricks of negation! The Jews keep re-enacting their heroic role as the little people from 2,800 years ago, when they had to defend their revolutionary idea of the immaterial, non-sensual, purely spiritual God (including the idea of human nature as spiritual nature) against their neighbouring tribes, who were still given to magic and superstition.

His banner is the ban on images: rejecting Christianity means rejecting the idea of divine incarnation, which is seen as idol-worship. Thus, God’s reconciliation with the world is rejected – as if the crucifixes in Christian homes were carved, wooden fetishes! Spiritually, in thought and reality, Christianity has “out-competed” Judaism.

The legal assessment of my book as “inciting” must be owed to the fact that the novelty of my point of view regarding the Jewish question has been overlooked.

While others in their critical assessment of Judaism (e.g. Jesus Christ in John 8,44, and Martin Buber, among others) focused solely on the negative, I made an attempt to highlight the “positive in the negative” (Jacob Böhme and Hegel). In doing so, I pointed out the necessity of the world­historical role of Judaism and sought even to justify it.

The insight into this dialectic – which I am surely permitted to postulate – inevitably dissolves any hatred of Jews, replacing it with a certain admiration of the Jewish spirit and its remarkable achievements, following Yahweh’s command to the Jewish people to annihilate and enslave the world (Isaiah 34 and 60).

I have turned the conventional negative view of Judaism into something positive. The idea of interpreting my argument as “incitement of hatred against Jewry” therefore reveals a deep­seated Jew­hatred – which, however, is neurotically transformed into Philo­Semitism – on the part of the judges who are dealing with my case.


What does that mean?

The prosecuting attorneys and judges rule out the idea that it is possible to recognise the positive impact of the Jews even whilst acknowledging their negative effects in world history, for which there is ample evidence. As a logical consequence, they deny the existence of this negativity. Thinking about world history and bringing up palpable evidence for their special role then becomes “incitement” to the detriment of Jews – per decree.

With regard to the worldview proposed in my book, the state prosecutors and judges dealing with this case are necessarily biased. Apart from their professional roles, they also partake in the “fundamental consensus of all democrats,” which is the glue that holds the society of the Federal Republic of Germany together.

This society has been immunised against the kinds of ideas which I express, however, to a degree that has probably no parallel in previous centuries. In this society, any critique of Judaism is taboo.

In his report from October 12, 2005 (LG Berlin Az.:502­10/04), psychiatrist Dr. Böhle, who was appointed by the court to examine my mental health, stated the following:

A great number of people have noted a lack of contact with reality in the writings of Mr Mahler ­ reminiscent of the “parallel world” not uncommon to extremists as described by CONZEN. Additionally, they have noted a melange of mythology, metaphysics, and anti­Semitic conspiracy theory, which appears to provoke intense emotional reactions, ranging from disgust to a sense of satirical reality, which might be taken as evidence of a common tendency to pathologize the author. His writings, however, should be subject to debate not in psychiatric but in sociopolitical discourse.

In this context, he quotes Dr. Uwe Wesel, a professor of law, as a contemporary witness: in an article published in the weekly paper DIE ZEIT on May 31, 2001, he had explained how my ideas occasionally provoked feelings of disgust among contemporaries.

This is a trivial affair. Dissidents have to live with it. In legal practice, however, these kinds of emotional blockades, which prevent understanding, need to be dissolved through reflection and awareness. After all, this is the whole point of the legal system: to prevent lynch law and murder based on mere suspicion.

The due acquittal of the legal proceedings regarding my book would have far­reaching consequences, which are counteracted by interested parties at any cost.

Since my release from prison (suspension of enforcement), new charges of incitement have been pressed against me, based on statements similar to the ones made in the book. These charges, too, would have to be dropped immediately.

Now that even the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons has withdrawn


the indexing of my book, the suspension of the proceedings against me would be yet another far­reaching free ride ticket for publicising the book.

Jewish power centres have a vital interest in preventing this from happening.

The book destroys the spiritual roots of Jewry’s ambitions for world dominance. It aims at the emancipation of Jews so they can join humanity and become truly human. Thus, it aims at an emancipation of humanity from Judaism.

It was the grandson of a rabbi, Karl Marx, who was the first to formulate the theme I reprise in my book. In his essay on the Jewish question, he writes:

“We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general antisocial element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

(Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question” (1843), in: Karl Marx/ Friedrich Engels. Werke. (Karl) Dietz Verlag, Berlin. Vol. 1. Berlin/DDR. 1976, pp. 347-377. Here: p. 374).

First published in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (February, 1844).

English translation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Is it possible to read my book – and the idea of enabling Judaism to join humanity – as incitement of hatred against the Jewish people? If so, how?

The controlling centres of Jewish power must be aware of the fact that the ban on “Holocaust Denial” (which is defined as “incitement” in § 130 section 3 StGB / Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany), can no longer be upheld if my ideas gain acceptance among the general public. Then, history – and not only the history of the 20th century – will have to be rewritten.

Truthful thoughts – once they are clearly articulated and stated in public – cannot be locked up in prison.

My thoughts will prevail, for they are true thoughts.

The names of the legal professionals who participate as perpetrators in the persecution of these thoughts will serve as monuments of shame for all times.

Kleinmachnow, April 6, 2017