(Translator’s note: The following translation of the interview between Michel Friedman and Horst Mahler is based on the edited version published in Germany’s Vanity Fair, Nr. 45 from 1 November 2007, pp. 82 – 91. The original interview was over two hours long (60 pages) and can be found on the website of VF: http://www.vanityfair.de/articles/agenda/horst-mahler/2007/11/01/04423/ . Parts of interest which didn’t make it into the magazine are included here.)
HORST MAHLER: Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman.
MICHEL FRIEDMAN: How are you?
H.M. I’m well, as you can probably see.
M.F. When do you have to go back to gaol?
H.M. I don’t know when I have to go back, it’s not yet determined. At the moment everything’s open.
M.F. What was it like for you in prison?
H.M. Oh, you know, it’s a time where you can do things that you don’t get round to doing anymore. That’s very useful.
M.F. From that perspective you actually have a desire to get back there? You can be really productive there.
H.M. Well, I have other desires. As such you’re a little wrong with your expectations.
M.F. Yes well, you just said that you can do things that you don’t get round to doing anymore.
H.M. Yes, that’s an ascertainment, which doesn’t mean that I have a desire for it. I have a desire for the German Reich and …
M.F. Oh, I thought you might desire love and friendship …
H.M. You know, these are things …
M.F. … and a good book. (laughs)
H.M. Yes, the things you think.
M.F. I just thought you still have blood coursing through your veins, and that you enjoy life. Well, better things than the German Reich come to my mind.
H.M. You know the question is what you understand by life. By life, I understand freedom, and part of that is the German Reich’s capacity to act. Only then are we again free, and that is a desire.
M.F. Oh, but you’re pretty free, aren’t you?
H.M. You think so?
M.F. I asked a question.
H.M. For example, if I now say: “Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman”, then there will certainly be charges brought against me.
M.F. You can be sure of the fact that charges will be brought against you.
H.M. That’s how free we are in this country.
M.F. Okay, but you know what you’re getting yourself into, the country doesn’t have a secret police, or secret laws. You can decide to breach the law [German: right] and have to deal with the consequences.
H.M. This is no breach of right [English: law] since it is not a right which forbids this. This is not the will of the German People, but that of foreign rule.
M.F. Do you recognise the Basic Law?
H.M. No.
M.F. Do you recognise any of Germany’s laws?
H.M. Of course, the laws of the German Reich. But they’re currently not operant because foreign rule has imposed itself upon them and determines matters.
M.F. Who are the foreigners?
H.M. Well, the Jews of course. This is perfectly clear. He is the lord over all lords in the background, right? The Jew aspires to make himself prince over his lords. He strives for world domination. Morally this is not at all condemnable. It’s an ascertainment. And the question is how the Peoples react to this, whether they put up with this or not, and for me this is the decisive question.
M.F. Don’t you have the feeling that you’re suffering from a persecution complex, that you’re paranoid?
H.M. (laughs) No, not at all. Look, I’m not paranoid, I just see things the way they are.
M.F. What do you think about the Jews?
H.M. They’re a different type of people, and I now always stress the importance of the realisation, that when you speak of people, you also have to consider the double nature of a person , just as Churchill put it. The Jews have a redemption-historical mission which Martin Buber, a well-known Jew, clearly formulated: “Jewry is the No toward the life of the Peoples.” And because of that …
M.F. That’s all too complicated for me.
H.M. No, no, no, no.
M.F. I’m not as clever as you.
H.M. Not what you consider complicated, but what I have to say is decisive.
M.F. Yes, yes, but I want to understand it. There’s no point in us talking and me not understanding you. That’s stupid. I mean, I want to talk. So back to my question … and why do you always quote others? Quote yourself. We don’t need Churchill, and all that. I mean, you’re Herr Mahler, a clever man as you consider yourself.
H.M. Don’t bother me with such assumptions.
M.F. But I’m not assuming anything. (laughs) Is it an assumption if I consider you an intelligent man?
H.M. (laughs) You see, what are Jews, what are Germans, what are French? Those are actually silly questions. When we speak about Jews, everybody knows what is meant.
M.F. I don’t.
H.M. That’s probably a result of your being Jewish, and that you cannot see yourself the way we do.
M.F. Then how do you see us?
H.M. Look, I just tried.
M.F. Yes, but in your own words. I find that far more exciting.
H.M. They are the embodiment of a god, who according to our understanding is Satan, and they play a tragic role in the corruption and negation of the life of all the other Peoples. But you probably also know from texts which you may have taken note of that I do not connect a moral judgement to this, but that as Goethe said …
M.F. Now we’re back to Goethe. Look, if it’s Satan, then that’s already a moral judgement.
H.M. Yes, certainly. No, no, that’s not a moral judgement.
M.F. But?
H.M. Satan is God’s servant, a part of the force that always desires evil and always creates good .
M.F. What would you do with the Jews? After all, they exist.
H.M. Look, I don’t want to do anything with the Jews, I want to do something with us, that we recognise the Jews the way they are and for what they are.
M.F. And then what does one do?
H.M. And then they’re powerless. Once we’ve recognised the Jews they lose their power over us. And that is what I strive for, and that’s where I act, and according to the definition of the Jews that’s incitement of the People. I understand the fact that the Jews fight against this.
M.F. Well, Frau Merkel isn’t Jewish.
H.M. No, but she’s their puppet. This is what they aspire to.
M.F. I see. But you’re not my puppet?
H.M. That will be difficult to demonstrate.
M.F. The question isn’t whether or not it can be demonstrated. The question is whether you might not be a puppet as well. Maybe you belong in the game, the fact that people like you are permitted.
H.M. There are people who depict and interpret it in exactly this manner – who knows for what reasons. But, you shouldn’t think that I would then take this to be my own conviction. I’m not really bothered about the convictions of others.
M.F. You started this conversation with “Heil Hitler!”
H.M. Yes.
M.F. Tell us, who is Hitler for you? What kind of figure is he?
H.M. Hitler was the saviour of the German People. Not just the German People. And as saviour he was demonised by Satan so that each thought for the saviour is eradicated from the consciousness of the German People and the world on the whole.
M.F. To quote you, Hitler, in order to save the German People and the world, killed six million Jews.
H.M. That’s what you say. I say: that is a lie, and you know it.
M.F. Auschwitz is a lie?
H.M. Yes, of course. I mean Auschwitz as a concentration camp, as a labour camp existed – just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding here – but the systematic destruction of the Jews in Auschwitz is a lie. And you know it.
M.F. Then where did the six million go?
H.M. Well, where did they come from? Please. We have the statistics which the Jews themselves published in their encyclopaedia. Before the supposed destruction of the Jews there were roughly 14 or 16 million, and afterwards it was 16 million. I ask: Where were the six million? Only gradually, after 1956 were the figures reduced.
M.F. So no Jews were gassed?
H.M. No.
M.F. No Jews were killed?
H.M. I didn’t say that. It was war.
M.F. So Jews were not gassed in the concentration camps?
H.M. No, that’s a lie.
M.F. That’s a lie?
H.M. Hmm.
M.F. Tell me … or, no, why don’t you tell me something about your father?
H.M. You know, it’s not my intention to talk about my father. Ask me what you want to know.
M.F. How was your relationship with your father?
H.M. It was a good relationship, an intact family in a seemingly intact world, and I lovingly think back to him.
M.F. He was a man who was near to Hitler, right?
H.M. Who loved Hitler to the end of his life.
M.F. Your father killed himself, right?
H.M. He voluntarily left this life, yes.
M.F. Did this affect you in any way, in the sense that it … What happens to a son who is just 13 when his father kills himself? What happens to him?
H.M. At the end of the day, that can probably be judged by a third party. One doesn’t really reflect it in that manner. There is a feeling. It is certainly …
M.F. Did he abandon you?
H.M. He then no longer was. Anyway, that’s not the point. You know, we Germans have a history, which is being robbed from us.
(…)
M.F. So, when you say that you didn’t reflect upon the suicide of your father, that’s remarkable.
H.M. Yes, that’s remarkable.
M.F. That’s remarkable, don’t you think? But instead, you prefer to talk about the Germans, Jews and the devil. (laughs)
H.M. You know, I know, or believe to know why my father killed himself.
M.F. Why? What do you believe?
H.M. He couldn’t come to terms with the defeat of the German Reich and everything that was connected to this. He believed in it with his whole heart. And for me he wasn’t a do-gooder of which we find so many these days, but a good person, a kind-hearted person.
M.F. Are you continuing his struggle?
H.M. He wasn’t involved in a struggle in this sense. He worked as a dentist and did his duty. And for me this event is of course a reason for me to go beyond my mere occupation and to fight for what he too lived, for that which fulfilled him – and above all, to fight against the exorbitant demonisation of this time and against the lies which are being poured over us by the bucket.
M.F. Did Hitler start the war?
H.M. No, it was downright and systematically forced upon him.
M.F. Forced upon, maybe, but he started the war, didn’t he? (…)
H.M. You know, the war – as a war of guns – began with the massacres of Germans in Poland. And no leader of the German Reich could watch this without taking action. And when he then used the means permitted and given by international law [German: jus gentium] to put an end to this, he acted legitimately. But these massacres were part of the strategy of Roosevelt and the people behind him. These were Jewish – not just advisors, but men of power. Then they had the war which they wanted to force upon the German Reich, in order to cast a veil over the charisma of the German Reich in the smoking ruins of the war. That’s the situation.
M.F. But Hitler definitely lost the war.
H.M. The German Reich lost the war militarily, and that’s the prerequisite for the victory of the German folk-spirit [Volksgeist], just as Nahum Goldmann predicted in 1915/16. And exactly this will happen.
(…)
M.F. (…) By the way, are Jews as valuable as non-Jews?
H.M. You know, Jews are different. They are the negation toward the others, and as such they bear a heavy burden. And that’s why they’re promised world domination, as compensation for the fact that they are hated by the Peoples.
M.F. Are they worth less, or not? Yes or no?
H.M. I do not differentiate values. (…)
(…)
H.M. (…) I’m trying to tell you what Jews are for me. Just as one can see a course of development in an insect, first it’s an egg, then a caterpillar, then a pupa and then a butterfly, in this phase of development the Jews are a necessary factor, but in their negativity . And that is why the Jews are hated and persecuted everywhere at all times. This is a hard fate. It’s in Isaiah: Because they have been the hated ones .
M.F. Eighty percent of the Germans don’t hate the Jews.
H.M. But of course they do. The Germans are enemies of the Jews because the Jews are enemies of the Germans. Whether that goes hand in hand with hatred is a matter of the individual’s psychology.
(…)
M.F. What is your faith? I always speak about belief and you always speak about the Germans. So the answer to: Jew, I don’t like being Jewish, is: I’d like to be a Moslem, I’d like to be a Buddhist.
H.M. You know, according to German understanding, the Peoples insofar as they are states are shapes of God . And if I then conceive of myself as a German, then as a member of the German Reich which is a state, and as a state is a shape of God. And in this God I believe.
M.F. What kind of god is this, a Christian God?
H.M. Certainly, he is identical with the Christian God, who also embraces everything within him, and who does not exclude the world and mankind and only chooses one chosen People for himself as an instrument to destroy all other Peoples.
(…)
M.F. When I was young, very young, you were a left-winger. Is that correct? (…)
H.M. You know, the definitions “right” “left” are the old story of the perspective of the person who stands in front of parliament and perceives a right and a left half. That’s the origin of it. I have only ever been who I am, but always developing. And if somebody outside says: “That was right” or “that was left” then that’s a matter of the observer, and no matter of mine.
M.F. Was the RAF as far as your position is concerned, that the Jews are of the devil … did Andreas Baader, Ensslin, Meinhof share your opinion already back then?
H.M. Yes certainly, but not in the sense in which you just expressed it.
M.F. In what sense?
H.M. In those days the concept for us was that of “US imperialism”, and today we can see clearer what US imperialism is, and as such the enemy is the same. The means of fighting it have changed with the knowledge that has grown out of this process.
(…)
M.F. So how did you speak about the Jews back then? You must have spoken about them.
H.M. Well, we had a feeling of guilt towards the Jews, and were embarrassed when in Palestine, when we were in the camp of the Fedayeen, the Fedayeen came with pictures of Hitler and said: “Good man.” That was difficult for us.
M.F. But you didn’t need to feel embarrassed, you must’ve felt right at home, after all he’s your best man.
H.M. No, no. Look, back then I was not yet free of the consciousness that has been planted in us through these lies: the feeling of guilt. That was a problem. This whole story determines my entire life, and my life can only be understood through this story.
M.F. Why did you have feelings of guilt in those days?
H.M. Well, you know, if somebody reproaches us Germans of having committed the absolute mega-crime, of having exterminated an entire People, systematically, then that is of great significance for Germans. After all we have a tendency to self-reproach.
M.F. And twenty years later, I mean, you were an adult: what didn’t you understand back then? Twenty years later you should also have felt the inspiration that you’ve been feeling these last years.
H.M. That’s not an inspiration, these are facts which through the decades have been unearthed in painstaking detail-work by the so-called Revisionists. For that they get sent to prison, or are murdered. And these are things which only then came about.
M.F. That means that in the era of Baader-Meinhof an anti-Judaism, in the way you represent it today, was not an aspect of your awareness?
H.M. Correct.
M.F. Was it an awareness of (…) the “left-wingers”?
H.M. What you now consider as anti-Judaism, was back then the anti-Zionism and the criticism of the politics of Israel as a Jewish state in relationship to its neighbours. We were aware of this, and in that sense we went quite far in our criticism of the Jews for the circumstances back then. I have to tell you why I practically joined this development called RAF – because a plastic bomb, i.e. a “Pattex bomb” was found in the Jewish parish hall on the 9th of November 1969. It came from the stocks of the constitution protection service, and a group that I knew had planted it there in order to protest against Israel. And then I said: “You can’t do that, that’s absolutely the wrong way to go about it. We cannot do that, not with our past.” And then I developed my ideas on how to go about it and then my conversational partner said: “Well, if you know how to do it, then why don’t you?” That was practically the imperative command for me to do it.
M.F. But you went to Jordan and were trained by the Palestinians.
H.M. Yes, certainly.
M.F. Militarily trained.
H.M. Of course.
M.F. But that does tend to speak for a couple of plastic bombs. Well, as far as I know, back then just as today, if you are trained in such training camps then paramilitary …
H.M. Yes, of course. Building bombs and so forth is also part of the training. Yes.
M.F. Do you consider force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. If need be as cash in payment transactions between nations [German: Peoples], yes.
M.F. Now I really didn’t understand that.
H.M. (laughs) You see.
M.F. Do you consider force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. In the sense that – and I have to say this because otherwise you’ll twist the meaning again …
M.F. I’m not twisting anything. You’re saying …
H.M. Peoples [English: nations] have the right and the obligation to war and peace whenever it is a question of their preservation and development. After all, these antagonisms exist between the Peoples as well, and at the end of the day, when all other means fail, these antagonisms are executed through the use of force – and that’s the cash.
M.F. Do you consider force in the Federal Republic of Germany, within the Federal Republic of Germany, as an instrument to assert your political goals?
H.M. Absolutely not. This I have realised. No, and once again no. Rather, our weapons are spiritual [intellectual] weapons, and they hit their target. And that’s why we’re being persecuted, because we speak the truth.
M.F. You’re smiling.
H.M. Yes, of course.
(…)
M.F. That means you also condemn, shall we say, you also condemn it for example when Nazis beat up this man (* see photo). Do you know this man?
The Briton Noël Martin who is paraplegic following a neo-Nazi attack. Friedman confronted Mahler with this picture.*
H.M. You know, I’m not familiar with this case or its background. I clearly condemn it when people are attacked and have their health or life damaged due to reasons that are not connected to self-defence.
M.F. Just a minute. Self-defence, when is it self-defence?
H.M. Well, when I am attacked and I have to save my hide, that’s self-defence.
M.F. Okay. But there’s no such thing as political self-defence?
H.M. Cases of political self-defence exist. Peoples [nations] often act in self-defence.
M.F. I’m speaking of Germans in Germany. I am not speaking of the World War right now. When right-wing extremists attack a foreigner in Germany …
H.M. Then I clearly condemn that.
M.F. Right. We were speaking – because you’re talking about condemning – we were speaking about the Jewish …
H.M. But let us get back to self-defence. We are in a situation that demands self-defence, a murder of our soul is being perpetrated against us.
M.F. A murder of the soul?
H.M. A murder of the soul. And that also means that the People is being murdered. It lives from within the soul.
M.F. That means you then have a right to use force?
H.M. No. A right to self-defence with the weapons that are necessary, that is with weapons that will overcome this necessity. The use of force [i.e. violence] would downright strengthen the Jewish position. The Jews need that.
M.F. I see, the Jews need force?
H.M. That’s what the Jews need.
M.F. The Jews, what do the Jews need?
H.M. Force, so that they can portray themselves as victims again.
M.F. I see, that means the victims need Nazis?
H.M. Yes, in the sense that you understand it; so that they can portray themselves as Jews.
M.F. For that we have to be grateful to them?
H.M. As I said: I am grateful to the caterpillar because I became a butterfly through the caterpillar.
M.F. Okay. Tell me – because you said that there was no Holocaust – are these pictures authentic? (Friedman shows Mahler a photo of liberated concentration camp inmates. In the background there is a horse-drawn cart. – ed.)
H.M. They might be authentic, but what does a picture tell us? So, there are people here who are almost starved, who …
M.F. Yes, who were liberated from a concentration camp, a German concentration camp.
H.M. Yes, that’s what you say. Back here I see horses, so it’s possibly a trek of refugees. It’s possible they were taken prisoner to produce such pictures.
M.F. So you’re refuting that such things happened. Do you also refute that Jews were in German concentration camps?
H.M. No, no. After all, I’m not stupid.
M.F. That makes for a splendid debate. (laughs)
H.M. Yeah, there you go. (laughs)
M.F. You refute that there were Jews in this [almost starved to death] condition in the concentration camps?
H.M. Yes. It may have been. You know, if you take Bergen-Belsen for example, there were these mountains of corpses who had starved to death and that were shoved into a mass grave by a bulldozer. That picture haunted me my whole life. But you have to ask: Why did they end up in this condition? We had the typhus epidemic, we had the hunger after Allied bombers had bombed all the supply routes – systematically.
M.F. It’s just strange that German Christians never looked like that. Nor Muslims.
H.M. Oh, oh, oh. Take a look at the German soldiers who then starved to death in captivity.
M.F. But they didn’t look like this.
H.M. They looked like this.
(…)
H.M. (…) Not the manner in which people have thus far concerned themselves with God through the use of the books Torah, Bible, and New Testament is decisive, but the way in which Hegel did in German philosophy. (…)
(…)
VANITY FAIR And why is Hegel decisive in Christianity?
H.M. Because he thought God – the Spirit – in pure thoughts. This is the Logic which he developed, that God is the contradiction, the Spirit that lives. It is contradiction which constitutes that which lives. And that which we call Evil belongs to this contradiction as a moment of its development. We have a thumb, in order to conceive, and that (inaudible passage) of the Jews .
(…)
M.F. No, no. Stick to your own language. I don’t need Hegel. Your language is far more exciting than Hegel’s. I can read Hegel up myself.
H.M. Look, the conceptual language of Hegel is a lot clearer, but when dealing with people who have never occupied themselves with these matters, then the term “Satan” is appropriate and correct. Philosophically Satan is the negativity, the absolute negativity as existence of a People.
M.F. Would you wish that Germany has world domination again?
H.M. Germany never desired world domination in the sense that you understand it. The German spirit …
M.F. I don’t know, I only asked. (laughs)
H.M. The German spirit …
M.F. I don’t understand anything.
H.M. … will – this is what Nahum Goldmann says, and he’s right – dominate in the world, not dominate the world, for the spirit liberates.
M.F. What is the German spirit?
H.M. The German spirit is the consciousness – that is the philosophically cleansed consciousness – that God is not the sublime, not the jealous one who desires to destroy the other Peoples and who chooses one People so that it may kill the others, but rather, that we are in God and God is in us. That is the German spirit.
M.F. What is the German Reich, and what are the German values? After all, you don’t mean a theocratical state.
H.M. Certainly not.
M.F. Or do you suddenly want to have a theocratical state in Germany? Hello Islamists.
H.M. No, no. No, no. German values are thoroughness.
M.F. Ah, now I’m beginning to understand you.
H.M. That one gets to the bottom of things.
M.F. Yes.
H.M. That one wants to organise the world in a good manner.
M.F. What is “organising the world in a good manner”?
H.M. Well, that’s a question of what you perceive to be good.
M.F. Okay. What is “organising the world in a good manner” in your sense?
H.M. For example that a small handful of plutocrats – an expression of Coudenhove-Kalergi – does not suck the world dry until it collapses, a collapse that we’re possibly experiencing right now.
M.F. How do you want to stop this?
H.M. By taking usury away from the Jew, from the plutocrat, by no longer permitting credit as private credit, but as an economic-political measure of state and communal …
M.F. But Herr Ackermann isn’t Jewish.
H.M. Pardon?
M.F. You heard me right.
H.M. You mean Ackermann?
M.F. Herr Ackermann isn’t Jewish.
H.M. No, no. No, no. The Jews always have gentiles at their side, so that they can always say: But that’s not the Jews, that’s the … A very clever tactic.
M.F. So the Deutsche Bank belongs to the Jews?
H.M. No, just a moment. I didn’t say that.
M.F. But?
H.M. You let the banking establishment be. However, it can be subdued at any time through competition.
M.F. But that is not compelling. For someone who thinks thoroughly, that is not compelling. You said, you take away usury by not allowing the Jews to do so. Most states are money lenders, in other words states raise the credit. Most banks are in their majority really not Jewish, even if one takes megalomania and paranoia on your behalf into consideration. Now that I do not understand.
H.M. Look, it’s already in Moses: There are many Peoples which you – Jewish People – will …
M.F. Don’t quote Moses, quote …
H.M. No. Don’t interrupt me when I have something to say …
M.F. No, I want to talk with you.
H.M. … to which I reply …
M.F. Look, Herr Mahler, just so that we understand each other because this will happen each time. I don’t think much of … I would like to talk with you. You know [if you cite] what Moses said, then I’m talking to Moses
H.M. No, no. Just a moment, this is a fundamental point that I am making as Horst Mahler, by saying that this is a foundation of the Jewish spirit.
(…)
H.M. … this is precisely the principle: And you will lend to many Peoples but will borrow from nobody. And the Lord shall make you the head and not the tail. And you will always rise and not sink, because you are obedient to the commands of the Lord your God, which today I command you to hold and to keep .
(…)
H.M. And the Jewish banks have the power. These are not just banks, these are money collecting points in general. And they also hold the others in dependence. After all, this is the Jewish principle: to pull the strings from a second area, and to be the actual rulers behind the rulers.
V.F. What’s also practical here is the fact that this is an assertion that can never be proven since everything that speaks against it could also be a manipulation.
H.M. It is always a question of what one holds to be true. This isn’t a mathematical proof.
(…)
M.F. What do you think of the Turks?
H.M. You know, we have a problem with the Turks, and we will solve it.
M.F. What kind of problem do you have, and how will you solve it?
H.M. For example: the Turks are probably one of the nations who first fell victim to a certain Jewish tactic. Kemal Atatürk strengthened the Jewish moment in Turkey by fighting Islam. With great surprise I took note of the fact that since the 16th century, the upper class in Turkey has been comprised of Turks, and that they have everywhere pulled the strings. They were expelled from Spain.
M.F. You mean “Jews”? You just said “Turks”.
H.M. Yes, I can’t separate that because the Turks are under foreign rule, just as we are under foreign rule through Jewish forces.
M.F. Okay. And how do you solve that? So, you said that the problem of Turkey is that it is ruled by the Jews? You said …
H.M. Yes, certainly.
M.F. … the Turks have a problem and I want to solve it.
H.M. Yes.
M.F. My question was: “What is the problem?” and you then say the problem of Turkey is that it is ruled by Jews.
H.M. Yes.
M.F. So, how do you solve it?
H.M. The Turks are currently solving this problem in Turkey, out of their perspective and point of interest by rising up against the so-called White Turks. The Black Turks are the Islam oriented Turks. Against the White Turks who are secular, that is of Jewish character and who form the upper class.
M.F. What do you think of the Turks in Germany?
H.M. Nothing.
M.F. Why?
H.M. They don’t belong in Germany, they belong in Turkey.
M.F. Why?
H.M. The Jews will … the Jews will probably also realise this, but the Turks will realise that Turkey is their home country. And they will return to their home.
M.F. Why? Why can’t a few thousand, a hundred thousand, or one or two million Turks live in Germany?
H.M. We’re speaking of millions.
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Well, because that’s not possible.
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Because this is German territory and the German People, and it is only possible for one People to live in a territory and to develop itself and to keep foreign influences outside of itself.
M.F. And what about, shall we say, the one and a half or two million East Europeans living here?
H.M. Well, my principle is: All foreigners are to return to where they came from.
M.F. You know that there are over one and a half million Germans living abroad. Do they have to return to Germany?
H.M. Oh, I’d be glad if they all returned to Germany.
M.F. Do they have to return?
H.M. You can’t force them to.
M.F. So why are you then forcing the foreigners to leave?
H.M. Well, you know if somebody comes into my house as a guest and then stays even though it is my will that he leave, then I will see to it that he leaves the house.
M.F. How do you see to it, if he does not wish to leave?
From left to right: Mahler’s partner Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler, Michel Friedman, VF editor Daniel-Dylan Böhmer.
H.M. Well, that will show itself.
M.F. No, no. How do you see to it?
H.M. I assume that the Turks clearly realise that Turkey is their country.
M.F. How do you see to it if they don’t want to? Most foreigners don’t want to leave.
H.M. You know, if the laws of the Reich are not adhered to, then the Reich has the power to enforce them.
M.F. How?
H.M. How? By using all necessary means. Now you can consider for yourself: what is necessary?
M.F. So that includes kicking them out?
H.M. Why of course. Of course. This is the most obvious right of an every People (bangs on the table), to remove foreigners from its territory. This is the beginning of sovereignty.
V.F. And theoretically any German can do this?
H.M. No.
V.F. According to your understanding every German can defend the Reich, right?
H.M. No, no, no. Obviously not every German, but the German Reich. And for this purpose the German Reich’s ability to act as a power must be restored – amongst other things. Otherwise things will get out of hand, as in the case here, where individual Germans believe that they can and must solve this problem in this manner. And that’s terrible. That must not be, because it will fall back on us.
M.F. Well, then the police does it, and beats the guy up and kicks him out, as it was in the Third Reich, or the Gestapo.
H.M. Oh, that … Let me explain that to you.
V.F. I believe I read in one of your texts that each German can feel called upon to defend the Reich and can take the appropriate measures.
H.M. Except, if he beats up a foreigner who is staying on German ground, then he is not looking after the interests of the German Reich but is acting against the German Reich. The German Reich is founded upon Right and ethical principles.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg racial laws Right?
H.M. They were very much welcomed by the Jews. Leo Baeck for example.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg racial laws … (loudly) Look, I’m not speaking with Leo Baeck!
H.M. Yeah, yeah.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg racial laws Right?
H.M. One would have to look into the individual clauses, what they mean …
M.F. If you feel like it, you can continue for half an hour. In the end I’ll ask you again: Were the Nuremberg racial laws Right?
H.M. They were Right because they were the will of the People.
(…)
M.F. So Europe will also stay in the German Reich? [= Will the Reich remain in the EU?]
H.M. No. Look, all these Treaties up to Maastricht are not binding for the German Reich, because the German Reich did not sign them. The German Reich is still unable to act.
M.F. Good, so you want to go back?
H.M. No, not back. Rather, we shape Europe’s future on the basis of today’s interests, and a part of that is that the national states will again …
M.F. What will Germany’s borders then be?
H.M. Germany has the borders of, say, 1871/1937. Take your pick. What will at the end of the day be implemented is a question of power. The German Reich certainly has Right on its side, the territories annexed by Poland belong to it, those from Russia belong to it …
M.F. You want them back?
H.M. Yes, of course.
M.F. And those from Russia as well?
H.M. Yes, if it is at all possible within the framework of a life securing politics.
M.F. But you said: “We no longer want to reverse this.” Do you have to get it back by means of war? If you had the power?
H.M. Look, there is a right to war and peace. And when an injustice has been committed and we have been robbed, then we have the right to take that back. Whether we will then do so, is a question of …
M.F. But theoretically, you’d say that Germany today – as you dream it, when there is a German Reich – that Germany has the right to start a war in order to take back its territories from Poland and Russia?
H.M. As far as I’m concerned: without a doubt.
M.F. Tell me a bit about your time with Baader and Ensslin again. What happened with you back then?
H.M. You know, those were people for whom luxuriousness, comfort, having a normal job were not decisive, but we were somehow seized by the processes that had taken place in Europe and the world throughout the 20th century. And we wanted to contribute to this, and I have great respect, great love for these people.
M.F. Even though they killed people?
H.M. Yes. You see, it was war, and it is war. And they were of the conviction …
M.F. Is it war today?
H.M. Yes, of course it’s war today. The murder of the soul of the German People continues daily and is being intensified.
M.F. So, you’re saying it was war and because of that you feel respect and love for killing, which Ensslin and Baader did.
H.M. I didn’t say respect and love for killing, but for these people who did that.
M.F. Do you dissociate yourself from the things they did?
H.M. No, of course not. Absolutely not.
M.F. But if you don’t dissociate yourself then you’re of the opinion that the instrument of murder was okay in those days.
H.M. No.
M.F. You condemn this?
H.M. This is not a question of condemning. I know that it was wrong, and this led me to the realisation, that I consider to be paramount … It’s not a question of morals but of realisation.
M.F. I’m not talking of morals. But dissociation means that this action, irrespective of morals, was wrong. The killing of Buback …
H.M. … achieved the opposite of that which was intended.
M.F. It’s a question of what is achieved. Take for example Hanns Martin Schleyer – let’s assume it had achieved [its goal], that it had worked. Would it then have been okay?
H.M. It would then have been justifiable.
M.F. So, if the RAF’s goal of bringing about a different Germany had been achieved through the killing of people, then this killing would be justified?
H.M. You know, war is the killing of people.
M.F. I want to … believe me, I’m being so precise because I don’t want you to walk into a trap. On the contrary: I take what you just said very seriously. So, once more: If the goal is achieved through the killing in war, a war that you see continuing today, then is the killing of such people justified?
H.M. You’re asking the question in order to denounce me.
M.F. No!
(…)
M.F. I’m just going to get back to this again and say: If the goal is achieved, then the killing of these people is justified? I’m not at all saying “right” or “wrong”, I’m using your words: justified, yes or no?
H.M. If the goal – the liberation of Germany – can be achieved through these means, then that sacrifice is justified.
M.F. Okay, period.
H.M. Period.
(…)
M.F. What’s your position on the NPD?
H.M. It’s a party.
M.F. Even I know that.
H.M. A national-democratic party, not a national-socialist party. I regret that very much. And I have said what I think of this party: at the end of the day, it’s a part of this system …
(…)
M.F. (…) When the terrorist attack took place on 11 September – how do class that? Was it in accordance with Right, was it legitimate violence?
H.M. You know what my comment was . I was sentenced twice for this statement and I’m still paying this fine off. Meanwhile I know that it was totally different. It was a provocation, those weren’t some freedom fighters, but rather a second Pearl Harbor was needed, as it was expressed by a certain circle around Bush, in order to thrust the world into, well, a war mood, and in order to rebuild the great enemy.
M.F. Does that mean that Bush organised the attack himself?
H.M. Well, I think Bush is far too feeble to be able to do so.
M.F. So who did it?
H.M. No, he was president of an apparatus, who under his presidency contrived these things.
M.F. So the American administration contrived this attack?
H.M. Parts of the same.
(…)
M.F. So they weren’t Arabs?
H.M. No. It is possible that Arabs were used as some minor pieces in the puzzle.
M.F. Okay, but it was American circles that did this themselves?
H.M. Yes, the evidence is becoming increasingly clear and compact. Just show me the planes that are meant to have crashed into these buildings.
M.F. (…) Is al-Qaida an invention of the American administration as well?
H.M. You know, al-Qaida became big – was probably first created – in the war of the Afghan People against Soviet occupation, and was supported by the CIA in this role. This fits into American politics. How much of an effect this is having today is something I cannot judge. I don’t know the facts, just the genesis of it.
(…)
M.F. (…) You ought to be glad that the State of Israel exists. Already there are an X amount of Jews parked there – they’re gone, are out of Europe. So you really ought to be a fighter for the State of Israel, right?
H.M. Do I have to say this again? I do not differentiate world history according to whether I find it pleasing or desirable, but rather I see how it is and I try to grasp Reason within this development. Israel exists, is a foreign body in this region and is practically a factor that is now leading to a new world war. And as such I say: this war will come and …
M.F. Or you destroy Israel.
H.M. No, no, that will be the result. First comes war, then the destruction.
M.F. Are you for the dissolution of the State of Israel?
H.M. Why of course, but that doesn’t mean that all the Jews have to vanish from there, but the state as State of Israel will disappear. This is a clearly apparent development. Being a Jewish functionary you know that full well.
(…)
M.F. I’m going to get back to your time with Baader-Meinhof. Now there’s something you need to explain to me. Forget the terms left and right. What are the points of intersection of that phase and the phase you’re currently in, and what are the differences?
H.M. The point of intersection is when I realised that this method of the struggle results in the opposite of what we were trying to achieve. And this realisation came about while I was in gaol. And I critically expressed it. And it has something to do with the fact that through Hegel it was possible to detach myself from the Marxist interpretation of the historical process. Marx didn’t understand Hegel. Marx was a Jew. Jews have great difficulty understanding Hegel. I have not yet come across one who has truly understood him. Our thoughts were formed towards a theory of revolution, one which springs from the tearing asunder of folkish [national] unity – class war. And we then viewed all this as class war.
M.F. But the RAF didn’t desire a folkish, German identity either. The RAF – please correct me if I’m wrong – was created in order to blow up the Nazi parent generation, including your father.
H.M. Not at all. And I have always clearly stated this. I am not in a position to condemn my father. And I don’t rebuke him …
M.F. But Baader, Ensslin and Meinhof did. That’s why I’m asking …
H.M. Did they?
M.F. Yes, of course.
H.M. Let’s hear citations, let’s hear citations.
M.F. It was always about blowing up this Germany, this Nazi Germany with its feigned post-federal republican consciousness. Whether that’s specifically your father is beside the point.
H.M. Look, those are just interpretations à la Friedman. Let me tell you in my own words: We were of the opinion that the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler was indeed guilty in the sense that the propaganda insistently told us. And we didn’t want to have anything to do with that, and we said: Whatever our parents said, did or caused, and they didn’t resist – we certainly will resist, today, here and now. We saw Vietnam, we had previously seen Algeria and everywhere we recognised the same power at work.
M.F. But that’s no reason to blow Buback up. He has about as much to do with Vietnam as does a cow with the moon landing.
H.M. Look, Buback was a …
M.F. … Schleyer has …
H.M. … part of the apparatus that was active in suppressing all liberation movements in Germany. An instrument of foreign rule.
M.F. Are you trying to say …
H.M. And if the group back then assessed that Buback is an enemy against whom we mark this resistance, then that is the decision. But I’ve already said: within the framework of a wrong strategy.
V.F. Yeah, but in the case of Schleyer it was always emphasised – in order to make his guilt more apparent – that he had been in the SS.
H.M. Yes, yes, and that he played a specific part in Czechia, the way that was then portrayed.
V.F. But that suggests that the RAF did not have a positive attitude towards the Third Reich.
M.F. It’s a matter of dissociating oneself from all these SS biographies of the parents.
H.M. Yes. We wanted to be different, and in that sense maybe better.
(…)
M.F. Right. And that’s why I say: where were the points of intersection? As my colleague has just correctly pointed out, the RAF consciously wanted to set an example of what they thought of the Nazis. The RAF didn’t want a folkish Germany, they wanted to leave that behind them. Where are the points of intersection between Horst Mahler, RAF and Horst Mahler … Let me ask you: Do you feel offended if somebody says you’re a National Socialist?
H.M. No, on the contrary, I feel honoured.
M.F. Do you feel offended if somebody abbreviates that – as in the 1930s – and says: “Horst Mahler is a Nazi”?
H.M. Well, I know that Goebbels used this expression, which is why I wouldn’t disapprove. But many people say that Nazi is inaccurate and wrong because that would then be called National Zionism.
M.F. Very well. But why don’t you tell me, where – and this seriously interests me – where are the points of intersection between RAF-Mahler and the National Socialist Horst Mahler?
H.M. Well, I’ve already told you the decisive one: the realisation that the use of military force in Germany leads to the opposite of what …
M.F. No, I mean concerning the content. What did you fight for back then? I mean that content wise.
H.M. Always for the same, always for the same.
(…)
M.F. (…) When did you realise, and what was the crucial experience that made you believe that that’s all propaganda and that you have been burdened with guilt as a German? When did you switch from path A over to path B? What was it, and when exactly was this? What was your crucial experience?
H.M. There were two. Firstly – and this was then expressed in my laudation on the occasion of Rohrmoser’s 70th birthday. I still believed in the so-called Holocaust back then and I said: And if – as some believe – it did not take place, then we would have to invent it in order to push the spiritual [intellectual] historical debate to the height to which it belongs. Then Frank Rennicke approached me, after I had declared that I would defend the NPD, and asked whether I would be prepared to defend him against the reproach of Holocaust denial as well. I then said: “Yes, I’ll do it.” Then I defended him. That is the first charge that was brought against me, because in this trial I had put forward motions to hear evidence.
M.F. When was this?
H.M. Around 2002. The motion is years old. It still hasn’t been decided. And then I had to look into the facts of the so-called …
M.F. So the turning point of your situational awareness occurred in the year 2002 when …
H.M. Yes. I then no longer believed in this, because I studied the data that the so-called Revisionists had collected. And it then became apparent that this is a gigantic propaganda lie. And this didn’t let go of me. In the mean time I know that the blueprints for this practice were executed in Russia in 1903 after the Kishinev pogrom. Solzhenitsyn recounted this is minute detail.
(…)
V.F. Do you think Andreas Baader would be on your side, and Ulrike Meinhof would be on your side today if they had survived?
H.M. Well, Ulrike Meinhof certainly.
V.F. Why?
H.M. Because she was a very contemplative, brooding person, and would certainly have been open for these thoughts. She had no problem at all following all thoughts and checking – what can I hold to be true and what not. Concerning Andreas Baader, that’s a very complex personality, I have difficulties pigeonholing him. There were very positive aspects to his personality, which I admired in him. But there were also aspects where I said, that can’t be. And where he would stand today, I don’t know.
V.F. Were you enemies before you went to prison? Had you become enemies, you and Baader?
H.M. No, no, no. Not at all.
M.F. What do you think of Otto Schily , with whom you used to stand on the same side?
H.M. You see, concerning Otto Schily, I believe that his personality has changed in a negative manner. You can see it in his face. As long as I knew him, I had great respect for him. A man of integrity. (…)
(…)
M.F. Yes, well. But he signed the motion to ban the NPD, for example.
H.M. Yes, as I said, he has really broken with his personality.
M.F. In which direction?
H.M. Well, he’s become a cynic. Fouché, preservation of power, security for power – for the established power, not for the national comrades [members of the People]. And he has totally and utterly committed himself to this system.
M.F. Also a vassal of the Jews?
H.M. Yes, of course.
(…)
M.F. Gerhard Schröder ? After all, in your most difficult time he got you readmitted to the bar.
(…)
H.M. Yes, he’s a person who is controlled from the outside – who is very much dependent on what people think and say about him. And that covers up the core of his personality, which would probably have to be judged positively, if he weren’t at the mercy of these compulsions of being popular with the public, of selling his political role on TV in a way that he can no longer act freely.
M.F. Is he a vassal of world Jewry?
H.M. Yes, certainly. He was. I don’t know whether he still is.
M.F. What about Angela Merkel? I mean she’s from the East [GDR], she has a totally different socialisation – she’s been in the Federal Republic for 17 years. How do you judge her?
H.M. Well, everybody who holds the position of chancellor is instructed – and I am absolutely convinced of this – by those who were truly victorious over Germany what that signifies for the current politics of the Federal Republic: namely the safeguarding and continued enforcement of the war aims. And they will tell them – obviously not in these words, but the message will be: It’s your choice, either you enable the creeping transition of the German People into its dissolution within Europe, and then everything’s hunky-dory, the people are well off, everything’s pretty, so what more do you want? Or you decide to walk the path of the revival of the German Reich, and then it’s war. And then they will decide, and they have decided. And then they are vassals and aware of it.
V.F. Pardon me, Herr Mahler, this is now a rather impulsive question, but couldn’t it be that most people no longer have any interest whatsoever in the German Reich? In other words neither the people you describe as vassals, nor those that you describe as foreign rulers?
H.M. You know, let’s be blunt: Adolf Hitler, the way he is portrayed today, is rejected by most people. The way the German Reich is portrayed, it is rejected by most people. But they’re rejecting due to a deception. We are living in the age of deception, and that’s the decisive point.
V.F. Perhaps this has become irrelevant.
H.M. No, no, not at all. On the contrary, all our freedom depends on this, at the end of the day our life depends on this. And that’s easy to bring across. Only, if you say, that’s the devil, and people believe it, then they’ll say: for God’s sake, get rid of this. And that is of course the point were we apply leverage and say: No, it was totally different.
(…)
M.F. How do you take your leave? The way you entered? Or how do you say goodbye? I mean I witnessed your greeting. How does a representative of the German Reich say goodbye?
H.M. Farewell.
M.F. Ah. In the olden days one always screamed “Heil Hitler”, right?
H.M. That I don’t know.
M.F. Thank you.
H.M. Yes.
Translated by Markus Haverkamp