Sunday, March 16, 2014
TRUTH IS ABSURD
Seven Years of Stupidity, Lies, and Ignorance Originally Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf was titled My Struggle Against Seven Years of Stupidity, Lies, and Ignorance.
von Hendrik Möbus
I feel I have engaged in a struggle against the same things for the past seven years. What upsets me most is how people take at face value what the media tells them about me. Every half-intelligent person should be aware of the manipulative power held by the mass media. Also, everyone should admit that there is neither a law, nor a moral code in journalism, that makes the journalist speak the truth, and the truth only. The media know quite well the power they have over the minds of individuals and peoples. I know of tabloid newspapers that boast of their opinion forming impact on readers. All this is common sense, yet even the most skeptical people can't avoid being influenced to some extent by the mass media: it is our primary source of information nowadays. In my case, it is the mass media that told millions of Germans, and people abroad also, how to view me and what to think of me. First and foremost, of course, the media bring up the murder case I was involved in. This has been going on for seven years. I can't think of any other murder in Germany which received half of the media coverage that my case received. Seriously, does any German still remember another murder among teenagers that happened seven years ago? I doubt it. While other delinquents receive their one time bashing, and then have everything forgiven and forgotten, German journalists are still reporting on the murder I participated in. They have completely ignored their usual "rest in peace" maxim. But their reporting has changed in amazing ways. Seven years ago, the media reported that a clique of three juvenile "Satanists," killed a schoolmate two years younger than themselves during a "Satanic ritual." This clique had a charismatic "leader" (not me) who played the most important role in the escalating conflict which eventually resulted in the death of the aforementioned teenager. Now, seven years later, it was myself, abetted by two friends, who killed this unfortunate fellow for being "non-Aryan!" Excuse me, but this sounds like two different cases! To set the record straight, and to dispel certain persistent notions, neither of those versions match the facts. The death of this boy resulted from adolescent strife: neither religion nor politics played any role in it. The court came to the conclusion that the mutual decision to kill him was agreed upon (without us talking to each other!) ten minutes before the victim died. The motivation, the court said, was to conceal the treatment (deprivation of liberty) and the injuries (a tiny slash with a knife and several bruises) the victim suffered at our hands within the hour prior to his death. If it wasn't said that we had this motive, the death wouldn't have been murder; it would have been manslaughter. Since the media (disguised as public opinion) demanded severe punishment, the court made up this motive to justify the sentence. Anyhow, I can't see what is so extraordinary about this crime. Teenagers kill and get killed all day long. Neither the victims nor the murderers are haunted by the media for seven years. This case is the single exception. However, I don't want to excuse what I did and I have never asked for special treatment. Alas, I'm also accused of not having properly regretted what I did. I really grow tired of listening to all the many voices who demand a public display of remorse, coupled with an apology to society, for my misdeeds. Let me tell you, nothing I did caused the concrete death of this victim. I didn't strangle him or break his windpipe. I abetted the killing, though, and was thus punished as severely as the others. What I've done is nothing I'm proud of, but it is nothing to regret, either. My mind doesn't work the way others would like it to work. My ethics are archaic and in no way compatible to Judeo-Christian morality. If I were to weep, cry, and beg for forgiveness, I would be a hypocrite. I don't want to be hypocritical, so I simply refuse to give in to the demands that I show remorse. The media take this as evidence of my being a "cold-blooded, remorseless killer." They just don't understand that I see no point in regretting what cannot be undone. I accept what I did -- and life goes on regardless of my attitude. I wouldn't mind the victim being alive. I couldn't care less however that he is dead. I accept my responsibility for what happened as calmly as I accepted my eight years jail time. Many people complain about this "short" sentence, but it really wasn't up to me whether I received 8 years, 88 years, or 800 years. It is German law that sets a maximum of 10 years for juvenile offenses. If you like it or not, I don't care. From my archaic point of view, I really have no obligation to anyone for this incident anymore. I served the two-thirds of the jail time that the authorities said I should serve and my parents paid a considerable sum of money to the relatives of the victim. This is more than what is usually done -- even in the case of the murder of an infant. And I really think it is sufficient to allow people to let go of this case once and for all. Instead, the demand for some sort of public apology has actually increased over the years. This has angered me so much that I've probably made some insensitive remarks about this case in private conversations. Last, but not least, there are some "really smart" people who say that I am out for publicity and that the murder was some sort of grisly PR stunt. They couldn't be further off track, however. I suppose these individuals envy me for the headlines I cause, since they themselves would like to be the focus of attention. Go ahead, is all I can advice them, make yourself a name! How can any reasonable person assume that a crime, a capital crime that is, is some sort of public performance? It is utterly unreasonable to assume I destroyed life and forged a grim fate for myself and for others, for the whim of seeing my name and face in the newspapers. I've never exploited the interest of the media in me. I've turned down countless offers for interviews -- not that I have nothing to say, but I simply think that the case shouldn't be the subject of media coverage at all. And it's not sufficient that I am a "convicted killer" I have to be a "Satan Killer" ("Satansmörder") and a "neo-Nazi killer." The former label is so plainly stupid, it makes you wonder about the general IQ required to be a journalist. Did I kill Satan, or what!? The latter label is not less inappropriate. In April 1993, when the murder took place, I didn't bother with political terminology. I wasn't really interested in politics at all. Back then, the media usually emphasized my being a "Satanist." The victim, they said, died because he ridiculed my clique "Children of Satan" ("Satanskinder"). This name is laughable. A 17-year-old adolescent is eager to be accepted in the community of adults -- he would never voluntarily refer to himself as a "child." The alleged "Satanism" wasn't a big deal either. There never was any serious commitment to Satanism -- just a pubescent play with the most superficial of stereotypes. But, my goodness, who hasn't messed around with occultist subjects at the age of 15? Like so many others, I dismissed those silly notions a long time ago. The media will not allow me any intellectual progression, however. For the sake of scaring the audience with fictional tales of Black Masses, blood sacrifice, and ritual murder, I am damned to be the "Satanist" all my life long, I guess! Talk to anyone who is seriously dedicated to Satanism and you will find that he will just sneer at me. For the true initiate, I'm as "Satanic" as the pope: not at all. This doesn't bother the journalists, of course. They have even dreamed up another name for me: "Nazi-Satanist." Hey, what about "SataNazi"? It sounds much better and it is not a bit less dumb! Frankly, it is beyond my humble imagination how you can lump together Satanism and National Socialism. I don't intend to engage in an elaboration of this issue here. Even for the most ignorant person it should be obvious that that sort of superstitious, medieval, devil worship finds no place in National Socialism. The Obersalzberg shouldn't be mistaken for the Blocksberg. Not until recently did I receive the dubious honor from the media to be a "neo-Nazi" exclusively. I don't contradict them here, but I realize that they do not mean it as a compliment. It is meant to point out that I've gone from bad to worse. I have fallen from grace forever. Being a "Satanist" well, that's a folly for sure, but there is always the hope of salvation. Being a "Nazi," though, means being beyond any hope of redemption. It's like having all the major diseases together, and you shouldn't expect to be treated by your kinsmen otherwise. That is what this idiotic labeling is all about. The media want to stigmatize me with a mark of evil so that no one bothers to have a closer look at me. You read the newspaper, see "Nazi-Satanist" in the headline, and dismiss me as just another nut. I admit, however, that the media is behaving in a pretty smart manner here. To make sure every Joe Smith is turned off, they deal him a double blow: "Satanist": a strike to his guts -- how insulting to every decent religious creed!; "Nazi": a blow to his head -- how disgusting to every reasonable world view! I tell you, no one will give a damn about who I really am after this aggravated assault. It is also slick how they manage to cut me off from support from one of the parties they say I belong to. National Socialists will have a hard time swallowing my being a "Satanist." And Satanists should they actually have sympathies for me, will never accept my being a "neo-Nazi." So you see, all this talk about "what I am" (or rather am supposed to be) serves two purposes only: disinformation and disintegration. People shall not learn what my agenda really is, and they shall not accept me as one of their own kin. Journalists also never tire of telling people that my psychic condition is somehow flawed. A young man so "remorseless and evil" (as I am supposed to be) can't really be like you and me. He must be marked by a serious mental illness, for sure. Well, according to media reports, I'm suffering from all sorts of psychotic and neurotic mumbo-jumbo. After all, haven't I proven that my mind must work wrong? Well, I admit that my mind works differently than what I observe of the minds of others. Whether or not this makes me some sort of freak, I really do not know. Let me tell you, however, that during seven years of at least a dozen psychiatrists and psychologists examining me and working with me, none whatsoever came to the conclusion that I behave in a manner deserving to be labeled as psychotic or neurotic. I am as sound -- or as mad -- as the rest of mankind. Really, do you think that they would have paroled me if I was considered to be a raving lunatic, and thus a menace to society? Of course, the media don't listen to the experts. They consider themselves to be sufficiently trained in human psychology. Someone who holds the Third Reich in high regard? He must be a madman, for sure! By doubting my mental stability they also hope to alienate others from me. Besides, it is a "perfect explanation" for my behavior and attitude. People ought not to take me seriously because whatever I say and whatever I do, it is just the result of my screwed up mind, isn't it? Well, it isn't even sufficient to underline the wrongness of my mind-world to cast me out of society once and for all. I have to be a "criminal" also. There is no doubt that murder is a criminal offense, and thus the murderer a criminal. However, there is a huge difference between someone who commits a crime that is generally alien to his personality, and occurred only once, and someone who commits a crime as part of his way of life. Neither before, nor after, this certain incident have I indulged in criminal activities. Actually, while spending about five years behind bars, I learned a great deal about crime. I've never put this knowledge to use, however. If there had been any indications that I was attracted to a criminal lifestyle, I wouldn't have been paroled at all. The media makes a big fuss of my parole being revoked, of course. This is used by them as proof of my "criminal character." Alas, my probation wasn't revoked do to a violation of the terms of my parole, but to satisfy the demand uttered by journalists (and disguised as "public opinion.") A "fugitive from justice," the Federal government of Germany calls me. What justice, I ask? Is it justice to persecute me for having taken literally the civil liberties promised by the German pseudo-constitution? Am I a criminal for engaging in free speech? I don't think so, and I do not think I should be treated as one either. Therefore I left my home, and all who are dear to me, to seek refuge in the United States of America. What the FRG and the German media is accusing me of is not a crime according to the concept of human rights. Human rights are supposed to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Hence, I am not a criminal for the political "offences" I have allegedly committed after my release on parole in 1998. You see, it really makes me angry to read and to hear, over and over again, who and what I'm supposed to be. What I've told you so far, however, concerns only the major distortions and deception in my case. Seven years of nonstop media coverage of my case have taught me to never trust what the media is writing and broadcasting. While I loathe the journalist, and the powers-that-be for lying and deceiving on purpose, I just pity those poor fellows who fall prey to this manipulation. It is always amazing to encounter people who pretend to know better than I do. They haven't witnessed what I have, they haven't heard what I said, they have never even meet me. Yet they claim to know all about me. Let me tell you, though, they know nothing. They might come up with second and third hand rumors, but mostly they just dream up their stories about me. These stories have no relation to the truth. Adolf Hitler's struggle against stupidity, lies, and ignorance was not victorious for most of his life. And compared to what is said about him, I may have actually been treated rather well by the media! But there are a few people, including myself, who understand the truth about him, despite the countless efforts by certain powerful circles to obliterate this truth for good. Hence, I am hopeful of finding people who are able to grasp the truth about me also. It is to these people that I am addressing this essay. H. Möbus
Batavia, New York October 1, 2000