The first part on CJ Hopkins' harassment by the German authorities with fabricated accusations is here:
CJ Hopkins and the fight for freedom of speech in the EU
You'd think it worked, this time the consequence was acquittal, but it doesn't always gotta be. We can enjoy the sentence, but we should remember that this is not the end. The mainstream media does not study specified matters, although they are crucial. Hundreds of events of this kind happening in all countries called democratic Zach...
The triumph was temporary, the German prosecutors appealed against the acquittal sentence. In this connection, I am publishing in full another post by the author, which was posted simultaneously on his Substack and on:
https://consentfactory.org/2024/02/02/04/the-resistible-rise-of-the-new-normal-reich/
CJ HopkinsRead this short text. These are crucial texts that show how critical times we live. The translation and the fat in the text are mine.
The Resistible emergence of The fresh average Reich - CJ Hopkins
However, the German authorities appealed to the criminal court last week for the repeal of my acquittal. Apparently, they plan to put me in court until they find a justice who's willing to convict me for something or bankrupt the legal costs. I'm specified a fool, for a minute I truly started to believe it was over.
Let me rapidly remind you how I got here, for everyone who just joined.
I am the author and satirist and political commentator. In August 2022 I posted 2 tweets, in which I criticized the order to wear masks and mocked Karl Lauterbach, German wellness minister. Both tweets featured a photograph from the cover of my latest book, The emergence of The fresh average Reich: Consent mill Essays, Volume III (2020-2021).
The German authorities underestimated these tweets, so (1) censored them on Twitter, (2) Made Amazon ban my book in Germany and (3) they dragged me into a criminal court and accused me of an imaginary “hate crime”.
Last week, the justice acquitted me of these charges., after which she began a tirade in which she greatly insulted me, and then put on a "Covid mask" and left the courtroom. During her speech, she made a large spectacle, announcing that by acquitting me from fabricated hatred crimes charges, she proves that “Germany is not a totalitarian state” ... you know, a totalitarian state in which books are banned, political speeches are censored, and dissident authors are harassed by police and subjected to absurd demonstration processes.
The justice had no choice but to acquit me, due to the fact that the applicable German law is clear as my lawyer reminded her in his pretrial writings, And besides due to the fact that my case was echoed in the global press. Besides, the audience gallery was full, and there were quite a few independent media in the courtroom. Unlike German mainstream media, which have been spreading government propaganda for years like proverbial Goebbels keyboard instrument and were besides busy reporting government-sponsored mass demonstrations against the only political opposition of the government to give any attention to my political accusations, to the ban on my book, government censorship and so on, any alternate German media are inactive curious in real journalism.
The prosecutor, who appeared to be drugged or on strong sedatives, was clearly dissatisfied with the performance in front of an overcrowded hall. He spent the proceedings hidden behind 1 of these “anti-Covid” panels from the Plexiglas, for which cashiers inactive gotta sit in grocery stores and another commercial outlets, so I could not realize any vague word. The essence of his argument was that, although I did not intend to "dissemination of the propaganda of the pro-Nazi", I did "disseminate the propaganda of the pro-Nazi", comparing Germany's fresh Normality with Nazi Germany and "uselessly utilizing swastika in the work of art".
My favourite part of the prosecutor's argument was presented in a pretrial letter addressed to the court, not during the trial itself. He accused me of "relativising the Holocaust" due to the fact that he claimed that comparing fresh average Germany to Nazi Germany was incompatible with facts, which is revealing, and simply astoundingly ignorant.
Here is simply a translation of a passage of his writing (italic emphasis is mine):
"...the accused is curious in relativising this Nazi tyranny, which is besides the goal of supporters of this ideology in another form. utilizing specifically swastika, the suspect identifiescrisis management measures from 2020-2022, which were created under constitutional procedures and were enacted and implemented by and through democratically legitimised institutions, with the dictatorial methods of the Nazi government and thus, regardless of its intentions, promotes the standardisation of ideas and actions of national socialism."
Of course, the past of turning Germany into a Nazi dictatorship by means of “constitutional procedures and democratic processes” is highly well documented. In the July 1932 election, the Nazi organization won 37.3% of the vote and became the largest organization in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler Chancellor of Germany. Following the Reichstag fire, Hitler persuaded von Hindenburg to issue a decree on the Reichstag fire, which severely restricted the freedoms and rights of German citizens. Then, on 23 March, Reichstag passed an Act authorising 1933. This law gave the government the power to repeal the rights of an individual as defined in the Constitution due to the alleged state of emergency. All of this “has been adopted and implemented by and through democratically legitimised institutions in constitutional proceduresIt’s okay. ”
The justice did everything in her power to halt me from quoting the full communicative in court to prevent me from relativating the Holocaust in her courtroom, in front of everyone, or to make the prosecutor look like a moron, but it was besides late, her question opened the door.
Then there was a comic episode in which the justice displayed my tweets in a large magnification on the screen utilizing a projector, specified as the 1 they utilized in primary school, and then interviewed me in item whether swastikas in an offensive work of art were “on the mask” or “behind the mask”. For a minute I was reasoning about asking the artist, Anthony Fredy, to take a break from work to prepare, sign and fax a notarized message to the court, explaining the details of his creative process and the state of his head “at the minute of creation”, but I remembered that fresh York was only 6 a.m., which I think might have been a small early for Anthony.
Yeah, the full process was as far-fetched as it seems, but the thing is, accusations like mine should never go to court. The game played by the German authorities is somewhat akin to a game of settlement in which prosecutors in the United States conduct, and which American readers know from watching all the programs about police officers on television. The way this game works in Germany is that they accuse you of misconduct and impose a advanced fine, but much lower than the price you will gotta pay a lawyer to fight it in court. They number on you to simply pay the fine and avoid a trial in which a justice could double or triple the fine or even conviction you to prison. It does not substance that they have no actual legal arguments to support the allegations. Basically, it's just abuse tactics.
I've never responded well to stalkers. I have an aversion to totalitarians, fascists, and another authoritarian control maniacs who take power from intimidation, domination and feeding on the weak. My natural instinct, erstwhile I'm threatened by tyrants and another types of fascist freaks, tells me to face to face and check their bluff. Which doesn't always end well. For example, the cops will just knock you off your feet and beat you if you stand up to them, just like most hardened criminals will. But this usually works with tiny public officials and another specified "respected authorities", or at least those who are forced to keep the appearance of compliance with the regulation of law and basic principles of democracy.
This is an crucial point, due to the fact that it is the fresh average Reich "quick Achilles". I explained it in a erstwhile essay. Pathologicized Totalitarism 101 November 2021.
"New Normality Totalitarianism – and any global-capitalistic form of totalitarianism – it cannot present itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. He can't admit his political character. To exist, it cannot exist. First of all, he must erase his force (violence to which the full policy yet boils) And appear to us as a fundamentally affirmative consequence to the legitimate "global wellness crisis", "climate change crisis" and "racial crisis" and any another “global crises” that, according to GloboCap's intentions, terrorize the masses in [the] state of mindless, following the order of hysteria [...] This pathization of totalitarianism is the most crucial difference between the totalitarianism of fresh average and the totalitarianism of the 20th century."
In another words, this new, emerging form of global totalitarianism cannot afford to look like "totalizticism". He cannot wear advanced shoes and black leather trainers and start jumping with large fascist banners, putting people against the walls and shooting at them, at least not here, in the heart of the empire.
The only way this form of totalitarianism works is that people like my justice and countless thousands of Germans belonging to fresh NormalityThose who went out on the streets have shown their unquestionable loyalty to the Reich and demanded Prohibition of political oppositionThey demanded segregation and persecution of “unvaccinated” or showing solidarity with Ukrainian neo-Nazisor support Israeli liquidation of GazaOr anything else they were told to uncritically support or show solidarity with... The only way it works (i.e. totalitarianism) is that people, not only Germany, but Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, and "New Good Normality" throughout the West, will be able to convince themselves and each another that they are "the best good people", those who "defend democracy", while at the same time leading us on the way to totalitarianism.
Yes, I know, I repeat. I'm going to repeat myself. The only way that all of this does not end with an highly ugly and dystopian script is to scope out to these "new good norms". I am not talking about trying to convince them of anything, about winning disputes about the “virus”, “vaccination”, Israel or Trump, or about challenging them. I'm talking about confronting them with what they're doing. I am talking about stopping their intellectual programming – even for a fewer fleeting seconds – by applying a faithful mirror to them and forcing them to look straight into them and admit what they have become.
I did the same thing last week in a criminal court. That's why the justice was forced to acquit me, and that's why she felt compelled to utter this tirade and put on a mask to make an crucial statement. She could have convicted me. She most likely wanted to. In her mind, and besides in the minds of most fresh average people, people like me are an existential threat. But to convict me, she would gotta watch herself mock the law and act like a fascist... like a totalitarian officer.
Call me a hopeless idealist if you want to, but I gotta believe that somewhere deep down even the most fanatical fresh Normalists (and in any case most of them) there is simply a decent man, having rules that don't want to be fascist (or at least he doesn't want to look fascist), and who can inactive be reached if he can be forced to take the position, as the justice was forced last week. I gotta believe that all short break, all glimpse of myself in the mirror, including the course of time, destroys their intellectual condition.
Anyway, it's a explanation that I've been operating for a long time. I think I'll effort again at the next show trial.
CJ Hopkins
4 February 2024
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Sign up for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
And in conclusion, my lengthy remark. Starting an invasion of Ukraine, Putin mentioned the necessity of denasification. This outraged everyone, despite the fact that the crucial participation of neo-Nazi groups in the political life of Ukraine, including the creation of neo-Nazi armed forces, was previously well known and widely described in the Western media. individual then recalled Winston Churchill's expected message about future fascists portraying themselves as anti-fascists. Although all way of kicking Putin for free media is good and acceptable, any justified lie, in this peculiar case the fact-checkers immediately spoke. They tried hard to pull that expression out of their teeth, reportedly showing that Winston Churchill never said it, even quoting someone. Clearly, the spread of specified an reflection in society was considered besides dangerous, regardless of its author and the immediate benefit.
It's more than a simple message about fascists posing as anti-fascists. Fascists or general servants of totalitarianism should be associated with screaming men, physical violence, military drill, marching boots, waving flags and torches. What we are not to announcement is that in our day they are equally likely to be gentle women, signaling their progressive and caring values at all step. Gentle smiling beings working for the “common good”, saving the planet, protecting the weak and susceptible and thus taking tiny steps to destruct civilian rights and freedom of speech. Good intentions carriers implementing full control in the name of higher values in this way leading us into totalitarianism.
Once you see it, you can't see it.
She asks for Jacinda Ardern, a very caring Prime Minister of fresh Zealand, but we can find many examples right next door, in the EU and in Poland. Attributed to Churchill, the reflection is dangerous, as it undermines the current narrative, allows us to look at the ongoing social changes from a different angle than the mainstream media supports us and thereby destruct the actions of the globalists.
