Issue of the "KETZERBRIEFE" ["Heretics' Letters"] censored!

After a five months' silence – obviously resulting from the calculation, that public interest which had manifested itself in numerous protest letters would have waned after that stretch of time – the "Federal Office for the Control of Media Harmful to Young Persons" informed AHRIMAN Publishers, that issue No 157/158 of the periodical "KETZERBRIEFE – Flaschenpost für unangepaßte Gedanken" ["Heretics' Letters – Bottle Post for Non-Conformist Thoughts"] had been put on the "List of Media Harmful to Young Persons" with immediate effect.

Please consider before you continue reading, that informing about this arbitrary act alone is already threatened with punishment by the very authorities of that very state that makes use of it or commits such acts, respectively.

As you will remember, this issue of the "KETZERBRIEFE" was dedicated to the defence of the film director Roman Polanski, who had been arrested as a hostage in Switzerland, as well as to the unbiased discussion, lead without fear, of interrelated subjects concerning "sexual self-determination" against the background of the new islamoid-puritan US laws on sexual offences which, on the directive of the US government, are to be installed all over Europe (and have partly been installed already) by means of fomenting a paedophile hysteria quite comparable to the witch-hunting mania. As things now stand – Polanski has been released after months of wearing detention, not least, as we may say, thanks to the international campaign of solidarity in which we played a substantial part. The present act of censorship shows that the hatred does not aim so much at certain individuals but at the core of self-determination, as we already stated in our first letter:

No one should be allowed to have their own thoughts and perceive their own sensations – this is why they exert censorship!
Fear, inhibitions, denunciation and grudger's mentality instead of mental vigor, intelligence, ability to remember and – cross yourselves! – carefree, fearless sexuality – that is why they exert censorship!

Of course, this arbitrary act lacks any legal grounds and is based on nothing but a lie – the allegation we had added any value judgement from our side to the published autobiographical texts. The lady censors made a point of delivering pseudo-"grounds" larded with juridical monstrosities taking ten pages – these folks do have time, indeed! – which we enclose for your information. Please read – and smell the latrine odour of a state under the rule of unlawfulness! After all, you can gather from this lengthy inquisitors' blather, that their craving for censorship and their obsession with patronizing are aiming at much more than the pretended "protection of children and young persons", the substance of which as a cheap pretext is obvious: they are targeting at sexual self-determination in the widest sense of the word, namely at "nudity" and "promiscuity" (literally translated "mixed, without making a difference, all one and the same", a nasty pejorative foreign word for any sexual activity beyond compulsory monogamy). This opens up a wide field for the lady censors (gasp! gasp!...)
     Putting this issue of the Ketzerbriefe on the index is intended to break the dam for a flood of mud of sexual repression, aiming at suffocating any stir of freedom. Putting this issue on the index aims at sounding the death halloo opening the hunt on any bare female nipple just as during Adenauer's stinky times as well as opening the door wide to snooping and denunciation.

This is by no means an isolated incident; as the case of the "Ferkelbuch",("Wo bitte geht's zu Gott, fragte das kleine Ferkel" ["Please, Where is the Way to God?, the Little Piglet asked"], published by Alibri Publishing House exemplifies, this censorship office is nothing but an instrument for exerting shameful arbitrariness. (The author of the book, Michael Schmidt-Salomon, was an editor of the magazine MIZ of the International League of Non-Religious and Atheists (IBKA) for many years.)

From pages 10sq. of this inquisitors' letter you will also learn to what harassing restrictions our activities as publishers will be subdued from now on, including the threat of punishment for informing the public about this act of censorship as mentioned above. As to its obscenety, this only comes up to the "oath of peace", by which the tortured victims of the Inquisition had to swear not to take revenge (de non ulciscendo) for the wrong they had suffered. As if 500 years were just a day (the Index librorum prohibitorum fits in that)!

It is your protest what counts now – only the voice of the public can make this treacherous stabbing in the dark undone! We enclose with this letter our objection to this act of censorship, from which you may take further information.
     Please be clear concerning the facts and polite in form; invectives will only be harmful, as they will provide welcome pretextes for further chicaneries and arbitrary acts! And, finally: tell your friends and acquaintances about this dirty assault on the freedom of expression and ask them to protest!

And this is our response:

To the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien
Attn.: Mrs. Monssen-Engberding
Rochusstr. 10
53123 Bonn

Re.: Pr. 389/10

1. Objection to decision No. 9388 (V) of August 4th, 2010.

2. Application to remove the journal "KETZERBRIEFE – Flaschenpost für unangepaßte Gedanken" ["Heretics' Letters – Bottle Post for Non-Conformist Thoughts"], issue No. 157/158 from part A of the List of Media Harmful To Young Persons.

3. Application for decision by the complete Committee of the Federal Office for the Control of Media Harmful To Young Persons.

Hereby we object to the entry-notification dated August 4th, 2010 informing us that the journal "KETZERBRIEFE – Flaschenpost für unangepaßte Gedanken", issue 157/158 had been included in part A of the List of Media Harmful To Young Persons, and apply for the removal of this journal from part A of the List of Media Harmful to Young Persons as well as for decision by the complete Committee of the Federal Office for Media Harmful To Young Persons.

Your action to suppress our communications is exclusively based upon a lie, namely the allegation we had added value judgements to authentic witness reports. The remainder of your lengthy statements simply has nothing to do with the matter.
     As exemplified by the "Ferkelbuch" ("piglet book") published by Alibri-Verlag, your institution is nothing but an instrument of despicable arbitrariness serving to make allegations about writings unwelcome to governmental plans which cannot be proven by the texts. A person appreciating logic or even laws can feel nothing but disdain for such action. Now for the details: in its decision, the Federal Office has simply adopted the crudest primitivisms and incorrect statements of the applicant, the Bemerhaven Youth and Family Bureau, while passing over in silence our corrections as well as the numerous protest letters from Germany and abroad.

Rather than obeying to the most basic constitutional principles (Art. 5, Par. 1 GG [German Constitution]): Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources…. There shall be no censorship.) and drop the case, the Federal Office disguised its decision with bombastic juridical phrases, in which the criticized issue of the "KETZERBRIEFE" is not recognizable in any way.
     Let us emphasize once again: the incriminated issue of the "KETZERBRIEFE" does not contain anything that suggests, let alone recommends or even justifies, violent or even only vaguely sexual activities of sexually mature persons on pre-pubertarian minors. (Completely normal contacts like embracing, creaming or similar behaviours, which are based on natural affection for children, are obviously not to be subsumed here, as otherwise every, for example parental, attention towards children would have to be denigrated as paedophilia. Should this in the spirit of the censors be considered "moral" in the future, the damage to the children who allegedly are to be protected, that would surely arise from it is obvious; this is sufficiently demonstrated by statistical data from accordingly "body-hostile" societies from Hitler to Adenauer – not to mention sinister Islamists.) The incriminated examples 2, 3 and 4 (Against any feelings of a child; Sexual attack by a three-year-old girl; Two episodes from childhood) are memories, activities, observations and fantasies of children, which were in no way sexually responded to by the respective adult contact persons. In addition (incriminated example 1: The Destruction of the Better Times...) sexual activities of adolescents, whose right to sexual self-determination we always defend unconditionally, are evaluated and supported exclusively under the aspect of their voluntary nature – hence the exact opposite of violence, which we condemn and despise quite as unconditionally. (The diction of the new islamoid criminal law on sexual offences after US-model, which denies this very right to self-determination to adolescents under 18 years of age, is in our opinion – Art. 5 GG – deeply inhumane and is therefore to be rejected.)
     Any unbiased reader of our journal will most easily find out that the criticized texts are by no means harmful to young persons, but on the contrary, have an enlightening potential. Therefore and again: there shall be no censorship!

Furthermore, the respective censoring ladies did not only shirk to explain their understanding of "normality" and "morality" in the context of sexuality, but they deny with excessively well-tried blindness a fact, which has been recognized by science for more than hundred years: infantile sexuality; hence what clerics and frustrated housewives try to exorcise in children (apparently the old pubic belts for the prevention of infantile masturbation are revived here). Expressing this fact can be prohibited – Hitler has even achieved significantly more in this respect – but the underlying facts cannot be undone. The right to articulate oneself in writing about these matters is the core content of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and cannot be blathered away with hollow lawyer-phrases. As a matter of course we claim this human right for us, in this case, by the way, not invoking the right to "freedom of art", which is deliriously referred to in the decision, but – listen up, as a discipline alien to the applicants' nature does now follow – in the name of freedom of science. Our most important authority states on this subject: "It is true that in the literature on the subject one occasionally comes across remarks upon precocious sexual activity in small children – upon erections, masturbation and even activities resembling coitus. But these are always quoted only as exceptional events, as oddities or as horrifying instances of precocious depravity. So far as I know, not a single author has clearly recognized the regular existence of a sexual instinct in childhood; and in the writings that have become so numerous on the development of children, the chapter on ´Sexual Development´ is as a rule omitted. … In order to complete our picture of infantile sexual life, we must also suppose that the choice of an object … has already frequently or habitually been effected during the years of childhood..."
     The author of these lines is Sigmund Freud (GW Band V, S. 73 und S. 100 [Standard Ed.,Vol VII, p.173 and p. 199]). Should the KETZERBRIEFE be put on the index, be so consequent as to put it there together with Freud's collected works and psychoanalysis as a whole, which represents a significant thematic focus of our work as a publishing house. In case of difficulties in phrasing, a look back at recent history recommends itself: "Against soul-raveling overestimation of instinctual life, for the nobility of the human soul! I surrender to the flames the works of Sigmund Freud!" This is how it was done in 1933 – quite clear isn't it? Or else one simply complies with the relevant article of the Constitution, to which we oblige you herewith.


Encl.: Protest letters sent to your office after the first application of March of this year