Read the Basic Law

Basic Law

Other views

Kininigen Blog

Read the Basic Law
and understand

JUSTICE, f. A commodity which the state sells to the citizen in a more or less adulterated state as a reward for his loyalty, taxes, and personal services.

(Engl. JUSTICE, n. A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.)

Bierce, Ambrose Gwinnett (1842 – 1913)

The Federal Republic of Germany

Basic Law

and understand
what is really written there

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany is, supposedly and according to the official bodies, the constitution itself. Most people know by and large at least the most important points it contains, such as equality, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, etc. Everyone has been confronted with it at least at school and has read about it. Reading the Basic Law seems easy. But then understanding what is really written there and not what we expect to be written there is a completely different matter.

At first it was only going to be a series of short posts. But then the importance of it seemed so great that we decided to make a blog post about it. Because it is too important, too elementary to understand the system in which we are forced to live.

To understand further information about the Basic Law, we start with the blocking document.

The importance of the exact definition of the word has been written here several times and there is virtually a whole catalogue of Kininigen that Definitions of terms, so that there is no confusion when it comes to understanding. The blocking text has already been described there.

For a change, let’s quote ourselves:

“Blocking letter means the word is blocked out by the spaces. It deals itself only, around a collection separater letters and not a full-fledged Word with a statement. Therefore it does not have the meaning that is suggested by it and by this deception of the reader's perception seeks to influence. With a surname, you exclude the fiction of a name and show that that the bearer of the name has the status “alive” andd not a person ist.”

No coincidence - intention!

In a country that is known for its absolute order, where everything is standardized and which served as a model for the administrative structure of other countries, should the many different spellings, especially on documents with mostly serious meanings, be an “oversight”? Individual handling? No, certainly not.

Hardly likely.

Since an error can be ruled out, the only reason that remains is intent.

Blocking signature

But what is the intention behind it?

Intentional deception. Deception in legal transactions.

The creation of an illusion of something that is not actually there.
It is the mind of the reader that ultimately puts together individual letters, standing alone in a sequence, to form a word and gives it meaning, engaging with it freely.

Underlined, strictly speaking, has the same meaning as crossed out.

These spaces, which separate words from each other and whose absence makes these letters a word in the first place, are also useful when you don't want something to be found, as in this picture.

There is even a special term for separating words that belong together without omitting the hyphen, which is colloquially called stupid spaces called.

As we all know, anything is allowed in war and this is reflected in the word “stratagem”.

The courts of the operating system distinguish, for example, “between a perhaps still permissible trick and a punishable deceit.”

Not only in German criminal law, but also in international law, there is a more or less fine line between approved and frowned upon deceit.

The International Convention of 29 July 1899 concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land states in Article 24 of its regulations:

“War stratagems and the use of necessary means to obtain information about the enemy and the terrain are permitted.”

The Hague Convention on Land Warfare restricts (it does not prohibit them) the possibilities of cunning behaviour are supposedly limited in that, for example, “weapons must be carried openly” and enemies acting legally must “wear a fixed badge that can be recognised from a distance” (Article 1), or that means that destroy any kind of confidence, such as “the use of poison or poisoned weapons” or the “misuse of the flag of truce, the national flag or the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” are prohibited (Article 23). Spies are explicitly distinguished from people in uniform (Article 29).

The history known to us outside of Germany is full of military tricks.

The history of military cunning is old and even today the “wisdom” of that time is still valid. 

For example, the 36 Stratagems – the strategies of cunning, power, seduction and manipulation, the secret art of war of ancient China around the year 1500, contains the following instructions in hidden, therefore flowery language, which are still “translated” today:

  • Taking advantage of a fire to commit a robbery
  • Hit the grass to scare away the snakes
  • Killing with someone else’s knife
  • Waiting rested for the exhausted enemy
  • Make noise in the East, attack in the West
  • Borrow a corpse for the soul's return
  • Luring the tiger from the mountain to the plain
  • Neutralize the enemy by capturing the leader
  • Secretly remove the firewood from under the boiler
  • Muddy the water to catch the fish
  • Hhide the dagger behind the smile
  • Ally with the distant enemy to attack neighbors
  •  Steal the beams and replace them with rotten supports
  • Mimic madness without losing balance
  • Decorate dry trees with artificial flowers
  • Creating something from nothing
  • The cunning of the open city gates
  • The ruse of sowing discord
  • etc.

Deception and cunning are indispensable tools in the strategy of domination, and are constantly used to subjugate us and keep us subjugated. After all, who can deny that we are at war?

But back to the blocking document. With the newly acquired knowledge, we will devote ourselves to the Basic Law, which celebrates its 75th “anniversary” this year, 2024. Well, if that isn’t a reason to honor this law with this blog article, then I don’t know what is.

But what does the federal government call the Basic Law itself? Not a constitution, but a provisional measure.

The Basic Law itself

is a temporary solution

On this question, The Federal Government writes, Quote: “But why is it called the Basic Law and not the Constitution? After the Second World War, the Basic Law was used to establish the Federal Republic of Germany as a West German state. The Basic Law was Provisional understood: They did not want to deepen the division of Germany. Therefore, the term "constitution" was avoided in order to emphasize the temporary state of affairs."

[It is immediately enchanting that people were so incredibly concerned about the mental well-being of the Germans, considering the losses after the end of the war.]

The Basic Law was adopted on 8 May 1949. It was promulgated on 23 May 1949 and entered into force the following day as provisional constitution of the Federal Republic, as a provisional measure, according to the official Statement from BUND.

We won't go into the further background of this here. We just want to read what is written there, taking into account our knowledge of the block letters and the stupid spaces.

Strictly speaking, the Basic Law is supposed to be a defense against the sprawling "state" in order to protect the rights of the least of "citizens." Unfortunately, it has been completely turned around by civil servants and the representatives of the "state" do not adhere to the work that is supposed to curb their sprawling use of rights, but have imposed the Basic Law, which applies to THEM, on the "citizens" as a kind of catalog of virtues.


But let’s read the introduction, the introductory formula for the Basic Law, what exactly it says:

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
Input formula

On 23 May 1949, the Parliamentary Council in Bonn on the Rhine declared in public session that the Act passed by the Parliamentary Council on 8 May 1949

G and r and u and n and d and g and e and s and e and t and z and f and ü and r and d and i and e and B and u and n and d and e and s and r and e and p and u and b and l and i and k and D and e and u and t and s and c and h and l and a and n and d and

was adopted by the representatives of more than two-thirds of the participating German states in the week from 16 to 22 May 1949.

On the basis of this finding, the Parliamentary Council, represented by its Presidents, drafted and promulgated the Basic Law.
The Basic Law is hereby published in the Federal Law Gazette in accordance with Article 145 paragraph 3:

The preamble to the Basic Law states:

I and m and B and e and w and u and s and t and s and e and i and n and s and e and i and n and e and r V and e and r and a and n and t and w and o and r and t and u and n and gv and o and r and G and o and t and t and u and n and d and d and e and n and M and e and n and s and c and h and e and n


(I have now only presented the first sentence correctly for the sake of illustration; I think the complete preamble is not necessary, as the interested reader can now figure out the rest for themselves.)

Strictly speaking, there is nothing there, or rather, it could just as well say this:

laksjgfaowiejflasAKk Iijm jfialdkjfgoaeijgola jdlglaksdjflejflsdhfkslejroALseijoaisdvhlidao
iweLHIOSDhgowi elyisdhowefiajoetijaowejgoa isejgoaishegoi hwegoisdlgfgladprtasdhogiehhs

Consequently, it does not state what the Basic Law is valid for or for whom. The whole discussion about the “scope of application” etc. is therefore irrelevant.

What constitutes a word is defined as follows:

Written words are represented by letters, characters or symbols and in many languages are separated from each other by spaces before the word or punctuation marks. In the German language, words consist of at least two compound letters. Everything else is an illusion.

Even compound nouns have the requirement to be connected with a hyphen.


German spelling

In German orthography, compounds are usually written together. An alternative is to separate the individual compound parts from each other with a hyphen.

A hyphenated spelling is intended for compounds with single letters (S-curve), Abbreviations (Football World Cup), numbers (100 percent), foreign language education (Make up). A hyphen can also be used to avoid misunderstandings or reading difficulties. This way, the difficult-to-read word In-line six-cylinder swirl chamber four-valve turbo diesel engine also Inline six-cylinder swirl chamber four-valve turbo diesel engine to be written, but never with spaces. A Spaces in a compound is inadmissible in any case.

Read the Basic Law and understand what it really says

23 May 1949

The Basic Law and its publication
in the Federal Law Gazette No. 1

The fact that this is not an unfortunate error on the Federal Government's website can be seen in the Federal Law Gazette, which is also written using the blocking font.

Let’s take a look at what it actually says.
Laws are exactly what they say they are.

Free from “personal” interpretations, free from being influenced by the reader’s individual background or expectations.

But simply and explicitly what is written there.

And not what you might like to have.

article 1

(1) The dignity of the People is inviolable. Respecting and protecting it is the obligation of all state authorities.

Yes.. nice and right.

(2) The German people is therefore committed to inviolable and inalienable Human Rights as a basis every human community, of peace and justice in the world.

also ok so far..

Article 2

(1) Everyone has the right to free development of his personality, as long as he does not violate the rights of others and does not violate the constitutional order or the moral law.
(2) Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. Personal freedom is inviolable. These rights may only be infringed on the basis of a law.

After “Human” and “German people”, the second article now includes an ominous “Everyone”.

Who or what is this “everyone”? To make it very clear, why didn’t they write: “every person of the German people” or at least “every person”. It is an absolutely meaningless and broadly interpretable term and does not refer to people, especially those of the German people.

Article 3

(1) All People are equal before the law.

All people… and not persons, everyone, nobody.
Only applies to humans. The others are not included.

Ok.. and now it gets complicated…

Article 3

(3) No one may not be discriminated against or favoured because of his or her gender, ancestry, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, religious or political opinions. No one may not be discriminated against because of his or her disability.

The fourth one enters the stage… *drum roll*  the nobody.

Of course nobody wants "a nobody” Because then you are not “somebody”.

A nobody is someone without reputation, without status, without rights, without a person, someone who “civil death” has fallen victim to – a slave. This had the same attributes.

This “nobody” may (and now we read this text again in the new consciousness):

No one may be discriminated against or favoured because of their gender, their ancestry, their race, their language, their homeland and origin, their faith, their religious or political views. No one may be disadvantaged because of his disability.

Here too, the question is, in my opinion, justified: Why was it not further written clearly and consistently: “no (German) person may...

Why nobody? Because we are all "nobody" because of our disenfranchisement? If you look around the legal system, it's a perfect fit. We, all the nobodies, without rights - with the treatment we receive from the system, like slaves in the past, fall exactly under this article with this description.

Incidentally, it is also the nobody who is condemned to military service in Article 4 of the Basic Law.

A nobody



[1] derogatory: Person without much Meaning; meaningless Person; someone who is not given much importance


[1] Someone, Something


the; -s; only Sg; most of time on a No one someone, the not important Sync and corrections by n17t01Nothing Large dictionary German as Foreign language. © 2009 Farlex, Inc. and partners.
Article 4

(1) Freedom of belief, conscience and freedom of religious and ideological belief shall be inviolable.

WHOSE freedom? WHOSE conscience? And WHOSE ideological beliefs are inviolable? Why, in order to create clarity, was it not written down who it is about, what it should contain? Because let's not forget that a law must be clearly defined. Otherwise it is always open to broad interpretations, which are not normally desired. Something like this is only written exactly as it is because that is how it is intended.

It should say, “the freedom of belief, conscience, etc… of all (German) people,”

Article 4

(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.

WHO is guaranteed this undisturbed religious practice? The satanic forces? Because that would also fit.
Why was the target group not clearly identified here either? 

Article 4

(3) Nobody may be forced to carry a weapon against his conscience. The details are regulated by a federal law.

Here, in Article 4, it is stated that poor nobody can be forced into military service even against his conscience.

Article 5

(1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through radio and film are guaranteed. There is no censorship.

Here it is “everyone” again. Is “everyone” also “nobody” at the same time? Or do you have to be a somebody (legal status, own person) to be “everyone”? [Ah, these puns…]

Article 8

(1) All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons without registration or permission.

So Germans are allowed to gather without registration or permission. But what about the nobody, everyone, human beings and, above all, the person? Judging by what we have seen here, they are not allowed to do that.
Article 8
(2) For open-air assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.
This permission may generally be restricted for everyone.
Article 9
(1) All Germans have the right to form associations and societies.
Only applies to Germans. All others must obtain approval to form clubs and societies.
Despite this, we are not the representatives or supporters of the citizenship certificate. Because a state is always a fiction and a caretaker. Who wants to continue to be under constant care? Not a sovereign.

23 May 1949

Statement from the Bundestag

“…The Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Interior, Digitization and Migration responded with a letter dated 2 May 2017 in response to a minor question from a member of parliament, the nationality certificate is “the only document with which the existence of German nationality is bindingly established in all matters for which it is legally relevant (Section 30 StAG). The German passport and identity card are no Proof of German nationality, they only give rise to a presumption that the holder has German nationality.” 


“We often assume that the presentation of an identity card or passport is sufficient proof of citizenship. The fact is that these documents do not constitute proof of possession of German citizenship. They merely justify the assumptionthat the card holder has German citizenship …”


“Apply for a certificate of citizenship

You are German and need proof of your nationality, for example for civil service employment or adoption. Or you have German parents or ancestors and would like to know whether you are German yourself. Then you can apply for a certificate of citizenship. The citizenship certificate is not proof of identity. It cannot therefore be used for travel or as a substitute for an identity card.

The State Office for Immigration (LEA) checks whether you have acquired German citizenship You have acquired German citizenship, for example through acquisition of another nationality, marriage or adoption could have lost again.”


Article 116

(1) Unless otherwise provided by law, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is any person who possesses German nationality or who has found refuge in the territory of the German Reich as of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person.

Article 10

(1) The secrecy of correspondence and of postal and telecommunications information shall be inviolable.

Whose confidentiality of correspondence is inviolable? That of the Germans, of people, of individuals or of whom? No target group is defined there... only that it is generally inviolable.

Perhaps for those in power. Depending on their status. So do we expect it to apply to everyone, or perhaps to no one at all, or only to those in power? There is so much scope for definition.

Strictly speaking, it says that the secrecy of correspondence is inviolable – somewhere, for anyone, but not necessarily.

(2) Restrictions may only be imposed on the basis of a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or securing the federal government or of a country, the law may determine that it is not communicated to the person concerned and that the legal process is replaced by review by organs and auxiliary organs appointed by the people’s representatives.

It therefore serves to protect a basic order that is useful to someone OR to secure the federal government or a state (which state? Why are one or more ominous states interested in the law that apparently applies to the Federal Republic? And WHICH state is it that is supposed to be protected? If it were the German state, it would be written there.)
Which covenant is meant here?

If you enter “der Bund” into, the most popular search engine, you get some results…

Let the sentence “the law may provide that it shall not be communicated to the person concerned.” melt on the tongue.

Mayer’s Conversational Dictionary 1874

a mutual performance between two, solemnly concluded contract, therefore in the biblical sense in particular the contract which Jehovah with the people the Israelites are said to have concluded. The entire religious constitution of the Old Testament is based on the premise of such a covenant. The Bund is based on the promise given to Abraham, the reward is the fulfillment of the divine commandment, which finds expression in the law through Moses, and the sign of acceptance of the covenant is circumcision.

In contrast to this Mosaic or old covenant, following the words of institution of the Lord's Supper, where the "blood of the covenant" is mentioned, the religion of Christ is called the new covenant, insofar as it is to be regarded as the completion and transfiguration of the earlier one. The Book of the Covenant was called the Law, then the name was passed on to the Mosaic writings, as well as to all biblical religious documents, so that we now distinguish the biblical writings into those of the old and the new covenant (Testament).


Federation (alliance, union in the broader sense),

in the political sense of the word, the connection which exists between several states for the purpose of achieving a certain state purpose and realising a certain political idea.

It is in the nature of things that between the different states, which exist independently and autonomously side by side, various points of contact must gradually arise and the most varied connections must be formed in the field of trade and industry, science and political life, in short, of the intellectual and material relations between nations in general.

If the term “Bund” was meant to refer to the German Confederation, why didn’t they write it exactly like that?

I leave further speculation to the reader.


Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


I can't blame you so much,
I know what this teaching is like.
Law and rights inherit
Like an eternal disease;
They drag themselves from generation to generation,
And move gently from place to place.
Reason becomes nonsense, benefit becomes plague;
Woe to you that you are a grandson!
Of the right that is born with us,
Unfortunately, that is never the question.

Article 11

(1) All Germans shall enjoy freedom of movement throughout the Federal territory.

Persons and others, such as nobody and someone, etc. are subject to reporting requirements.

(2) This right may only be restricted by or pursuant to a law and only in cases where there is no adequate means of subsistence and this would result in particular burdens for the community or where it is necessary to Defence against an imminent threat to the existence or the free democratic basic order of the Federal Government or of a country, to combat the threat of epidemics, natural disasters or particularly serious accidents, to protect young people from neglect or to prevent criminal acts.

see above.

Article 12

(1) All Germans have the right to freely choose their profession, place of work and place of training. The practice of a profession can be regulated by or pursuant to a law.

(2) No one may not be compelled to perform a particular work, except as part of a traditional general public service obligation which is the same for all.
It is again the nobody who can be forced to do certain work (unemployed, former military service).
(3) Forced labour shall only be permissible in cases of deprivation of liberty ordered by a court.
In prison, it is forced labor.

Kant, Immanuel (1724 – 1804)

The law must never be subordinate to politics,
but politics at any time
be adapted to the law.

Article 13

(1) The home is inviolable.

Every home? If it really were every home, then it would have been written, as in Article 17, “Everyone” has the right:

“Everyone’s home is inviolable” or

“the home of the (German) people is inviolable”

or for me also

“a person’s home is inviolable.”

But it isn't. That's why it only says "the apartment" itself...

If all this didn't matter, there wouldn't be different words. That wouldn't be necessary. Then one term would be used consistently and the old tool of language confusion wouldn't be actively used.

How important the words are and generally the way something is written, I have already mentioned in the article on “Soul contract termination” written. How words bind us, enslave us. Even if we are not aware of it. The same principle applies to 3D. As above, so below.

Overall, the Basic Law uses the following terms:

the human 4 times (otherwise 8 times *human)
[the] Nobody is named 11 times
Everyone, 4 times in total
Men are mentioned 3 times
Everyone 5 times

If none of that matters, why not just write “Human” every time?

The person is named in the Basic Law more than 3 times more often than the "Person" and their freedom may be restricted at any time by law.

Persons and anyone suspected of being involved may be detained.

Article 2

(2)… The freedom of a person is inviolable. These rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law.

and in

Article 104

(1) The freedom of the person can only on the basis of a formal law and only in compliance with the forms prescribed therein be limited. Detained persons must not be subjected to mental or physical abuse.


(3) Any person provisionally arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence shall be brought before a judge no later than the day following his arrest, who shall inform him of the reasons for his arrest, question him and give him the opportunity to object.

Basic Law Art 20

Here again the same game.

Article 20

(2) All state power emanates from the people. It is exercised by the people in elections and referendums and through special legislative, executive and judicial organs.

Here again it just says “people”. But it doesn’t say which people are being referred to. So which people are we talking about here? If it’s supposed to be the German people, why doesn’t it say so?

The term “German people” is theoretically mentioned twice in the preamble, once in Article 1 and twice more in Article 146, otherwise it is always just called “people”.

Article 146

This Basic Law, that after completion the unity and freedom of Germany for the entire German people applies, shall cease to be valid on the day on which a constitution adopted by the German people in a free decision comes into force.

It states that the Basic Law ONLY AFTER the completion of unity and freedom for the German people! And loses its validity when a constitution is adopted by free decision. (Not a new one, but any one... the old one, for example)

I leave it to each reader who has come this far to answer the question of whether the perfection of freedom and unity has existed for the last 75 years.

The Howlügichpedia lets us know the following on this point:

“In the 40 years of constitutional practice of the Federal Republic The Basic Law proved to be a model of success, so that the need for a new constitution of the reunified Germany could not exceed the desire for continuity or a A constitution freely decided upon by the German people is not desired.

The original document (“Original copy of the Basic Law”) is kept in Bundestag On 3 October 2016, the first signed version of the Basic Law with all accompanying documents totalling around 30,000 pages, including transcripts of the discussions and debates of the Parliamentary Council, the states and the Allied powers, was stored as microfilm in the Central recovery location of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Barbarastollen, by the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance. It took several requests under the Federal Freedom of Information Act before a retro-digitized copy of the complete original text of the Basic Law was made publicly available in May 2023.

Reading and Understanding the Basic Law

Only this generation thinks of violence and cunning;

What does the law want, what should, what does it mean?

You have the power, you have the right on earth.

Selfishly the stronger created the law,

a butcher's axe and a net at the same time

for the weaker ones.


Chamisso, Adelbert von (1781 – 1838)

It is hereby stated that all rights are always reserved to everything found on this site and subject to the order of the Ama-gi koru-E Kininigen Dedicated Terms and Conditions. If someone distributes our knowledge, it would be honorable if he also named the source of this knowledge and did not bring it out into the world as his own knowledge in order to enrich his status.

Otherwise, we are grateful for the distribution of this knowledge, in the sense of every being.