Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
show an almost complete lack of source criticism regarding this kind
of source.
But then, what exactly makes the difference between relativization
and verification of the barbarity? It surely cannot depend on whether
one simply claims it? Although it is true that Meyer has severely unsettled
established historiography with his essay, this in itself does obviously
not amount to relativization of the barbarity. But then neither does
the revisionist version of history as described in my book Lectures relativize
the barbarity. Although this version unsettles established historiography
a bit more, at the end it also verifies the severe, barbaric injustice
perpetrated by National Socialism against the Jews.
Quod licet Jovi Meyer, licet bovi Rudolf.
(What is permitted to the God Meyer, is also permitted to the ox Rudolf)
V. Decisions of the Federal Assessment Agency for
Media Endangering the Youth
I may now discuss several writings which the prosecution has mentioned
in the indictment by quoting several advertisement texts from the
website www.vho.org, yet without indicating what is offensive about
these writings. In the files I have found the respective indexing rulings
by the German Federal Assessment Agency for Media Endangering the
Youth (BPjM) explaining why these writings have to be censored. I
thus will subsequently discuss some of the issues raised by these censor
decisions. But I will restrict this to such writings which I have myself
either authored, edited, or published, because I do not feel competent
enough to also defend the writings of third persons, if I am not originally
responsible for their publication. I am of course aware that I am
nonetheless legally responsible for the fact that they have been offered
on my former website.
If the Federal Assessment Agency gives as a reason for its indexing
that a writing violates article 130 of the German Penal Code, I will ignore
this here, because, as mentioned before, I consider this article of
the Penal Code to be unconstitutional, which is why I consider such a
ruling of the BPjM to be null and void from the start.
165