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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
witz survivor, a fact concealed by the BPjM. The contents of this
quotation would have to be held against that survivor, but not
against me. And besides, this article also contains the commonly
bandied about horrible aspects of Auschwitz, even if it does not
address them in detail.
b) The authors of this indexing decision reveal a blatant ineptitude to
recognize science as such, as they claim that my expert report is
characterized by the “frequent use of statistics,” by “numerous statistics.”
As a matter of fact, my expert report does not contain a single
statistic, but instead chemical formulas, mathematical equations, data
tables, physical charts, results of chemical analyses, evaluations of
chemical-toxicological experiments etc. Hence, the authors of the
decision obviously do not even know the basic scientific terms
taught in school.
c) The indexing decision furthermore contains crude nonsense:
i. The BPjM states for instance: “The denial of the atrocities contradicts
in a flagrant way the opinion of the majority of the German
population.” As explained before, science is not a democratic
event, but rather a total dictatorship of verifiable evidence. It is
absolutely irrelevant what the crowds consider to be correct. Or
are decisions about the censorship of scientific publications arrived
at by referendum nowadays?
ii. The BPjM states moreover: “Yet already the premise of the work
– the assumption that the Holocaust did not take place – is
faulty.” The following has to be said about this:
1. The term “Holocaust” is completely undefined. In fact, the actual
topic of my work is merely the investigation of alleged
mass exterminations in homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.
The over-arching complex of the alleged extermination of the
Jews during World War II is not being dealt with in my expert
report.
2. The result of an investigation cannot be determined from the
start, or else the investigation itself would be superfluous. Any
hypothesis is legitimate as an initial assumption, though, as I
have explained before. Whether I assume at the outset of my
investigation that homicidal gas chambers existed or that the
opposite is true is of equal legitimacy and therefore irrelevant.
If arguing judicially, though, one would have to follow the
motto in dubio pro reo and thus initially assume that the mur-
171