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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
world’s oceans heated by this could eventually dissolve only small
amounts of oxygen, which turned the oceans anaerobic, resulting in a
major part of marine life requiring oxygen to die off. Poisonous hydrogen
sulfide produced by anaerobic bacteria was subsequently released
into the atmosphere, where it suffocated step by step a major part of life
on land. The researchers claim that they can deduce all this from the
various geological and fossil records. These researchers have determined
a threshold value of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of some
0.1%, from which onward the biosphere keels over in a sense, resulting
in a mass extinction of species. If humanity keeps releasing carbon dioxide
at the same pace as now, then we will reach that threshold value
in some 150 to 200 years.
Hence, it is possible that the stagnation of the expansion of nuclear
energy caused by the anti-nuclear movement, followed by a massive
expansion of the use of fossil fuels producing carbon dioxide, results in
us essentially annihilating life on earth as we know it within a few centuries
– us humans included. Then we may thank the anti-nuclear
movement for this.
But even that is merely a, albeit scientifically founded, personal
opinion. It might as well turn out to be false. This shows why one
should not set personal opinions absolute. And this is also the reason
why I justify my civil disobedience not by trying to prove that – to put
it bluntly – the Holocaust propaganda may have dangerous effects
against which I have to resist, like for instance the oppressive politics in
the near and middle east or the cultural and demographic dissolution or
self-destruction of the German people and also of other European peoples.
These are separate issues not belonging into the discussion about
resistance, because what the nature of the link is between these issues
and the prevailing views on history, is a mere private view, which may
also turn out to be wrong.
The third criterion – the right to articulate dissent – is revealing, as it
exhibits the sharpest contrast between the two compared groups. After
all, the peace movement and the anti-nuclear movement have never in
the least been impeded by the state in expressing their opinions about
all sorts of issues. Not only did the authorities not intervene against the
expression of their opinions, but a sizeable part of the leftist and liberal
mass media increasingly opened their venues to these views. It is entirely
different with revisionism, because here all the power at the disposal
of government, media, and society is used to prevent expressing our
191