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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
IV. Remedy
Already the German Basic law touches upon the fact that a right to
resist exists only if no other remedy is possible. Mahatma Gandhi argued
similarly: 234
“Before a transition to civil disobedience is permissible, all parliamentary
means to remove the injustice must have been exhausted.”
Hence I want to explain now that “other remedies” are indeed no
longer possible, and this not only with regard to parliamentary means,
as Gandhi has demanded, but also with judicial, human rights, public,
scholarly, or media means.
1. Parliamentary Remedy
Acts of the German parliament are unfortunately the primary reason
for the violation of civil rights, because the unconstitutional laws passed
by the Bundestag have been enacted specifically in order to penalize
historical dissent and even more explicitly in order to suppress a disliked
political opposition. 235
Petitions to the Bundestag are being fobbed off with cheap commonplace
phrases, as for instance in the case of a complaint against the
illegal interpretation of the principle of “self-evidence” (article 244 of
the German Penal Law) by the German judiciary. 236 The answer of the
petition committee basically stated that the judiciary, when interpreting
the Penal Law verbally, must not apply the principle of “self-evidence”
as they do. But that doesn’t change the fact that they do it anyway, and
they do this with the full and expressed backing of this parliament.
When objecting that article 130 German Penal Code is nowadays
used to illegally restrict freedom of science, the German Member of
Parliament Horst Eylmann merely stated in a typical manner that the
“necessary scholarly pursuit of historical Holocaust research” would be
defended by the German Federal Constitutional High Court, if need
234 Quoted acc. to M. Blume, op. cit. (note 215), p. 260; allegedly from Young India, 9 June 1920,
but I did not find it in CWMG online.
235 The two tightenings of Germany’s censorship laws (art. 130) in 1994 and 2005, designed to
suppress revisionism, were both triggered by controversial public statements on Third Reich
history by party officials of the heavily ostracized German right-wing radical party NPD, who
the German political establishment has been trying to ban for decades, so far without success.
236 See about this the 5th lecture of my Lectures, op. cit. (note 55).
194