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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
journal Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift, issue 21/2005, on the pages
1476–1478. This is one of the expert articles referred to by me which
clearly highlight the unconstitutional nature of the law with which I am
prosecuted here. Because of its importance I may read it here aloud in
its entirety. (For the full text of the article see Appendix 4, p. 303.)
* * *
I would like to remark that I disagree absolutely with Bertram’s
view that the Shoah justifies the German Auschwitz taboo. But the article
states clearly enough that article 130 “push aside constitutional
law,” which is a mere circumscription of a violation of the constitution.
In a similar way as Bertram, the former and also current German minister
for the interior Wolfgang Schäuble has tried to justify the Auschwitz
taboo, although in contrast to Bertram he also justified its judicial implementation
by force. In an exchange with the then president of the
Central Council of Jews in Germany Ignatz Bubis, which was published
by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Schäuble stated: 269
“With respect to the question whether the Auschwitz lie is a criminal
act, and with respect to the prohibition of National Socialist
symbols I will say only this: in an abstract space we could have
wonderful discussions about whether it is nonsense or not, from a
legal point of view, to suppress the utterance of opinions. In spite of
this, this is the right thing to do, because we are simply not acting in
an abstract space but have had concrete historical experiences. I do
not think that those legal dispositions will be around for all eternity,
but here and now it is right to say, by means of laws that might be
called problematic under purely legal considerations: there are limits
and barriers in this respect and this is where the fun ends.”
That is obviously a circular reasoning, if not to say: an extremely absurd
mental blackout. This pseudo-logic can be put in the following
way: 270
“Now everyone is in the know: The prosecution of revisionist historians
does not occur for legal reasons, as the laws created for the
punishment of those having disliked opinions can be labeled as
problematic nonsense. Instead some alleged ‘historical experiences’
have to serve as an excuse in order that an open debate about exactly
these historical experiences can be outlawed. Or put differently:
269 Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, 24 April 1996, p. 41.
270 G. Rudolf, in: Kardinalfragen, op. cit. (note 47), pp. 196f.
211