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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
instance, be prompted by the critique of his opponents to admit that for
him it is not primarily about the actual war guilt but to prove the concrete
orientation of the Tsarist system to conquest and war.
Such a profound self-criticism and self-scrutiny, which can very well
be the transition point to a new self-affirmation, would be the third and
highest step of science, which may be called the level of “reflection.”
Exposing one’s own “pre-judgments” can clear the way to overcome
them, but it can also serve to better justify that which distinguishes scientific
“pre-judgments” from popular “prejudices.”
Although science happens on different levels, its common hallmark
is universality. If not even the “Holy Scriptures” of the religion dominating
the western world {p. 11} right into the 20th century could be
spared from becoming the object of scientific debate and critique, indeed
even from having its “holy” character denied, then it is only consequential
that nothing exists which could be subjected to prohibitions
of investigation, of scrutiny, and of thought by a scientific debate on all
three levels. The “final solution” can be no exception to this. He who
posits a prohibition of research and debate would thus violate a fundamental
maxim of both the U.S. and the German constitutions. Only inflammatory,
libelous and crudely one-sided statements could be prohibited,
none of which could be brought in line with the above expressed
rules of scientific nature.
But maybe two restricting circumstances are to be considered.
With regard to the Weimar Republic, coarsely one-sided allegations
and interpretations do exist and are legitimate. One may claim that this
Republic ended not on 30 January 1933, but only in 1934 with the dissolution
of the Reichsrats and the merger of the offices of the Reich
President and the Reich Chancellor, or even that it survived the Third
Reich as a (of course ignored) constitution. But even the most contrasting
views agree insofar as the existence of the Weimar Republic is
considered self-evident and indisputable. In contrast to this, the existence
of the final solution is denied by some of the radical revisionists.
In variation of the medieval maxim “contra principia negantem non est
disputatio” [One cannot argue with someone negating the principles]
one could thus state: “Contra existentiam negantem non est disputatio”
[One cannot argue with someone negating the existence]. The question
{p. 12} is, however, whether both sides mean the same thing under “final
solution.”
268