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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
is already questionable whether any person has the right to expect certain
emotions from others while reading historical material. It has to be
ascertained under any circumstance, however, that such emotional questions,
which the expert witness wants to be understood as a moral litmus
test, have no place at all in an expert report about the question of the
nature of science.
The expert witness’s transgressions of competence into non-historical
fields are quantitatively limited, but they underscore the expert witness’s
tendency to confuse the issue of the nature of science with matters
of content.
3. Professionalism of the Assessment
3.1. Freedom of initial hypothesis
In an earlier publication the expert witness has recognized the “fundamental
importance of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est’” (everything
must be doubted) and has rejected demands for prohibitions as
“an assault against the principle of freedom of science. 300 The expert
witness repeats these assertions in his expert report tendentially (p. 11),
yet brings at once “two possible restricting circumstances” (ibid.). The
expert witness argues that it could be questionable whether the radical
challenge of a thesis could be legitimate. (“[…] one could thus state:
‘Contra existentiam negantem non est disputatio’ – one cannot argue
with someone negating the existence), p. 11; “whether […] a systematic
effort […] to draw a divergent overall picture […] were acceptable in
principle, had to set its own limits, or could be forced to stay within
limits.” p. 13; “But it is not at all a given fact that general statements
like this [of tolerance toward radical revisionisms] can also be applied
to that revisionism which totally or at least in parts ‘denies Auschwitz’,”
p. 15.)
Later the expert witness poses the question whether the contributions
in the book at issue “can all be classified as such a [radical] revisionism”
(p. 20, similar p. 21). On p. 29 the expert witness writes that it
“seems impossible to also grant Faurisson’s and Rudolf’s contributions
a scientific character,” yet later decides contrary to that appearance, that
is to say for the scientific nature of these contributions as well (p. 32).
Whereas the expert witness proffers formal objections regarding Faurisson’s
contributions (political rhetoric and “obvious polemics,” p. 29,
300 Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Berlin 1993, p. 308.
296