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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
If for instance the opponent of revisionists and editor of the German
newsmagazine Spiegel Fritjof Meyer states about the revisionists that
one has to “beat the Fascists wherever one meets them,” 302 then not
even an attempt at justification with reference to the principle “tu quoque”
would save a similar revisionist call for violence against established
historians from being considered as illegitimate and grossly unscientific.
The expert witness does not show that such violations of the
civil rights or third persons occur in the book at issue. He merely considers
the reproduction of an illustration from the German fairy tale of
“Burning Little Pauline” to be “unseemly and a violation of scientific
maxims” (p. 25) without explaining, though, why that is so, because a
reproduction of a well-known, 150-year old illustration does not per se
violate anyone’s civil rights. Quite to the contrary, because the illustration
serves to explain why so many witnesses have declared, contrary to
the facts, that human bodies burn by themselves and that blood is a
good fuel. Entire generations of Europeans have been socialized at
child’s age by reading fairy tales such as the one of “Burning Little
Pauline,” as a result of which it cannot be rejected out of hand that this
story is the basis of these wrong witness accounts. This example
demonstrates, to which degree the expert witness is incapable of rationally
evaluating an issue due to his own socialization toward showing
“reverence” (p. 12) for certain historical allegations.
The expert witness’s remark that in a different context he has seen
“several caricatures, which attest to bad taste” (Addendum, p. 1, regarding
the journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung) point
in a similar direction. As is well known, there is no accounting for taste;
but taste is in any case no criterion of the nature of science.
The expert witness labels references by the author Arnulf Neumaier
to passages of the Old Testament as “anti-Semitic” (p. 24). In its popular
meaning, this adjective denotes individuals who reject Jews as a
matter of principle for ethnic or racial reasons. As a subcategory of the
charge of racism, the charge of anti-Semitism nowadays has an extremely
socially ostracizing effect and is indeed at times destructive to
one’s existence. If unjustified, this accusation can be regarded as an
illegitimate assault on the civil rights of others.
From Neumaier’s remarks – as criticized by the expert witness – a
negative appreciation of certain aspects of the Old Testament may result
302 Open Letter of 12 Feb. 2004, see G. Rudolf, Lectures, op. cit. (note 55), p. 167.
300