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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
as can be found elsewhere, which would legitimize almost any trip into
the blue. It would be just as ineffective to strive again for a definition of
a conventional good in need of legal protection. It’s all over parliamentary
town that it was the panic-stricken fear of pictures and reports –
especially those of 8 May 2005, in Berlin (“appalling, unbearable,
harmful, disgraceful, nasty…!”) – and a worldwide outrage which
caused this blitz action. Can the legislature control the flow of images in
a mass society? – This is obviously impossible! Can harmful, unbearable
opinions be outlawed for legal reasons? The Federal Constitutional
High Court recently denied this 22 with great determination with reference
to article 5, paragraph I, sentence 1 of the German Basic Law
(freedom of opinion): Even he who contests Hitler’s guilt for the outbreak
of World War II in publications is protected by the constitution. 23
That is the powerful old pathos of the Lüth verdict, not the sallow, politically
correct manner of speaking of the zeitgeist which lacks any understanding
for the adventure of a liberal open – and thus also risky –
political order. 24
V. Prospect
The German Auschwitz taboo is deeply justified and legitimated by
the Shoah.
309
25 Art. 130, para. III, Penal Code, however, belongs to the
questionable consequences taken here; and its transfer to “satellite taboos”
(Isensee) poisons the political and intellectual climate: [this concerns]
almost any other topic, which is brought into connection with the
National Socialist time in order to gain superiority in a public dialog.
The new paragraph 4 constitutes such a doubtful new expansion as well,
whose basic deficiency could hardly be remedied even in case of a restrictive
interpretation. Brugger characterized art. 130, para. III, Penal
Code as a German law for special cases (Sonderfall-Gesetz), 26 whose
exorbitantly unique cause alone could permit in this case to push aside
constitutional law. If one agrees to that, one has to consider at the same
time that at least today, more than 60 years after the end of the National
Socialist rule, a time has come to cautiously leave this Sonderweg, this
special path. Only this but not an – almost unlimited! – new extension
of the norm can seriously be open to debate. The attempt, however –
quite to the contrary – to even obligate other European or extra-
European countries to assume the special perceptions developed by us
[Germans] and to, for instance, outlaw the swastika in the entire
world, 27 appears eerie…