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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
later, and the Austrian Dr. Josef Bailer. Although the latter tried to argue
on grounds of chemistry, he refused to even acknowledge in an ostrich-like
manner the counter-arguments that I personally had sent him
in 1993.
The allegation of federal German courts and prosecutors that established
historians do not take revisionism seriously precisely proves the
unscientific attitude of these established historians, because science
primarily means:
1. welcoming attempts at refutation;
2. discussing them rationally.
This is precisely what revisionism does: It welcomes every attempt
by established researchers to refute revisionist theses and it discusses
and debates them rationally, that is to say, without making personal or
political insinuations against the authors and by criticizing their critique
in return – which is then used against us for new criminal charges.
But even if criticism is erroneous or wanting, it can still be fruitful,
as Karl Popper pointed out: 87
“Moreover, criticism may be important, enlightening, and even
fruitful, without being valid: the arguments used in order to reject
some invalid criticism may throw a lot of new light upon a theory,
and can be used as a (tentative) argument in its favor.”
If mere erroneousness or inadequacy were prosecutable as such, then
we all would be sitting in prison according to the principle of general
laws, because we all make mistakes. This can therefore not be an argument
for criminal prosecution.
After all, the principle of trial and error is a main method of science.
To punish error would amount to punishing being human and to render
science impossible. Hence, even if the revisionists got it wrong: so
what?
Prejudices and their Immunization
This is what Karl Popper had to say about the omnipresence of human
prejudice: 88
“The fact that a sentence appears to some or all of us to be ‘selfevident’,
that is to say, the fact that some or even all of us believe
firmly in its truth and cannot conceive of its falsity, is no reason why
87 Karl Popper, The Open…, op. cit. (note 70), vol. 2, p. 380.
88 Ibid., p. 291.
69