Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYon inter-scientific discourse, but not on a penal court – what followsfrom this regarding the scientific nature of my book? He who makesmistakes is unscientific? Since all scientists make mistakes, scientistsdo not really exist?The “obviously inconclusive argumentations” claimed by the courtare not at all obvious, by the way. This accusation was directed againstmy elaborations in my book on Jewish fund raising campaigns withholocaust claims during and after World War One! 317 The questionwhether or not six million Jews were really threatened by a holocaust inthe years 1917–1927, as was claimed by Jewish pressure groups duringthose years, is too complex to be presented as “obvious.” If the Chamberdid not consider my brief elaborations about this convincing, then itwould have behooved them well as alleged serious seekers of the truthto verify by means of the sources given by me whether or not my conclusionsare supported by them.Finally, the Chamber’s allegation on the same page that I had notscrutinized the possible exaggeration of the number of Holocaust survivorsgiven by Jewish lobby groups is downright false, as results evenfrom the quote in the verdict itself, taken from my book on p. 44:“But I do not wish to give any definite figure for the survivors,because the statistical basis for any computation is too small andwould yield results with too wide a margin of error for any meaningfulconclusions to be drawn from them.” (Verdict p. 38)Even in this case it would have behooved the serious truth seekers ofthis Penal Chamber to verify whether or not and to what extent mystatements are supported by the sources cited. Of course such a taskwould be beyond the competence and the possible efforts of a penalcourt. It was therefore inevitable that this court transgressed its authorityand competence by meddling with the content of scientific points atissue, and it thus had to come to a pseudo-judicial verdict.On this a last time Prof. Karl Popper: 115“I mean the fashion of not taking arguments seriously, and attheir face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothingbut a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies expressthemselves. It is […] the attitude of looking at once for the unconsciousmotives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker,317 Based mainly on Don Heddesheimer’s research as published in his book The First Holocaust.Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During & After World War One, reprintThe Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011.353