Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYYet if data sets – here witness testimonies – have been selected oreliminated without thorough source criticism and merely according tothe criterion of whether they supported the preordained theses – here theindictment – then this can only be described as unscientific caprice. Yetthis is precisely the method of established historians and unfortunatelyalso of the judiciary.In contrast to this stands the method of fact-oriented source criticism,which on one hand asks how a statement came about in the firstplace. I have dedicated more than 40 pages of my book to this complexof questions. There I consider questions such as whether compulsion,threats, or torture were applied; whether suggestive, leading questionswere asked; whether there was an incentive to ramble on uncritically. Ialso ask whether statements of third parties have had an influence, thatis, either through private organizations, through government authorities,or more generally through the media and the Zeitgeist.This is followed by the second stage of source criticism, the examinationof the contents of a statement. Here questions are asked such as:does a statement contain inner contradictions, or does it contradict otherstatements, documents, or material evidence? Is it in contradiction tolaws of logic, to what was technically possible, or to what is possibleunder the laws of nature?The first group of questions ultimately leads to an assessment of thetrustworthiness of a witness, whereas the second group leads to an assessmentof the credibility of the contents of a statement, which in turnof course affects the trustworthiness of the witness. Now, I should notbe telling you anything new here, since in principle every judge in everytrial has to proceed according to the same pattern.What I have just described, the objective and fact-oriented assessmentand selection of witness statements, is one of the principal methodsof revisionism. And precisely because revisionism with its systematicsource criticism of testimony is scientific, it provokes the disapprovalof prosecutors who object that the witnesses for “Holocaust”claims and their testimony should not be exposed to source criticism –or at least not when they do not like the results.To conclude my discussion of “immunizing theories” by arbitrarilyeliminating evidence, allow me to present an example from the naturalsciences. This is the approach used by Prof. Markiewicz and his col-82