DISCLOSURE: VT condemns the horrific tragedy committed by the NAZI Party against Jewish Citizens of Europe during Word War II known as the "Holocaust". VT condemns all racism, bigotry, hate speech, and violence. However, we are an open source uncensored journal and support the right of independent writers and commentors to express their voices; even if those voices are not mainstream as long as they do NOT openly call for violence. Please report any violations of comment policy to us immediately. Strong reader discretion is advised.
by Jonas E. Alexis & Arend Lammertink
Arend Lammertink holds a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente, the Netherlands. He is also passionate about physics. He was one of the candidates for the Pirate Party in the 2010 general election in the Netherlands.
Alexis: When did you start investigating Holocaust issues and what motivated you to pursue further research on these topics?
Lammertink: I have always been interested in history and WW II in particular. As a kid, I talked with airmen who had been shot down over Holland during the war as well as Canadian veterans, for example. I used to know a former member of the resistance, who told me about how at the end of WW-II, suddenly quite a lot of new resistance people came to the forefront and, according to him, those were the ones “slapping themselves on the shoulders”.
For some time, I also loosely followed the work of Micha Kat, a journalist who is very good at digging for information, although his writing style is such that most people don’t take him seriously at all. He wrote some articles, in Dutch, about the holocaust and referred to the work of David Cole.
After I watched his documentary, I wanted to know more, so I searched for more information in order to be able to draw my own conclusions. I finally found the answers to my questions in the work Germar Rudolf. His expert witness report on the alleged use of Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz leaves little room for drawing any other conclusion than that the official version of this story cannot be correct.
Of course, this is a conclusion that puts your worldview upside down. Your whole belief system is challenged and you are forced to leave your “comfort zone”. Yet, if we ever want to learn lessons from history, we must have the intellectual courage to challenge extraordinary claims and have a public debate about fundamental issues, based on the available evidence and reasoning alone.
When we allow political correctness or motives to define our view of history, as is clearly the case if it is true that Auschwitz indeed was a Uranium enrichment facility, we base our policies on unwarranted prejudices, assumptions, and outright propaganda and allow war criminals to write the future of this Planet. How can we watch this happening before our eyes and do nothing?
Alexis: You are an electrical engineer, and you are familiar with the evidence and rigorous testing. How did you come to the conclusion that “the generally accepted historiography about the complex of factories and concentration camps known as Auschwitz” is incorrect?
Lammertink: Besides being an electrical engineer, I spent most of my professional career as a software engineer. I worked for a Dutch government agency for about 10 years, as a civilian. I worked for an innovation stimulation fiscal program, the WBSO, where I judged applications for this program on the subject of “technical software development” and assisted the legal team in handling objection cases.
I also got to visit companies for checking whether or not the funds we provided to them were spent in accordance with the law. In a way, this was a powerful position to be in and I’ve had cases whereby my judgment of their compliance with the law determined whether or not the company would go bankrupt.
I’ve also had cases whereby I found that the company in question did not do the project they applied for themselves. In this particular case, my team manager went with me on the visit. He said he wanted to go along with some of us on a visit, in order to be kept up to date with what we encountered in the field and how we handled things. Since I already had bad feelings about this particular company, I thought it would be a good idea if he were to come with me on this visit.
Since he had no official role, it was my responsibility; he talked to the representatives of the company about their product, which was really nice. Meanwhile, I went through their paperwork and picked maybe 5 documents, which I ordered them to copy for me, out of perhaps over 100 documents. At the office, it turned out I picked the right documents, which enabled me to put an end to this company’s misuse of public funds.
It was cases like this and other occasions wherein I demonstrated my ability to “dig”, which led to one of my colleagues there characterizing me as follows: “Arend is the kind of guy you would imagine going through all kinds of archives in a court case for a lawyer, and he would come up with just that information the lawyer needs to win the case.”
In this job, I learned how to make a legally sound case and how to recognize potentially fraudulent applications and/or paperwork. I also learned that whatever the case, you have to make your decision based on the information you have at your disposal.
In the case of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, I found Germar Rudolf’s expert witness report, based on forensic analysis of the information he had collected or was otherwise at his disposal. It’s just a professionally written report, which comes to a conclusion that is totally justified given the information that is available in the public domain. Of course, chemistry is not my expertise, but I sure can recognize a report which has been written with integrity.
Alexis: Are people free to talk about Holocaust issues in the Netherlands?
Lammertink: Legally speaking: yes. There is no law in the Netherlands that explicitly forbids “holocaust denial”, such as that exists in Germany and on which grounds Germar Rudolf became nothing less than a political prisoner in modern-day Germany.
However, in the Netherlands, it is forbidden to spread hatred and to oust racist views, a reasonable approach that I find very acceptable. In practice, one can go very far with spreading hatred in the Netherlands, given the recent lawsuits which have been held against politician Geert Wilders, a guy who is apparently unable to differentiate between what could be called “Nazi Muslim Brotherhood” affiliated organizations and ordinary people of African origin who have nothing to do with Nazism.
Once again, the real war criminals use distraction and diversion tactics in order to redirect the anger and fears which live amongst the general population against a sacrificial scapegoat, in order for the actual criminals to be able to hide behind smokescreens of lies and propaganda.
On the other hand, there seem to be a number of organizations that make it a hobby to threaten people who do not share their view of history with legal action. They tend to suggest the law says something other than what it actually says, in order to be able to associate truthful historic research with the term “holocaust denial” and thus able to maintain a very negative atmosphere around an issue that defined the post-war geopolitical world scene, yet was based on ordinary propaganda in order to hide the true origins of the Atomic era as well as the origins of the Uranium-235 used in the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.
Still, one can write to both the Dutch Parliament as well as the European Parliament, and even the German Parliament freely about these issues from the Netherlands. I have written official emails to all three, thus ensuring that Germar Rudolf’s book has been entered into the public record and also being able to prove that all three Parliaments had certain information at their disposal at certain moments in time.
I specifically warned an acquainted MEP that it is most important that European politicians take the lead in this debate because at some point this information will make it to the public debate and then society as a whole will have to find a way to come to terms with what really happened in Auschwitz and the implications thereof.
Alexis: There seems to be a logical disconnect here. The Guardian has revealed that based on evidence from the National Archives, Prescott Bush, the father of George H. W. Bush and a Wall Street executive banker and a U.S. Senator, was
“involved with the financial architects of Nazism…The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
“…the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty…
“While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.”
Now, whether someone wants to believe this is beside the point at the moment. The point is that not a single Jewish organization has come out and said, “Maybe we need to investigate this claim a bit. Maybe we need to look at the National Archives to see if this is true.” What is so interesting about this Holocaust business is that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has gone to great lengths to prosecute and persecute people who were not even part of Nazi Germany.
We also have people here calling Bush “a great statesman,” which I find fascinating. We hear statements such as “Americans may take pride in this man [Bush], and pride in themselves for electing him, not just once but twice.”
It is obvious that those words are just the expression of either a political whore, an intellectual coward, a Neocon apologist, or all the above. Here is a guy who has created the worse disaster in American history, which sent a six-trillion dollar bill to the American people, and which has created a total mess in the Middle East and elsewhere, and yet we are being told that we Americans should be very proud of electing him. Even Zionist media such as Newsweek have now admitted that Bush “ignored warnings before invading Iraq.”
So, saying things like we should be proud of Bush is complete madness, the ultimate madness. But discuss for us how the Zionists play double standards here.
Lammertink: In order to be able to even begin to attempt to answer this question, we will have to put the scene into a geopolitical context, which is what this whole story is all about. Professor Antony Sutton wrote a whole book about the relationship between Wall Street and the Nazi regime.
In his conclusions (chapter 12) he wrote about the ” Pervasive Influence of International Bankers”: “Looking at the broad array of facts presented in the three volumes of the Wall Street series, we find a persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank; and the same location in New York: usually 120 Broadway.
“This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from German armament in the 1930s. When Big Business should have been running its business operations at Ford Motor, Standard of New Jersey, and so on, we find it actively and deeply involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions in three major countries.”
Now within the context of this short introduction to geopolitics, it is clear that the big corporations, who have acquired “disproportionate power over the global economy”, as well as the US government have a big interest in making sure that the public does not find out the truth about this issue. So, “Wall Street” has a motive to fund those “Jewish” organizations that were willing to talk the talk and walk the walk, while organizations like “Nature Karta”, an organization of “orthodox Jews united against Zionism”, will probably have to do without big “corporate donations” and “subsidies”.
Finally, let’s rephrase the question a bit: Not a single “Jewish” organization has come out and said, “Maybe we need to investigate this claim a bit. Maybe we need to go to Auschwitz to see if Germar Rudolf’s claims are true. Maybe we should do forensic research there, investigate the evidence like one would in a plane crash or murder investigation.”
The truth is that “Wall Street” is and has been “deeply involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions” for years. And this is not only a very profitable “business” but also yields “Wall Street” a position of “unwarranted power”. And that is why Wall Street and “Jewish” organizations can come out and try to silence “extremist groups” of, say, “holocaust deniers” or “ultra-orthodox Jews”. And they don’t do that because what these “extremists” say isn’t true and can be easily shown to be false. No, they do this because it is actually true, yet goes against the interest of their “sponsors”, and they don’t really have any other way to fight this but to apply scare tactics, lies and deception.
Alexis: Jane Mayer has recently pointed that people like the Koch family were also involved in working with Nazi Germany. Whether Prescott Bush or the Koch family did this intentionally or not is beside the point. What is remarkably mind-boggling is that you have Jewish organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ADL pretending to hunt down so-called Nazis, but not a single one of them has been willing to take the Bush or the Koch family to the task.
It is really interesting to observe how the Zionist Kingdom and Jewish organizations work. If they don’t like you, you are an anti-Semite or a Nazi or even something worse, even though you have never been associated with those entities. But if they do like you, then you are almost a saint and an asset, even though you had previous ties with Nazis—as in the case of Stepan Bandera.
-  Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell, “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power,” Guardian, September 25, 2004.
-  See for example Guy Walters, Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to Bring Them to Justice (New York: Broadway Books, 2010); Tom Segev, Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends (New York: Schocken Books, 2010).
-  Jean Edward Smith, Bush (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016), 660; Phillip Sands, “A Grand and Disastrous Deceit,” London Review of Books, Vol. 38, No. 15, July 28, 2016; see also John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004); Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (New York: Random House, 2006).
-  Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
-  Mark Kukis, Voices from Iraq: A People’s History, 2003-2009 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Dana Priest and Joe Stephens, “Secret World of U.S. Interrogation,” Washington Post, May 11, 2004; for similar reports, see Jane Mayer, “The Black Sites: A Rare Look Inside the C.IA.’s Secret Interrogation Program,” New Yorker, August 13, 2007; Craig Whitlock, “Jordan’s Spy Agency: Holding Cell for the CIA,” Washington Post, December 1, 2007; Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009); Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004); George W. Bush: War Criminal?: The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes (Westport: Praeger Pubishers, 2009); Lila Rajiva, The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005); Rebecca Gordon, Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).
-  “The Chilcot Report: Bush Ignored Numerous Warnings Before Invading Iraq,” Newsweek, July 19, 2016.
-  Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (Forest Row: Clairview Books, 1976 and 2010).
-  Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (New York: Double Day, 2016).
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.