Kenny Ko: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Kenny Cancelled. I have a very special guest today. It is Germar Rudolf, who many of you may know, and many of you may yet to know, but I’m sure you will be happy to hear his story for a like-minded cause. Germar, thank you once again for taking the time to join the podcast and chat with me. I’ve been looking forward to this just because I’ve wanted to pick your brains on some of the stuff that I believe happened during the “Holocaust” and other certain events throughout history.

I’ll allow you to take the mic, introduce yourself for maybe the people who don’t know much about you as of yet.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you first of all for having me. A little bit about my background. I’m a German citizen. I grew up in West Germany. I had a kind of normal lower middle-class upbringing and ended up going to university studying chemistry, graduated from Bonn University, then moved on for postgrad studies for a PhD, got a position at a Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research to work on a PhD there.

And while I was doing that research, I became curious and interested in applying my knowledge as a forensic chemist, which I had developed during my graduate studies, to a field that is a little bit exotic—that is to say, history. I stumbled over an expert report that had been submitted in 1988 during a Canadian trial against a German immigrant who had been quote, unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. That expert report was written by the—back then—the only existing expert in execution technologies in the United States. Since we have the death penalty here in several states, there need to be people who can design and equip and maintain that kind of equipment.

So he was asked in that trial to come up with his expert opinion of whether or not the homicidal gas chambers that are said to have existed at the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps could have existed. He did that and he came to the conclusion:

“No, that wouldn’t have worked!”

Caused quite a brouhaha. I learned about it a year later. At the time when I was just graduating and then doing my fledgling PhD studies. I dipped my feet into that field and tried to find out a little bit more because I got a copy of that expert report from Fred Leuchter, from that American expert, and I was not satisfied. It didn’t live up to my expectations and I wanted to do a better job. And then I found actually a legal team who would finance that. So I got expenses paid—didn’t get anything paid but reimbursement for my expenses.

But that was good enough for me. I was personally curious about what was going on. And I eventually submitted an expert report that was introduced—or, I should say, the defense lawyers in seven or eight defense cases in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, more so than Germany actually—tried to introduce it. The courts turned it down in these cases. German courts don’t accept any evidence that challenges the mainstream narrative.

But anyway, that was my introduction into the topic. My conclusions basically were: Leuchter had it basically right, even though he jumped a little bit to conclusions that were not well founded. But I managed to do a lot of research and back it up.

And while this all was going on—doing my PhD studies, doing this forensic work, investigations and appearing in court as an expert witness who was always turned down—I realized, well, Auschwitz, the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers and whether forensic chemistry can elucidate any of the questions of whether it happened or not and if there are any traces, is only a very minor aspect of the Holocaust, which is a big issue. It’s three years, a whole continent, hundreds if not thousands of crime locations. And what can you deduct from thinking to have resolved one tiny issue about one alleged murder location in this context?

So I figured the area is bigger. I want to know more. I want to wrap my head around everything. And I was reaching out to other people. I was planning on doing an anthology, a collection of—I think it was initially—15 contributions by various authors from all over the world who were looking into other aspects of the Holocaust. And we eventually published that book. While that was being prepared, German authorities also…

Kenny Ko: Sorry to interrupt, just for the people that are watching, what was the name of the book?

[04:12]

Germar Rudolf: Well, it appeared in an English translation in 2,000 for the first time. And it’s called Dissecting the Holocaust. Now all the books and the research that I have pursued and published ever since, over the past 35 years, can all be accessed free of charge as ebooks on the website called Holocausthandbooks.com. So if anyone’s interested in actually following up and finding out what this is all about, you can go there and find it out.

So that was volume one of the Holocaust Handbooks, Dissecting the Holocaust. This anthology has more contributions now. The updated last edition is just two years old, I think. And volume two of it was actually— is now—an updated, expanded edition of my original forensic research into the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That’s volume two.

And as I mentioned, there are now 54 volumes, plus we have a range of documentaries and some other, more summary books—they’re called Holocaust Pocketbooks. All of this stuff is available free of charge on HolocaustHandbooks.com. You’ll find links there where you can also purchase hard copies which are not free of charge, of course; they cost to produce and mail.

So the authorities were going after me. I had by 1990, I think, five court cases pending, five criminal investigations pending, in addition to my original trial for my forensic research. As I mentioned, introducing that evidence gets impossible in German court cases.

And then they went a step further, actually putting me on trial for it, for my forensic research, and denied me then the right to defend myself by proving that I’m correct. Because that is “contesting the mainstream narrative” again; you’re not allowed to commit that crime in a courtroom, so you’re not allowed to defend your views. They actually later turned it into an actual crime to even file a motion to introduce evidence proving that my dissenting views—or anyone’s dissenting views for that matter—are correct, declared that a crime, and they would prosecute defendants or primarily defense lawyers who would file such motions, and convicted them.

So defense in Germany in these cases is illegal! It’s kind of absurd—a Kafkaesque situation. I had to go through this in my own trial. Eventually I decided I’m not putting up with this. I was sentenced to 14 months for my forensic research, but I didn’t have to serve time immediately because the appeal was pending. And when more and more criminal investigations were filed by the prosecutors for the various books and journal articles that I was working on, I had published, I decided to leave.

So I went into exile and in 1996 lived in England for three years, until a journalist there published a hit piece on me demanding that I be extradited to Germany. And then British Parliament even had a session where I was discussed. And so the situation got tricky there.

I had used the three years in England to expand my publishing activities. At that point I was a little bit hemmed in, couldn’t do active research anymore because I was kind of living under an assumed identity and couldn’t travel. But I was giving other researchers a platform; they could submit stuff to me, I would publish it online and in print, initially only in the German language.

But then I slowly started to get into doing stuff in English, which of course—if something in this modern world, with the lingua franca being English, does not exist in English—it basically doesn’t exist at all! You have to do stuff in English for it to be recognized and noticed by the world. Now my English initially when I came to England was pretty bad. But the three years helped me to get up to speed. And when things were heating up in England, I decided to leave. In late 1999 I came to this country and after a while applied for political asylum here.

Now I expanded then in this country to do what I had done before only in German, also in English, which down the road ended up with these 54 volumes plus all the other stuff.

However, there was a little bit of a bump in the road because America has waged two wars against Germany to make them do what they do—suppress historical dissent. So they were not willing to give me political asylum, even though the immigration judge who reviewed my case said multiple times during the hearing that:

“This is the best documented asylum case he’s ever seen!”

But the immigration judge is not a judge in the legal sense. He’s actually an employee of, back then, the State Department, and later it was the Department of Homeland Security. And he has to follow orders given by the administration, and they said:

“Deport him!”

And eventually that’s what happened. By that time, however, I had married a US citizen. The marriage had been recognized and I had been granted an immigrant visa. I had the documents that:

“Your immigrant visa for a Green Card is granted.”

And at that moment—when that certificate, this confirmation, was issued—I was arrested and deported. So just before getting to the counter to get my actual Green Card, they arrested me and deported me back to Germany.

Now Germany had an axe to grind because by that time I had published a further 20 books in the German language. And they had an arrest warrant out not only for the 14 months that I had to spend from before, but also for the 21 books that I had published and been selling in the time ever since I had left Germany.

Kenny Ko: So my question, and I’m sure the audience too, what’s the crime that they charged you with?

Germar Rudolf: Incitement to hate.

Kenny Ko: Exposing the truth?

[09:40]

Germar Rudolf: No, the crimes—they didn’t invent these new laws. They had been on the books, similar laws, ever since Frederick the Great! Believe it or not, Frederick the Great had a massive immigration policy because after the Thirty Years’ War, Prussia/Brandenburg was devastated and was depopulated to a large degree. And he wanted French Huguenots and Protestants who were persecuted in France to come to Prussia. So he invited them by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don’t know the exact figures, but the Prussian subjects of Frederick the Great were not happy about this massive influx of immigrants from a different culture. So no different situation than today—people being not happy about mass immigration. And there was a lot of polemics going on. Frederick the Great issued a law: You can’t stir up the people against minorities—particularly non-German, non-Prussian minorities back then.

So that law has developed over time. It became part of Germany in 1871, when Prussia kind of merged into Germany and Germany took over the Prussian laws more or less. And that’s been on the books ever since. As a matter of fact, in 1936, I think, under National Socialism, a German Catholic priest by the name of Rupert Mayer was indicted by the Third Reich judiciary for inciting the masses and stirring up the masses, because he was preaching in his church against National Socialist policies. He was sent to a concentration camp for a few months. So he was kind of persecuted for the same—and prosecuted for the same—offense that I have been prosecuted for.

The group that is protected by this law depends on whatever the zeitgeist demands as a specially protected group. Under Frederick the Great, it was the French immigrants; under the National Socialists, it was the government and the National Socialists that wanted special protection. And nowadays it’s immigrants and jews and Zionists that have this special protection. So it’s a vaster, or more numerous, group of special interest groups that have special protection nowadays.

So that was stirring up the people—inciting to hatred—back then. They still have “inciting to racial hatred.” They have taken that term out because “races” don’t exist, as you know. It’s politically incorrect to assume that.

And then also “disparaging the commemoration of the dead” and “insults.” Insult is on still-living jewish witnesses—insult them by insinuating that they could not have told the truth! And disparaging the commemoration of the dead is just all the victims that died—you deny that they even existed as victims, and so on. So there are four laws I was actually tried under back then. They did not yet have a special law for, quote-unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. They introduced that in 1994, kind of as a result also of my activities that unfolded back in the years, and all the rest of it.

Anyway, I ended up being deported to Germany, put on trial there, got another 30 months for only two of the nine books I was indicted for. Twenty-one were in the arrest, 19 were in the indictment. And for two of them I got convicted to 30 months. Had it been 21, that could have gotten nasty. If you get one year or so for each one of them, you do the math. Because eventually I got 50 months for the two books—the two publications—they booked me for eventually.

So 44 months later, I was out. And the US authorities said—they eventually denied my political asylum. The case had still not been resolved by the time I was deported. So I was whisked away, not only in violation because I was rightfully married to a US citizen. And US law says you can adjust status if you have a clean record.

And what I was convicted for in Germany was not recognized as a crime here in the United States. It’s First Amendment stuff. So from the US perspective, I had a clean record, should have been allowed to adjust status to permanent legal residence, but they deported me. Plus, it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the right of anyone physically present in the United States to have due process.

Now, if in the middle of a hearing and procedure in front of a federal court, you arrest a defendant and throw him out of the country— which is exactly the reason why the case is pending; you want to prevent being deported—that’s the whole reason of the case, whether it’s political asylum or just withholding from deportation. Both of these cases we had filed for. Deporting me in the middle of it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court didn’t take the case. That’s the way how they prevent not adjudicating a case that is unpleasant to them.

So I was back in Germany and then had to fight my way back to get my immigrant visa, even though I had already been granted it; it wasn’t issued physically yet. And then I was outside of the country already, so I needed one to be able to get back. The US authorities weren’t adjudicating the application. They just said:

“It’s too complicated. We can’t decide whether we’ll ever be able to adjudicate it.”

In other words, they were stonewalling. I had to litigate against them, force them to a decision. Fortunately, I got a judge in the Chicago federal court who kind of sided with me. For once, something went my way. He is an immigrant judge from Syria. No, I think from Syria. Not quite sure. Anyway, from the Middle East. So he evidently saw through what’s going on here, and he rubber-stamped every motion that we filed in kind of lightning speed. For legal considerations, federal courts take months for things to be decided, but he was taking days.

And then in August, 2011, after two years of waiting and litigating after having gotten out of prison in Germany, I was back in the United States. So I’ve been in the country ever since. The Germans keep doing what they’re doing, issuing arrest warrants or Europe-wide arrest warrants. And they stopped issuing me a passport because they want to catch me, but I don’t need a passport.

So I have no intention of leaving the country.

[15:21]

Kenny Ko: I was going to say, do you ever plan on leaving the United States now?

Germar Rudolf: No, I can’t. I have no passport. I’ve tried to adjust to become a citizen. But no matter what your background is, you have no right to become a US citizen. That’s a discretionary act of the people of the United States, represented by the government. And I applied for it, but they were stonewalling that case too, not adjudicating it.

And then eventually a cop framed me for something that didn’t happen. Early in the morning—talking about fitness—I was doing triathlons early in the morning for four years. Some neighbor in the neighborhood didn’t like that I was working out in the park there, doing calisthenics, and going in the river to swim, and ride a bicycle.

Kenny Ko: Were they jewish?

Germar Rudolf: No, it’s just—I don’t know the neighbor. It’s just a riverfront property. And he went to work every morning and he saw me once in a while, and he was calling the cops for years! Cops were checking on me for years! I didn’t realize what was going on really, but I couldn’t do anything. They got pissed. They got called for years and years—six years or so—every other morning in the summertime when this guy saw me. He wasn’t happy about me working out in the park area there.

Kenny Ko: Wait, why did he dislike you so much, or what was his issue? Did he know your work or something?

Germar Rudolf: No, no, I don’t know.

Kenny Ko: Interesting!

Germar Rudolf: I have never contacted the guy. I don’t know anything. I know from a cop that eventually talked to me about this, that there is, they say:

“A man in the neighborhood, he calls anonymously.”

Nobody can call the police anonymously! So that was just a claim made up in order not to have to reveal to me who that is because they think some people may take revenge for the perpetrator. I know where he lives. I know his daily routine because I was there for 10 years, every morning from April to September/October, and I know his daily routine—what time he gets up, where his bedroom is, what he does next, when he goes to the kitchen, does his breakfast, and which TV channels he watches, until he gets in his car and leaves for work. That’s the routine. I’ve been there for 10 years. I know the routine of that neighborhood.

Anyway, the cops realized they can’t get the guy to stop complaining and they can’t do anything against me because it’s legal to be there! That’s a famous fishing, motor-boat, recreational area.

And so the guy just said he was going to make up a claim that I was doing indecent exposure there, which wasn’t true. But you have only a cop and yourself at four o’clock, at a dark, vacated park, nobody there. And the guy makes up a story and then he contradicts himself. That’s interesting. Because in the preliminary hearing he makes up a completely wild story. And I couldn’t believe it, what he was telling. And then by the time the trial came, the prosecution had realized that the case was physically impossible. The claims he made couldn’t have been. It was not visible what he was claiming. It was just physically impossible. So they completely changed the story.

And if you have that situation that a witness—and that’s only one witness—completely changes the story, that’s automatic proof of perjury.

So I have that actually published, both transcripts, and everyone can look at it. You see that a cop’s committing perjury on the behest and on instruction, I would assume, of the prosecution. Because the prosecutor doing the trial showed a photo of the scene, taken from the place where the cop said he saw things. And you could see the things he described in the preliminary time were impossible. The prosecutor must have realized that. And then they told the cop that and he changed his story.

I requested after that from three law firms, three lawyers: :

“What do we do about it? I want to file a criminal complaint against the cop for perjury.”

And the answer is:

“They framed you the first time—if you are right that they framed you—and the prosecutor actually was the one working with the cop to get that accomplished. Your criminal complaint against the cop for perjury would come on the desk of the very prosecutor that has framed you in the first place. What do you think is going to happen? You get a second framing so fast you can’t blink an eye! And if you have two of these cases hanging, as an immigrant, you get deported from this country automatically!”

And that’s what’s going on. So my attempt to get citizenship was stonewalled. They weren’t deciding it, but the moment I was convicted and the conviction was upheld in the appeal—which was kind of absurd too—they instantly denied my citizenship application because I have a criminal record. Now you see what’s going on. And the appeal, the argument was:

“Wait a minute. If a guy with a searchlight goes in a park at night, completely black, and looks around and then happens to find a person with pants down, as he claims, what do you call a person who’s doing that?”

Kenny Ko: A streaker, I guess, or flasher.

Germar Rudolf: Peeping Tom!

Kenny Ko: Yeah.

[20:03]

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So if you give that guy a police badge, what do you call that? Still a peeping Tom!

So the argument wasn’t made that way. But basically, a crime of indecent exposure requires that somebody has been indecently exposed to someone of the public. A police officer who is going around with searchlights is not a person of the public. It doesn’t count. So therefore, the crime has not been committed, because as we all know, it was completely dark and it was vacated. Even if it were true—which it isn’t—but if it were true that I was there with my pants down, it cannot have been a crime because nobody was around. And the Appeals Court said:

“Well, it doesn’t matter. From now on, we say anyone who has the pants down anywhere in public, whether anyone is around or not, commits indecent exposure.”

Which means that every person in the world that ever lived has committed indecent exposure! If you were ever in nature and had a pee or did your business—which happens to us sometimes—it’s automatic indecent exposure.

Kenny Ko: They might be looking for me. I probably have over 50 charges against me here!

Germar Rudolf: Right! So legal professionals after that appeal decision said:

“This is impossible! This is completely untenable case law you’ve created here. Now, everyone has committed indecent exposure. Indecent exposure requires the intentional act to expose your genitals to someone in public who does not consent!”

If you’re in a nudist area, that’s not, because you have consent there, right? But if it’s not in a nudist area, you don’t get consent, then that’s a crime. But if there’s no one around, there’s no exposure. So later they actually reverted that by simply ignoring the case law. And every case that’s been adjudicated in Pennsylvania ever since still goes after the old law because the new case law is complete bullshit! But it shows you what was going on—trying to prevent me from getting citizenship, to have something, and to go to extreme lengths, to ridiculous lengths!

And I suspect that they got to my defense lawyer, because my defense lawyer threw me under the bus. I had all the evidence showing that this thing cannot happen. And of course we had him nailed when he contradicted himself—perjury. And my defense lawyer refused to defend me, refused to introduce any evidence.

So this is the curious thing about America. You have the First Amendment when you are outside the courtroom, you can speak your mind. If you’re inside the courtroom in a penal case and you’re the defendant, you don’t have First Amendment rights. You depend—you can speak out only if you go—if you’re defended by a lawyer, of course—you can speak about the case only if you go into the witness stand and then you can only answer to specific questions that you are asked. My defense lawyer, I had given him 10 questions I wanted him to ask me, and then develop the case and introduce all the evidence. And then I get into the witness stand and he doesn’t ask any of the questions! Only one:

“What did happen that morning?”

Which was complete bullshit because that didn’t allow me to introduce any of the evidence showing that I was working out, that I have a history of working out, and introduce images of my clothing, and so forth.

Anyway, the issue is, of course, now I don’t have citizenship and I have this criminal conviction. And the lawyers then said:

“Get the hell out of there! The best is to remove yourself from Pennsylvania—not just from this county—most certainly stay away from that county because they have you on their list there, and move!”

So that’s what I eventually did.

Kenny Ko: So where’d you move to from there?

Germar Rudolf: I’m in upstate New York now.

Kenny Ko: Okay. And you’ve been there since?

Germar Rudolf: Well, you know, it was my marriage that fell apart. That’s been in decline ever since. You know, if you have been forcibly separated for six years, that doesn’t bode well for any marriage. And my wife suffered more than I during that time of separation because it wasn’t her battle and she had to be a single mother raising our daughter all by herself. She was stressed out and not happy.

And then of course, I wouldn’t stop doing what I was doing. Coming back, slowly getting my feet back into things—that is not conducive to marital bliss. Plus, which I found later, the family and friends evidently were undermining the marriage from behind the scenes, unbeknownst to me, to one degree or another. So that wasn’t a good situation.

Anyway, eventually, when all this unraveled, I left and lived with friends first until my marriage issues were resolved—getting through divorce and splitting up assets and so forth. Until you know what you have, you don’t want to make any moves. So when that was settled, I could actually get my own life back. And that happened a couple of years ago.

Now I’ve used that time well. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting research accessible at HolocaustHandbooks.com, unparalleled in the world when it comes to the depth and the scale and scope. For instance, if we look at Auschwitz, which is the most iconic crime scene of the Holocaust—whatever happened there—I mean, it was nasty even from a revisionist perspective, from a skeptical perspective: 135, 500 documented cases of deceased inmates. That’s a huge number.

[25:04]

Kenny Ko: Because I do want to pick your brain heavily on your research and what you found. One question I wanted, and I’m sure a lot of people have it: How’d you go from your PhD field—what you thought you were going to pursue—into so passionately looking into the events surrounding the Holocaust and the World War II time frame? What kind of sparked your interest, I guess, to want to navigate that?

Germar Rudolf: I had an interest in German history, just not that topic because it’s an unpleasant topic—modern German history, kind of circumnavigating the Holocaust, ever since, I would say, ever since I started studying at university, it was a kind of a private hobby. I knew about the importance of the topic when it comes to the German psyche, if you want to put it that way, because it weighs heavily on Germans, on their self-confidence as a nation, as an identity. But you kind of take it for granted. It’s cast in stone. It’s inevitable to have to deal with it. So it never crossed my mind to challenge the narrative, let’s say it that way.

But I refuse to accept that two wrongs make a right, that one evil can balance out another one. So using what happened in the past—whatever it is—as justification to commit other injustices, whether it’s against my own people and country after the Second World War or in subsequent issues that have come up more recently. Like we look at what’s going on in Gaza or the various wars that Israel is waging—that made me aware that it has relevance, political relevance; still not a way of challenging it.

But once I did stumble over arguments that I could verify—or refute, for that matter—the toxicological and forensic research that Fred Leuchter in the United States had done, I said:

“Well, I have to look into this is a question, a topic that has huge implications politically.”

Back then I thought only in German dimensions. I was kind of still in the German box. In the meantime, I’m more cosmopolitan, I see the larger picture. But it was enough for me to say:

“I want to find out!”

And the real motivator that got me going is to realize during my time as an expert witness how the system breaks all the rules it claims to defend. It claims to be at the core of its values—be it free speech, be it freedom of science, be it the rule of law. As an expert witness in court—when you are in Germany—the German procedural rules say if an expert witness is already in court, he is an expert at what he is supposed to testify for, he is able to testify, and the testimony is relevant to the case that’s being handled by the court, then he has to be heard. There’s no way of turning them down because there’s no effort for the court to get the expert—he’s already in the court—yet still they violated that law, in every one of the seven or eight cases I was summoned to testify!

And the panic that I saw in some cases in the eyes of the judges—because they knew they needed to violate the law; they are the criminals in that case. One of them ran out, called some superior—there is no superior of a judge—but evidently called probably the capital or whatever, some higher court to find out:

“Do I get backing from the higher courts if I violate the procedural rules here?”

And evidently the decision later on by the German Supreme Court:

“Yes, we’ve always done it, we will always keep doing it. That’s the way we have to do it!”

Bunch of horseshit! Excuse my English.

Kenny Ko: Hey, you can use whatever language you want. They put you through absolute hell! And first, I wanted to say too, thank you for all you have done, by the way. And also, sorry that you’ve been put through so much. But it just shows that the truth will always prevail. And we need people like you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing what you did, sacrificing what you have in order to get this information out to the masses.

[28:49]

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

[1:40:59]

END

top

============================================

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/8/2026 = )

==========================

See Also

top

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript