A Job Posting Exposes Lithuania’s Holocaust Problem |
The Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre (LGGRTC) has advertised for a new Director General. The posting reads like a routine leadership search. It is not. It is an admission that the institution has failed—and that no one inside Lithuania has been able to correct it.
For years, the Centre has presented itself as a research institution. In practice, it has functioned as a national fictional, myth-making apparatus, producing factual disinformation and state-sponsored propaganda designed to protect reputations and stabilize political narratives rather than confront documentary evidence. After notice—repeated notice—of demonstrable falsehoods, distortions, and omissions, the institution has not corrected the record. It has entrenched it.
That is not scholarship. That is administrative fabrication.
The result is an institution now internationally known not for research, but for propaganda. It has no scholarly legitimacy outside Lithuania and deserves none until it abandons fiction in favor of evidence. Its outputs are treated with skepticism by historians, legal scholars, and memory institutions because they function as narrative instruments, not adjudicated history.
This record is documented. I have written about it extensively, including here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/an-institution-advertising-for-fraud/
Today, I took the institution at its word and submitted a formal application for the position—not as provocation, but as a good-faith, civic act aimed at helping my country confront a problem it can no longer manage internally.
I am a Lithuanian citizen. My grandfather fought for Lithuania’s independence. I consider it my patriotic duty to help Lithuania correct a historical fraud that continues to damage its credibility abroad. I published my full application—English and Lithuanian—publicly and transparently, so that it could be examined by the Lithuanian public and the international community alike: https://open.substack.com/pub/grantgochin/p/formal-application
I am ready, willing, and able to serve Lithuania. I am prepared to relocate. I am prepared to work without compensation. I have already begun drafting the required five-year action plan for institutional reform. I approached this process openly, constructively, and without concealment.
My professional background, research record, and qualifications—including my full biography and resume—have been offered openly to the Government of Lithuania and to the Lithuanian public in full transparency: https://grantgochin.com/
I am deeply familiar with the LGGRTC’s operations, staff, methodologies, and public claims—not as an outsider speculating, but as someone who has spent years examining them line-by-line, document-by-document, in published analysis: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/grant-arthur-gochin/
If internal leadership had been capable of reform, this job would not exist. It exists because internal management has preserved false narratives rather than corrected them.
A Security Requirement That Signals Institutional Panic
Rather than opening the position to independent competence, the Centre embedded a barrier designed to exclude it.
The posting requires applicants to already possess authorization to work with information classified as “Top Secret,” issued by Lithuanian security authorities, at the application stage. This is incompatible with EU public-service standards, where security vetting occurs after selection—not as a pre-application gatekeeping device.
A Lithuanian citizen cannot independently initiate such clearance without nomination. The requirement therefore operates as an exclusionary mechanism, not a qualification. It restricts candidacy to a pre-cleared internal circle—the same circle whose record necessitated this leadership search.
This is not merely bad administration. It raises serious questions of EU compliance and equal access to public office—questions that will not disappear.
What, Exactly, Is “Top Secret” About History?
The Centre has not explained what “Top Secret” materials are implicated in the study of events that occurred decades ago. That silence matters.
The LGGRTC is not a military command, an intelligence service, or an operational security body. It is a historical research institution charged with examining genocide, occupation, collaboration, and resistance—fields whose evidentiary foundations are archival, judicial, and testimonial by nature. History is retrospective. It is not operational.
If genuinely “Top Secret” materials are required to conduct historical research into events from the 1940s—or even the late Soviet period—then one of two conclusions is unavoidable.
Either the classification is being used improperly, as a procedural device to restrict access and pre-select outcomes; or the materials in question contain information so damaging to existing narratives that they are being withheld from scholarly scrutiny under the language of national security.
Neither explanation reflects institutional integrity.
States do not protect historical truth by classifying it. They protect liability, reputation, or political convenience. When security classification becomes a condition for historical inquiry, it ceases to function as protection of the state and begins to function as protection from accountability.
At minimum, the Centre owes the public an explanation: what documents are at issue, from what period, classified under what legal authority, and why they are relevant to research that is, by definition, historical rather than operational.
Absent answers, the invocation of “Top Secret” status does not inspire confidence. It invites scrutiny.
No Language Escape, No Legal Alibi
Notably, the posting was advertised without any language requirement. Under Lithuanian law, criteria not stated in the announcement cannot later be invented to justify exclusion. Language competence, if required, must be specified upfront. It was not.
There is no lawful criterion—stated or implied—that disqualifies me.
I meet the requirements. I have the experience. I have the preparation. I have the citizenship. I have publicly offered to serve my country without pay. Nothing stands in the way of my appointment except institutional self-preservation.
Proof of Submission—and a Demand for Transparency
My application was submitted today by email to five official LGGRTC addresses:
centras@genocid.lt media@genocid.lt arunas.bubnys@genocid.lt evaldas.gelumbauskas@genocid.lt kristina.burinskaite@genocid.lt
I have already received an automated out-of-office reply from Aurelija Juodytė, Senior Adviser for Marketing and Communication, confirming receipt. There is therefore no possibility of denial, misplacement, or procedural evasion.
On Independence, Public Interest, and the Labor-Law Pretext
It is important to state plainly what this article is—and what it is not.
I am not an employee of the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre. I hold no contractual, supervisory, or fiduciary relationship with it. I am an external applicant and a Lithuanian citizen engaging in public-interest commentary on a state institution’s conduct, selection criteria, and compliance with European norms.
Labor-law restrictions on criticizing one’s employer do not apply to citizens evaluating public bodies prior to appointment. To suggest otherwise would itself constitute a barrier to open competition and public accountability, effectively disqualifying any informed external candidate from speaking truthfully. My public analysis of the Centre’s work is not evidence of incompatibility. It is evidence of subject-matter expertise. Institutions tasked with historical adjudication cannot lawfully define competence as loyalty to prior narratives, nor treat informed critique as disqualifying hostility. To do so would convert scholarly disagreement into an exclusionary criterion—undermining the very purpose of an open selection process.
This article does not prejudice the selection process; it tests it. If public, evidence-based criticism disqualifies a candidate, the process is not competitive—it is insulated.
Transparency before selection is not misconduct. It is the minimum standard of democratic governance.
The Burden Is Now on Them
If the LGGRTC does not hire me, it must do one thing—openly and transparently. It must explain to the world why a qualified Lithuanian citizen, publicly offering to serve without compensation, was excluded. It must state which criteria were applied, how they were applied, and why those criteria were lawful.
Silence will not suffice. Procedural games will not suffice.
The United States Congress has not forgotten how Lithuanian authorities previously used Congressional materials to advance Holocaust falsification—and then insulted Members of Congress when challenged. That episode remains unresolved. Whoever assumes this position will inherit that exposure and the international scrutiny that accompanies it.
This is no longer a quiet bureaucratic job. It is a liability post.
I am the only candidate who understands the depth of the institutional damage, the international consequences already in motion, and how to help Lithuania move forward rather than dig deeper.
If the Centre possesses even minimal respect for evidence, law, and its own future, it will act accordingly.
If it does not, this hiring process will confirm what is already clear: the institution is not seeking reform—it is seeking cover.
Lithuania deserves better than a world-renowned disinformation center masquerading as scholarship. It deserves a research institution worthy of international respect.