Newsletter No 399

                                                                               ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                     July 2008
                                                                    No 399

“The guilt of the accused, following some consideration was estimated as very minor. It would not be in the public interest to seek a prosecution. Contingent upon this assessment were the following factors: the accused has no previous criminal record and is not under investigation; on account of his psychiatric health there remains some doubt as to his awareness of the crime.”

Paradoxically, the letter ends with a warning: “If the [mentally insane] accused continues [to ask troublesome questions] he will lose the benefit of the above-mentioned ruling.” (Additions in brackets are mine.)

One strike and you’re crazy; two strikes and you’re sane. Don’t “crazy” people repeatedly make the same “mistakes” or is the State Attorney afraid to prosecute a man who will counter-sue for incitement to bear false witness?

What did I do? Let me refresh your memory. I simply sent letter to the Central Council of Jews asking them if there was something mysteriously Kabbalistic about the very rounded and sacredly indisputable six million number. Why would positing 5,999,999 or even 6,000,001 be considered “holocaust” denial and put an inquisitive man behind bars? Why can’t mature, grown-up human beings answer such a question without hauling me before the police and then involving the State Attorney into the bargain? Did I hit a nerve?

And why the snide the comment that, should I continue in my “craziness”, I shall suddenly be deemed sane enough to go before the bench (without a jury, which is always the case in Soviet Germany)? Is that not a threat? Is not making threats with menaces a crime in Germany as it is elsewhere?

There is something else which irks me profoundly by the way I have been slandered in this letter, and here I have an honest confession to make. I do indeed suffer from depression and I have a long history of alcoholism. In the latter case, I’ve kept my old pals, Johnny Walker and Jack Daniels, well out of reach for ten years, despite two spectacular relapses. In the former case, I tried everything the Jewish medical establishment threw at me before deciding to live with depression and chronic fatigue rather than endure the horrific side effects delivered by pharmaceuticals.

So how did the Central Council of Jews and the Frankfurt State Attorney get hold of my medical records? There are very strict laws in place in Germany that prohibit the betrayal of trust and confidence in terms of doctor-patient relationships. Who snitched? Who pried? Who stole information that does not belong in the public domain?

If they really want to know just how crazy I am, I must also fess-up to a midlife crisis. I’m a divorced 48-year-old desperately in love with the daughter I never had. Her name is "Billie". I met a young lady recently who told me she wouldn’t mind cooperating with me in an intimate manner to bring forth “Billie”, but now I have cold feet. I would really love to meet “Billie” one day and teach her everything I know, and learn much more from her besides. I yearn for this unborn daughter of mine but I have serious doubts about her prospective mother, and I wouldn’t want her to grow up in the European Union of Soviet Zionist States.

On April 4, I shared a series of e-mails with a close friend in Germany. I spoke of my depression and how pessimistic I was in terms of a free Europe. I spoke at length about ways in which the European Union could be abolished. I expressed my wish to leave the European Soviet and live a life of freedom in South America. I may even have said it would be better to commit suicide than live in the emerging Soviet fascist European Union.

I awoke the next morning in the company of two policemen. They were polite, embarrassed almost, but asked me to dress myself as quickly as possible and pack my necessities. What ensued was the scariest 24 hours of my life. Now, I’ve been there, folks. I was once surrounded by 36 paratroopers at Nairobi airport, all under orders to shoot me dead. I was also the target of an MI6 hit-man in the Taunustrasse in Frankfurt in May 1997. I can still remember having a Kenyan General Service Unit assassin put a gun in my mouth on the outskirts of Nairobi, and instead of blinking, I laughed, and he ran off.

This was different. They took me to a high-security psychiatric clinic in Koppern and they locked me in a room with lights that never dimmed, even during sleeping hours. A fat, balding man would peer in on me every twenty minutes or so, and he wondered why I had not undressed; why it was that I lay on my bed in the cold, tie undone, shoes in place. I didn’t plan to stay.

They sent in a battery of doctors and psychiatrists to probe, prod and test me. They could find nothing wrong with me, and I still have the report to prove it. Psychiatric health: A-plus. Extremely high IQ. As sharp as a whistle.

Isn’t that fucking amazing? You’re feeling depressed and you end up in the most nightmarish, hellish scenario you can ever imagine just because you told a friend about your fears for the future of Europeans and how you’re hurting deep down inside for yourself and your own people.

Do you know what they did? They said, “Okay, here’s your ‘get out of jail free card’, but (and there’s always a fucking ‘but’ in your face when that’s the last thing you want to see), “You take these, and you take them without question.”

So I did.

Do you know what they were? Paxil (Paroxetine). Never heard of this garbage ever before in my life. I was online for 24-hours-straight trying to figure out what was going on inside of my head. I did not know who the hell the I was. I did not even know I had started to drink again. They put me on this pharmaceutical trip, and I went wheeling from one bar to another and my guess is I drank the whole of Bad Homburg dry.

I have no real, quality spectacles anymore. I smashed them by falling over simply because some girl said, “Hi, Mikey.” I just spun around and my face hit the concrete. I had been off the booze for three days and eventually flushed those tablets down the toilet after four weeks. I can’t even remember whether this “Hi, Mikey” happened to me here in Burgholzhausen, Bad Homburg, Switzerland, Berlin or even in Shanghai City. Could have been anywhere. Really. Name that planet.

I purchased two pairs of replacement spectacles at Woolworths, and I have to keep swapping them out because I get a headache after each shift. I can neither read nor write for more than ten minutes without losing vision. I’ve always had migraines, but now they’re worse than ever before. I now have a tremor in my right hand and it shows no sign of abating. That Paxil was designed to destroy my brain cells.

As my readers will know, my Internet connection was recently shut down for six days. When they can’t win, they kick the game board.

The German government and their Zionist and Jewish puppet masters have a new weapon in their armoury to be used against those who tell the truth about suppressed history and the illegal European Soviet Union: denial of internet access, without warning and without any apparent remedy.

It is a cruel cut. In all of my discussions with my ISP and the infrastructure providers, T-Com, the message came through loud and clear: We reconnect at our leisure. You’re not welcome here. You’re making waves. Stop writing the things you’re writing and everything will be just fine.

What would Billie say?

***

Michael James, an Englishman, is a former freelance journalist resident in Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland.

***

Letter from the State Attorney of Frankfurt to Michael James:

Staatsanwaltschaft b. d. LG – 60256 Frankfurt am Main

Geschäftszeichen: 6111 Js 222524/08

Bearbeiterin: StAin Niesen

Durchwahl: 60 78

Konrad-Adenauer- Str. 20

60313 Frankfurt am Main

Telefon: (069) 1367 – 01

Telefax: (069) 1367 – 2100

In dem Ermittlungsverfahren gegen Michael James in Friedrichsdorf wegen des Verdachts der Volksverhetzung

Strafanzeige Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland in Berlin vom 17.4.2008

Wird nach 153 Abs. 1 StPO von der Verfolgung abgesehen.

Gründe:

Nach dem bisherigen Ergebnis der Ermittlungen wäre die Schuld des Täters als gering anzusehen. Ein öffentliches Interesse, das die Strafverfolgung gebietet, liegt nicht vor. Maßgebend für diese Bewertung des angezeigten Einzelfalles sind folgende Umstände: Der Beschuldigte ist bislang strafrechtlich nicht in Erscheinung getreten. Angesichts seines psychischen Gesundheitszustandes bestehen Zweifel an seinem Unrechtsbewusstein.

Weitere Ermittlungen stehen außer Verhältnis.

Bei der Einstellung ist davon ausgegangen worden, dass es sich um einen einmaligen Fall handelt. Im Wiederholungsfall kann der Beschuldigte nicht mit weiterer Nachsicht rechnen.

Etwaige vermögensrechtliche Ansprüche werden durch die Einstellung des strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahrens nicht berührt.

Niesen, Staatsanwältin,

GESTEMPELT / Beglaubigt / Justizangestellte.

As a personal friend of the writer Michael James, who is one of the few people I know taking a stand against the Zionists in Germany, I wish to express my fears that his life could be in danger following his recent defiance and defeat of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

Last week, Mike made legal history in Germany, and yet very few people know about it. His victory against international Zionist Jewry was astonishing. He set a precedent which is a threat to the Zionist World Order and the emerging Bolshevik European Union, but you only read about it on the Net, and that article has been expunged from the Google cache. Totally deleted within 48 hours. And no mainstream coverage. Nothing.

I have published many of Mike's brave and outspoken articles on my own website, http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com, the last being the main article in question, "Jews Run Scared of Mike James, German State Attorney Cites Insanity".

Each time I publish one of his articles, I notice a huge spike in interest from folks with military and Israeli ISP addresses and I sometimes get blasted for publishing him, including Denial of Service attacks and abusive e-mails. This time I received a very threatening letter disparaging Mike and a number of strange e-mails from Jews that made no sense but were quite sinister.

The Jews are going to attack this guy with a fury. I'll tell you why, and I'll tell you why I think we should pray for him.

Mike knows his history and he knows the law, but the position he takes is one the Jews can't handle. It's not classically revisionist. His view is that all history is subjectively written and therefore justifiably questionable. Furthermore, he maintains that it is not possible to verify anything one hasn't personally witnessed or experienced oneself and hold it to be the "truth."

As he said himself:

“No policeman would ever ask someone born in 1959 to stand in the dock before a judge and swear on the Bible that he had witnessed a crime that allegedly took place twenty years before he was born. Such a policemen would soon find himself charged with corruption and the witness would be incarcerated for perjury.”

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/mike_james_sues_german_jews.htm
Mike once told me that the only lawyer he would need in court is Socrates and he would make a laughing stock out of these ridiculous "holocaust" denial laws using logic and reason. I believe he would too, and do so knowing that the judge sitting before him is a representative of an illegal state that ceased to exist in 1990. (This is a well-known fact in Germany, but something most Germans are afraid to talk about, but not Mike.)

I got an e-mail from him yesterday and he told me that he was astonished to see how his last article had disappeared from over 22 sites, various blogs and many forums in all the Google caches (he's already been banned from Google Germany for the last three years).

Then I got to thinking, well, a wounded Jew is a very dangerous Jew. Although the State Attorney said he wasn't under investigation, I know from my communications with Mike over the past few months that he is being trailed, watched and monitored (which he takes for granted with a big grin). He even had his phone disconnected for a week by the government as punishment.

Now, anyone who knows Mike or has read any of his articles is going to get the impression that he just doesn't give a shit and is on a death wish, and I think that's true to some extent. If he was anyone else, he'd already be in prison. You can call it brazen stupidity or plain bravery, or both; but I know him well enough to say that once he finds himself in a fight he can't stop until he's won because the one thing he hates is bullies and tyrants, and lies and laws that make no sense.

So last night I e-mailed him and we spoke about the missing article, and then he said just what I thought he would say: "Well, who gives a fuck? How long before all of my articles are ethnically cleansed from the Google cache? And what would be the reason, Holger? Before you kill a man, you destroy the paper trail, don't you?"

I came back at him and said, "You know, this is real important. Can I quote you and write about this?"

"Sure," he said, "If I have an unusual accident or if I'm suicided and it's somewhere mentioned that I was a shit-stirring old-time journalist critical of Zionism, International Jewry and the Soviet European Union, what would most inquisitive people do? They would Google my name. And all they would find is lots of stories about Mike James the American basketball player. So ... that guy in Germany said nothing really important. And the Jews win again. So put it on the record, Holger. Make the fuckers sweat."

Michael James did something amazing last week, and it scared the crap out of the Zionist elites. He set a judicial precedent and emphasized a valid defense: Blasphemy and Incitement to Bear False Witness. Compliance with the holocaust laws therefore make perjurers, liars, and idle guessers of all of us. By any legal or moral standards, all these things, all these laws are unlawful, Bolshevistic nonsense.

This is why I felt compelled to write this article and kindly ask you to publish it in the hope that nothing bad happens to Michael James. That guy is doing it all by himself. He's a reclusive self-employed, middle-income British guy with no affiliations or support. Like he once said, he's a lone-ranger without Tonto, or even a horse. He does this all by himself because his anger at the injustice and lies directed against the German people is intense. He will always refuse help because he is what the real American once used to be -- a true independent fighting for his own.

I know he has no time for all the revisionist intellectuals writing books in exile. "Why write books about something that can only be speculative to those who were not there to witness it?" he asked. "As Napoleon said, 'All history is bunk', so just fuck it."

I've asked Mike, as others have, if he needs some extra help, and he won't take it. Not a dime. This is his war. It's a very personal thing. Call it a vendetta. He won't say what his next move is going to be, but it'll be a surprise.

For sure, the Jews made a mistake when they picked a fight with this guy. If they kill him, they lose. If they don't, they still lose.

Let's hope someone, somewhere, blows the whistle, and calls for a free and fair open debate. If the truth be known, can’t we all be winners?

www.gnosticliberationfront.com

The arch-conservative Patrick Buchanan has never found an isolationist cause, other than the anti-anti-communist one, that he didn't like. First he penned A Republic, Not an Empire to make the case for American active disengagement from the world's woes but, apparently unheeded, this hasn't sufficed. Accordingly, in his latest tome, Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, he has targeted the biggest objection to his preferred course of action – the disastrous consequences of appeasing Nazi Germany in the 1930s. His argument is simple and tries to get out from under: appeasement of Hitler wasn't the culprit – the Allied victors of World War One were.

Buchanan asks: "How did Munich lead to World War II?" and answers – it didn't. Instead, he says, the war-causing event was the Allies' violation of the principle of self-determination by creating Czechoslovakia, which, as he put it in a recent column, absorbed "3 million Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles and 500,000 Ruthenians."

What Buchanan doesn't mention is that there was no way to provide viable self-determination for some groups without creating new minorities, as Europe's populations were deeply entangled. Nor does he disclose that the Munich agreement incorporated 800,000 Czechs into the Third Reich, whose right to self-determination Buchanan lacks the audacity to claim was in any way inferior to that of Germans in Czechoslovakia. These are gaping omissions in an argument claiming that the Allies violated the principle of self-determination. Nor does Buchanan argue for any alternative principle the Allies should have followed.

These omissions enable a disingenuous argument. They convey the false impression that self-determination was a sound, rather than problematic, idea and that it was dishonored by the Allies rather than imperfectly implemented by them. This in turn allows Buchanan to insinuate that the problems of inter-war Europe were the creation of the Allies, rather than inherent in the situation.

Thus, Buchanan presents Nazi demands in 1938 and 1939 as being simply instances of Germans justly seeking self-determination. That in turn entails another omission: failing to mention why applying the principle of self-determination to create Czechoslovakia proved so disruptive that a world war was risked in 1938. After all, many peoples have their minorities in other lands. That is no necessary tragedy. The tragedy is to be everywhere a minority. Yet in 1938, the overwhelming majority of Germans enjoyed self-determination, embodied in the largest, most powerful state in the heart of Europe. Yet even this proved insufficient. Why? Buchanan doesn't say.

The answer is this: the Nazi supremacist policy of conquest and enslavement that anyone who cared to know at the time could have discovered meant that either the Allies would have to concede all Hitler demanded, or war would result. But the appeasers didn't want to know it then and Buchanan, who knows it now, simply strikes it from the record – while belittling the most prominent figure who did understand from the beginning, Winston Churchill. Like the appeasers, Buchanan detaches shards of legitimacy from totalitarian claims – much like present day appeasers of Islamist aggression.

Unfortunately for Buchanan, the historical record is not amenable to this sort of engineering. Issues of self-determination led to world war not because, as Buchanan argues, Britain and France took an imprudent interest in standing by Poland's refusal to disgorge itself of German-populated territories, but because the dynamic aggressiveness of Nazi Germany made a stand at some point imperative.

It was painfully clear by 1939 that Germany did not simply want the Paris peace settlement redrawn as if Germany had not lost: it wanted it rewritten as if Germany had won. In that distinction lies the world of difference between legitimate claims that can be arbitrated, and consuming appetites that cannot be, if I may for once use the word, appeased.

Buchanan tactfully says nothing about why Britain found itself in 1938 at Munich with the unenviable dilemma of either conceding Hitler's demands or going to war with Germany when "she had no draft, no Spitfires, no divisions ready to be sent to France." Yet the reason for precisely this dilemma and these near-fatal deficiencies was years of appeasement – precisely the policy Buchanan is at pains to resurrect.

A refusal to arm and maintain necessary forces to keep the peace; a refusal to reverse Hitler's violation of the peace when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 – something that could have been accomplished easily with available forces when Hitler's armies were as yet too weak and small to face determined opposition; a refusal to make common cause with the Soviets to counter Hitler – all these and more found Britain so fatefully unprepared for the crisis when it came. But Buchanan fixates on Munich, divorced of its historical and moral context, his unctuous tone notwithstanding.

Moreover, however woefully unprepared was Britain for war in 1938, it was in arguably better shape for the supreme test than a year later when it did go to war. True, the Royal Air Force won a year's reprieve in which to build up its strength, which proved hugely important, but the failure to stand firm at Munich was also militarily disastrous. It deprived Britain and France of a Czech ally who, rendered defenseless, was dismembered by Hitler six months later, along with its excellent army of 40 divisions. This freed up 30 German divisions for service elsewhere, handed to Hitler the resources of the Czech arms industry, economy and territories, and brought about the collapse of France's eastern alliances.

In short, abdication at Munich led to the ill-considered and unenforceable guarantee to Poland, which Buchanan deplores – he merely fails to explain that his preferred appeasement policy brought Britain to that very pass.

By its unpreparedness, Britain nearly forfeited its existence, not merely its empire, and had to fight for its life in a monumental war that could have been headed off earlier at much lesser cost by a combination of prudence and moral clarity. Those searching for either will not find it in Buchanan's book. People who neither wish to confront aggression nor inquire into the evil that animates it are the first to find spuriously altruistic reasons for so doing – a truism that can stand as an epitaph for Patrick Buchanan.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jseA_EEYAYvrcZqAWXYrAnPtgD91GD9V00

WHEN Thomas Kossmann arrived at The Alfred hospital's trauma centre in 2001, he came as the great white hope. Six years later he left the wards he had ruled so imperiously, this time led by two security guards.

What happened in the years between is now the subject of one of the most serious medical scandals in recent Victorian history. This week, the professor's carefully constructed aura has been demolished by the leaked findings of an expert panel investigating misconduct allegations against him.

The panel of three senior orthopedic specialists found that the man in charge of the nation's busiest trauma centre was not all he appeared to be. The panel has alleged serious flaws with his surgical ability and judgement; his honesty and integrity have been severely questioned.

The panel's six-month inquiry found considerable problems in all but seven of the 24 patient cases reviewed. An audit of a further 31 cases randomly chosen uncovered significant issues in three of them.

The panel's final report is an extraordinarily damaging document, revealing that Kossmann had been performing spinal and pelvic surgery of which he was incapable. The report claims he was unable to "self-limit" his surgery. In other words, he had no sense of his own surgical limits.

"It was as if God spoke to Thomas one day and said, 'Today you are a pelvic surgeon,' and he went on and did surgery he was not qualified to do," said one of his colleagues this week.

The panel found he was attempting procedures not seen anywhere in the world. No one died, but some of his surgery was found to be "harmful … flawed" or simply unnecessary. "The nature of these practices and decision-making was beyond any level of acceptable behaviour and standard of care," the panel stated.

Also subject to fierce criticism were Kossmann's billing practices. According to the panel, he invoiced publicly funded bodies, such as the Transport Accident Commission, for surgery that was not undertaken or was done by others. The panel found Kossmann had "no concept of what constituted a moral approach to patient billing".

But, as throughout the whole saga, Kossmann and his supporters bitterly refute the findings. Kossmann's former boss, Professor Otmar Trentz, has described Kossmann as a gifted and dedicated surgeon who had been targeted by people driven by "envy, jealousy and insider deals".

One Kossmann insider said that had any surgeon been subject to similar scrutiny, flaws would be found. Kossman's camp remains furious at the lack of fairness in the panel process. "He would have had a better go if he was in Guantanamo Bay," an insider said. "The panel refused to compare his billing to other surgeons' billing. It is because they are scared of what they might find is wrong with the system, because it reflects badly on them."

Putting aside the strongly held views from both camps, the Kossmann saga has raised a range of serious issues now being probed by the Victorian Ombudsman. How could such questionable surgical and billing practices of such a prominent surgeon remain unchecked for so long?

When the Zurich-based Kossmann was first approached in late 2000 to head The Alfred's trauma department, the concept of a stand-alone trauma surgery unit in Australia was under threat. Trauma surgeons, who are able to manage a patient suffering severe injuries in different parts of their body, are common in Europe. But in Australia, surgeons stick to specific areas — the neurosurgeons with the nervous system, orthopedic surgeons the bones.

Kossmann flew into Australia as the ultimate outsider — a foreigner championing a a foreign concept. In Melbourne's close-knit surgical community, a certain degree of opposition and scepticism about the professor was inevitable. Newspaper clippings help tell part of the Kossmann story in his first few years at The Alfred. In 2002, a calm and confident Kossmann told journalists about his department's care of victims of the Bali bombing attacks. In a profile piece in The Age in 2003, he spoke of his passion for his job: "Somebody can come in after falling off a construction site with some metal going through his body. I don't know, when I open him, what to expect. I can save him, he can die … It's never boring, it's always exciting and it's always rewarding." The article describes Kossmann's CV as "nine densely typed pages of international experience and glittering qualifications".

In 2004, the square-jawed and handsome professor was photographed alongside then premier Steve Bracks, launching the National Trauma Research Institute at The Alfred. Kossmann was appointed the director and his wife, Christina Morganti-Kossmann, a respected medical researcher, was made co-director.

Kossmann's success lay partly in his ability to reach outside of the hospital's walls, impressing those with financial clout. The research institute was funded by the TAC, insurance company AAMI, car manufacturers, medical implant companies and charitable foundations. Kossmann donated almost $290,000 to the institute, an act he highlighted when the accusations of overbilling first surfaced last year.

The institute not only placed The Alfred on the map in the international trauma scene, but created an avenue for local surgeons to build on their academic credentials via research papers and projects. Kossmann's power extended outside the trauma department to its research arm as well. Occupying key posts at the research institute were several Alfred surgeons in senior positions at the hospital, sitting alongside or above Kossmann in terms of seniority and dealing with complaints about any surgeons' behaviour.

But exactly how complaints about surgical problems or billing concerns were handled at The Alfred remains unclear.

One of the audit systems, known as peer review, involved weekly meetings in which surgeons could critique each other in a group setting. Directors of medical units and senior administrative staff could also be sought out when a doctor had concerns about a colleague's work.

When Kossmann's activities first began to trouble several surgeons — according to some internal sources, this happened as early as a year after his appointment — the complainants faced several hurdles. They were, after all, complaining about their boss. Some of the senior staff these surgeons turned to were tied up in research institute projects with Kossmann, or appeared to believe his strengths outweighed the mutterings of his critics.

Kossmann had his own response, claiming the concerns were an extension of the anti-foreign-surgeon syndrome that had afflicted some of his colleagues when he was first appointed. Kossmann, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has previously said his attempts to streamline the trauma department had annoyed the part-time specialists because it froze them out of the public hospital system, which offers prestige, academic opportunities and lucrative billing opportunities for TAC patients.

During peer reviews, surgeons' concerns about Kossmann were often downplayed or ignored. One headstrong surgeon who fiercely critiqued Kossmann was asked to apologise. In a development The Alfred's chief executive, Jennifer Williams, says was unrelated to his outburst, the same surgeon's contract at The Alfred was not renewed.

In 2005, at least one surgeon raised serious concerns about Kossmann with the then director of neurosurgery, Jeffrey Rosenfeld. But although he had influence in the hospital, Rosenfeld had no direct-line control over Kossmann. The complaining surgeons were told to put aside their disputes and continue to assist Kossmann when asked. Says a surgeon: "There were six years when we couldn't question Thomas. The hospital simply wouldn't allow it."

But the complaints would not go away. Some surgeons had to interject when Kossmann pushed for surgery they considered inappropriate. On several occasions, they had to help complete surgery Kossmann had started. Concerned that they were acting as a "safety net" for the trauma director, at least four surgeons began to compare notes.

By August last year, the group lodged a complaint with Williams, who decided to commission an expert panel to examine their concerns. If there was truth to the allegations, Williams and other senior staff, including the director of operations, Andrew Stripp, were facing a crisis. Williams sounded out the former head of orthopedics at the Royal Children's Hospital, Bob Dickens, who, along with two interstate orthopedic specialists, began to examine the complaints.

Initially, Kossmann appeared unconcerned. He assured hospital management that the allegations of excessive surgery and wrongful billing were without foundation.

In the final week of November, Williams and the Bayside Health board were briefed on Dickens' preliminary findings. They were shocked at the contents. Kossmann was now fighting for survival. He began to search for material to attack the credibility of his accusers. Central to Kossmann's defence throughout the saga has been his claim that billing discrepancies would also be found in the records of other surgeons and he was only billing as he had been taught. With Kossmann intent on building this defence, Williams moved to suspend him from the hospital premises. On the evening of November 26, two security guards escorted him from The Alfred.

Kossmann hit back with a well-orchestrated public relations campaign and a Supreme Court challenge to his suspension, which he claims was illegal. As the panel continued its work over summer, the relationship between Kossmann and the hospital continued to sour.

"He has behaved very badly and turned The Alfred into a circus," a senior Bayside Health figure recently said.

"But he is not the only surgeon out there with problems, particularly with TAC billing. This saga has exposed flaws in the entire system from accreditation of doctors to auditing processes in the TAC, DHS and public hospitals."

Based on the findings of the report, Kossmann is likely soon to either resign or be sacked by The Alfred. If that happens a fresh outpouring of support from former patients and some of his still-supportive colleagues is also likely. Regardless, finding equivalent work in Australia will prove difficult. Sources say police are likely to investigate whether he has defrauded the motorist-funded TAC but will require a much higher burden of proof than the panel. Medicare is about to start its own audit of his billings. WorkCover has been advised to do the same.

But what lies ahead for the many other individuals and institutions involved in this sad affair? The extent of the system-wide problems in Victoria will be further revealed later this year when investigations by the Ombudsman and the TAC are concluded.

The State Government and the Department of Human Services will be scrutinised, especially given the revelation that senior health bureaucrats pressured the Royal College of Surgeons into giving Kossmann orthopedic accreditation despite its reservations about his suitability without further training. The State Opposition wants to explore Kossmann's self-professed role as an informal "political adviser" to former health minister Bronwyn Pike.

The Kossmann affair has revealed serious failings surrounding the accountability of public money in the state's health system. Also exposed has been the absence of a rigorous and independent system to handle complaints about doctor misconduct. As a senior TAC figure said recently: "The trust we had that doctors would do the right thing has been broken".

Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie are Age investigative reporters.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/indepth/insight/2008/04//1207856825931.html

Professor Thomas Kossman, head of the Alfred Hospital's emergency department, has hit back at his critics claiming his reputation has been ruined because of his attempts to introduce reforms to the hospital, after complaints led to an investigation and a report that alleged he put lives at risk.

Prof Thomas Kossmann

KERRY O'BRIEN: First up, the story of Australia's highest profile trauma surgeon who's been accused of putting lives at risk. As the head of one of the nation's biggest hospital emergency departments, Professor Thomas Kossman, appeared to be every bit the celebrity surgeon.

Professor Kossman was at the forefront of the treatment of Bali bombing victims and even starred in a reality TV show about his trauma unit. But complaints from some of his colleagues at Melbourne's Alfred Hospital led to an investigation into his surgical and billing practices, and a report that alleged he put lives at risk.

Now, speaking for the first time since that report, Professor Kossman has hit back at his critics claiming his reputation has been ruined because of his attempts to introduce reforms to the hospital.

Natasha Johnson reports.

THOMAS KOSSMANN, SURGEON: I feel that my career has been assassinated, not only down here in Melbourne or in Australia, it's worldwide.

NATASHA JOHNSON: A once outstanding reputation in ruins. Professor Thomas Kossman, the former head of Melbourne's Alfred Hospital trauma centre, the country's largest, is now unemployed and spends his days reviewing cases and talking to lawyers, while the head of the Alfred seems to be feeling the pressure over the hospital's handling of the case.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ALFRED HOSPITAL: Look, I'm sorry. I think I gave you enough time.

NATASHA JOHNSON: I think these are serious questions that you need to answer about...

Thomas Kossman faces multiple investigations by police, the Victorian ombudsman, the Medical Practitioners Board, Medicare and the publicly funded insurer the Transport Accident Commission.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: I will fight to get my reputation completely cleared and to go on working as a trauma surgeon.

NATASHA JOHNSON: It's a dramatic turn around for the charismatic German born surgeon who starred in a reality TV show about the high pressure unit's treatment of emergency patients.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: Thomas Kossman is my name, I am the director of the trauma department, looking after you.

NATASHA JOHNSON: The Alfred considered it a coup when Professor Kossman was head hunted from Zurich in 2001 and he became a hero to many for his role in treating Bali bomb victims like football Jason McCartney.

After complaints from a small group of consultant surgeons, the hospital commissioned a peer review panel that delivered an alarming finding.

ROBERT DICKENS, PANEL CONVENOR (21 May): Lives were put at risk, there were examples of catastrophic bleeding.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Headed by paediatric orthopaedic surgeon Robert Dickins, the panel found that while no one died or permanently injured, Professor Kossman risked lives through surgical practices and decision making that were inappropriate, unnecessary, beyond any level of acceptable behaviour, flawed in conception and harmful in effect.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: I completely refute this, you see, I actually saved a lot of lives. The panel actually said there were no adverse outcomes and I think that is extraordinary and puts the whole report in some kind of schizophrenic context because on the one hand you accuse me of being not able to do the surgery or doing wrong decision making, on the other hand you say there were no adverse outcomes.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Did you make mistakes in any of these cases?

THOMAS KOSSMANN: I don't think so I made mistakes. In terms of harming these patients, but in retrospect I would probably decide a couple of things different.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Former patients have rushed to defend the doctor. There's even a Facebook site with 700 messages of support.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: You have to understand the nature of trauma, this patient's coming under stream conditions. So the failure rate in such extreme conditions where patients are actually can die right away is much higher as if you go in and let's say make from eight to four elective hip surgery.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Speaking for the first time since the panel's findings were announced, Professor Kossman says he performed or assisted in 4,000 operations at the Alfred. Of those 4,000, the panel clinically reviewed 55 and had concerns with 18.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: We are talking about less than one per cent, something about 0.5 per cent, 0.6 per cent. If you ask a surgeon if he has a complication rate and he tells you he has no complication he is either not operating or he's lying to you. Every surgeon has complications.

And I think it would have been much better if you would have taken all my surgical work and exposed it to a review instead of picking out some cases.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: They convinced themselves they had looked at enough cases and that they were concerned enough with his responses as to why he carried out the surgery and the way he did that they felt he was not safe to continue in the area of spine and pelvic surgery.

NATASHA JOHNSON: In an 800-page defence, Professor Kossman presented opinions from other senior surgeons who reviewed many of the cases in question and found his clinical practice was generally reasonable. But he says the panel disregarded them.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: All I can do is assure you that the peer review panel took everything into account that Professor Kossman submitted. He also asked for colleagues that supported him to be interviewed by the panel and the panel made sure that they interviewed these surgeons and the panel carefully weighed up this evidence that the other surgeons submitted. So it was considered by the panel.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Dr Kossman says he's been the victim of a campaign of character assassination. Citing an email from one of the complainants to another surgeon encouraging him to complain to the review panel.

It says, "It would be preferable if you did not mention that I have invited you to comment and it appears your desire to make comment is spontaneous. Could you also add that you have seen other cases that you're concerned about, we're aiming for dismissal."

Professor Kossman claims the complaints against him came after conflict with visiting consultants over their alleged falsified time sheets, patient management and plans to restructure the trauma department.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: They were actually treating the patients, when it was convenient to them, not when it was actually necessary for the patient and I was on to a big thing in terms of changing the way, how we are operating the trauma unit, changing the rosters from part-time doctors to full-time doctors an this would have actually caused some problems in terms of income and probably also of power.

NATASHA JOHNSON: So this has been purely about politics?
THOMAS KOSSMANN: Politics and money.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: I believe Thomas Kossman has got some very strong allies in the hospital, has made a lot of friends but he is someone who did polarise people to some extent and that is perhaps one of the aspects that we're dealing with here.

But the motivations of the complainants did not in any way influence deliberations of the panel.

NATASHA JOHNSON: The debate about Professor Kossman's clinical competence has ensnared the College of Surgeons which fast tracked his accreditation and cut the mandatory 12 month supervision of foreign doctors to just four months.

IAN DICKINSON, VICE PRESIDENT, COLLEGE OF SURGEONS: It's very clear from the reviews of those people who oversaw Dr Kossman when he first came to the Alfred Hospital that they thought his practice was superior. It clearly has been reviewed to be not so over the following years.

NATASHA JOHNSON: While the college gave him the green light to practice, vice president Ian Dickinson says it was the hospital's responsibility to monitor his performance.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS: The peer review found that that could be improved and it was deficient and certainly that's a short coming that they've identified. I think that's an area we can improve on in the future that we can improve performance assessment of unit heads.

NATASHA JOHNSON: As well as raising question about Professor Kossman's clinical work, the panel also made serious findings about his billing of Medicare, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission.

The panel found he billed for surgeries not done or performed by others.

(to Thomas Kossman) Did you wrought the system?
THOMAS KOSSMANN: I don't think so.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Did you not understand the billing? Is that what you're arguing, you didn't understand how to bill properly?

THOMAS KOSSMANN: I think I missed some and I also admitted to the panel I made mistakes, administrative mistakes.

NATASHA JOHNSON: What about operations that are performed by others?

THOMAS KOSSMANN: That is part of our supervision of junior staff so that was an oral agreement to bill for the fellows and I billed for their services as assistant and I gave the complete 100 per cent of billing results back to the hospital.

NATASHA JOHNSON: While Professor Kossman was a full time employee of the hospital he had the right to bill the Transport Accident Commission for road accident patients as a private doctor. Under his employment contract, he was required to give the hospital 50 per cent of those payments. Over six years he says he made the Alfred Hospital $3.8 million.

(to Thomas Kossman) What controls or checks did the hospital have in place to monitor your billing to ensure that it was being done correctly?

THOMAS KOSSMANN: The hospital did not check anything about this, despite me asking for support and they were happy to receive the cheque.

NATASHA JOHNSON: So they received the money no questions asked?

THOMAS KOSSMANN: Exactly.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: We did not have a role in reviewing the bills that he submitted because the billing is a matter between the doctor, as a private doctor, and the TAC.

NATASHA JOHNSON: But you're receiving the money and you're happy to wipe your hands of where it came from?
JENNIFER WILLIAMS: Well, we think that there are changes that can be made.

NATASHA JOHNSON: Doesn't it raise some questions about your accounting practice that you weren't...

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: I think we need to finish.

NATASHA JOHNSON: We've got more questions to ask you, particularly about a contract…

The questions we were unable to ask Jennifer Williams relate to a lucrative new contract offered to Professor Kossman in 2006. Though it was never signed, the agreement promised to boost his base salary by $150,000 to $500,000 and proposed sliding which meant the more he billed the greater percentage return to him.

(to Jennifer Williams) I think these are serious questions that you need to answer about an incentive based contract that you offered him.

The Transport Accident Commission declined to comment on Professor Kossman's case which has triggered investigations into billing practices across the health system.

The Alfred Hospital now faces the possibility it may have to pay back millions of dollars. The hospital recently advertised for someone to replace Professor Kossman. It's fair to say that when he was first appointed, neither party dreamed it would end like this.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS: The process has been a very fair one, despite the unpalatable findings both to him and to the hospital.

THOMAS KOSSMANN: I was made responsible as a scapegoat for all the failures in the trauma unit.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Natasha Johnson with that report.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2270580.htm

Sham peer review is a “corrective action” proceeding commenced by a hospital medical staff against a physician to discipline the physician motivated by other concerns than the quality of patient concerns – such as hospital politics, competitive advantage or retaliation. There are twelve telltale signs that individually and collectively may indicate a situation of malicious peer review.

1. A doctor with a good history and reputation suddenly deemed to have questionable performance indicators. Absent intervening external causes such as recent substance abuse, or mental illness and unusual stress of some kind, physicians usually do not suddenly turn south in terms of professional judgment and performance.

2. The presence of gunny sacking issues. Gunny sacking is the dredging up of old issues long since resolved to demonstrate present problems. While history can be important if it demonstrates a consistent pattern of misbehavior or uneven performance, old anecdotal grievances newly retrieved reminds one of a spouse who raises old grievances in new disagreements.

3. The existence of an “insider” clique of physicians who fiercely maintain control of peer review and credentials positions and pass key medical staff positions back and forth among themselves – while excluding “outsiders.”

4. The lack of clear, definitive standards in medical staff bylaws for “disruptive conduct,” denial or non-renewal of privileges or other discipline. This permits each physician participating in the process to bring his or her own “standards” no matter how subjective to the process. See Kiester v. Humana Hospital Alaska, Inc., 843 P.2d 1219 (Alaska, 1992) (basic principles of due process of law require that criteria established for granting or denying of hospital privileges to physicians not be vague and ambiguous, and that as established, they be applied objectively.)

5. Medical staff acting in excess of authority or violation of the medical staff bylaws. Failure to follow the letter of the procedures set forth in the investigative or hearing process frequently underscores a separate agenda.

6. The existence of personal animus on the part of those participating in the investigative or hearing process is a clear marker of retaliatory intent.

7. The existence of a conflict of interest on the part of those measuring or participating in the peer review proceedings can violate fundamental conflict of interest principles – casting doubt on the genuineness of espoused quality of care concerns.

8. Minor issues of quality of care magnified beyond a reasonable expectation. Every professional makes mistakes and many of us are lucky when they do not precipitate major problems for our patients and clients. When a reviewing committee loses its perspective and elevates otherwise minor infractions into major violations, judgment becomes flawed and impaired.

9. The “piling on” of complaints. Rather than discrete, illuminating case issues the medical staff appears to throw every thinkable transgression, real and imagined, on the part of the physician against the wall in the apparent hope that something will stick.

10. Disparate, discriminatory treatment. When a physician on the “outside” is treated substantially different with respect to the intensity of scrutiny than a physician on the “inside,” where it is clear that the insiders are not demanding from themselves and other insiders the same degree of practice performance as the physician under review. This can sometimes be seen most dramatically in the differential review treatment of two physicians involved in the same case.

11. In the failure to seek all relevant information concerning an issue before a rush to judgment – key physicians or nursing staff members not interviewed and the charts not carefully reviewed. The sample of cases reviewed in order to reach a judgment on competence is unduly narrow. See Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 101 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1996).

12. The existence of only a faint nod in the proceedings to a sincere concern for the concern about quality or safety of patient care. The lack of consistency in concern about quality of patient care can be a tip-off of a separate agenda or ulterior motive in the proceedings.

While true good faith peer review is an important function of medical staff physicians, the temptation to exploit its protections under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1996 can sometimes be overwhelming, particularly in small, closed communities of providers. Vigilance for sham peer review should be maintained to protect against the erosion of basic constitutional rights.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19473214720

On a warm night in June 1943, when Vasily Kononov was 20 years old, he jumped out of an American-made Douglas airplane into what was then Nazi-occupied territory in the Soviet Union. Kononov had been born and raised in a small village in eastern Latvia. War came and he ended up joining the Soviet guerrilla fighters known as the Partisans. After five months of demolition training, he returned to his birthplace and waged war against Hitler. After the war, his country--the Soviet Union--awarded him the Order of Lenin, and he went on to a career as an officer in the Soviet Interior Ministry. "I never had any doubts," he says now, "that I was on the right side of history."

Konrad Kalejs fought on the other side of that historical divide. A native Latvian, he served in a notorious unit called the Arajs Kommando, which murdered an estimated 30,000 civilians during the course of the war--most of them Jews. Now 86, he lives in Australia, where he has been a citizen since 1957. Kalejs, says Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Jerusalem "served as an officer in one of the worst murder squads which operated in World War II." As yet formally accused of nothing by any government or tribunal, Kalejs is, for now anyway, a free man.

Vasily Kononov is not. At the age of 77, he sits in a grim prison in Riga, the capital of the now independent country of Latvia. Earlier this year, Latvia convicted Kononov of crimes against humanity. Specifically, he was found guilty of leading a Partisan raid on a tiny village 300 kilometers east of the capital, in which nine civilians (including one pregnant woman) were killed.

Kononov's is one of several cases Latvia has brought recently for alleged crimes committed during what it calls the Soviet "occupation." Among those charged have been Soviet-era KGB officers who allegedly participated in the forced deportations of thousands of Latvians. But no case is as explosively controversial as Kononov's--especially in Russia, where he is regarded as a hero, and where the contrast with the Kalejs case is regularly denounced on television shows and newspapers. Moscow's question is simple: why has Latvia so aggressively gone after alleged Soviet-era crimes, but not conducted one anti-Nazi trial during nearly 10 years of independence?

Like the other small Central European and Baltic nations, Latvia lies in history's stamping ground; it sits between Berlin and Moscow. Stalin seized Latvia in 1940, and to this day many Latvians view the German invasion a year later as "liberation" from a hated occupier. What the Russians call the Great Patriotic War was essentially a civil war for Latvians--and 55 years on, it is still deeply poisonous terrain. Yet it is also terrain that the current coalition government in Riga, using "war crimes" trials as a spade, is enthusiastically digging up. Doing so is good politics. Ethnic Russians still make up nearly 40 percent of the 2.3 million Latvian population (the biggest Russian bloc, in percentage terms, in any of the three Baltic states), but in the years immediately following independence, Russians were brazenly discriminated against. Public sector jobs, for example, went almost exclusively to Latvian-speaking citizens. External pressure from the European Union--Latvia wants in--helped end the most egregious discrimination. But now the government seems to be tapping into anti-Russian sentiment through other means. Latvian Justice Minister Valdis Birkavs insists the trials have nothing to do with politics; but the second biggest party in the current ruling coalition is the nationalistic Freedom and Fatherland Party. It supports the annual parade by a veterans group called the Legionnaires, even though the group had members in two Latvian Waffen SS divisions.

The charge that Riga finds itself open to--and which Moscow picks at relentlessly--is that Latvia wishes the Nazis had won the war. With some justification, Latvian officials argue that the Kononov-Kalejs contrast is unfair. Latvians who fought with the Nazis, like Kalejs, haven't been pursued in part because most of them left Latvia when the Wehrmacht did in 1944. "It's not as if there are a bunch of old Nazis sitting around Riga that the government is letting go scot-free," says one Western diplomat in Riga. Many old Soviets are still present. Further, Latvian officials--and some in the West--also argue that the evidence against Kalejs is not really so open and shut. Some say the case against Kalejs lacks living witnesses who unambiguously place him at the scene of Arajs atrocities.

Latvia argues that the case against Kononov, by contrast, is well documented. Indeed, the main evidence against him is an account of the raid of May 27, 1944, that he wrote himself. It was sitting in Latvia's historical archives.

But the Kononov case has its complexities too. Kononov, in a recent interview, says he exaggerated his role in the raid in a fit of youthful "boasting." He doesn't deny that it was carried out by his unit, or that he had a role in planning the attack--which under war-crimes law is sufficient grounds to convict. But he insists the prosecution ignores the context of the raid: he says, in effect, this was May of 1944, with war being waged at full tilt by both sides. And the intent of his unit was to capture people in the village who had informed the Nazis about the location of another Red Partisan group--information that led directly to the Nazis' killing 12 people, including a young woman and an infant.

Kononov's account of the motive for the raid does not appear to be in dispute. In fact, it is confirmed by a woman whom the prosecution describes as its star witness. Kononov, in his interview with NEWSWEEK, had insisted that there were no eyewitnesses placing him at the village on the date of the raid. Ausma Rubene, the prosecutor in Riga, insisted that there was: 80-year-old Maria Kuznetsova, who still lives near what was Malye Abaty. Rubene gave NEWSWEEK a detailed account of a deposition that Kuznetsova provided, in which she talked about hiding behind a tree as Kononov's unit moved past on their way to the village. But when this account was read back to her recently, Kuznetsova, who lives with her son on a small plot of land, replied: "That's not what I told them."

Asked if she saw Kononov's unit on the way to the village, she said flatly: "No." Then--unprompted by NEWSWEEK--she said what she did remember was coming upon a ditch where about a dozen bodies were being buried by "the Nazis." There was "a crowd of around 100 people gathered to watch,'' Kuznetsova said. "One of the bodies in the ditch was that of a little baby." These, she said, were the members of the Partisan unit that had been killed in late February--and for whom Kononov sought revenge.

Kononov's first appeal begins this week, but he's unlikely to prevail in Riga. His attorney says he may eventually take the case to the European Court of Human Rights; meanwhile, Moscow will probably pounce on Kuznetsova's assertion that the prosecution apparently distorted her deposition beyond recognition. The diplomatic pressure to let Kononov out of jail may well increase. In the meantime Riga says it is pursuing an extradition arrangement with Australia for Konrad Kalejs. The Russians, among others, will be very interested to see if a trial follows. URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/83705 © 2008

___________________________________________________

On June 19, 2008, section 61 of the Brussels criminal court found Siegfried Verbeke and me guilty of "disputing crimes against humanity", sentencing us to a year’s imprisonment and ordering us to pay 25,000 euros in fines, damages and various costs... Moreover, it ordered the immediate arrest of Siegfried Verbeke and perhaps of myself as well (a friend of ours who attended the hearing says no, but the press reports state the opposite and we haven’t been able to get an answer from the Clerk’s Office).

Unsurprisingly, the court had rejected all our arguments, notably the one invoking article 150 of the Belgian Constitution to request a trial in the Court of Assizes, thus before a jury.

It’s plain to see that in the last three years anti-revisionist oppression has greatly worsened. The times when revisionist activists received suspended sentences are over: today, apart from the huge fines, actual imprisonment is always decided. I think especially of Sylvia Stolz, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf, heroic people now languishing in German jails.

I think also of Georges Theil in France, of Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, René-Louis Berclaz and Jürgen Graf for Switzerland.

Historical revisionism belongs to no-one. Its findings are the fruit of traditional methods of inquiry where scientific expertise assists in the appraisal of testimonies and in documentary research. They will be obvious to any honest individual, whether on the political left or right, believer or atheist...

But it goes without saying that its implications extend well beyond the historical scope of its outset. The stakes involved, gigantic ones, are political and even theological. If some refuse to see this – because of blindness, cowardice or mistaken strategy – , our adversaries, at their end, have understood quite well. They know that a sudden bursting through of the historical truth about the period 1914-1946 would call into question the world order founded at Nuremberg in 1945-1946.

This is why, in the face of people whom they constantly present as a small sect of cranks denying the obvious, they have special laws passed in Europe and resolutions adopted at the UN. The flagrant discrepancy between their contemptuous talk, on the one hand, and their actions, on the other hand, gives them the lie. To paraphrase the French wartime orator Philippe Henriot, I’ll say: "When a man can think of no other way but imprisonment to rid himself of a verbal opponent, it’s because he has no arguments. When a man is reduced to making up stupid lies, it’s because the truth is against him."

The way ahead, therefore, is all laid out for us: we must continue to repeat the truth, the whole truth, including the truth about what’s at stake in this struggle. Far from being merely a sterile quarrel between devotees of the past cut off from present-day realities, the fight for historical truth is, on the contrary, the continuation, on the intellectual level, of the war whose armed phase ended in 1945 with the defeat of the Axis forces. And it’s clear that this conflict, having begun not on September 3, 1939 but on January 30, 1933, is the modern form of the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness. In the 20^th century, National Socialist Germany embodied – doubtless imperfectly but successfully all the same – the very last attempt to return to a well-ordered society, that is, a society respecting the natural order.

This is the reason why, even after the 3^rd Reich was completely crushed militarily, the war continued, and has continued up to today. Our opponents in this never-ending fight have a weapon of mass destruction: the alleged "Holocaust". Since 1945, this lie has prevented any dispassionate debate on National Socialism and, more generally, on societies that respect natural order. "We know where that led! ..." is how people constantly respond to those who, against the “Rights of Man” and their natural offspring: the unleashing of all selfish inclinations, dare speak of order, the Common Good, wholesomeness, moral standards, safeguarding the genetic heritage, the birth rate, rights of kinship ...

Against all the cowards with their claims of prudence, concern with efficiency, realism and whatever else; against all the pretentious twits whose lives are nothing but a series of intervals between assorted betrayals, we should repeat Christ’s own teaching: “let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No, for all else comes of evil.” No, the German homicidal gas chambers never existed. Yes, "the Holocaust" is a myth. For my part, I add: yes, Hitler embodied the hope of Europe in the face of the ruinous ideals of 1789; yes, we must take up the best of what National Socialism comprised in order finally to surpass it and forge a doctrine that will be able to save our Old Continent.

Some will condemn my actions for the fact that I have seven children. They are wrong: if I act as I do, it’s first of all for my children, to ensure a better future for them. However, our civilisation will not be saved by any sparing of efforts in the most vital struggles, which are (as is only logical) also the most dangerous, for when engaged they threaten the very worst for the opponent, and so provoke his most violent reactions. But, as Chesnelong said: "When evil is the most daring, good must be the most courageous."

Vincent Reynouard, father of seven children.

***

Negationismus: ein Jahr Gefängnis für Verbeke und Reynouard, 19/06/2008

Die Brüsseler Strafkammer hat Donnerstag nachmittag Siegfried Verbeke und den Franzosen Vincent Reynouard wegen Negationismus [frz. Wortschöpfung für das Bestreiten des Holocaust] zu einem Jahr Gefängnis ohne Bewährung verurteilt. Die beiden Männer hatten Broschüren, Flugblätter und Pamphlete verteilt, in denen sie den Umfang, ja sogar die Existenz selbst des Holocausts kleinredeten. Die Angeklagten sind bereits früher für ähnliche Straftaten verurteilt worden. Unter anderem wird ihnen auch noch eine Strafzahlung von ca. 25.000 Euro auferlegt. Das Gericht ordnete ihre umgehende Verhaftung. - aus dem Französischen übersetzt von alexandervL@gmx.net , Le Vif ist ein belgisches, französischsprachiges Magazin:

________________________________

Holger W. Haffke: Deleting the Truth: Will Zionist Jews Kill Mike James? July 4, 2008

Israeli guard kills himself at Sarkozy farewell