Antidote wrote:Hi! The link to the PDF is dead... possible to get it some other way?
Here is Vincent's letter:“That Which Does Not Kill Us Makes Us Stronger”
RIVAROL: On 4 November -just a few days ago -the judges of Paris sentenced you to 5 months of imprisonment, not suspended, for «disputing a crime against humanity», plus €4,000 in damages and interest, payable to LICRA, which brought suit against you for two revisionist videos posted on line in December 2014. In one of them, you said: «We offer €5,000 to anyone capable of demonstrating, as the result of free, fair and courteous debate, that Hitler’s homicidal gas chambers are not just a propaganda myth», a sentence which served as the basis for your condemnation.
Vincent REYNOUARD: The judges’ decision is not surprising. Personally, I expected a year, not suspended. But it is true that Paris is always a little bit backwards compared to the provincial towns. At Coutances (a small sub-prefecture), the judges sentenced me to two years, while at Caen (a prefecture), they sentenced me to a year. At Paris, it was five months.
R.: Of course, but it’s not suspended. A few years ago, they wouldn’t have gone that far.
V. R.: In fact, society always takes its logic to an extremely. Around 1890, the abbot Antoine de Salinis stressed: «The logic of nations is as consistent as God’s truth itself. An individual can shrink from the consequences, but society, never.» «La Gayssot Law provides for a year, not suspended: the judges at that time didn’t dare apply it, since France is [supposed to be] the country of «free expression». Twenty-five years later, they do it almost automatically, and no one -or almost no one -seems to notice.
I must add that my Flemish friend Siegfried Verbeke is also the object of legal proceedings (his trial will be held in France on 4 January 2017), for having made his bank account available to receive donations intended to help me, after the bank closed my account on its own initiative. So as to devise a basis for legal proceedings against my revisionist friend, the French legal authorities claimed that the money collected was intended to pay the fines, damages and interest which I had been sentenced to pay. Now, I’ve never paid a fine in my life, not a cent, nor have I ever paid the slightest sum in damages and interest, and I don’t intend to start now. LICRA was demanding money from me, on the basis of a fake story, so I sent them two highly amusing, but fake, «bank notes». People who invent fake stories deserve to be paid in fake money.
To tell the truth, we are witnessing a social trend: fewer and fewer people understand the real basis of freedom of expression, recalled by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976 (in the case of Handyside v the United Kingdom): «Freedom of expression […] applies, not just to «information» or ‘ideas’ viewed favourably or considered inoffensive or unimportant, but to ideas contrary to, or considered shocking or disturbing by the State, or any segment of the population.»
R.: How far we’ve come since 1976…
V. R.: Yes, and it’s not over yet, since society has not yet arrived at the extreme consequences of its logic. The Gayssot Law provides for a year, not suspended, but why stop at a year? Hence the draft law which, as you pointed out in one of your past editorials, has just been adopted by the Senate, increasing the penalty to 5 years. Of course, the law has not yet been voted (the National Assembly must still adopt it), it hasn’t been ratified, but that will come. Then it will be 10 years. And then one day, they will provide for extradition to Israel. Fortunately, I think the whole house of cards will collapse before then…
R.: Your situation is increasingly precarious, but you’re still optimistic.
V. R.: First of all, I still enjoy the support of those who remain loyal to me. It’s a big help, of the utmost importance. What’s more, I have 3 principles in life:
1°) Total trust in Providence.
2°) A phrase attributed to Nietzche:»That which does not kill us, makes us stronger».
3°) A principle of the old samurai: «Trip and fall seven times, but get up seven times.» Every time I face a challenge, I tell myself, «OK, I’ll take advantage of this unpleasant experience to improve things». It’s my way of trusting Providence, of getting up and telling myself that I’ll just get stronger as a result… It’s worked until now. It’s just a personal opinion, but I think that the Universe consists of a vast intelligence (I call it God, other people call it the «Divine Matrix», or I don’t know what all else) and we’re linked to that intelligence.
There is a constant interaction, and if we encourage ourselves to think positively, life will send us positive experiences.
Even if, at times, one might believe that [certain] events are highly negative; at the end of the day, we note that it’s quite the contrary. For example, when I went into exile in England, I really lost a lot of things, and, for a while, I felt close to suicide. Then I got up, and went on fighting. And today, I can see that I’m a free country, protected from all the repression. I don’t start trembling at 6 o’clock in the morning every day, for fear of the famous «knock on the door» which means another police raid; how horrible it is to fear the doorbell every morning!
Nevertheless, the police showed up at Marie’s house [Note: «Marie»: Vincent’s former collaboratrice], in her new apartment, to arrest me: I know that if I were in France (or Belgium), I would already be in prison, serving the one-year sentence dished out by the provincial judges of Coutances, followed by Caen. At the end of a year, moreover, I wouldn’t even get out then, since I would have to serve all the other sentences which they would have dreamed up in the meantime! And since one thing leads to another, I could spend years in prison. Therefore, after all, England has been a stroke of luck, even if it was terrible at first.
But this whole ordeal was my fault: I was too much attached to everything I had lost at the time (my archives, Marie, our daughter, Normandy). If I had accepted everything, I wouldn’t have felt so bad, and I’d still be in the same position today. One of Osho’s books, which I read a few weeks ago [Note: Osho: an Indian philosopher and religious thinker], strengthened my resolve in this sense: Mojud, The Man with the Inexplicable Life. He really had the right idea! It was exactly how I felt, but expressed much better than I could have done it…
R.: Among nationalist «right wingers», some of your opinions are often misunderstood. While you declare that you are a National Socialist, your opinions on race-mixing and conspiracy theories are rather surprising. After all, what is the real meaning of your struggle? In other words: in what way is National Socialism relevant today, and what does it really mean?
V. R.: To understand the answer, you’ve got to understand the essential difference between the «Right» (I’m referring to the «real» Right, not Nicholas Sarkozy’s «Right»), and the Left. People often say, the Right says: no more liberalism, and the Left says: no more authoritarianism. But in fact, that’s not the real difference. The essential difference is that the Right -unlike the Left -believes in an unchangeable natural order which must be respected, and, therefore, an objective Good and Evil.
The Good is whatever conforms to this natural order; Evil is whatever disturbs this natural order. Do our present-day societies think like this? No. Let’s take Article 4 of the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights: «Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others.» The message is clear: as long as I don’t harm anybody else, I can do whatever I want. As soon as I interfere with the freedom of others, I am acting wrongly. Good and evil are therefore the result of an agreement between persons. Article 4 also declares: «The exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
These bounds may be determined only by Law». So, that’s what the «good» is in a [so-called] «democratic republic»: it’s the expression of the popular will. This fact confirms that all restrictions on freedom -that is, the dividing line between Good and Evil -are simply the result of a popular consensus. The problem, though, as anyone will admit, is that the popular consensus -what people want and believe -can change. Consequently, the dividing line between Good and Evil can change, too, which means that objective Good and Evil no longer exist.
R.: The issue of abortion demonstrates this reality. Under the «Ancien Régime», i.e., before the French Revolution, abortion was punishable by death as infanticide. While the Revolution reduced the severity of the punishment, the 1791 code provided for 20 years imprisonment for the person performing the abortion. But in 1975, abortion was legalised in 1975, and later even reimbursed 70 to 80% by social security; today, it’s reimbursed 100%.
V. R.: Exactly. In saying that the notion of Good and Evil is merely «relative», our modern societies reject the very notion of the existence of an unchangeable natural order which is to be respected. To justify themselves, they claim that the natural order -which sometimes astonishes so much as to cause us to believe in the existence of God, the architect of the universe -is really just the result of physical laws governing matter.
For example, it is true that the molecules in a soap bubble can form a nearly perfect sphere without the need for any God. Similarly, if that same water evaporates, the sodium and potassium ions will arrange themselves in a precise order so as to form a salt crystal. I could supply many examples of magnificent and complex order caused solely by the laws of nature. Some people will conclude that the natural order has nothing to do with any morally binding imperative, and that if men could modify it -the natural order -to their advantage, by freeing themselves from the laws of nature, they would be wrong not to do so.
R.: That is why, in practice, the Republic adopts an atheistic position. In living as if God didn’t exist, we abandon the notion of an unchangeable natural, morally binding order. In its place, we imagine an ever-changing order in which Good and Evil are kept separate by a border, the location of which depends on the popular will of the moment. So morality doesn’t disappear, but it can change, to the point that something which is prohibited today can be permitted tomorrow, and even be subsidised by society.
V. R.: Yes, but it goes even further than that: if God doesn’t exist, then Man is simply a special kind of animal gifted with a neocortex giving rise to his awareness [or conscience]. This means that there is no such thing as human nature: Man is pure existence, and must invent himself every day, quite outside of any unchangeable natural order. This was what Jean-Paul Sartre meant when he said: «If Man cannot be defined, it’s because, first of all, he’s nothing. He only becomes something later, and he’ll be whatever he has made of himself. Thus, there is no such thing as human nature, since no God exists to conceive of it».
R.: Of course, people will reply that this belief protects our freedom, allowing for full human development and therefore, happiness.
V. R.: In fact, it all seems to promise freedom and happiness. But what’s the real situation? We mustn’t forget that ideas have an implacable logic of their own. If Man must «invent himself», then what
good are customs and traditions? Of course, you don’t need to be an obsessive conservative, but one must admit that, apart from a bit of festive folklore or sterile erudition, the historical and spiritual heritage of the nation are lost.
The result is the disappearance of any shared, supreme idea. Now, as explained by Tony Anatrella in his book, Non à la société dépressive [«No to the Depressive Society»]. If the ideal of the «self» finds no continuity in social life, our relations, and the consequences of our individual acts, lose their value for the community. So everybody just sits there, stuck inside him or herself, as if the world were a desert.» What is more, as he himself admits:»The solitary individual, without descendants, without tradition and without history, lives for the moment, without thinking of the consequences of his gestures and acts for other people or for society».
R.: Hence the disintegration of all social links, endemic criminality and the invasion of all sorts of «sub-cultures» conveyed by television.
V. R.: Yes. Else, in No to the Depressive Society, Tony Anatrella stresses that «this need to identify with the peoples of Africa and distant islands, the ever-increasing display of near or total nudity, is as if we were trying to find our way back to our origins, artificially, after everything has been done to cancel out our cultural identity. There’s a ever-increasing tendency in the West to promote archaic forms on the pretext of multiculturalism». Further along, the author explains that the annihilation of our cultural identity -everyone’s cultural identity -compels people to go back to their roots — sometimes in the most archaic, anti-social ways -or to tell ourselves that we no longer have any roots or traditions, while attributing our origins [en se remettant] to a hypothetical mixture of cultures, which is just another way of committing suicide». This last remark explains the development of the «anti-racist» ideology, a logic which, taken to an extreme, advocates generalised race-mixing, while, [ordinarily], race-mixing should remain a marginal phenomenon, confined to the colonial empires and large cosmopolitan city centres.
R.: So you are not against a certain local mixing of populations.
V. R.: Obviously not, and what’s more, I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing so. I’ve never made race an absolute. In London, and in the suburbs, communities live side by side, even if they don’t mix, since they keep their culture. Links are nevertheless formed and mixed couples do appear, giving rise to mixed race children. That doesn’t bother me at all...
R.: Let’s come back to the idea of the modern negation of any notion of «human nature». The consequence is naturally the loss of any notion of «normality».
V. R.: It’s inevitable, since the «norm» is nothing but a reference to the group. In mathematics, you can define it and quantify it by means of the standard deviation, calculated according to a population study. But in an individualistic society in which there is nothing linking the individual to society, by what standard do you compare a certain type of individual behaviour to the behaviour of the group? As early as 1976, Albert Netter, in his book L’éducation sexuelle: «The sexuality of a couple may be considered normal when they find their sexual behaviour satisfying». Hence the «normality» of all kinds of «sexualities», including the most deviant.
R.: Do you understand this to include homosexuality? Because today, they’ve even passed a law against «homophobia»…
V. R.: Just as believing in the existence of human races and their inequality is not proof of racial «hatred», confirming the deviant nature of a phenomenon is not necessarily the result of any kind of «hatred» or «phobia». We are imprisoned inside a certain kind of logic and are forced to fight inside it; it’s like a boxing ring. As for homosexuality, I’d like to refer once again to Tony Anatrella, in his book La Différence Interdite [The Forbidden Difference], where he stresses: «Each person remains free to live as he wishes or as he can, but one must not confuse the individual problem of homosexuality with the social problem -although this is done quite frequently. While we must respect and accept persons who follow this ‘way of life’, it is quite another thing to enshrine homosexuality in law. The functioning and regulation of society depends first of all upon the significant anthropological differences underlying all other things; and these differences cannot be reduced merely to a question of «rights».
R.: Except that, well, here’s the truth: in an individualistic society, i.e., a society based on «individual rights», this argument does not apply. Since homosexuality is considered «normal» -just a simple «choice» of «sexual orientation», one among so many others -it is logical that «gay marriage» should be recognised in law… I recall that, in 1960, homosexuality was declared a «social scourge» by the French Parliament. Today, only 50 + years later, «gay marriage» is declared legal…
V. R.: Well, yes, another proof that society always follows a logical trend as far as it will go. Today, all social restrictions are inverted. The natural order is endlessly violated, and will be continue to be violated and disturbed until it reaches its fatal conclusion. How far are we prepared to go? To a final collapse, that’s how far... and it’s precisely this final collapse which I hope to avoid, through my struggle.
R.: We note that your struggle is far broader than simple historical revisionism. How can we help you?
V. R.: In fact, after losing -not just my country, [and my family] -but every teaching job I ever had, I am also broke financially. To help me, you can subscribe to my little information newsletter, Le Courrier des Amis de Vincent Reynouard.
Please visit our site: http://www.sansconcessiontv.org
Interview conducted by Jérôme BOURBON
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGas Me If You CanOn January 9, 2016, the Belgian Flemish newspaper De Morgen published what can only be considered a remarkable interview for an establishment newspaper: a long conversation with Belgium’s most outspoken Revisionist, Siegfried Verbeke, who forthrightly declared his views on the alleged World War II «holocaust» of Jews and the use of «gas chambers» to carry out that fictitious event.
Verbeke: ... I was 12 years old and became a Flemish nationalist and extremist. [The Flemish nationalist movement wants the end of the artificial Belgian state and an independent Flemish nation.] [In school] I met a boy who was two years older than I. [After World War II, during the Belgian repression of Flemish nationalists, who largely had collaborated with the Germans, his father was executed, and my friend and his brother were placed for a few years in some kind of a «rehabilitation» center for young people; their mother was in a Belgian prison.] He was small, thick, ugly and wore big glasses. So he was pestered and had to stay in the back of the classroom. But he was extreme and provocative and came sometimes to school in the uniform of a Flemish nationalist youth organization. One day, the priest who was the teacher beat the boy on his head with a stick, but he didn’t give in. I admired him for his guts.
De Morgen: It started there?
Verbeke: Flemish nationalism was completely crushed after the war. It was forbidden, but that made it attractive to me [my rebellious character]. That boyhis nan1e was Piet-introduced me to his nationalist youth movement, the Algemeen Diets Jeugdverbond [General Folk Youth Association]. For years prior, I was a member of a Catholic youth organization. But in discussions with the «Belgians,» they always blan1ed us: «You Flemish nationalists collaborated with National Socialism and murdered 6 million Jews.» Piet answered, «Nobody was murdered or gassed!» I told him that in that way we were not going to convince anyone; the proofs of genocide were at that time overwhelming.
The bodies of Bergen-Belsen! In my opinion we [could only] minimize the numbers. But Piet remained stubborn and repeated that nobody was gassed. In those years, Karel Dillen [who later became the founder of the Flemish nationalist political party Vlaams Blok] had translated into Dutch a book by the French author Maurice Bardeche-the first book that doubted the Holocaust [it was not available in bookstores].
Bardeche wrote that fake Hollywood film sets were used. In a certain way, he was the first in a long list of historical do-ityourself researchers. [Every year, new books were published and translated in France, Germany, England and worldwide. I became an enthusiastic and happy Revisionist translator and publisher in Belgium.]
De Morgen: One day you made a challenge to SKEPP. You proposed to be gassed in Auschwitz. [SKEPP is an acronym for Studiekring voor de Kritische Evaluatie van Pseudowetenschap en het Paranormale (Study Circle for the Critical Evaluation of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal), comparable to the James Randi Foundation, to which,Verbeke told TBR, «I had made the same challenge before.»]
Verbeke: Indeed, I wanted to prove that the whole Zyklon-B story was impossible. [Previously, I had translated and published Germar Rudolf’s report in Dutch and French, convinced Rudolf’s theory was right. The Jewish holocaust lobby said that Zyklon-B had been used in the gas chambers.] Hydrogen cyanide was a disinfectant used in the camp, which begins to evaporate only at 18°-19°C [64.4°-66.2°F]. I said, if I’m still alive after 15 minutes, I win. Because, according to the testimonies [of camp commandant Rudolf Hoess and others], people were dead after 15 minutes. Look [Verbeke rummages in one of numerous drawers.] Here is the correspondence with Prof. Willem Betz, director of SKEPP. [I also still have the correspondence with the James Randi Foundation.]
De Morgen: He wrote back that he could not accept the challenge, because you would put your life in danger. He was concerned for you.
Verbeke: On the other hand, I was prepared to discharge him by notarial act.
De Morgen: The idea was to put you alone in the room. But everybody knows that the temperature rises when you put a mass of people in an enclosed room.
Verbeke: Of course, it was provocative, but I wanted the professor to consult his chemistry colleagues [at the university]: «What about Zyklon-B now?» Open discussion. [I told De Morgen that people are not stoves; a number ofpeople in a small room only causes an increase in humidity.]
De Morgen: Would it not have been better to gather some 100 «negationists» [«holocaust deniers»-Ed.] in a real gas chamber and see what happens?
Verbeke: Indeed. We tried, but we didn’t find enough candidates. [Actually, it was never planned to involve other persons. The French Revisionist Vincent Reynouard took over my idea and the challenge and
7Vincent Reynouard’s Information Letter told me that a few of his French Revisionist friends wanted to join the club. That’s all. The plan could not be realized because we could not get Zyklon-B (which is still on the market under the name Ouragen, made in the Czech Republic). At the end, I tried to make a simple experiment, using mice, a teapot, and adding home-made hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon-B). But a Revisionist chemist explained to me that making HCN is a difficult process to control and for that reason very dangerous.]
De Morgen: Gas chambers never existed?
Verbeke: Naturally, there were gas chambers-hundreds of them-for disinfection of clothes from all those arriving [at the concentration camps]. But gas chambers to kill people never existed, no.
De Morgen: As you stood before the ruins of the four crematoria in an otherwise intact Auschwitz-Birkenau, you never asked yourself why the Nazis destroyed only those sections?
Verbeke: It’s not the first time that this question has been posed, and it has been answered scientifically. [My reply has been distorted. The destruction was ordered by the Germans after the Allied capture of Treblinka, where Soviet propaganda had started the myth of the gassings.]
De Morgen: So they were nevertheless disinfection chambers?
Verbeke: I’ll give you a brochure. Read it at home; otherwise we’re going to lose quite some time... [I gave him a French brochure and a lot of DVDs by Vincent Reynouard about this question and other issues.]
De Morgen: How many Jews died during the war?
Verbeke: Approximately 1 million. On account of the terrible conditions in the camps-the epidemics. But not in gas chambers.
De Morgen: Where did the many millions of others go, whose deportation is documented?
Verbeke: They disappeared in the Soviet Union, I guess. Hey, Stalin was no friend of the Jews, either. Neither were the Poles or the Ukrainians. There have been cases of supposedly dead Jews who, many years after the war, surfaced in Russia. Okay, not hundreds, but still.
De Morgen: Look here: a photo of the gas chamber at Majdanek. This was, according to you, a disinfection chamber?
Verbeke: I’m not an expert about Majdanek. You should read the Rudolf Report. I have it here. [Verbeke starts rummaging again in a drawer.] Here, a book about Sobibor, another such myth. [I showed the interviewer Majdanek, by Juergen Graf and Carlo Mattogno.]
De Morgen: Sobibor belonged with Belzec and Treblinka to the genocide camps of Operation Reinhard, which at the end were covered over with earth by the Nazis, to facilitate denial.
Verbeke: Those were transit camps, nothing more. The myth of shower rooms, where gas came out of the showerheads, dates from before the war. That is proven.
De Morgen: Sobibor and the Himmelstrasse [Heaven Street], where deportees were sent immediately upon arrival to «the gas chamber»-[a gas chamber] that never existed?
Verbeke: No, and that truth cannot be stopped, try as one might. The Antwerp police confiscated 10 tons of books in my offset-printing business in Borgerhout [near to Antwerp]. They came with two big trucks [and five or six men]. All the books were loaded up and burnt. I had a handyman-a concierge, who still had something on his criminal record. [He was ill, too; lived on the premises and was arrested at the same tirne. He was in some personal difficulties and had asked my permission to stay there.] They kept him in jail for three months, and he hanged himself.
De Morgen: Did you go to the excavations at Sobibor? Since the summer of 2013, archeologists have been excavating the whole camp. They found the gas chambers and the Himmelstrasse. Would you like to see photos?
Verbeke: Yes, when I have some time.
De Morgen: Should we become angry here? Lock up the man? Gloat that he might not survive another detention? The Austrian Revisionist Wolfgang Froehlich has been in prison for more than 10 years and recently got three years more. Horst Mahler (79), former lawyer of the communist terror group, Rote Armee Fraktion [Red Army Faction], has been in prison since 2009 in Germany, convicted of Revisionism. There are many more cases.
Vebeke: His [Horst Mahler’s-Ed.] leg has been amputated, and finally they released him. ... The German judicial system was, naturally, not eager that he should die in prison.
De Morgen: Was there ever a moment when you arrived at a new opinion? That you thought, «I got that wrong.»
Verbeke: Indeed. I always believed that the massacre in the ravine at Babi Yar, near Kiev, was a myth. [They claim that at the end of September 1941, the Germans executed 33,000 Jews.] Revisionists think it was propaganda. Normally, such a massacre should have changed the surface vegetation. But recently, I obtained access-I paid 3,000 euros for it-to the Nazis’ written reports [microfilms of the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR (USSR Event Reports ofthe Sicherheitesdienst)], which were seized by the Americans [in 1945 at the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Chief Office) in Berlin]. It now appears that, [as one can read] in three places, there were orders given to execute 30,000 Jews. It was there in black and white. I cannot not do otherwise than change my opinion. But [such changes of opinion] should occur in both directions. And this is what revolts me: a truth imposed by law. A single truth doesn’t exist, all philosophers know. Ifthere is an auto accident on the next comer, and if you ask five witnesses what they have seen, you’ll get five different truths. [This response was misrepresented, and I tried to correct it, but my correction arrived too late. In the reports, there is not one order, but rathm; the number of33,000 is cited in three places. Now I have a reasonable explanation for this puzzle: The Babi Yar massacre is indeed Soviet war propaganda. Despite the three mentions of 33,000, J.C. Ball’s research (Air Photo Evidence) is diamond-hard evidence. The pages where these numbers are cited must have been altered. This could have been done very easily, and there are reasons to believe that it was done by the Soviets, who seized the documents before the Americans got them. If one wants to prove something beyond doubt, he needs a variety ofproofs that confirm each other. For instance, the Kriegstagesbuch des OKW [War Diary of the Wehrmacht High Command] doesn’t mention any massacre. A German soldier, who was in Kiev at that time, denied having seen or heard about it, even under pressure of interrogation.]
De Morgen: Don’t you think from time to time: «I should have been more empathetic with all those millions of victims»?
Verbeke: It was war. I was born and raised in the Antwerp Jewish neighborhood, next to the great synagogue, [the inside of] which was burnt in the 1942 pogrom. When there were raids, my mother allowed her Jewish tenants to hide in the basement where our family lived. My mother and I were arrested by the Gestapo, because she gave the wrong answer, to the question [in German], «Are you an Arier [Aryan]?» [My mother thought «Arier» must be something very bad, and she answered, «Nein!»] I was a baby, so I remember nothing of it. My father [who was halfGerman and half-Flemish] came home in the evening and stormed down to the Gestapo office. Had he not been there, maybe I myself might have ended up in Auschwitz. I don’t say that the war was a nice time for the Jews, but they should not tell stories which are pure fiction.... Presently, I defend Islam against all the foolish opinions, like the way the famous Flemish politician Filip Dewinter talks about the Koran as «the book of evil.» I write letters [to politicians and magazines], but no one reads them.Ronald L. Ray from The Barnes Review July/August 2016