At the 1988 “Thought Crime” trial of Ernst Zundel in Toronto, Canada, an Austrian defence witness named Emil Lachout gave sensational testimony. Lachout said he had served under a Major Müller in the military police after the war, and brought with him a document which, he claimed, had been signed by his superior officer in 1948 but had resurfaced only in 1987. The Müller Document (1) was said to have been a circular letter dated October 1, 1948 which stated that “careful Allied investigations had determined that no gassings ever occurred in the 13 German and Austrian concentration camps listed, and that former internees who persisted in saying that they had should be charged with giving false testimony.” (2)
The Müller Document was not challenged by the prosecution, and since the end of the trial the current writer has found no mention of it in either the Jewish Chronicle or Patterns of Prejudice, (3) or indeed in any anti-Revisionist publication, including Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying The Holocaust, which, in spite of its polemical style and its author’s obvious hysteria, makes a number of meaningful criticisms of both Holocaust Revisionism and those who promote it.
On account of this, I didn’t pay much attention to the Müller Document either at the time I read Robert Lenski’s book on the second Zundel trial, (4) or any time after, but in 1995, while jousting on the Internet with a particularly stroppy Jewish Exterminationist, I cited the Müller Document as evidence supporting the Revisionist position, and was immediately denounced as a liar for endorsing a proven forgery.
I asked for documentation on this, and subsequently, what purports to be, and which I accept as, a refutation, was posted to the alt.revisionism newsgroup. (5) Far more disturbing than the forgery itself is the fact that a number of high powered Revisionists appear to have been willing parties to, or even collaborators in, the fraud. (6) As an honest Revisionist, and someone who has, within his extremely limited resources, been investigating various aspects of the so-called Holocaust since 1980, I was taken aback that anyone connected with the Revisionist movement could resort to such chicanery. (7)
As every white nationalist will surely know, Revisionists are denounced unthinkingly by the media, Organised Jewry, “anti-fascists” and mainstream academics as Nazis, anti-Semites and liars. It is certainly true that some of them have Nazi antecedents, and depending on the definition of “anti-Semitism”, some could certainly be described as anti-Semites. I have known and accepted this since my own conversion. But the claim that Revisionists are liars, or that they would sink to the same depths as Organised Jewry in order to prove their case had never seemed credible to me.
In retrospect I realise that I was extremely naïve; the simple fact is that, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, we will each and every one of us put ideology on a higher plane than truth (8) just as surely as every man has his price. But Revisionists must never do this, and when they do, they must be denounced by other Revisionists. In the words of Charles Peguy: “He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” (9)
By the same token, no historian must ever discard data simply because he doesn’t like it, (10) or because it goes against the grain of his particular hypothesis.
In spite of the incessant whining corruption of Organised Jewry and increasingly severe persecution from their powerful friends and allies – including legal persecution – (11) the outlook for Holocaust Revisionism has never looked better; the mere fact that Revisionists are now condemned loudly and openly instead of being given the silent treatment, bodes well for the future. But the future of Revisionism cannot be based on lies, and lies, whether brazen – such as the Müller Document – or subtle – such as the Revisionist piffle peddled by Ingrid Weckert et al – must be denounced from the rooftops by Revisionists. All Revisionists. So what are these lies?
The year 1974 saw the publication of the now infamous Did Six Million Really Die? The favourable review this poorly researched but seminal pamphlet (12) received in the November 1974 issue of Books & Bookmen by the impressionable Colin Wilson can be said really to have launched the modern era of Holocaust Revisionism. The earlier works of Paul Rassinier and the courageous Jew J.G. Burg (13) had been all but consigned to the memory hole, but “Richard Harwood” revived them with a vengeance. One of the more easily verifiable inadequacies of the Harwood pamphlet is its exposé of the Diary Of Anne Frank.
According to Did Six Million Really Die? “the handwriting attributed to Anne Frank and the handwriting in the diary bear no resemblance to each other”; Harwood claims too, or suggests, that the real author of the diary was the playwright Meyer Levin. Others have claimed that parts of the diary were written in ballpoint pen, and that this is proof of fabrication because this type of pen didn’t come on the market until 1951. This allegation has also been made in mainstream publications; Robert Faurisson’s pamphlet Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? reproduces an article from an American newspaper which reports that forensic tests carried out by the German authorities had borne out this claim. (14)
Further credence was given to claims that the diary is a fake by the interviews Robert Faurisson conducted with Anne’s father, the late Otto Frank. In addition to this, there are different accounts about how the diary was allegedly found after the war; there are also serious discrepancies in different translations of the book.
All these criticisms and inconsistencies warrant explanation; they have been explained, satisfactorily, but these explanations have not diffused to a wider public. In the appendix to her aforementioned anti-Revisionist polemic, Deborah Lipstadt covers the true history of the diary, albeit with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. First, and most important, after the death of Otto Frank the diary was subjected to severe forensic analysis by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. An English translation of this massive report was published in 1989. (15) It vindicates the book totally.
Lipstadt’s book explains the Meyer Levin affair; it is true that Levin did bring a court case against Otto Frank, but this related to the dramatisation of the diary rather than to the book itself. (16) The claim that Levin was the author appears to have originated with a 1967 article in the American Mercury. (17) The ballpoint pen marks were made at a later date during the process of editing the manuscript; as stated, it is true that there are significant differences in different editions of the book, but again, there are prosaic explanations for this.
Being both a Jew and a young girl, Anne Frank obviously said a few things about the Germans which wouldn’t have gone down too well with a German readership. (18) The diary also contained a number of explicit sexual references; bearing in mind that the immediate post-war world was a far less "liberated" place than 1990s Britain – no gay lessons or free condoms for schoolkids then – these too were edited out. It is also not true that the book became an instant bestseller, indeed, both the book and the Levin dramatisation received a number of rejections. The book itself was rejected by ten US publishers even after it was published in Europe. (19) (So much for “the Jews” controlling the media lock stock and barrel).
Lipstadt is scathing of Revisionists throughout and ends her book with the claim that “it becomes clear that the deniers’ claims have no relationship to the most basic rules of truth and evidence.” (20) Notwithstanding her own intellectual dishonesty, Lipstadt does not cover how the diary was found, but she does make an error herself about the father’s return from the mill of death: “When Otto Frank was liberated from Auschwitz and returned from the war, he learned that his daughters were dead.” (21)
According to Miep Gies, who was actually there, she picked up the diary after the Franks’ arrest. The office was then cleared out and the Franks’ possessions sent to Germany. When Otto Frank returned after the war she didn’t tell him about the diary because he believed his daughters may still have been alive. When Anne’s death was confirmed, she gave him the diary. (22)
That notwithstanding, there are other – incorrect – versions of how the diary was recovered. The entry for Anne Frank in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Volume 7) reports that the diary was found by her Gentile friends (ie Miep Gies) immediately after the family’s arrest, but in his fantasy-prone book The Murderers Among Us, “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal reports that when the Franks were arrested on August 1, 1944, the diary was thrown on the floor by the arresting officer. And “A year later, her father returned to the attic of the Amsterdam house. The diary was still lying on the floor, where the S.S. man had thrown it.” (23)
Taking this into consideration, the editing of the diary for various editions, the genuine confusion over the Meyer Levin affair, and the remarkable content of the diary itself, it is hardly any wonder that Revisionists, and others, would be skeptical. All this is both understandable and forgivable, but what is not forgivable is that after the diary has been authenticated no Revisionist has had the good grace to admit that he was wrong, either that he was misled by wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance or whatever, or simply made a howler. Robert Faurisson’s attitude in particular has been disgraceful.
A few final points concerning the Anne Frank diary and another diary; Lipstadt claims in her book that Professor Butz stated that he had determined the diary to be a hoax. (24) What Butz actually says is that “The question of the authenticity of the diary is not considered important enough to examine here; I will only remark that I have looked it over and don’t believe it.” (25) He dismisses it as a propaganda document but admits that he has not researched it properly because he does not consider it to be central, or even peripheral, to his thesis. In fact, the death of Anne Frank does not in any way support the Exterminationist position; she died of typhus in Belsen after being transferred from Auschwitz. Which begs the question, why wasn’t this obviously frail young girl gassed in the mill of death?
The actual reason the Frank family was in hiding in the first place does rather detract from the romance of the diary; according to the Encyclopedia Of The Holocaust, Otto and company were not in hiding for fear of being gassed but because Anne’s elder sister had received a letter from the Jewish emigration office ordering her to register for forced labour. (26) In other words, she was recruited for war work – like countless millions of others on both sides – and didn’t want to go.
The final point I wish to make relates not to Anne Frank but to “Anne Frank of Sarajevo”. This latter day diarist is actually not named Anne but Zlata. Aged thirteen, her diary became an international bestseller. (27) Unlike Anne Frank, she lived to see the fruits of her labours. Or the fruits of somebody’s labours. A report in the London Times in March 1994 claimed that there were inconsistencies in two versions of the book: there were material differences between the Viking edition, an earlier edition and the handwritten original. (28) To the best of my knowledge there was no whining and wailing in the media about this, and no allegations of racial and religious hatred, but then Zlata is not Jewish. Further comment would be superfluous.
However many lies any individual Revisionist has told, the lies of Exterminationists, survivors, Jewish apologists and propagandists, et al, outnumber them a hundred if not a thousand to one, but Revisionists must be whiter than white. If they aren’t, then they are not Revisionists. I will mention here two other gross distortions.
In her book Flashpoint, Ingrid Weckert musters a convincing argument to show that what actually happened on Kristallnacht has been grossly distorted by the Court Historians. Unfortunately, she has added a few distortions herself, thus: “The German people, through their government, formed in an incontestably democratic way via the Nuremberg Laws, had established a clear dividing-line to separate the Jews who were held to be unrelated to them by blood.” (29) The democratic structure of the Nuremberg Laws and all the other laws and decrees of the Hitler régime need no documenting here.
On page 28 of her book Weckert whitewashes Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish policy; her claim on page 97 that at the time of Kristallnacht the USA was a hotbed of anti-Semitism is dubious to say the least, while on page 106 she informs her readers that: “When the Jews in Germany were asked to leave that is condemned as uniquely abominable, barbarous, and criminal German anti-Semitism by our contemporary historians and politicians; when it is pointed out that the rest of the world didn’t want them either, they change the subject. Schizophrenia, or hypocrisy?” Leaving aside that fact that immigrants are never welcome anywhere unless they are rich, the claim that the Jews of Germany were “asked to leave” is every bit as venal as the persistent claims by Organised Jewry that they are a poor, persecuted, powerless minority in need of special protection.
Finally, let us take a brief foray into the Willis Carto school of Revisionist History. The contribution of Willis A. Carto to both the Revisionist movement and the populist movement speaks for itself. It is probably true to say that without Carto and his Liberty Lobby organisation there would be no meaningful Revisionist movement in the United States today, if anywhere in the world. However, Carto, like his avowed enemy Organised Jewry, is committed to truth only as far as it supports his particular ideology. The ideology of Organised Jewry may be both unwritten and unspoken, but it is plain for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: the total destruction of Western Man’s democratic institutions, and, ultimately, of Western Man himself.
The big mistake “anti-Semites” make is that they misread the nature of the beast. Organised Jewry are far from the only players in this sick game, others include the organised homosexual movement, the “feminists” and, of course, those enemies of all mankind, the international socialists, (or “anti-fascists” as they prefer to call themselves nowadays). Carto though sees only – or principally – the Jewish evil. In his Revisionist magazine The Barnes Review (which he founded in 1994 “TO BRING HISTORY INTO ACCORD WITH THE FACTS” [sic]), Carto has begun to expound this in no uncertain terms. The first sign was the serialisation of a book by (the now deceased) Leon Degrelle, (30) war-time leader of the Belgian Rexist movement.
Degrelle’s book bears the curious title Hitler Democrat, and in the July 1995 issue of The Barnes Review, Chapter VIII of this book makes some utterly amazing claims, including that in 1920 Hitler was a moderate and that the average German was far more anti-Semitic than the great man himself! (31) By January 1996, Carto’s “Revisionism” had gone right off the rails even by his standards, and the lead story of The Barnes Review for that month, written by Carto himself, was called JESUS CHRIST WAS GOD – AND A POPULIST. Sure, Willis, come and tell the good doctor all about it.
At the time of writing – May 1996 – Carto’s contribution to Revisionism is much more serious; he is embroiled in acrimonious litigation with the Institute for Historical Review; on two occasions he sent the current writer copies of pamphlets which purport to prove that the IHR has been taken over by the ADL, Mossad and CIA. (32) If Carto will resort to such outrageous smears against fellow Revisionists, one can only wonder what lies he will fabricate in order to discredit Organised Jewry. (33)
A stock charge, the stock charge, of leftists, Organised Jewry, “academics” and all the other enemies of Holocaust Revisionism and Revisionist History in general is that the “Nazis” need to prove the Holocaust a hoax or prove that it is a Zionist conspiracy or whatever in order to rehabilitate Nazism. This is not the case, although it is an ugly truth that many people in the white ethnic movement do think like this. But ugly truths cut both ways, and if it is true that the far right pushes Holocaust Revisionism for ideological reasons then it is far more true that Organised Jewry, the “anti-racist” lobby and the international socialists push the Holocaust for ideological reasons, albeit the very opposite reasons, (ie to suppress “nationalism” and all forms of white racial consciousness). (34) Indeed, it is safe to say that without the Holocaust there would be no “anti-racist” lobby worthy of the name, and socialism would long since have died the death.
The Holocaust is used primarily to demonstrate not just the evils of so-called racial hatred but the unique wickedness of the white race. (35) The line most often peddled – especially by Organised Jewry – is that any race conscious white person wants to send all non-whites to the gas chambers and is also, for some curious reason, an anti-Semite. Again, this is more indicative of Jewish racial hatred rather than of genuine anti-Semitism. Although I have had far less contact with the BNP than the controller of a certain Jewish-owned race-hate magazine would have his readers believe, I have spoken to a number of party members, and it is obvious to me that the average BNP member (or any white nationalist for that matter) is not the slightest bit interested in living under any sort of dictatorship, fascist or not, whatever his views on race.
The greatest irony though is that the Holocaust – whatever it was – had absolutely nothing to do with racism, and in the final analysis it had precious little to do with anti-Semitism either. The government of Adolf Hitler was elected with a large mandate which it consolidated in spite of, rather than because of, its anti-Jewish policy. With the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, the Nazis – Hitler in particular – were able to drive a bus through the rule of law. The constitutional safeguards and checks and balances that had been built up over centuries went out of the window virtually overnight. (36) It is this which enables any minority, be it racial, religious or other, to be singled out for persecution, and eventual extermination, and the “anti-racist” lobby, Organised Jewry, and all the other uglies, have been and remain in the forefront of the perversion of the rule of law, which may one day make this possible in Britain. Indeed, every time the “fascists” are given a battering they rub their hands with glee, but eventually the Frankenstein’s monster they have created will come back to haunt them as much as it now haunts the BNP.
A good example is the case of Colin Jordan, Britain’s leading (and totally unrepentant) Nazi. In June 1991, on a complaint from a Jewish MP, his home was raided and his entire collection of political papers seized. What had the geriatric Jordan done to warrant this? He had published one cartoon and mailed it out. One poxy cartoon. (37) The hysteria over “racial hatred” generated by the “anti-racist” lobby (mostly by one tiresome minority), has thus led to Draconian powers of search and seizure. (38)
Only a mischief-maker would believe such powers are necessary to combat xenophobia, and only a fool would suggest that they will not eventually be extended into other fields. Indeed, this has already happened; hysteria over drugs has led to civil asset forfeiture legislation in both Britain and the United States. In 1992, a woman in Iowa who was accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 automobile – which had been specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as a getaway car! (39) This was made possible by civil asset forfeiture legislation, in particular the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, 1984.
In Britain, under Chapter 11 of the Proceeds Of Crime Act, 1995, the police now have the right to apply to a judge in chambers ex-parte (ie in secret) prior to arresting a suspect, for authority to freeze his assets. Computer technology makes the emergence of a central financial database not just possible but likely, indeed, the current writer has personal experience of this.
A TV news report on April 26, 1996 claimed that a pimp who had just been gaoled for luring women from Brazil and forcing them into prostitution had been caught after his bank informed the authorities of “suspicious” cash transactions on his account. (40) Incredible though it may seem, banks now have an obligation to inform on their customers if large cash transactions are made.
This has actually been the case since 1986! Under the DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT 1986 (1986 c32), failure to disclose “knowledge or suspicion” of money laundering is a criminal offence. The actual wording of the act is as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence, if –
(a) he knows, or suspects, that another person is engaged in drug money laundering,
(b) the information, or other matter, on which that knowledge or suspicion is based came to his attention in the course of his trade, profession, business or employment, and
(c) he does not disclose the information or other matter to a constable as soon as
is reasonably practicable after it comes to his attention. (41)
The above provision turns every bank manager, every building society clerk, every accountant...into a police spy on peril of being thrown into gaol for non-compliance, which effectively includes minding one’s own business or refusing to snoop on one’s customers. (42)
In the United States all cash transactions over $10,000 have to be recorded. (43) Currency transfers in or out of the United States in excess of $10,000 are also subject to reporting to the authorities. (44) If this isn’t fascism, what is? Even in Nazi Germany, Jews couldn’t have their property seized without due process of law; (45) people didn’t have their premises raided and property seized for publishing mere cartoons, and banks didn’t spy on their customers. And, it was possible for people – including Jews – to leave the country with large amounts of money. (46)
Such Draconian legislation as discussed above, when directed at racists, pimps and alleged drug dealers is welcomed, and the victims – the likes of Colin Jordan – are guyed and ridiculed, but this is the thin edge of the wedge, and just as it doesn’t take long for the persecuted to become the persecutors, so it doesn’t take long for people to be hoist with their own petard. There is a large and growing Moslem population in Britain and throughout Europe; most of them are not the slightest bit infected with white guilt complexes about the Holocaust or sympathy for the Jewish underdog. It would take only a few years and a carefully mounted campaign of hysteria for this underdog to be transformed into the Zionist Imperialist and arch-enemy outside of Islamic Fundamentalist and “Nazi” circles, (47) and when Britain’s Moslems and Britons in general are sick up to the back teeth of Organised Jewry harping on about the Holocaust, the requisite legislation to shut them up permanently is already in place.
Returning to Holocaust Revisionism, the thing that I found most disturbing about the Lachout forgery, more so even than the fact that leading Revisionists had endorsed it or had possibly even been willing parties to its fabrication, is the fact that it was virtually ignored by the Exterminationist Lobby. Surely here was the proof at last that the Revisionists – all Revisionists – were not only raving anti-Semites, Nazis, ad nauseam, but notorious liars? I put this to an Exterminationist in alt.revisionism and he replied so what? Everybody knew Revisionists (deniers) (48) were notorious liars. However, their reaction here was in stark contrast to that of their reaction to The Leuchter Report. This was denounced to high heaven, and the year following its publication a creature by the name of Shelly Shapiro (I kid you not) edited a book with the outrageous title Truth Prevails. (49)
This collection of (supposedly) academic essays contains a concerted attack on both The Leuchter Report and on Leuchter himself. (50) Although, unusually, it also contains more rational argument than most of its kind, like all anti-Revisionist studies it is basically a polemic; in this case, the contributors stoop to accusing Leuchter not only of perjury but of sleight-of-hand. (51)
The hysteria over The Leuchter Report having failed to convince the wicked goyim of the error of their ways, the goalposts are being quietly shifted once more. In a recent Observer article, the Court Historian Gitta Sereny whined that “A few years ago we (52) attended a lecture in London introduced by [David] Irving, at which a pseudo-scientist from America called Leuchter, who had been to test the walls of the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz, reported that he had found no residue of cyanide – not too surprising, perhaps, in a reconstructed building after 50 years.” (53) Which begs the question, if this building is a reconstruction and has always been admitted to be a reconstruction, why did Shelly Shapiro and her fellow hatemongers publish their book? Why not simply claim from the start that Leuchter’s findings were based on a false premise, ie that he had examined a reconstructed building?
Similar mock outrage to that which met The Leuchter Report greeted the publication of Did Six Million Really Die?, The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, and other Revisionist milestones. Yet the Lachout Document was met with stony silence.
Anti-Semites have often claimed that even if the Protocols Of Zion is a forgery then it is true in spirit; it is my personal feeling that the same is true of the Lachout Document. Professor Butz writes that “The evidence for exterminations at Belzec, Chelmno, Lublin, Sobibor and Treblinka is fairly close to zero.” (54) This is not quite true; there is evidence of exterminations at the Aktion Reinhard camps, (55) but virtually the only such evidence that exists, or ever existed, is “eyewitness testimony”, and any Revisionist who has made the slightest study of survivor testimony and the self-serving denunciations of former SS men will realise just how unreliable that is.
In the Introduction to Bernd Naumann’s book on the twenty month long Auschwitz Trial (held at Frankfurt in the mid 60s), Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt writes of the “notoriously unreliable” witness testimony, the “fantastic discrepancy between pretrial testimony and testimony in court in the case of most of the German witnesses”, and the “justified suspicion” that the testimony of Polish witnesses had been doctored and that Jewish witnesses had been manipulated by the International Auschwitz Committee. (56) The trial judge himself said that he had yet to meet anyone who had done anything in Auschwitz and that the defendants had lied persistently but not consistently, (57) while the opinion of the court recorded that “We have no absolute evidence about the individual murders, only witness testimony. And at times this witness testimony was not so accurate and precise as is desirable in a murder trial...A few weeks ago it was reported in the press that a former Buchenwald concentration camp guard had been found guilty of having murdered a prisoner and then it was found that the prisoner was still alive...” (58)
Any physical evidence of such exterminations that existed comes primarily from Communist sources; it is a moot point if such evidence is any more reliable than that adduced by the testimonies of survivors. (59)
Even before the end of the Second World War, the Communists were preparing their catch-all get-out: there is no evidence because the Nazis destroyed it. Thus, in October 1944, the Polish Review reported that the Germans (60) were attempting to destroy all the evidence of the camps, while in Belzec, Tremblinka [sic] and Trawniki, Jews were said to have been slaughtered in gas and steam chambers! (61) After the war, this proof by lack of evidence was reiterated by the official Polish publication German Crimes In Poland; here, the reader is informed that when the Treblinka camp was liquidated in November 1943, all meaningful evidence was destroyed with it. (62) Very convenient.
Even when evidence did exist and was adduced, much of it is quietly forgotten nowadays, and for very good reasons. In the 1957 English language translation Concentration camp OSWIECIM-BRZEZINKA (AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU), the author, the Polish official Jan Sehn, claims that in the mill of death, gold teeth were melted down by SS dentists, and that 40 inmates were employed on this work; between them they extracted 12kg a day! (63) So what happened to all this gold? In the same book he reports that there is documentary evidence that over 100 tons of bone pulp were sold for industrial processing. (64) So where are the invoices now? These outrageous lies are clearly anti-capitalist propaganda as much as anti-Nazi – ie Jews (and others) were murdered for profit. Even today it is a staple of far left propaganda that “fascism” is the heavy hand of capital.
The Dachau gas chamber hoax has now been thoroughly documented and exposed, yet as recently as 1976 two leading South African Zionists used photographs of this so-called “gas chamber” (in reality a delousing chamber) as part of their evidence in a legal campaign which resulted in the banning of Did Six Million Really Die? by the supposedly so racist Apartheid régime. (65) A similar outrageous lie was used in the persecution and prosecution in France of Robert Faurisson; the “anti-Revisionist” Jean-Claude Pressac admits candidly in his book that a photograph of a “Gas chamber door” produced as evidence by LICRA for the Faurisson trial was actually that of a delousing chamber! This was an exhibit furnished by the Warsaw Central Commission, (66) the publisher of German Crimes In Poland! (67)
It may be that in this instance at least, Organised Jewry feel they have cried wolf once too often. In spite of the incessant whining and wailing, behind the scenes pressures and, lately, naked terror, the Revisionists are winning the struggle hands down. All Revisionists know too well the lengths to which their opponents will go, and the depths to which they will sink, in order to discredit Holocaust Revisionism and to shut the Revisionists down. No Revisionist must sink to these depths; we must not play by their rules. Revisionists must bellow the truth they hate even when it hurts, and must never become the accomplices of liars and forgers.
To Notes And References
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index