Quotes from Roger Garaudy, The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy

by Peter Myers

Date November 20, 2000; update July 8, 2023.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/garaudy.html.

Garaudy was a leading French Communist, who was expelled from the Party for criticising the USSR.

The European Court of "Human Rights" has found against Garaudy, on account of his anti-Zionist book The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy. This is scary, because Garaudy was never pro-Hitler ... if even he can be convicted, it shows that the EU is becoming totalitarian, and that "Human Rights", contrary to the impression of freedom, can be a totalitarian ideology. Further, this decision shows the hollowness of the EU leaders' pro-Palestinian stand.

(1) Roger Garaudy, The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy (2) The European Court of "Human Rights" has found against Garaudy

(1) Roger Garaudy, The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy (Studies Forum International, London 1997).

{A new edition of this book, with a foreword by Theodore J. Okeefe, was published in 2000 as The Founding Myths of Modern Israel. The publication details are:
TITLE: Founding Myths of Modern Israel
AUTHOR: Roger Garaudy, Theodore J. Okeefe
ISBN: 09394-8475-7
Publisher: Inst for Historical Review
Publish Date: 01 May, 2000
Binding: Paperback , 224 pages}

[p. 3] Disclaimer

For more than half a century, I have had my books published by the biggest French publishing houses. Today, I am forced to publish, in Samiszdaf at my own expense, this anthology of Zionist heresy, because since 1982 I have violated a taboo: the criticism of Israeli politics, which is henceforth protected by the infamous Gayssot-Law of July 13, 1990, which brings back in France the Second Empire's "delit d'opinion", which uses a repressive law to make up for the lack of arguments.

This is why the booksellers who intend to do their work must order the book through the Librairie du Savoir, Librairie Roumaine de Paris, who have agreed to stock this Samiszdat just as they did in Ceaucescu's time when "state dogma" and intellectual terrorism already reigned, though not in France.


Fundamentalism, the source of violence and war, is a deadly disease of our time.

This book is one of a trilogy I have written to fight them.

In Grandeur et decadences de l'Islam, I denounce the epicentre of islamic fundamentalism: Saudi Arabia. There, I named King Fahd, as the accomplice of the American invasion of the Middle East, and a "political prostitute", who tums Islamic fundamentalism into a disease of Islam.

Two books devoted to Roman Catholic fundamentalism which, under the pretence of "defending life", lectures on the embryo, but remains silent when thirteen and a half million children die every year of malnutrition and hunger, the victims of the "monotheist market" imposed by American domination. These books: Avons-nous besoin de Dieu? et Vers une guerre de religion? are against market monotheism.

The third volet of the trilogy: The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy, denounces the heresy of Zionist policy which consists in replacing the God of Israel by the state of Israel, the unsinkable nuclear aircraft-carrier of the temporary Masters of the World: the United States of America who intend to appropriate Middle East oil, the nerve-centre of Westem-style growth, (a 'growth' model which, through the International Monetary Fund, costs the Third World the equivalent of the dead of Hiroshima every two days).

From Lord Balfour, who said when he was handing over to Zionists a country which did not belong to him << The system being set up to allow us to keep Middle East oil is of little importance . It is essential that this oil stays within our reach >> (Kimhe John, Palestine et Israel, Albin Michel, 1973, p 27), to the American Secretary of State, Cordel Hull: << It must be clear!y understood that Saudi Arabian oil is one of the most important levers in the world >> ( ibid., p 240); the same policy assigns the same mission to the Zionist Israeli leadership ...

[p. 70] This high-ranking magistrate was indeed evoking a constant doctrine of the Zionist movement: its goal was not to save Jews but to build a strong Jewish state. Rabbi Klaussner, who was in charge of "Displaced persons," presented a report before the Jewish American Conference on May 2, 1948: << I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine.... For them, An American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word 'force", I am suggesting a programme. It has already been used, and indeed very recenty. It was used for the evacuation of Jews in Poland, and in the history of the 'Exodus' ... ... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them...At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews >>

Source: Alfred H. Lilienthal in What price Israel, Chicago 1953, p 194-195.

There were several variations on this method of persuasion and even of coercion In 1940, to arouse indignation against the English, who had decided to save the Jews threatened by Hitler by taking them to Mauritius, the Zionist leaders of the ''Hagannah'' (led by Ben Gurion) did not hesitate to blow up the ship when it called at Haifa on December 25, 1940, causing the death of 252 Jews and English crew-members. Source: Dr. Herzl Rosenblum, director of Yediot Anlhronot, revelation made in 1958 and justified in Jewish Newsletter, N.Y., November 1958.

Another example was that of Irak:

[p. 71] Its Jewish community (110,000 people in 1948) was well-implanted in the country. The chief Rabbi of Irak, Khedouri Sassoon had declared << The Jews and Arabs have enjoyed the same rights and privileges for a thousand years and do not consider themselves as separate elements in this nation. >>

Then began the Israeli terrorist acts in Baghdad in 1950. Confronted by the reticence of the Iraqi Jews to register on the immigration lists for Israel, the Israeli secret services did not hesitate to throw bombs at them to convince them they were in danger. The attack on the Shem-Tov synagogue killed three people and injured dozens more. It was the start of the exodus baptized "Operation Ali Baba". Source: Ha'olam hazeh, April 20 and lune I, 1966, and Yediot Anhromot, November 8, 1977.

This has been a consistent doctrine ever since Theodore Herzl replaced the definition of Jew no longer as a religion but as a race.

Article 4b of the fundamental law of the State of Israel (which has no constitution), which defines the "Law of the return" (5710 of 1950), stipulates that << will be considered as Jewish a person born of a Jewish or converted mother. >> (racial or religious criterion). Source: Klein, L'Etat juif, ed. Dunod, Paris, p 156.

This was in keeping with the founding doctrine of Theodore Herzl, who constantlv harped on the theme in his Diaries. As early as 1895, he explained to a German interlocutor (Speidel) << I understand anti-Semitlsm. We Jews have remained, even if it is not our fault, foreign bodies in the different nations >> Source: Diaries, p 9.

A few pages further, he is even more explicit << Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic oountries our allies. >> Source: Diaries, p 19.

They did indeed have a common goal: to assemble Jews in a world ghetto.

The facts have borne out Theodore Herzl's arguments.

[p. 86] As for Churchill, he wrote to Paul Reynaud on May 16, 1940: << We shall starve Germany We shall destroy its cities. We shall burn its crops and its forests. >> Source: Paul Baudouin, Neuf mois au gouvernment, La Table Ronde, 1948, p 57.

In 1942, the British minister, Lord Vansittart, a true apostle of hatred, declared, to justify the terror of British bombings:

<< The only good Germans are dead Germans, so let the bombs rain down ! >>

In July 1944, Churchill sent his chief of staff, General Hastings Imay, a four-page memorandum in which he proposed the following plan:

<< I want you to think over this question of asphyxiating gases very seriously ... It is absurd to take morality into account in ths affair when everyone has already made use of them (asphyxiating gases) during the last war, without there being any protest from moralists or from the Church. On the other hand, the bombing of open cities was regarded as taboo at the time; today everyone does it as a matter of course. It is only a question of fashion, comparable to the evolution in the length of women's hemlines. ... I want the question of the cost of using asphyxiating gases to be examined coolly ... We must not allow our hands to be bound by foolish principles ...

We could flood the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that the majority of the population would be in constant need of medical help. We may have to wait a few weeks or even a few months before I ask you to flood Germany with asphyxiating gases and, if we do it, let's do it thoroughly. Meanwhile, I would like this question to be examined coolly by sensible people and not by a team of killjoy psalm-singers in uniform of the sort one comes across now and again >>

Source: American Heritage, August-September 1985.

[p. 87] Neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nol Truman had to face trial for war crimes at Nuremberg.

The Nuremberg tribunal did not try some of the most ignoble incitements to crime of which we can mention two of the wildest: one was in 1942 a call to "genocide" (this time in the true meaning of the term) by an American Jew called Theodore Kaufman, who wrote a book entitled: Germany must perish. In it, he put forward the following argument: << The Germans (whoever they may be: anti-Nazis, Communists and even philo-Semites) do not deserve to live. Consequently, 20,000 doctors must be mobilized after the war to sterilize 25 Germans a day each. In this way there would not be left one German able to breed witbin three months, and the German race will be totally eliminated within 60 years. >>

This book, which came out in 1942, was a godsend to anti-Semites. Hitler had extracts from it read on all the radio-stations. Another work of the kind was the Call to the Red Army bv the Soviet writer, Ilya Ehrenburg, published in October 1944: << Kill, kill! There are no innocents among the Germans, neither among the living nor among those yet to be born! Carry out the instructions of Comrade Stalin by crushing for good the Fascist beast in its lair. Break the pride of German women by violence; take them as legitimate booty. Kill, kill valant soldiers of the Red Anmy in your irresistible assault >> (quoted bv Admiral Doenitz, Dix ans et 20 jours, pp 343-344).

Neither of the above-mentioned was tried at Nuremberg, no more than the heads of State who had protected them. Nor were tried the Anglo-American leaders who were responsible for the bombing of Dresden, which killed 200,000 civilians and which served no military purpose since the Soviet Army had already achieved its goal.

Nor was Truman tried, though he was guilty of the atomic apocalypse of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which 300,000 civilians perished, again needlessly since the emperor had alreaclv decided that Japan would surrender. Source: Paul Marie de la Gorce, 1939-45. Une guerre inconnue, Flammarion, Paris, 1995, pp 532-535.

[p. 130] The term "genocide" has a plecise meaning through its very etymology: the extermination of a race. Even if we assume there is a Jewish race as Hitler claimed and as Israeli leaders still maintain ...

Was there a genocide of the Jews during World War II?

In all dictionaries, the term genocide has a precise meaning. Larousse for example, gives the following definition: << Genocide : The systematic destruction of an ethnic group by the extermination of its individuals. >>

This definition can be applied to the letter only in the case of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, where, we are told for each city conquered "he left none remaining" (for example in Numbers XXI,35).

The word was therefore used in a completely erroneous manner at Nuremberg, since it was not a matter of annihilating an entire people, as was the case with the "sacred exterminations" of the Amalacites and the Canaanites, and many other peoples, of whom we are told in the Book of Joshua that at Eglon and Hebron <<he left none remaining >> (Joshua X,37) or at Hagor << every man they put to the sword, and left no one alive. >> (Joshua Xl, 14).

On the contrary, Judaism (its definition as a "race" belonging to the Hitlerian vocabulary) has enjoyed a considerable expansion in the world since 1945.

There is no doubt that Jews were one of Hitler's favourite targets, by virtue of his racist theory of the superiority of the Aryan race and the systematic comparison he made between the Jews and Communists, who were his chief enemy, (as demonstrated by the executions of thousands of German Communists and his hounding of the Slav prisoners) He created a special term for this compound: Judeo-Bolshevism.

As soon as he created his "National-Socialist" party, he considered not only uprooting Communism but also chasing all Jews out of Germany to begin with, and later out of Europe, once he had become its master. He proceeded in the most inhuman fashion, first by exiling and expelling them, then, during the war, by incarcerating them in concentration camps in Germany before deporting them. At first he considered deporting them to

[p. 131] Madagascar, which would have been a huge ghetto for European Jews, then to the occupied territories in the east of Europe, especially to Poland, where Slavs, Jews and Gypsies were decimated at first by hard labour in the war industry, then by terrible typhus epidemics, the magnitude of which is borne out by the multplication of crematoriums.

What was the dreadful outcome of Hitler's persecution of his political and racial victims?

50 million people died during World War II, of whom 17 million were Russians and 9 million Germans. Poland too paid a heavy tribute, as did the other occupied countries of Europe, the millions of soldiers from Africa or Asia who had been mobilized for this war which, like the first, had stemmed from European rivalries. Hitlerian domination was thus far more than the huge "pogrom", of which the Jews were the main if not the sole victims, as a certain form of propaganda would have us believe. Hitlerism was a human catastrophe which, unfortunately, was not without precedent, for Hitler did to white people what European colonists had been doing to the ~coloured people" for five centuries, from the Indians of America of whom 60 out of 80 million were destroyed (they too by hard labour and epidemics more than by war), to the Africans, of whom between 10 and 20 million were deported to the Americas, and the trade cost Africa 100 to 200 million of its inhabitants, since ten people had to be killed for one to be taken alive bv the slavedealers.

The myth suited everybody: to speak of the greatest genocide in history was for Western colonialists to make people forget their own crimes (the decimation of the American Indians and the African slave-trade), as it was a way for Stalin to mask his own ferocious repressions.

For the Anglo-American leaders, after the Dresden massacre of February 1945, which killed within a few hours some 200,000 civilians, burnt alive by phosphoms bombs, for no military purpose, since the German army was retreating all along the Eastern front before the lightning quick advance of the Soviet army, which had already reached the Oder in January.

[p. 132] For the United States even more, which had just dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in << over 200,000 people killed and almost 150 000 injured but doomed to a slow death. >> Source: Paul Marie de la Gorce, 1939-45. Une guerre inconnue, Flammarion, Paris, 1995, p 535.

The ends were not military but political. As early as 1948, Churchill wrote in his History of the Second World War (Volume Vl): << It would be wrong to suppose that the fate of Japan was decided by the atomic bomb. >>

The American admiral, William A. Leahy, confirmed this in his book I was there: << In my opinion the use of that barbaric weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki served little purpose in the war against Japan. >>

And indeed, the emperor of Japan, Hirohito, had already entered into negotiations for the surrender of his country as early as May 21, 1945 with the Soviet Union (which was not yet at war with Japan), through the intermediary of the Japanese minister of foreign affairs and the Soviet ambassador, Malik. << Prince Konoye was requested to get ready to go to Moscow, to negotiate directly with Molotov. >> Source: Paul-Marie de Gorce, op.cit., p 532.

<< The Japanese intentions were perfectly well-known in Washington: 'Magic' gave an account of the correspondence between the minister of Foreign Affairs and his opposite number in Moscow. >> Source: Idem, p 553.

The goal pursued was therefore not military but political, as the American Aviation Minister, Finletter, admitted, explaining that the use of atomic bombs was "to knock out Japan before Russia's entry into war. " .Source: Saturday Review of Literature, June 5, 1944.

Leahy, the American admiral, concluded (op. cit. ): << By being the first to use the atomic bomb, we stooped to the moral level of the barbarians of the Middle Ages ... This new and terrible weapon, which is used for an uncivilized war, is a modern barbarism unworthy of Christians. >>

[p. 133] Thus all those leaders, which a genuine "International Court" made up of neutral countries would have put in the dock as war criminals alongside Goering and his gang, found an unexpected alibi with the "gas chambers", the "holocausts" and the "genocides", that could justify, if not erase, their own crimes against humanity.

The American historian, W.F. Albright, who was director of the American School of Oriental Research, wrote in his major work of synthesis: De l'age de pierre a la chretiente. Le monotheisme et son evolution. (French translation : Eds. Payot, 1951), after having justified the "sacred exterminations" of Joshua when he invaded Canaan (p 205): << We Americans have perhaps ... less right to judge the Israelites ... since we exterminated ... thousands of Indians in every corner of our great land, and have assembled the ones that remained in vast concentration camps. >> (p 205).

The term "Holocaust", applied to the same tragedy from the seventies onwards, from Elie Weasel's book La Nuit (1958) and popularized by the title of the film: Holocaust, shows even more clearly the determination to turn the crime committed against Jews into an exceptional event without any possible comparison with the massacres of other victims of Nazism, or even with any other crime in history because their sufferings and their dead had a sacral character: the Larousse Universel (2 volumes, Paris 1969, p 772) thus defined the "holocaust": << Sacrifice practised by the Jews, in which the victims were completely consumed by fire. >>

The martyrdom of Jews thus became set apart from any other, because of its sacrificial nature, it was integrated into the divine Plan, like the crucifixion of Jesus in Christian theology, thus inaugurating a new age. All this enabled a rabbi to say: << The creation of the State of Israel was God's answer to the Holocaust. >>

To justify the sacral nature of the holocaust, there had to be: "total extermination", a "novel industrial organisation of executions", then "cremation".

¥ Total extermination. A "final solution" to the Jewish problem that would be "extermination" has been considered.

[p. 184] On January 1, 1989 1 heard of the toll of the "revolt of stones" on television 327 killed on the Palestinian side (mostly children, throving stones) and 8 on the Israeli side (mostly soldiers, firing bullets). The same day an Israeli minister declared "Negotiation will only be possible when the Palestinians renounce violence." Am I the one who is dreaming? Or is this anaesthesia of critical spirit a collective nightmare? the triumph of nonsense!

As early as 1969 General de Gaulle was denouncing the "excessive influence" of the Zionist lobby in all the media from the press to television from cinema to publishing. Today this "excessive influence" has succeeded in effecting a total inversion of meaning, calling the amateur resistance of the poor "terrorism" and the infinitely more murderous violence of the strong "fight against terrorism".

[p. 185] However, the blockade of my hope was realized masterfully. At the time of the appearance of the page in Le Monde on the logic of Zionist colonialism, I added two lines asking the readers to make contributions to pay for the cost of the advertisement. This had cost five million centimes. I received seven, in hundreds of small cheques. Almost a third of the donors were Jews, two of them rabbis.

But, from this point, the media asphyxiation began: no more access to television, my articles refused. I had published forty books in all the great publishing houses, from Gallimard to Seuil, from Plon to Grasset and Laffont They had been translated into twenty-seven languages. From now on, all the big doors have been closed. One of my biggest publishers was told at a meeting of the board of Directors: << If you publish a book by Garaudy, you will no longer have the translation rights for American works. >> To have accepted me would have caused the blowing up of the firm. Another "big publisher", said about another work to his literary director (who was enthusiastic about the book and worked for three months to help me finish it) << I don't want any Garaudy in the House. >>

Such is the story of the immurement of a man.

Our networks of resistance to nonsense are condemned to secrecy. And myself to literary death. For the crime of hoping.


(2) The European Court of "Human Rights" has found against Garaudy

It calls him a "racist" who seeks to "rehabilitate the National Socialist regime". It says "his writings had a clear racist objective".



Press release issued by the Registrar


A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application lodged in the case of Garaudy v. France (no. 65831/01). (The decision is available only in French.)

The applicant

The applicant, Roger Garaudy, is a French national who was born in 1913 and lives in Chennevières-sur-Marne (Val de Marne). He is a philosopher, writer and former politician.

Summary of the facts

Mr Garaudy is the author of a book entitled The Founding Myths of Modern Israel, which was distributed through non-commercial outlets in 1995 and subsequently republished at the applicant's own expense in 1996 under the title Samiszdat Roger Garaudy. Several criminal complaints, coupled with applications to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties, were lodged against him by associations of former resistance members, deportees and human-rights organisations alleging the following offences: disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, racial defamation in public and incitement to racial hatred. As a result of the complaints, which concerned various passages from both editions of the book, five judicial investigations were started into the applicant's conduct.

Five separate sets of criminal proceedings were brought under the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. The applicant applied unsuccessfully for them to be joined. In five judgments of 16 December 1998, the Paris Court of Appeal found Mr Garaudy guilty of disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, public defamation of a group of people ? namely the Jewish community ? and incitement to discrimination and racial hatred. It found his works to be revisionist and imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment, the longest being for six months, and fines. The convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation in five judgments of 12 September 2000. The prison sentences were to be served concurrently. The fines totalled in excess of 25,900 euros (EUR) and compensation of more than EUR 33,500 was awarded to the civil parties.

While the five cases were pending before the Court of Cassation, the applicant brought proceedings challenging the authenticity of a passage that appeared in one of the Court of Appeal's judgments. Those proceedings were dismissed by the President of the Court of Cassation on the ground that the allegedly inauthentic text had no bearing on the decision on the merits of the case.


The applicant complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights that his right to freedom of expression had been infringed. Among other points he made, he argued that his book was a political work written with a view to combating Zionism and criticising Israeli policy and had no racist or anti-Semitic content. He argued that, since he could not be regarded as a revisionist, he should have been afforded unlimited freedom of expression. He also complained that the proceedings in the domestic courts were unfair, in breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), taken alone or together with Article 4 of Protocol No 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). Lastly, he alleged violations of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).


The application was lodged with the Court on 23 October 2000.

Decision of the Court

Article 10 of the Convention

With regard to Mr Garaudy's convictions for disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, the Court referred to Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights), which was intended to prevent people from inferring from the Convention any right to engage in activities or perform acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Thus, no one could rely on the Convention as a basis for engaging in any act that was contrary to its provisions. Having analysed the book concerned, the Court found that, as the domestic courts had shown, the applicant had adopted revisionist theories and systematically disputed the existence of the crimes against humanity which the Nazis had committed against the Jewish community. There could be no doubt that disputing the existence of clearly established historical events, such as the Holocaust, did not constitute historical research akin to a quest for the truth. The real purpose of such a work was to rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime and, as a consequence, to accuse the victims of the Holocaust of falsifying history. Disputing the existence of crimes against humanity was, therefore, one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews. The denial or rewriting of this type of historical fact undermined the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism was based and constituted a serious threat to public order. It was incompatible with democracy and human rights and its proponents indisputably had designs that fell into the category of prohibited aims under Article 17 of the Convention. The Court found that, since the applicant's book, taken as a whole, displayed a marked tendency to revisionism, it ran counter to the fundamental values of the Convention, namely justice and peace. The applicant had sought to deflect Article 10 of the Convention from its intended purpose by using his right to freedom of expression to fulfil ends that were contrary to the Convention. Consequently, the Court held that he could not rely on Article 10 and declared his complaint incompatible with the Convention.

As regards Mr Garaudy's convictions for racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred, the Court found that they could constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by the Act of 29 July 1881 and had at least two legitimate aims: "the prevention of disorder or crime" and "the protection of the reputation or rights of others". However, for the same reasons as those set out above and in view of the overall revisionist tone of the work, the Court had serious doubts as to whether the passages on which his convictions were based could qualify for protection under Article 10. While criticism of State policy, whether of Israel or any other State, indisputably came within that Article, the Court noted that the applicant had not confined himself to such criticism: his writings had a clear racist objective. However, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide that issue, as it found that the reasons given by the domestic courts for convicting the applicant were relevant and sufficient and the interference with his right to respect for his freedom of expression was "necessary in a democratic society", in accordance with Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court declared this complaint ill-founded.

... With regard to the applicant's allegation that the courts had been generally biased, there was no evidence to cast doubt on the subjective impartiality of the judges who had tried the cases. Moreover, the Court found that the applicant's concerns as to their objective impartiality could not be regarded as legitimately founded. Consequently, the Court declared this complaint ill-founded.

With regard to Mr Garaudy's allegation that he had been the victim of a smear campaign and trial by the press, the Court noted that his book had been controversial from the outset and that the fierce debate provoked by his trial had been predictable. In its view, the applicant had failed to show that he had been the subject of a virulent media campaign that had or might have influenced the judge's opinions or the verdict. Consequently, the Court found this complaint to be ill-founded. ...


To download Garaudy's book The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy (this site also has information on Garaudy's trial in Paris): http://www.radioislam.org/garaudy/english/index.htm.

or try http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionmythgar.html.

The new edition of Garaudy's book is published as The Founding Myths of Modern Israel.

To buy it from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939484757/qid=1123622423/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/t/104-4217225-4444725?v=glance&s=books.
Write to me at contact.html.