Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

of anti-semitism...

la juivela juive




















My name is Jules Letambour. I have a rare old French book. It’s missing the title page with the name of the author but it was probably written in the late 1830s or early 1840s… It relates the story of the Jewish people from the Merovingian times to the opera “La Juive” (1835).


In it there are a lot of references to decrees and laws regarding to the status of the Jewish people in England, in Germany but mostly in France. The book is so rare that there is not a single mention of it on all the relevant websites, using all permutations of possible searches. None. Yet by some deductions, I have come to source and develop a few historical context about “my” people, the Jews.


First and foremost — money. It would not surprise you to learn that the Jews in France were taxed far more than anybody else. Although unsaid, this could be due to the probability that the Jews made more money than anyone else — say compared to a peasant or a Maréchal-ferrand (a blacksmith). In 1770 and 1771, there was a couple of serious famines (disettes) in France. And it is due to the diligence and services — one would have to read — “management” and distribution "providores” during these crisis that, according to my very rare book (say unique), a certain Cerf Beer was awarded the French nationality despite being a Jew, by the King. 



Cerf Berr's grave in Rosenwiller:

"Here is buried the body of him who was faithful to his people and aspired to good, the crown of the community, and he sought justice, he was perfect in his conduct, kind to the poor, for the needy he was a protector against the storm he feared God and was good to Israel.

The mighty, the sublime, the honorable and the distinguished Rabbi Naftali Hirz Médelsheim.

His memory be blessed. His righteousness walks before him and his soul will be in the garden of God reveling in it. He died on the holy Sabbath, 4 tebeth 555 according to the little comput, and he was buried the next day, the first day (of the week) 5 tebeth.

May his soul be linked in the bundle of life with the soul of the righteous and the pious and may he await his fate at the end of days.

A (men) S (elah)


Cert Berr (Beer) was a philanthropist who helped the starving with charity during the disettes… Then came the French revolution… Some conspiracy theorists indulge in the belief that this event was fomented by the Jews rather than by the peasants. One never knows.


A French Catholic priest called Augustin Barruel is generally regarded as one of history’s most famous conspiracy theorists. His multi-volume 1797 book, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, about an alleged conspiracy that led to the outbreak of the French Revolution, has been reprinted many times and translated into several languages. 

Not long after the publication of his work, Barruel was sent a letter by a man called Jean Baptiste Simonini, who alleged that the Jews were also part of the conspiracy. This letter – the original of which has never been found – continues to shape antisemitic conspiracy thinking to this day.

Even before the revolution, Barruel had become famous in France as a conservative writer and journalist. The trainee Jesuit priest strongly opposed the new philosophy of the time – the convictions of Diderot, d'Alembert or even Voltaire – which he regarded as radical. 

In his book, Barruel’s conspiracy theory had three component parts. First, he assumed that radical philosophers in Voltaire’s circle had stirred up society. Second, he complained about the multitude of Freemasons in France. Third, he introduced the Illuminati. 


The Illuminati was a real secret group, founded in the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt in 1776. Around the time of the Illuminati’s discovery in 1784, a conspiracy theory was stirred up by its staunch enemies accusing the group of wanting to overthrow all thrones and altars and to completely transform society. Even though the Illuminati was eventually disbanded before the outbreak of the French Revolution, many conspiracy theorists believed that its ideas, which were considered radical, had been carried to France by an important member.






The tirade that follows is about "should the French Jews be considered Français (French)?" It sorts of explodes with a pronouncement by M. de Clermont-Tonnerre (tonnerre = thunder!) in 1789: “There cannot be another nation within the nation.” This was followed by some mitigation moderation from l’abbé Maury, Rewbell and a few others, to allow some time for “a transition” (régénération) of the Jews in France to submit to “égalité” (equality). Until then the Jews were aliens. One amazing thing is the government decree of the 10 of July 1784 that had already started the ball rolling by encouraging the Jews to indulge in “useful” activities such as industry and farming. Until then, there was a “moral” Jewish mind-set that prevented them from such work. One can guess they only dealt with money. 


So there were discussions and resentments amongst non-Jews, without being anti-Jewish per se… One had to break the political power of the rabbis. The French revolutionary government had to take over the teaching of all religions, including the Jews and the Catholics, in order for the religious teachings be in tune with the “national interest". Rabbis had to answer to the State and the Jews had to give up all their “documents” that considered other Jews as aliens to the point of being “enemies”. From now, the “French” Jews had to learn to love France, to serve France and they had to abandon their "chimeric dreams of returning to Judea".


Here we need to go to a modern interpretation of Jewish history


The main one is that by Shlomo Sand, a history professor in Tel Aviv, who basically explains the “legend” of us, the Jewish people in his book "Comment le peuple juif fut inventé” (How the Jewish people were invented)… So, nothing much that is claimed by the Israelis about their history is true. The Jews have been bullshitting like most of the other people on earth. But we will come back to this, a bit later on...


So who was Cerf Berr? Well, his name was actually Cerf Beer… Why would the Cerf Berr society change his name is  strange… Is it due that his family name was too close to the beverage so famous in the Westphalian area from Munich to Strasbourg? But in the rare book, we can find that Cert Beer was honoured by the French King Louis XVI. Cert beer was a Jew who also got recognised by the brothers of the French Revolution...


"At an invitation extended to Cerf Berr and other wealthy citizens of this commune by the commission in charge of supplying the newly formed battalion, the aforementioned citizen did send 23 measures of wine, but it was of such poor quality. that we did not see fit, to be drunk by the brave defenders of the country and we immediately sent him back with the very firm hope that the good citizens of Strasbourg will never allow their brothers to suffer privations, marching in battlefield and victory.


At the same time, we have informed the aforementioned citizen that we do not deem him worthy to take part any longer in the honor of contributing to the maintenance of the defenders of freedom and that we reject any further aid.

The commission decided to punish the vile conduct of one of the city's richest citizens with publicity and to publicize it through posters.


Strasbourg, September 10, 1793.




More to come



Jules Letambour.


the legend...

Every Israeli knows without a shadow of a doubt that the Jewish people have existed since they received the Torah (1) in Sinai, and that they are its direct and exclusive descendant. Everyone is convinced that this people, who came out of Egypt, settled in the "promised land", where the glorious kingdom of David and Solomon was built, then divided into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Likewise, it is common knowledge that he experienced exile on two occasions: after the destruction of the first temple, in the sixth century BC, then following that of the second temple, in the year 70 AD

There followed for him a wandering of nearly two thousand years: his tribulations led him to Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and to the depths of Russia, but he always managed to preserve the links blood between its remote communities. Thus, its uniqueness was not altered. At the end of the 19th century, conditions ripened for his return to the ancient homeland. Without the Nazi genocide, millions of Jews would naturally have repopulated Eretz Israel ("the land of Israel") as they had dreamed of it for twenty centuries.

Virgin, Palestine was waiting for its original people to come and make it bloom again. Because it belonged to him, and not to this Arab minority, devoid of history, who arrived there by chance. Righteous were the wars waged by the wandering people to regain possession of their land; and criminal the violent opposition of the local population.


Where does this interpretation of Jewish history come from? It has been the work, since the second half of the 19th century, of talented reconstructors of the past, whose fertile imagination has invented, on the basis of pieces of religious, Jewish and Christian memory, a continuous genealogical chain for the Jewish people. The abundant historiography of Judaism includes, of course, a plurality of approaches. But the controversies within it have never called into question the essentialist conceptions developed mainly at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.


When discoveries arose that might contradict the image of the linear past, they received little attention. The national imperative, like a firmly closed jaw, blocked any kind of contradiction and deviation from the dominant narrative. The specific instances of production of knowledge on the Jewish past - the departments exclusively devoted to the "history of the Jewish people", separated from the departments of history (called in Israel "general history") - have largely contributed to this curious hemiplegia. . Even the legal debate about "who is Jewish?" "Did not concern these historians: for them, any descendant of the people forced into exile two thousand years ago is a Jew.


These "authorized" researchers of the past did not take part in the "new historians" controversy, which began at the end of the 1980s, either. Most of the actors in this public debate, in limited number, came from other disciplines or else from the past. he extra-university horizons: sociologists, orientalists, linguists, geographers, specialists in political science, researchers in literature, archaeologists formulated new reflections on the Jewish and Zionist past. There were also graduates from abroad in their ranks. "Departments of Jewish history", on the other hand, came with fearful and conservative echoes, shrouded in apologetic rhetoric based on preconceived ideas.


Judaism, proselytizing religion

In short, in sixty years, national history has matured very little, and it is unlikely to change anytime soon. Yet the facts uncovered by research pose questions to any honest historian that are surprising at first glance, but nonetheless fundamental.


Can the Bible Be Considered a History Book? The first modern Jewish historians, like Isaak Markus Jost or Leopold Zunz, in the first half of the 19th century, did not perceive it thus: in their eyes, the Old Testament presented itself as a book of theology constituting the Jewish religious communities after the destruction of the first temple. It was not until the second half of the same century to find historians, first of all Heinrich Graetz, bearers of a “national” vision of the Bible: they transformed Abraham's departure for Canaan, the exit from Egypt or again the unified kingdom of David and Solomon in accounts of a truly national past. Zionist historians have since continued to reiterate these "biblical truths", which have become the daily food of national education.


Read more: Shlomo Sand, a history professor in Tel Aviv, who basically explains the “legend” of us, the Jewish people in his book "Comment le peuple juif fut inventé”. Translation by Jules Letambour...




the humiliation...


The Three Oaths is the popular name for a midrash found in the Talmud,[1] which relates that God adjured three oaths upon the world. Two of the oaths pertain to the Jewish people, and one of the oaths pertains to the other nations of the world. The Jews for their part were sworn not to forcefully reclaim the Land of Israel and not to rebel against the other nations, and the other nations in their turn were sworn not to subjugate the Jews excessively.

Among Orthodox Jews today there are primarily two ways of viewing this midrash. A faction of the Haredim who are strongly anti-Zionist often view this midrash as not being fulfilled, whereas Religious Zionists and other orthodox Jews view it as being fulfilled and maintained, and now obsolete. Both buttress their positions by citing historic rabbinic sources in favor of their view.


Read more:




In my book, Article VIII of the Appendix cites the FORMULE DU SERMENT MORE JUDIACO.


Extract from a Decree of the Court in Colmar 10 February 1809...




It is very similar to the old oath designed to humiliate the Jews:


The Oath More Judaico or Jewish Oath was a special form of oath, rooted in antisemitism and accompanied by certain ceremonies and often intentionally humiliating, painful or dangerous, that Jews were required to take in European courts of law until the 20th century. More Judaico is Latin for "on/by the Jewish custom." The question of the trustworthiness of the Jewish oath was intimately connected with the meaning that Christian authorities assigned to the Kol Nidre prayer, recited by Jews on Yom Kippur, and the whole of the legislation regarding the oath was characteristic of the attitude of medieval states toward their Jewish subjects. The identification of Church and State seemed to render it necessary to have a different formula for those outside the state church.


The following formula, originally in Middle High German, was used in Frankfurt on the Main about 1392:[1]


The Jew shall stand on a sow's skin and the five books of Master Moses shall lie before him, and his right hand up to the wrist shall lie on the book and he shall repeat after him who administers the oath of the Jews:
Regarding such property of which the man accuses you, you know nothing of it, nor do you have it. You never had it in your possession, you do not have it in any of your chests, you have not buried it in the earth, nor locked it with locks, so help you God who created heaven and earth, valley and hill, woods, trees, and grass, and so help you the law which God himself created and wrote with His own hand and gave Moses on Sinai's mount. And so help you the five books of Moses that you may nevermore enjoy a bite without soiling yourself all over as did the King of Babylon.
And may that sulphur and pitch flow down upon your neck that flowed over Sodom and Gomorrah, and the same pitch that flowed over Babylon flow over you, but two hundred times more, and may the earth envelop and swallow you up as it did Dathan and Abiram. And may your dust never join other dust, and your earth never join other earth in the bosom of Master Abraham if what you say is not true and right. [This refers either to a decent burial or to resurrection.] And so help you Adonai, you have sworn the truth.
If not, may you become as leprous as Naaman and Gehazi, and may the calamity strike you that the Israelite people escaped as they journeyed forth from Egypt's land. And may a bleeding and a flowing come forth from you and never cease, as your people wished upon themselves when they condemned God, Jesus Christ, among themselves, and tortured Him and said: Matthew 27:25 "His blood be upon us and our children." It is true, so help you God who appeared to Moses in a burning bush which yet remained unconsumed. It is true by the oath that you have sworn, by the soul which you bring on the Day of Judgment before the Court, [before the God of] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is true, so help you God and the oath you have sworn. [Amen].[citation needed]

In the Colmar Version, the word God is replaced by Adonaï (Jewish name for god).


Jules Letambour.


Note: Jules Letambour is an atheist. 



we're proud jews...

Ben & Jerry’s co-founders have pushed back against claims of anti-Semitism following the company’s decision to stop offering its ice cream products in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, noting that they themselves are Jews.

Writing in the New York Times, Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield said they were “proud Jews” who view Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a barrier to peace.

“It’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the US government. As such, we unequivocally support the decision of the company to end business in the occupied territories, which a majority of the international community, including the United Nations, has deemed an illegal occupation,” they argued, in an op-ed published on Wednesday. The move to pull Ben & Jerry’s from shelves in Israeli-occupied territories was in keeping with the firm’s “progressive values.”



Read more:



the terrorists...


How we conveniently ignore the ‘terrorists’ among our allies  

Before they were prime minister, two Israelis were leaders of violent political movements that killed innocent people.


Written by 


The term “terrorist” often gets used as a general-purpose epithet intended to consign a disliked state or group to perpetual isolation and punishment. Used in this way, the label of “terrorist” becomes a substitute for careful analysis of policy toward the state or group in question. Usually, the object of the labeling has indeed used terrorism — but so have many others who don’t get labeled the same way and may even be treated as friends and allies. If the operative notion is “once a terrorist, always a terrorist,” then there are many shady histories that warrant examination.

Consider, for example, as Benjamin Netanyahu — who has flung the “terrorist” label at least as freely as anyone else — is finally being pushed out of the prime minister’s job in Israel, the histories of some of his predecessors. Menachem Begin, who held that job in the late 1970s and early 1980s — longer than anyone except Netanyahu, David Ben-Gurion, and Yitzhak Rabin — had an earlier career as a hard-core terrorist. As leader of the Irgun group during World War II, Begin conducted a campaign of attacks, focused principally on British government and police targets, intended to drive the British out of Palestine — while Britain was busy waging a war against the Nazis. 

Begin’s terrorist campaign continued after the war. His group’s most spectacular operation was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 91 persons and injuring 46. The list of victims went far beyond the British administrators who were the purported targets and included people of multiple nationalities not only in the hotel but in adjacent buildings and the street.

As the British exit neared, Begin’s group used more of its terrorist tactics against Palestinian Arabs, evidently aimed in part to terrorize Arabs into fleeing their homes and villages. An especially notorious operation was the massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, in which more than a hundred Arabs, including women and children, were killed.

Begin emerged from the clandestine world after the creation of Israel as he established the right-wing Herut party in 1948. This did not erase his terrorist past — certainly not in the minds of the British, who barred him from making a visit to London in the 1950s.

The British were not the only ones who took notice of what Begin represented. A trip by him to the United States in late 1948 elicited an open letter by Jewish dignitaries, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, protesting the visit and describing Herut as “a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Herut later became the core of the Likud Party — the party of Netanyahu and the dominant party in most governing coalitions in Israel over the past four decades.

Begin’s successor as prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, had a similar history. He was co-leader of another Jewish terrorist group of the 1940s: Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang after its founder, which was considered even more extreme than the Irgun. Besides also participating in the Deir Yassin massacre, Shamir’s group specialized in assassinations, including the murder in Cairo in 1944 of the British minister of state responsible for the Middle East. In September 1948, the group assassinated the Swedish diplomat and United Nations mediator for Palestine, Folke Bernadotte, notwithstanding Bernadotte’s diplomatic work during World War II that had won the release of many prisoners incarcerated by the Nazis. The apparent motive for the killing was the expectation that Bernadotte, who was responsible for developing a more stable formula for Jewish-Arab peace in Palestine, would make proposals that would not give the Jewish side everything it wanted regarding Jerusalem.

The legacy of Begin and Shamir has lived on with Israeli terrorist operations that, as with the bombing of the King David Hotel, have taken out innocent victims. For example, in 1979 (when Begin was prime minister), an attack aimed at a leader of the Palestinian Black September organization used a car bomb in a busy Beirut street that killed not only the intended target and his bodyguards but also four bystanders, including a British student and a German nun, and injured 18 others. (Six years earlier, Israeli agents had killed an innocent Moroccan waiter in Norway whom they had mistaken for their Palestinian target.) Later chapters in the story of Israeli assassinations have included the murder of Iranian scientists, with the most recent killing taking place last November.

Another Middle Eastern state that usually escapes the “terrorist” label despite a record of terrorist operations is Saudi Arabia, with the most glaring case being the butchering of a dissident journalist and U.S. resident in 2018 in a consulate in Turkey. The operation was almost certainly ordered from the top of the Saudi regime.

A tactic, not a state or group

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not a fixed set of bad guys, bad states, or bad groups. Use of the tactic is despicable but its use does not dictate a policy of ostracism and isolation, or any other specific policy, toward a regime that has used it. Whatever one thinks of Begin and Shamir, they became duly empowered prime ministers of Israel. It was necessary and proper for the United States and other countries to conduct business with them. Today, it is necessary and proper to conduct business with Israel and with Saudi Arabia, both of which are important states of the Middle East. Their terrorist practices should not preclude such business, although those practices can and should be raised as issues with those governments.

The recent Israeli and Saudi uses of terrorist tactics run against one of the major trends in international terrorism over the past four decades, which has been a decline in state sponsorship and state practice of terrorism. Reasons for the decline include the costs of being a pariah in a globalized age and the inability to play one superpower against the other ever since the USSR collapsed. But what matters for any one state are the incentives and disincentives, the opportunities and lack of opportunities, and the penalties and pandering that it faces and that shape its decisions.

The fact that some past state practitioners of terrorism have, amid changing incentives and changing circumstances, reduced or ended their use of the tactic (Muammar Gadaffi’s Libya is an outstanding example) refutes the notion that state-sponsored terrorism is a matter of certain “terrorist states” being hard-wired to indulge in the practice. That notion underlies the “once a terrorist, always a terrorist” approach often taken toward such states. And that approach leads to unfruitful ostracism rather than a management of incentives and circumstances that would make it less likely a state will engage in terrorism in the future.

The hard-wire myth persists

Unfortunately, the hard-wiring notion too often prevails. Iran probably is the state to which the notion is most often applied. The seemingly permanent tag of “number one state sponsor of terrorism” automatically rolls off the tongue and substitutes for any serious consideration of what, when, and why Iran has use terrorist techniques, let alone any serious consideration of what policies by other countries would tend to reduce such use in the future.

Iran’s use of such techniques has changed substantially during the four decades of the Islamic Republic, especially with the curtailment of extraterritorial assassinations of political opponents — which were similar in many ways to the extraterritorial assassinations by Israel — after that practice got in the way of better relations between Iran and European states. The most conspicuous international terrorist operations that Iran attempted in later years were direct responses to similar clandestine Israeli attacks against Iran.

Iran, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, is an important state in the Middle East. Whatever one thinks of its leaders or its political coloration, business needs to be conducted with it, on security, economic, and other matters. Merely slapping on the “terrorist state” label and using that as an excuse not to do business with Iran and to sanction it in perpetuity is not an effective way to deal with any issues involving Iran, including the terrorism issue itself.    

The Palestinian organization Hamas is a prime example of a non-state actor to which the hard-wiring assumption is often applied, and where the label “terrorist group” is taken to be the only thing we need to know about the organization to formulate policy toward it. And Hamas demonstrates, like many other states and groups, how false that assumption is. Yes, Hamas has used terrorism, but it has used other ways of pursuing its political objectives when circumstances have permitted, including competing in free and fair elections and negotiating with Israel to free prisoners and to establish and maintain armistices. Like it or not, it is a significant player in Palestinian politics and the closest thing to a local governing authority in the blockaded Gaza Strip.

The case of Hamas illustrates another shortcoming of primitive reliance on the “terrorist” label, which is failure to take full account of the moral and legal significance of other forms of political violence that harm innocent people. I have used the term “terrorism” throughout this article to conform with the official, legally prescribed U.S. definition as used by the State Department, which refers to “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Hamas is a subnational organization, not a state, and its firing of rockets at Israeli cities can be defined as terrorism. Because the far greater civilian casualties among Palestinians have been inflicted by overt use of military force by a state — Israel — the attacks causing those casualties do not meet this definition of terrorism.

If Hamas had F-16s or other modern combat aircraft, it undoubtedly would use them rather than poorly guided rockets to strike back at Israel. It probably would aim at targets it describes as combatants while perhaps, like Israel, dismissing the resulting civilian casualties as unfortunate collateral damage. And if Hamas were the government of a recognized state, it could do all those things and still avoid having any such use of force be defined as terrorism.

Hamas is not a state and it doesn’t have F-16s. But those facts should not determine where moral opprobrium is to be applied when force results in innocent civilians getting killed and injured. Nor does it determine legal culpability with regard to war crimes, which can occur when civilians are harmed even if a military target is in the vicinity.

Relevant asymmetries are to be found not in the lines drawn by definitions of terrorism, useful though they are for many other purposes, but rather in disproportionalities in the inflicted suffering and in the circumstances that have led to bloodshed in the first place.


Read more:


Read from top.



not all jews are equal...


As a high-earning money manager – including for the Soros Fund – Howard Rubin seemed to have it all. There was the multimillion-dollar co-op on the Upper East Side, as well as a $US9 ($12.5) million waterfront estate in the Hamptons.

Rubin and his wife, Mary, were known for their generosity on the city’s philanthropy circuit; from 2015 to 2016, the couple gave nearly $680,000 to charitable causes, including the New York Junior League and Hope for a Cure.

But there was one other real-estate holding he kept hidden: a luxurious Madison Avenue penthouse, outfitted with blow-up photos of Playboy models and, apparently, all manner of BDSM paraphernalia.

It is in this secret sex dungeon that Rubin, now 66, is accused of having committed violent acts and sexual assault against a number of women, including actual Playboy playmates. A civil trial, with six of his seven alleged victims seeking at least $24 million, is scheduled for November.



“How much can a wife take?” said an executive who worked at Merrill Lynch at the same time as Mary.

“I thought he was a nice guy. He was a nebbishy Jewish guy and totally normal. I was surprised to hear about him having that apartment [with a sex dungeon],” said a trader who worked with Rubin at Soros Fund Management, created by billionaire investor George Soros.

And while Rubin’s colleagues may be shocked by his over-the-top predilections, some say that “Howie,” as he was known on Wall Street, could be out-of-control at the office, too.

“I saw him throw a chair on the trading floor,” one former co-worker told The Post“He said, ‘F--k. I just lost $50 million!’ and threw a chair at his computer. Then he came back and threw it a second time, even harder.”

Howard Rubin grew up in Massachusetts, where his father did analytical research for Polaroid in Cambridge. He attended Lafayette College and graduated with a degree in chemical engineering. But after school, he skipped the corporate world for a stint as a Vegas card counter. Over two years, Rubin turned $4000 into $108,000.

Then he scored an MBA from Harvard and focused on Wall Street, where he began working for Salomon Brothers in 1983. As noted in Liar’s Poker by Michael Lewis, Rubin thought that “the trading floor at Salomon Brothers felt like a Las Vegas casino. You made your bets, handled risk, in the midst of a thousand distractions”.

He became famed as a money-maker – earning $78 million for Salomon during his first two years.

While making his bones at Salomon, Rubin married financial adviser Mary Henry in 1985. Rubin seemed like a typical, well-heeled Manhattanite climbing the Wall Street ladder. A society photo captures the duo swanning through a ritzy 2013 benefit at the Pierre Hotel.

A source who worked on the couple’s Hamptons property – one blog praised the garden’s “Monet-like effect” – never saw Rubin’s alleged rough side.


Read more:


Read from top.